Are There Differences between Methods Used for the Objective Estimation of Boar Sperm Concentration and Motility?

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Estimation of seminal quality can be carried out by examining different parameters. Such parameters directly influence the preparation of seminal doses used in artificial insemination in pigs. Sperm motility and concentration are relevant parameters in this context. The precision and accuracy of estimation of these parameters could thus contribute considerably to the productive performance of the pig industry. However, differences between systems could cause variations in estimates. These can be explained by the ability of the evaluator, type of system, or calibration, among others. In this study, we used iSperm(®), ISAS(®) v1, Open CASA v2, and the Accuread(®) photometer system to compare assessments of motility and sperm concentration. Bayesian analyses were used, and differences were found between the four methods of concentration estimation. Additional analyses revealed differences in estimates of motility using these systems. ABSTRACT: Artificial insemination in the swine industry, as in other species, demands adequate semen handling and accurate evaluation for the preparation of seminal doses. Sperm concentration and motility estimates are part of the semen evaluation process and are considered important for maximizing the yield of doses for insemination. In this study, methods were examined for their accuracy in the estimation of boar sperm concentration and motility. Assessments of sperm concentration were carried out using iSperm(®), ISAS(®) v1, Open CASA v2, and the Accuread(®) photometer. Analyses of sperm motility were performed with iSperm(®), ISAS(®) v1, and Open CASA v2 systems. In this study, boar semen samples were collected from 10 healthy males from two genetic lines. There were no relevant differences between sire lines when sperm concentration was assessed. A Bayesian analysis was applied to the four methods used to assess sperm concentration to examine whether there are relevant differences between them. Results suggested differences in the four methods, with a probability of relevance (PR) of 0.86–1.00. The iSperm(®) method revealed higher concentration values within the highest posterior density region at 95% confidence interval (HPD(95%)) = 167.0, 224.2 M/mL, whereas Open CASA v2 showed the lowest values, with HPD(95%) = 99.3, 155.9 M/mL. The iSperm(®) demonstrated higher reliability in measuring sperm concentration compared to other methods or devices within the given range of confidence. ANOVAs revealed relevant differences in the three methods of motility estimation. Overall, differences in boar sperm concentration and motility estimates were found using various methods, but further studies are needed for better characterization of these differences.