01734naa a2200265 a 450000100080000000500110000800800410001902400600006010000170012024501010013726000090023852009760024765000090122365000170123265000100124965000160125965000100127565000170128565300150130265300190131765300230133665300240135970000210138377300640140415211192023-06-26       1948    bl uuuu     u00u1 u    #d7 ahttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1948.tb04628.x2DOI1 aBANGS, C. L.  aA comparison of methods of estimating sperm concentration in ram's semen.h[electronic resource]  c1948  aThe densities of 35 samples of rams’ henien were determined 11s two visual inrthocls and a photoelectric method and the relative precision of these methods in estimating sperm concentration calculated by coinparing the results with direct sperm counts, made with the hamocytonieter, on the same samples. With each method highly significant correlatioii and regression coefficients between sperm counts and density deteiminations were found. The correlation coefficients obtained by the photoelectric method at four dilution rates were all significai$ly higher than thnsc ohtaiiied with either of the visual methods. The correlation coefficient obtained by the visual method employing barium sulpliate opacity standards was not significantly higher than that obtained when arbitrary visual "gradins” of the whole semen were carried out by the method of Gunn. The advantages and disadvantages of thest methods, compared with haemocytometer counts, are biefly discussed.  aRams  aReproduction  aSheep  aSpermatozoa  aOvino  aReprodução  aAndrologia  aSemen Analysis  aSemen Preservation  aTecnologia de semen1 aUNDERWOOD, E. J.  tAustralian Veterinary Journalgv. 24, n. 4, p. 89-93, 1948.