Influence of Post‐Mortem Sperm Recovery Method and Extender on Unstored and Refrigerated Rooster Sperm Variables

Many post‐mortem sperm collection techniques have been described for mammalian species, but their use in birds is scarce. This paper compares the efficacy of two post‐mortem sperm retrieval techniques ‐ the flushing and float‐out methods ‐ in the collection of rooster sperm, in conjunction with the use of two extenders, i.e., L&R‐84 medium and Lake 7.1 medium. To determine whether the protective effects of these extenders against refrigeration are different for post‐mortem and ejaculated sperm, pooled ejaculated samples (procured via the massage technique) were also diluted in the above extenders. Post‐mortem and ejaculated sperm variables were assessed immediately at room temperature (0 h), and after refrigeration at 5°C for 24 and 48 h. The flushing method retrieved more sperm than the float‐out method (596.5 ± 75.4 million sperm vs 341.0 ± 87.6 million sperm; p < 0.05); indeed, the number retrieved by the former method was similar to that obtained by massage‐induced ejaculation (630.3 ± 78.2 million sperm). For sperm collected by all methods, the L&R‐84 medium provided an advantage in terms of sperm motility variables at 0 h. In the refrigerated sperm samples, however, the Lake 7.1 medium was associated with higher percentages of viable sperm, and had a greater protective effect (p < 0.05) with respect to most motility variables. In conclusion, the flushing method is recommended for collecting sperm from dead birds. If this sperm needs to be refrigerated at 5°C until analysis, Lake 7.1 medium is recommended as an extender.