Loading...
Use of radio frequency identification technology to enhance the traceability of bull semen does not affect sperm motility or nonreturn rates
Date
2025
Abstract
Advancements in radio frequency identification (RFID) technology offer potential for improving traceability during artificial insemination, yet the influence of different radio wave frequencies on semen quality and fertility remains unclear. The size of the low-frequency (LF; 134.2 kHz) chips is convenient for handling in the barn, whereas technical characteristics of high-frequency (HF; 13.56 MHz) chips allow its insertion in the straw for field traceability. Therefore, this study evaluated the effects of LF and HF RFID chips on bovine sperm motility and fertility outcomes. The LF chips (full duplex-B; 8 or 12 mm diameter) were assessed for their effect on fresh sperm motility in vitro and fertility in vivo over a 3-d period. Sperm motility parameters, analyzed by a trained andrologist and via computer-assisted semen analysis (CASA), showed no significant differences between treatments and controls. Field inseminations (n = 49,473) revealed no overall effect of LF chip exposure on the56-d nonreturn rate (NRR), although bull- and parity-specific variations were observed. The HF RFID chips, inserted into semen straws, were tested alone and in combination with LF chips. Post-thaw CASA analysis indicated that exposure to HF chips, either alone or following LF chip exposure, had no effect on sperm quality and motility parameters. Similarly, there was no effect of HF chips on 56-d NRR in field fertility evaluations (n = 1,256 inseminations). The integration of LF and HF chips with a bespoke database system, connecting semen processing to bull ear tag information, demonstrated enhanced trace-ability and improved accuracy in semen labeling. These findings support the feasibility of RFID technology for enhancing traceability in bovine reproduction systems while maintaining sperm motility and fertility.
Supervisor
Description
Publisher
Elsevier
Citation
Journal of Dairy Science 108(6), pp. 6052-6068