


































African Journal of Pig Farming Vol. 1 (1), pp. 011-016, September, 2013. Available 
online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 
 
 
 

Full Length Research Paper 
 

Comparative study on semen characteristics of 

Kolbroek and Large White boars following 

computer aided sperm analysis
®

 (CASA) 
 

Matshidiso Bailekae Masenya
1,2

, M. L. Mphaphathi
1,3

, M. H. Mapeka
1,3

, P. H. Munyai
1,4

, M. B. 

Makhafola
1,2

, F. V. Ramukhithi
1,3

, P. P. Malusi
1
, D. O. Umesiobi

2
 and T. L. Nedambale

1,3,4
* 

 
1
Agricultural Research Council, Animal Production Institute, Germplasm Conservation & Reproductive Biotechnologies, 

Private Bag X2, Irene, 0062, South Africa. 
2
Department of Agriculture, Central University of Technology, Private Bag X20539, Bloemfontein, 9300, South Africa. 

3
Tshwane University of Technology, Department of Animal Sciences, Private Bag X680, Pretoria 0001, South Africa. 

4
University of the Free State, Department of Animal, Wildlife and Grassland Sciences, Private Bag X 339, Bloemfontein,  

South Africa. 
 

Accepted 9 September, 2013 
 

Consistent estimates of boar fertility potential from objective semen evaluation could be a valuable tool 
for boar selection. The objective of this study was to evaluate semen characteristics of Kolbroek and 

Large White boars following computer aided sperm analysis
®

 (CASA). Eight ejaculates were collected 
separately from individual Kolbroek (n = 4) and Large White (n = 4) boars using the gloved-hand 
technique. Following semen collection, semen was evaluated for macroscopic and microscopic 
characteristics. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the differences between the breeds 
(P<0.05) . The bodyweight of Kolbroek (154.7 ± 8.5) was significantly lower compared to Large White 
(189.9 ± 7.7) boar. There was also a positive correlation between bodyweight and semen volume of both 
Kolbroek (r = 0.2197) and Large White (r = 0.2577) boar. However, no significant differences were 
observed in Kolbroek and Large White boar semen volume (140 and 170 ml), sperm concentration 

(0.727 and 0.761 × 10
9
 sperm cell/ml), pH (7.0 and 7.0), total motility (95 and 91%) and morphology (84 

and 82%). In conclusion, the bodyweight of Kolbroek and Large White boar was positively correlated 
with ejaculated semen volume. Sperm characteristics of both Kolbroek and Large White boar were 

similar. Sperm class analyser
®

 provided a precise and more objective information of sperm motility 
characteristics. 

 
Key words: Sperm, Large White, Kolbroek, motility rate, boar. 

 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
Large White is the most popular exotic breed in South 
Africa (ARC, 1993) due to their superior fertility and 
growth rate (Ncube et al., 2003). However, their high 
nutrient requirements and intensive management 
systems make them unsuitable for resource-poor rural 
farmers and harsh environmental conditions. Kolbroek is 
a South African indigenous pig breed with unique genetic 
traits for diseases tolerance and adaptability in harsh 
 
 

 
*Corresponding author. E-mail: lucky@arc.agric.za. Tel: +2712 

672 9210. Fax: +2712 665 1604. 

 
 
 

 
environmental conditions (Ramsay et al., 1994). They are 
considered appropriate breed for the resource- poor rural 
farmers because of their tolerance to various diseases 
and capacity to utilize fibrous and poor quality feed 
resources compared to exotic breeds (Halimani et al., 
2010). 

A recent survey indicated a catastrophic collapse in the 
population of South African indigenous germplasm (FAO, 
2007). This collapse was attributed among others to 
unplanned breeding, crossbreeding and introduction of 
exotic germplasm (Scholtz, 2005). Mating and cross-
breeding are largely unsupervised leaving these breeds 
vulnerable to inbreeding and uncontrolled genetic 



Masenya   et al.           011 
 
 
 
admixture with other breeds (Halimani et al., 2010). Most 
researches have been focused on the imported 
genotypes which cannot be sustained under smallholder 
conditions (Ncube et al., 2003). Hence, there is a need to 
evaluate reproductive potential of imported boars in 
comparison with South African indigenous boars. The 
reproductive potential of the indigenous Kolbroek boars 
has not been fully exploited in South Africa compared to 
other pig genotypes. A proper semen analysis is 
empirical for boar selection in the herd and for preserving 
their genetic materials through ex -situ and in-situ. 
Indigenous pigs were long regarded as unsuitable for 
intensive commercial breeding because of their slow 
growth and inadequate meat production (Prolit, 2004). 
However, indigenous pigs exhibit well-established 
adaptations to severe environmental and management 
conditions (Swart et al., 2010) . Moreover, there is lack of 
accurate method of predicting the fertility rate of Kolbroek 
boar sperm to determine their reproductive potential.  

Sperm motility is known to be an important charac-
teristic in predicting the fertility of male potential 
performances (Holt et al., 1997; Tardif et al., 1999; 
Gadea, 2005). However, subjective microscope evalua-
tion varied between 30 to 60% from the same ejaculates 
(Amann, 1989). Due to these biases, emphasis has been 
placed on the use of objective methods such as 

Computer Aided Sperm Analysis
®

 (CASA) system 

(Saikhun et al., 2011). Therefore, the objective of this 
study was to compare South African indigenous Kolbroek 
and exotic Large White boar breeds on sperm 
characteristics following analysis by computer aided 

sperm Analysis
®

 (CASA) known as Sperm Class 

Analyser
®

 (SCA). 

 
MATERIALS AND METHODS 
 
The study was conducted at the Pig Research Unit of Agricultural 
Research Council (Germplasm Conservation & Reproductive 
Biotechnologies Unit), Irene, South Africa. The Agricultural 
Research Council- Irene campus is located at 25° 55' South; 28° 12' 
East. The institute is located in the Highveld region of South Africa 
and situated at an altitude of 1525 m above sea level. Four 
indigenous Kolbroek and four exotic Large White boars were used 
for this study because of the scarcity challenge of finding Kolbroek 
boars. The boars were between 2 to 3 years of age. The study was 
done in summer season (February to March, 2011). The boars were 

weighed using a KM3 electronic weight indicator (Rudoweigh
®

). 

The boars were in good health condition throughout the duration of 
the study. The diets were formulated to meet the nutritional 
requirements of the boars (crude protein (CP): 13% and digestible 
energy (DE): 13 MJ/kg) (National Research Council, 1998). Water 
was given ad libitum throughout the duration of the study. 
 
 
Semen collection and processing 
 
Semen samples were collected from the experimental boars twice 
weekly from February to March. Twelve Ejaculates were collected 
separately from four Kolbroek and four Large White boars with the 
gloved-hand technique in a 300-ml glass beaker. The filtered 

 
 
 

 
semen fraction were sealed with a gauze filter inside a pre-warmed 
(39°C) insulated thermos flask. Upon arrival at the laboratory, 
semen volume was measured by using the graduated falcon tube, 
pH was measured using the litmus paper, then sperm concentration 
was measured using the spectrophotometer (Jenway 6310 
spectrophotometer, Bibby Scientific, England) and was recorded in 

billions (× 10
9
/ml). Experimental boars were cared for according to 

the guidelines for the Agricultural Research Council, Animal 
Production Institute ethics committee (Ref: APIEC10/01). 

 
Sperm morphology 
 
Semen was collected from Kolbroek and Large White boars and a 
10× dilution was prepared by adding semen to 0.9% sodium 
chloride. One drop of 0.27% Chicago sky blue and one drop of 
diluted semen were mixed on a slide. Slides were air-dried in a near 
vertical position then put into a fixative in a jar for 2 min and then 
rinsed with tap and distilled water. Slides were put into jars 
containing the Giemsa staining solution and left for 20 h at room 
temperature. The slides were rinsed again in tap and distilled water 
for 2 min, air-dried in a near vertical position and cover slipped with 
methyl yellow. A drop of oil immersion (Olympus, Japan) was 
placed on the smeared microscope glass slide and 100 sperm were 
counted at 100 × magnification (Figure 1A and B). A criterion was 
applied for the evaluation for abnormal sperm head (flat, sharp, 
double and if it is not oval); midpiece (proximal and distal 
cytoplasmic droplets); tail (coiled, double, broken) . A live sperm 
was white/pink in colour and a dead sperm was dark blue (Kovács 
and Foote, 1992). 

 
Sperm motility rate 
 
The 10 µL of raw semen were placed into 500 µL of BO wash 

medium in 15 ml tube (Falcon
®

 352099, USA). The tube was then 
kept in CO2 incubator (Sanyo, Japan) adjusted to 39°C. Five micro 
litres of semen was placed on the warm glass slide (~76 × 26 × 1 
mm, Germany) and placed with a warmed cover slip (22 × 22 mm, 
Germany) over the microscope-warm plate (Omron) adjusted at 
39°C. The sperm motility rates were evaluated by computer 

assisted sperm analysis system (Sperm Class Analyzer
®

 [SCA] 5.0, 
Microptic, Barcelona, Spain) at the magnification of 10 × (Nikon, 
China). The kinematic values recorded for each sperm included, in 
addition to the overall percentage of motile sperm, the velocity of 
movement, the width of the sperm head’s trajectory and the 
frequency of the change in direction of the sperm head (Table 1). 

 
Data analysis 
 
The analysis was done using Genstat Software. The experiment 
was designed as a completely randomised design with two 
treatments (Kolbroek and Large White boars). Analysis of variance 
(ANOVA) was used to test for differences between the treatments. 
The data were acceptably normal with homogeneous treatment 
variances. Treatment means were separated using Fisher’s 
protected t-test least significant difference (LSD) at a significant 
level of P<0.05 (Snedecor and Cochran, 1980). The correlation of 
the bodyweight with semen volume, concentration and sperm 
motility was performed using SAS statistical software. The Pearson 
two-sided was used to determine the correlation between 
bodyweight and the variables (Snedecor and Cochran, 1980). 

 
RESULTS 
 
The results of macroscopic evaluations are outlined in 

   



012          Afr. J. Pig Farming 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
A B 

 
Figure 1. (A): Kolbroek live sperm; (B) Kolbroek dead sperm. 

 

 
Table 1. Sperm class analyzer

®
 settings used to analyse sperm 

motility and velocity parameters. 
 

Parameter Setting 

Contrast 169 
Brightness 470 
Image/second 50 
Optic Ph- 
Chamber Cover slide 
Scale 10X 
Particle size (µm

2
) 10<70 

Slow (µm/s) <40 
Medium (µm/s) <80 
Rapid (µm/s) <120 
Progressivity (%) 40% of straightness 
Circular (%) 50% of linearity 
Connectivity 11 
Velocity on the average path points 7 
Number of images 50 

 

 
Table 2. Macroscopic evaluation for Kolbroek and Large White boar semen. 
 
 Breed Bodyweight (kg) Semen volume (ml) Semen pH Semen concentration (× 10

9
 sperm cell/ml) 

 Kolbroek 1 166.5 130.0 ± 26.5 7.0 ± 0.0 0.533.4 ± 90.8 
 Kolbroek 2 150.5 126.7 ± 11.6 7.0 ± 0.0 1.0521 ± 283.3 
 Kolbroek 3 147.0 100.0 ± 0.0 7.0 ± 0.0 0.9073 ± 333.1 
 Kolbroek 4 155.0 205.0 ± 37.8 7.0 ± 0.0 0.4153 ± 174.2 

 Averages 154.7 ± 8.5
a
 140.4 ± 48.6 7.0 0.727 ± 340.8 

 Large White 1 196.6 226.7 ± 100.2 7.0 ± 0.0 0.646.7 ± 82.2 
 Large White 2 190.6 145.0 ± 42.7 7.0 ± 0.0 0.605.0 ± 328.0 
 Large White 3 179.0 180.0 ± 45.8 7.0 ± 0.0 0.590.3 ± 135.9 
 Large White 4 193.4 158.3 ± 18.9 7.0 ± 0.0 1.203.4 ± 487.9 
 Averages 189.9 ± 7.7

b
 177.5 ± 60.4 7.0 0.761. 0 ± 372.8  

ab
Different letters indicate significant differences within columns (P<0.05). 



Masenya    et al.         013 
 
 
 

Table 3. Sperm morphology and viability for Kolbroek and Large White boar semen (±SD). 
 

Breed Live (%) Dead (%) 
 Abnormality (%)  

 

Head Midpiece Tail  

   
 

Kolbroek 1 88.7 ± 3.1 9.7 ± 4.0 0.7 ± 1.2 0.0 ± 0.0 1.0 ± 1.7 
 

Kolbroek 2 84.7 ± 7.5 10.0 ± 8.7 2.3 ± 0.6 1.7 ± 2.9 1.3 ± 1.2 
 

Kolbroek 3 82.0 ± 1.0 13.3 ± 6.0 2.7 ± 3.8 1.0 ± 1.7 1.0 ± 1.7 
 

Kolbroek 4 83.0 ± 10.0 9.7 ± 5.5 2.3 ± 2.3 1.0 ± 1.7 4.0 ± 3.5 
 

Averages 84.6 ± 6.1 10.7 ± 5.6 2.0 ± 2.1 0.9 ± 1.7 1.8 ± 2.3 
 

Large White 1 82.0 ± 9.6 7.0 ± 5.3 0.7 ± 0.6 0.3 ± 0.6 6.3 ± 6.0 
 

Large White 2 87.7 ± 6.7 5.3 ± 1.5 2.7 ± 1.5 1.0 ± 1.0 6.0 ± 6.0 
 

Large White 3 80.7 ± 5.5 9.3 ± 5.0 1.7 ± 2.1 0.0 ± 0.0 5.7 ± 7.4 
 

Large White 4 76.3 ± 3.5 17.3 ± 7.0 0.7 ± 0.6 1.3 ± 1.2 8.0 ± 4.4 
 

Averages 81.7 ± 7.1 9.8 ± 6.3 1.4 ± 1.4 0.7 ± 0.9 6.5 ± 5.2 
 

 

 
Table 2. The bodyweight of Kolbroek (154.7 ± 8.5 kg) 
was significantly lower compared to Large White (189.9 ± 
7.7 kg) boar. There was a positive correlation between 
bodyweight and semen volume of Kolbroek (r = 0.2197) 
and Large White (r = 0.2577). Conversely, there was a 
negative correlation between bodyweight and sperm 
motility rate (r = -0.9655) and concentration (r = -0.6600) 
of Kolbroek. However, the bodyweight of Large White 
was positively correlated with sperm concentration (r = 
0.3721), but negatively correlated to total motility (r =-
0.1043). No significant differences were observed in 
Kolbroek and Large White boar volume (140 and 170 ml), 
semen pH (7.0 and 7.0) and sperm concentration (0.727 

and 0.761 × 10
9
 sperm cell/ml) . Furthermore, no 

individual variation was observed for semen volume, pH 
and concentration.  

The results for Kolbroek and Large White sperm mor-
phology are presented in Table 3. The average 
percentage (±SD) of Kolbroek and Large White live 
sperm was 84.6 ± 6.1 and 81.7 ± 7.1%, respectively. 
There was no significant differences (P<0.05) in abnormal 
sperm morphology of Kolbroek and Large White. More 
also, the results of both Kolbroek and Large White sperm 
motility are presented in Table 4. The average 
percentage (±SD) of Kolbroek and Large White sperm 
motility was 95.2 ± 4.2 and 91.4 ± 6.2%, respectively. 
However, a significant difference was observed for rapid 
sperm motility of Kolbroek 4 (79.4 ± 2.6%) as compared 
to all the other boars including Large White. No significant 
difference was observed for all other sperm motility and 
velocity parameters for Kolbroek and Large White boar. 
 
 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
This study demonstrates that the bodyweight of Kolbroek 

(154.7 ± 8.5) was significantly lower compared to Large 

White (189.9 ± 7.7) boar. There was also a bodyweight 

 

 
correlation to semen volume ejaculated by both Kolbroek 
(r = 0.2197) and Large White (r = 0.2577) . However, no 
significant differences were observed for Kolbroek and 
Large White boar semen volume (140 and 170 ml), 

sperm concentration (0.727 and 0.761 × 10
9
 sperm 

cell/ml), pH (7.0 and 7.0), total motility rate (95 and 91%) 
and morphology (84 and 82%). Similarly, it was 
previously reported that breed did not have a significant 
effect on boar sperm characteristics (Kennedy and 
Wilkins, 1984; Rothschild, 1996; Oh et al., 2003). 
Kolbroek boars had a slightly lower semen volume as 
compared to the standard semen volume of 150 to 300 
ml in exotic breeds (Kondracki, 2003). Egerszegi et al. 
(2008) reported similar results for Hungarian indigenous 
Mangalica boars (178 ml). In contrast, Wolf and Smithal 
(2009) found that Czech Large White and Landrace had a 
slightly higher semen volume of 276 and 273 ml, 
respectively.  

Furthermore, Chimonyo et al. (2005) reported that 
indigenous pigs in southern Africa are smaller in size 
compared to exotic pig breeds. This was evident in the 
present study as Kolbroek boars had a lower bodyweight 
(154.8 kg) compared to Large White boar (189.9 kg). 
Larger breeds such as Large White tend to produce 
higher semen volume (Hughes and Varely, 1980). 
Similarly, same results were observed in the present 
study as semen volume of both boar breeds was 
influenced by bodyweight. Although, Kolbroek boar 
bodyweight was lower, the sperm concentration was 
higher. There was a negative correlation between body-
weight and sperm motility rate (r = -0.9655) and concen-
tration (r = -0.6600); but positively correlated with volume 
(r = 0.2197) of Kolbroek boar. However, the bodyweight 
of Large White was positively correlated with volume (r = 
0.2577) and sperm concentration (r = 0.3721), but 
negatively correlated to total motility (r = -0.1043). 

Moreover, Johnson et al. (2000) reported that the pH of 

raw boar semen varies between 7.0 and 7.5, irrespective 

of the boar breed. This is in agreement with the present 



 
 
 
Table 4. Sperm motility and velocity rates for Kolbroek and Large White boars (±SD). 
 
 

Boar 
 Sperm motility     Sperm velocity   

 

            

 

TM (%) RAP (%) PM (%) 
 

VCL (µm/s) VSL (µm/s) VAP (µm/s) LIN (%) STR (%) WOB (%) 
 

   
 

             

 Kolbroek 1 91.8 ± 6.6
a
 35.5 ± 1.2

b
 36.3 ± 25.8

a
  135.2 ± 31.1

a
 42.8 ± 21.2

a
 82.7 ± 12.4

a
 33.8 ± 20.8

a
 51.4 ± 21.8

a
 64.4 ± 21.2

a
 

 

 Kolbroek 2 96.2 ± 3.4
a
 54.0 ± 8.0

b
 31.1 ± 4.6

a
  133.6 ± 12.1

a
 39.4 ± 5.8

a
 97.7 ± 18.9

a
 29.6 ± 4.7

a
 40.8 ± 5.1

a
 72.9 ± 9.3

a
 

 

 Kolbroek 3 96.6 ± 2.6
a
 52.1 ± 9.9

b
 31.3 ± 9.9

a
  132.7 ± 1.9

a
 35.5 ± 3.0

a
 84.0 ± 20.9

a
 26.7 ± 2.0

a
 43.3 ± 6.4

a
 63.2 ± 14.8

a
 

 

 Kolbroek 4 96.1 ± 3.5
a
 79.4 ± 2.6

a
 48.7 ± 13.3

a
  171.7 ± 11.2

a
 46.0 ± 5.4

a
 98.0 ± 12.9

a
 26.8 ± 2.2

a
 47.7 ± 9.3

a
 57.1 ± 7.0

a
 

 

 Averages 95.2 ± 4.2 55.2 ± 17.3 36.8 ± 15.2 143.3 ± 22.8 40.9 ± 10.6 90.6 ± 16.1 29.2 ± 9.7 45.8 ± 11.5 64.4 ± 13.5 
 

 Large White 1 94.8 ± 5.2
a
 46.4 ± 21.2 

b
 27.9 ± 8.2

a
  136.2 ± 37.2

a
 36.0 ± 9.8

a
 86.8 ± 27.3

a
 26.8 ± 5.4

a
 42.3 ± 9.0

a
 63.3 ± 2.5

a
 

 

 Large White 2 87.2 ± 10.6
a
 39.2 ± 1.0 

b
 15.3 ± 3.6

a
  121.2 ± 11.3

a
 27.7 ± 1.0

a
 77.7 ± 2.6

a
 23.0 ± 3.1

a
 35.7 ± 2.5

a
 64.4 ± 4.1

a
 

 

 Large White 3 93.5 ± 2.9
a
 38.3 ± 11.8 

b
 24.4 ± 2.6

a
  121.2 ± 16.0

a
 33.8 ± 5.6

a
 73.3 ± 10.5

a
 28.6 ± 8.8

a
 47.6 ± 15.6

a
 60.4 ± 2.1

a
 

 

 Large White 4 89.9 ± 3.7
a
 44.0 ± 18.1 

b
 23.6 ± 6.6

a
  137.7 ± 33.3

a
 33.8 ± 8.9

a
 86.7 ± 25.7

a
 24.5 ± 1.2

a
 39.4 ± 1.7

a
 62.3 ± 5.1

a
 

 

 Averages 91.4 ± 6.2 42.0 ± 13.4 22.8 ± 6.8 129.1 ± 24.8 32.8 ± 7.0 81.1 ± 17.7 25.7 ± 5.1 41.2 ± 9.0 62.6 ± 34 
 

              
TM, Total motility; RAP, Rapid; PM, progressive motility; VCL, velocity on the curve line; VSL, velocity on the straight line; VAP, velocity on the average path; LIN, linearity; STR, 

straightness; WOB, wobble. 
ab

Different letters indicate significant differences (P<0.05). 
 
 
observed pH results (7.0) in both breeds. 
However, a pH change (increase or decrease) is 
detrimental to both the sperm metabolism and 
motility. Infection is usually associated with 
alkaline ejaculate (pH>8.0), which leads to 
diminished sperm motility and an increased 
proportion of altered acrosomes (Althouse et al., 
2000). In the present study, the boar semen pH 
did not negatively affect the sperm motility. In 
addition, no differences were observed for 
Kolbroek and Large White boar sperm 
concentration. Variation in the number of sperm in 
an ejaculate has been described bet-ween 
different pig breeds (Kommisrud et al., 2002), 
which is a first factor influencing semen dose 
production. Not only differences in sperm 
concentration but also in sperm volume 
(Kondracki, 2003), influence sperm concentration. 
The sperm concentration for indigenous Kolbroek 

was higher (0.727 × 10
9
 sperm cell/ml) as 

compared to the Hungarian Mangalica boar (0.490 

× 10
9
 sperm cell/ml) (Egerszegi et al., 2008). 

 
 

The percentage of sperm with normal mor-
phology was above 80% for Kolbroek and Large 
White boars. Such percentages of normal 
morphology are correlated with fertility (Sanchez 
et al., 1998; Xu et al., 1998; Alm et al., 2006). The 
results from this study also showed that there are 
no variations between individual boars, irre-
spective of the breed. Similar findings were 
observed by Borg et al. (1993) who reported that 
characteristics of sperm morphology did not differ 
among different boar breeds (Duroc, Meishan, 
Fengjing and Minzhu boars). Kolbroek and Large 
White semen showed a lower percentage of 
morphologically abnormal sperm (4.7 ± 2.0 and 
2.9 ± 2.5%, respectively) as compared to other 
studies. Wolf and Smithal (2009) found a slightly 
higher percentage of abnormal sperm (11.4 and 
11.2%) for Czech Large White and Czech 
Landrace boars, respectively. Criteria for the 
maximum percentage of primary and secondary 
abnormalities in commercial pig AI-centres were 
determined as 10 and 20%, respectively 

 
 
(Waberski et al., 1994; Flowers, 1997). Morpho-
logical abnormalities give an indication of 
aberrations in the spermatogenesis. Morpho-logical 
abnormalities of sperm can also have a detrimental 
impact upon fertilization and embryonic development 
(Walters et al., 2005; Saacke, 2008).  

The average sperm total motility obtained for 

Kolbroek and Large White was 95 and 91%, 

respectively. These sperm motility results are an 

indication of an active metabolism and are con-sidered 

to be of great importance for fertilization to take place. 

Lower motility percentages were reported (70.2 ± 8.8%) 

for Czech hybrid AI boars (Frydrychová et al., 2010). 

Subjective method was used to evaluate sperm motility 

analysis. Microscopic techniques have limitations 

including subjectivity, variability, the small number of 

sperm analysed and poor correlation with fertilizing 

potential (Rijsselaere et al., 2005). Subjective visual 

evaluation of motility is also prone to human error and 

biasness. Hence, the computer -assisted 

  014          Afr. J. Pig Farming 
 

 



Masenya et al.         015 
 
 
 
sperm analysis (CASA) was initiated to reduce subjective 

bias on the motility assessment and to discriminate a 

series of motility patterns of boar semen (Tretipskul et al., 
2010). 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
The bodyweight of Kolbroek and Large White boar was 
positively correlated with ejaculated semen volume. 
However, macroscopic and microscopic sperm 
characteristics of Kolbroek were similar compared to 
Large White boar. Surprisingly, Kolbroek boar sperm 
concentration and motility rate was negatively correlated 
to bodyweight compared to only Large White sperm 
concentration. This is the first study that provided more 
information on sperm motility characteristics of both 
Kolbroek and Large White boar using Sperm Class 

Analyser
®

. It is recommended that further studies should 

be conducted with more number of boars to validate the 
sperm motility characteristics information following 
artificial insemination. 
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
The authors wish to acknowledge National Research 
Foundation, Agricultural Research Council (ARC) and 
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) 
for funding the project. Special thanks to Prof. T. L. 
Nedambale and ARC-Germplasm Conservation and 
Reproductive Biotechnologies personnel for their 
assistance. 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Agricultural Research Council (1993). Pig production in South Africa. 

Irene Animal Production Institute, Bulletin 427. V & R printers. 
Pretoria South Africa, pp. 19-97. 

Alm K, Peltoniemi OA, Koskinen E, Andersson M (2006). Porcine field 
fertility with two different insemination doses and the effect of sperm 
morphology. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 41(3): 210-213. 

Althouse GC, Kuster CE, Clark SG, Weisiger RM (2000). Field 
investigations of bacterial contaminants and their effects on extended 
porcine semen. Theriogenology, 53: 1167-1176. 

Amann R (1989). Can the fertility potential of a seminal sample be 
predicted accurately? J. Androl. 10: 89-98.  

Borg KE, Lunstra DD, Christenson RK (1993). Semen characteristics, 
testicular size, and reproductive hormone concentrations in mature 
Duroc, Meishan, Fengjing, and Minzhu boars. Biol. Reprod. 49: 515-
521.  

Chimonyo M, Bhebhe E, Dzama K, Halimani TE, Kanengoni A (2005). 
Improving smallholder pig production for food security and livelihood 
of the poor in Southern Africa. Proc. African Crop Sci. Conference, 7: 
569-573.  

Egerszegi I, Sarlós P, Berger B, Tóth P, Rátky J (2008). Liquid and 
cryopreservation of Mangalica semen. Workshop on Conservation of 
traditional pig breeds with special regards to Mangalica, 
Herceghalom, Hungary 09. 12.  

Flowers W (1997). Management of boars for efficient semen production. 
J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl. 52: 67-78.  

Food and  Agricultural Organization (2007). Multiple  chapters. In: 

 
 
 

 
Rischowsky B, Pilling D (eds), The state of the world’s animal genetic 

resources for food agriculture, Rome. 
Frydrychová S, e ovský J, Lustyková A, Rozkot M (2010). Effects of 

long-term liquid commercial semen extender and storage time on the 
membrane quality of boar semen. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 55: 160-166. 

Gadea J (2005). Sperm factors related to in vitro and in vivo porcine 
fertility. Theriogenology, 63: 431-444.  

Halimani TE, Muchadeyi FC, Chimonyo M, Dzama K (2010). Pig genetic 
resource conservation: The Southern African perspective. Ecolog. 
Econ. 69: 944-951. 

Holt C, Holt W, Moore H, Reed H, Curnock R (1997). Objectively 
measured boar sperm motility parameters correlate with the 
outcomes of on-farm inseminations: results of two fertility trials. J. 
Androl. 18: 312-323.  

Hughes P, Varley K (1980). Reproduction in the pig: Fertility in the male, 
pp. 187-195.  

Johnson LA, Weitze KF, Fiser P, Maxwell WMC (2000). Storage of boar 
semen. Anim. Reprod. Sci. p. 62.  

Kennedy BW, Wilkins JN (1984). Boar, breed and environmental factors 
influencing semen characteristics of boars used in artificial 
insemination. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 64: 833-843. 

Kommisrud E, Paulenz H, Sehested E, Grevle I (2002). Influence of 
boar and semen parameters on motility and acrosome integrity in 
liquid boar semen stored for five days. Acta. Vet. Scand. 43: 49-55. 

Kondracki S (2003). Breed differences in semen characteristics of boars 
used in artificial insemination in Poland. Pig News Information, 24(4): 
119-122. 

Kovács A, Foote RH (1992). Viability and acrosome staining of bull, 
boar and rabbit spermatozoa. Biotechnic. Histochem. 67: 119-124.  

National Research Council (1998). Nutrient Requirement of Swine; 
National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, 
USA. 

Ncube M, Dzama K, Chimonyo M, Kanengoni A, Hamudikuwanda H 
(2003). Effect of boar genotype on reproductive performance of the 
local sows of Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development 
15 (2). http://www.praisiesswine.com/pdf/34427.pdf.  

Oh SH, See MT., Long TE, Galvin JM (2003). Genetic correlations 
between boar semen traits. J. Anim. Sci. 81: 317.  

Prolit (2004). Pig Farming. Project Literacy Productions, Cape Town, 
South Africa. 

Ramsay K, Harris L, Kotze A (comp./ed) (1994). Landrace breeds: 
South Africa’s indigenous and locally developed farm animals: Farm 
Animal Conservation Trust. Pretoria. 

Rijsselaere T, van Soom A, Tanghe S, Coryn M, Maes D, de Kruif A 
(2005). New techniques for the assessment of canine semen quality: 
A review. Theriogenology, 64: 706-719. 

Rothschild MF (1996). Genetics and reproduction in the pig. Anim. 
Reprod. Sci. 42: 143-151.  

Saacke RG (2008). Sperm morphology: Its relevance to compensable 
and uncompensable traits in semen. Theriogenology, 70: 473-478.  

Saikhun J, Thongtipsiridech S, Kornkaewrat K, Mahasawangkul S, 
Angkawanish T, Jansitthiwate S, Boonprasert K, Pinyopummin A 
(2011). Practical Elephant Semen Analysis Techniques. EU-Asia Link 
Project Symposium “Managing the Health and Reproduction of 
Elephant Populations in Asia” 8-10 October, pp. 83-87.  

Sanchez R, Barbosa J, Bellart A, Rius R, Garca P (1998). Effect of the 
percentage of sperm morphological abnormalities in seminal doses 

on fertility and prolificity. Proc. 15
th

 IPVS Congress, Birmingham, p. 
71.  

Scholtz MM (2005). The role of research and a seed stock industry in 
the in situ conservation of livestock genetic resources. In: Proc. of the 

4
th

 AACAA and TSAP Annual Meeting (20-24). pp. 313-316.  
Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1980). Statistical Methods, Seventh 

edition. Iowa. State University Press. I. D. Hill. 
Swart H, Kotze A, Olivier PAS, Grobler JP (2010). Microsatellite-based 

characterization of Southern African domestic pigs (Sus scrofa 
domestica). S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 40(2): 121-132. 

Tardif S, Laforest JP, Cormier N, Bailey J (1999). The importance of 
porcine sperm parameters on fertility in vivo. Theriogenology, 52: 
447-459. 

Tretipskul C, Buranaamnuay K, Koonjaenak S, Tummaru P, 

Techakumphu P (2010). The Use of Computer-Assisted Sperm 



016          Afr. J. Pig Farming 
 
 

 
Analysis for discriminating series of motility pattern of frozen-thawed 
boar semen. Thai J. Vet. Med. 40(1): 25-30. 

Waberski D, Meding S, Dirksen G, Weitze K, Leiding C, Hahn R (1994). 
Fertility  of long  term  stored boar semen: influence of extender 

(Androhep and Kiev), storage time and plasma droplets in the semen. 
Anim. Reprod. Sci. 36: 145-151.  

Walters AH, Eyestone WE, Saacke RG, Pearson RE, Gwazdauskas FC 

(2005). Bovine embryo development after IVF with spermatozoa 

having abnormal morphology. Theriogenology, 63: 1925-1937. 

 

  
 
 

Wolf J, Smital J (2009). Effects in genetic evaluation for semen traits in 
Czech Large White and Czech Landrace boars. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 
54: 349-358. 

Xu X, Pommier S, Arbov T, Hutchings B, Sotto W, Foxcroft G (1998). In 

vitro maturation and fertilization techniques for assessment of semen 

quality and boar fertility. J. Anim. Sci. 76: 3079-3089. 
 


