Nikitkina EV, Leybova VB, Pleshanov NV.

Animal Husbandry and Fodder Production. 2026. Vol. 109. No. 3. Р. 23-30.

doi: 10.33284/2658-3135-109-3-23

Original article

Cryopreservation of Saanen goat sperm in the second half of the breeding season

 

Elena V Nikitkina1, Victoria B Leybova2, Nikolay V Pleshanov3

1,2,3Russian Research Institute of Farm Animal Genetics and Breeding – Branch of the LK Ernst Federal Research Center for Animal Husbandry

1nikitkinae@mail.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8496-5277

2leib1406@yandex.ru, https://orcid.org/ 0000-0002-7017-9988

3klaus-90@list.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4634-7515

Abstract. Sperm cryopreservation involves preserving semen at extremely low temperatures, which significantly reduces sperm metabolism and allows for long-term storage of high-quality sperm from the best males. The low cryopreservation resistance of buck semen poses challenges, making it important to improve cryopreservation methods for their sperm. Selecting semen for cryopreservation outside the breeding season is challenging, as it requires the presence of females in heat. However, from November to December, the intensity of buck use decreases, making it possible to use the collecting sperm for freezing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality and cryopreservation of buck semen during the late breeding season (November-December). The results showed that during the decline of the breeding season, the quality of semen for cryopreservation is maintained. After control thawing, a decrease in total motility was an average 41.0%, progressive motility 54.0%, and membrane integrity 47.3% was observed. In three bucks, total motility after thawing ranged from 60 to 75%, progressive motility from 48 to 67%, and membrane integrity from 24.0 to 46.8%. In two bucks, the indicators were significantly lower: total motility – 20.0-44.0%, progressive motility – 7.0-28.0%, and membrane integrity – 6.3-27.4%. Thus, the collecting bucks sperm for cryopreservation is possible at the end of the breeding season.

Keywords: goats, mating season, sperm cryopreservation, sperm motility

Acknowledgments: the work was performed in accordance to the plan of research works for 2023-2026 LK Ernst Federal Research Center Directorate (No. 124020200127-7).

For citation: Nikitkina EV, Leybova VB, Pleshanov NV. Cryopreservation of Saanen goat sperm in the second half of the breeding season. Animal Husbandry and Fodder Production. 2026;109(3):23-30. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.33284/2658-3135-109-3-23

 

References

  1. Aybazov MM, Aksenova PV. Effective biotechnology of reproduction of dairy goats. Collection of scientific papers of the Stavropol Scientific Research Institute of Animal Husbandry and Fodder Production. 2012;2(1):138-140.
  2. Aksenova PV. The peculiarities of the reproductive function of goats in different seasons of the year. Collection of scientific papers of the Stavropol Scientific Research Institute of Animal Husbandry and Fodder Production. 2009;1(1-1):15-16.
  3. Aksenova PV. Comparative description of various buck semen cryopreservation methods. Russian Veterinary Journal. Farm Animals.2011;1:13-15.
  4. Ivantsova OV, Maksimov VI, Deltsov AA, Frenk AM. Changes in the metabolism of lactating goats of the Saanen breed under the influence of stimulating BAS. Genetics and breeding of animals. 2023;2:97-106. https://doi.org/10.31043/2410-2733-2023-2-97-106
  5. Maksimov VI, Ivantsova OV, Deltsov AA, Frenk AM. Metabolic peculiarities of pregnant goats of the Saanen breed in the last stage of pregnancy and postpartum period under the influence of stimulated BAS. Genetics and Breeding of Animals. 2023;1:5-15.  doi: 10.31043/2410-2733-2023-1-5-15
  6. Dorado J, Munoz-Serrano A, Hidalgo M. The effect of cryopreservation on goat semen characteristics related to sperm freezability. Anim Reprod Sci. 2010;121(1-2):115-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.04.182
  7. Jiménez-Rabadán P, García-Álvarez O,  Maroto-Morales  A, del Olmo E, Pérez-Guzmán MD, Bisbal A, Fernández-Santos  MR, Garde  JJ, Soler  Effect of semen collection method (artificial vagina vs. electroejaculation), extender and centrifugation on post-thaw sperm quality of Blanca-Celtibérica buck ejaculates. Anim Reprod Sci. 2012;132(1-2):88-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2012.04.005
  8. Karagiannidis A, Varsakeli S, Karatzas G. Characteristics and seasonal variations in the semen of Alpine, Saanen and Damascus goats bucks born and raised in Greece. Theriogenology. 2000;53(6):1285- https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(00)00272-7
  9. Kumar A, Kanaka KK, Himanshu Mehta, Navjot Singh Thakur, Gyan Singh. A review of current challenges, influential factors, and advancements in goat semen cryopreservation. Archives of Current Research International. 2025;25(3):398-411. doi: 9734/acri/2025/v25i31131
  10. Morrell JM, Malaluang P, Ntallaris T, Johannisson A. Practical method for freezing buck semen. Animals. 2022;12(3):352. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12030352
  11. Morrell JM, Mayer I. Reproduction biotechnologies in germplasm banking of livestock species: A review. Zygote. 2017;25(5):545-557. doi: 10.1017/S0967199417000442
  12. Ponraj P, Sunder J, De AK, Alyethodi RR, Mishra PC, Bhowmick S, Bhattacharya D.  Season modulates endocrinological profiles and sex behavioral characteristics in indigenous male goats under  a tropical humid island ecosystem. Asian Pacific Journal of Reproduction. 2022;11(4):183-192. doi: 4103/2305-0500.350154
  13. Sathe S. Cryopreservation of semen. In: Hopper RM, editor. Bovine Reproduction. 2021:986-999. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119602484.ch78
  14. Singha S, Lalramchansangi R, Gogoi J, Dolay S, Das S, Sarkar D, Ezung WK, Karunakaran M, Mondal M. Goat semen cryopreservation: A review of practical aspects and prospective strategies. Indian J Anim Health. 2025;64(2):203-218. https://doi.org/10.36062/ijah.2025.01025
  15. Zou J, Wei L, Li D, Zhang Y, Wang G, Zhang L, Cao P, Yang S,  Li G. Effect of glutathione on sperm quality in Guanzhong dairy goat sperm during cryopreservation. Front Vet Sci. 2021;8:771440. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.771440

            Information about the authors:

            Elena V Nikitkina, Cand. Sci. (Biology), Senior Researcher, Laboratory of Developmental Biology, Russian Research Institute of Farm Animal Genetics and Breeding – Branch of the LK Ernst Federal Research Center for Animal Husbandry, 196625, St. Petersburg, Tyarlevo, Moskovskoe shosse, 55a, tel.: 89213039976.

            Victoria B Leybova, Cand. Sci. (Biology), Senior Researcher, Laboratory of Population Genetics and Animal Breeding, Russian Research Institute of Farm Animal Genetics and Breeding – Branch of the LK Ernst Federal Research Center for Animal Husbandry, 196625, St. Petersburg, Tyarlevo, Moskovskoe Shosse, 55a, tel.: +7 953 567 976.

            Nikolay V Pleshanov, Research Assistant, Developmental Biology Laboratory,  Russian Research Institute of Farm Animal Genetics and Breeding – Branch of the LK Ernst Federal Research Center for Animal Husbandry, Tyarlevo, Moskovskoe Shosse, 55a, St. Petersburg, 196625, tel.: +7 950 0197636.

The article was submitted 28.04.2026; approved after reviewing 22.05.2026; accepted for publication 14.09.2026.

Download