Evaluation of stallion sperm concentration by two different methods and its influence on sperm motility assessment

Katarína Soušková, Radek Filipčík, Zuzana Rečková


Received: 2020-12-18 | Accepted: 2021-05-03 | Available online: 2021-12-31


The aim of this study was to compare two methods for determining the concentration of sperm in stallion ejaculate and to evaluate the influence of different levels of concentration on the determination of sperm motility using an objective method. The total number of evaluated samples was 123. For the experiment, 14 stallions of different breeds housed in the Tlumačov Provincial Stud Farm were used. Sperm concentration was assessed by the hemocytometric method using a Bürker chamber and the automatic method using the Sperm Class Analyzer®. The SCA system was used to evaluate sperm motility. The samples were divided into 6 groups with sperm concentrations of 50, 100, 150, 200, 250 and 300·106 sperm ml-1. The results were statistically evaluated by Tukey’s HSD test. There were statistically significant differences in the determination of sperm concentrations between the hemocytometric method and the SCA system in samples with concentration exceeding 100·106 sperm  ml-1. Sperm motility increased in samples with higher concentration, however the effect of sperm concentration on motility parameters has not been statistically significant. The results of this study indicate that samples with sperm concentration higher than 100·106 sperm ml-1 reduce the accuracy of the SCA system evaluation and these samples need to be diluted to concentration ≤100·106 sperm ml-1 for more accurate evaluation.

Keywords: sperm concentration, sperm motility, hemocytometer, SCA


Amann, R.P. (1989) Can the Fertility Potential of a Seminal Sample Be Predicted Accurately. Journal of Andrology, 10(2), 89–98.

Amann, R.P. and Waberski, D. (2014) Computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA): Capabilities and potential developments. Theriogenology, 81(1), 5–17.

Aurich, J.E. (2012) Artificial Insemination in Horses – More than a  Century of Practise and Research. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, 32(8), 458–463.

Broekhuijse, M.L.W.J. (2011) Additional value of computer assisted semen analysis (CASA) compared to conventional motility assessments in pig artificial insemination. Theriogenology, 76(8), 1473–1486.

Didion, B.A. (2008) Computer-assisted semen analysis and its utility for profiling boar semen samples. Theriogenology, 70(8), 1374–1376.

Heckenbichler, S. et al. (2011) Quality and fertility of cooled-shipped stallion semen at the time of insemination. Theriogenology, 75(5), 849–856.

Jequier, A.M. and Ukombe, E.B. (1983) Errors Inherent in the Performance of a Routine Semen Analysis. British Journal of Urology, 55(4), 434–436.

Kenneth, A. et al. (1990) The influence of chamber characteristics on the reliability of sperm concentration and movement measurements obtained by manual and videomicrographic analysis. Fertility and sterility, 53(5), 882–887.

Knuth, U.A. and Nieschlag, E. (1988) Comparison of computerized semen analysis with the conventional procedure in 322 patients. Fertility and sterility, 49(5), 881–885.

Kuster, Ch. (2005) Sperm concentration determination between hemacytometric and CASA systems: Why they can be different. Theriogenology, 64(3), 614–617.

Lannou, D.L. et al. (1992) Effects of chamber depth on the motion pattern of human spermatozoa in semen or in capacitating medium. Human Reproduction, 7(10), 1417–142.

Lu, J.C. et al. (2013) Computer-aided sperm analysis: past, present and future. Andrologia, 45(1), 1–10.

Malmgren, L. (1997) Assessing the quality of raw semen: a review. Theriogenology, 46(3), 523–530.

Mortimer, D. et al. (1995) Workshop Report: Clinical CASA – the Qest for Consensus. Reproduction, fertility and developement, 7(5), 951–959.

Mortimer, S.T. et al. (2015) The future of computer-aided sperm analysis. Asian Journal of Andrology, 17(2), 545–553.

Prathalingam et al. (2006) The Precision and Accuracy of Six Different Methods to Determine Sperm Concentration. Journal of Andrology, 27(2), 257–262.

Rečková, Z. and Filipčík, R. (2020) An Analysis of Selected Aspects of Sperm Quality in Fresh and Cooled-Storage Stallion Semen. Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science, 10(3), 405–408.

Sokol, R.Z. et al. (2000). Comparison of two methods for the measurement of sperm concentration. Fertility and sterility, 73(3), 591–594.

Spiropoulos, J. (2001). Computerized semen analysis (CASA): Effect of semen concentration and chambre depth on measurements. Archives of Andrology, 46(1), 37–42. Varner, D.D. (2008) Developments in stallion semen evaluation. Theriogenology, 70(3), 448–462.

Verstegen, J. et al. (2002) Computer assisted semen analyzers in andrology research and veterinary practice. Theriogenology, 57(1), 149–l79.

Věžník, Z. (2004) Repetitorium of spermatology and andrology and methods of spermatoanalysis. Brno: Research Institute of Veterinary Medicine.

WHO. (1999) WHO laboratory manual for the Examination and processing of human semen. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Full Text:



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2021 Acta Fytotechnica et Zootechnica

© Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources