Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T16:51:24.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The control of bacterial growth in fowl semen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. U. Smith
A. U. Smith
Affiliation:
National Institute for Medical Research, London, N.W. 3
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The bacteria commonly found in freshly collected fowl semen are coliform bacilli, staphylococci, diphtheroid bacilli and haemolytic streptococci. These organisms are probably derived from the cloaca, which usually has the same flora as the expressed semen, while the sperm mass from the vas deferens is sterile.

2. In diluted or undiluted semen stored for 24 hr. at room temperature, or 48 hr. at 2°C, there is a great increase in the bacterial population, especially of coliform bacilli.

3. Although the presence of egg white did not diminish the growth of bacteria in stored diluted semen it improved the motility of the spermatozoa.

4. Sulphathiazole in the concentrations used proved toxic to the spermatozoa, and unreliable for bacteriostasis.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , April 1949 , pp. 194 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1949

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. (1945). The Semen of Animals and its Use for Artificial Insemination. (Edinburgh: Imporial Bureau of Animal Breeding and Genetics.)Google Scholar
Almquist, J. O., Glantz, P. J. & Thorp, W. T. S. (1948). J. Dairy Sci. 31, 501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrows, W.H. & Quinn, J. P. (1937). Poultry Sci. 16, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrows, W.H. & Quinn, J. P. (1939 a). Proc. 7th World Poultry Congress, p. 82.Google Scholar
Burrows, W.H. & Quinn, J. P. (1939 b). Circ. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 525.Google Scholar
Clark, W.M. (1925). The Determination of Hydrogen Ions. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, Co.Google Scholar
Crew, F. A. E. (1925–1926). Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 46, 230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, L. A. & Chain, E. (1940). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 31, 339.Google Scholar
Grodzinski, Z. & Marchlewski, J. (1935). Bull. int. Acad. Cracovii, 8, 347.Google Scholar
Gunsalus, I. C., Campbell, J. J. R., Beck, G. H. & Salisbury, G. W. (1944). J. Dairy Sci. 27, 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, C. G. (1939). Sex and Internal Secretions, chap. 6. Ed. by Edgar Allen, . London: Bailliere, Tindall and Cox.Google Scholar
Knodt, C. B. & Salisbury, G. W. (1946). J. Dairy Sci. 29, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, P. & Roblllard, E. (1945). Rev. Oanad. Biol. 4, 163.Google Scholar
Macktie, T. J. & McCartney, J. E. (1945). Handbook of Practical Bacteriology. Edinburgh: E. and S. Livingstone, Ltd.Google Scholar
Mann, T. (1948). Lancet, 254, 446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milovanov, V. K. & Sokolovskaya, I.I. (1947). Stockbreeding and the Artificial Insemination of Livestock. Trans, by Morton, A. G.. London: Hutchinson's Scientific and Technical Publications.Google Scholar
Nicolaides, C. (1934). Poultry Sci. 13, 178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, J. E., Mckenzie, F. F. & Kempster, H. L. (1942). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 347.Google Scholar
Parkes, A. S. (1944).Ann. Rev. Physiol. 6, 483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, E.H. (1945). The Artificial Insemination of Farm Animals. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Salisbury, G. W. (1941). Cornell Vet. 31, 149.Google Scholar
Salisbury, G. W. & Knodt, C. B. (1947). J. Dairy Sci. 30, 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, E. W. & Herman, H. A. (1941). J. Dairy Sci. 24, 321, 579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandeplassche, M. & Paredis, F. (1948). Nature, Lond., 162, 813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar