Alternative methods for semen image capture of microscope

The application of technology in national livestock is becoming frequent and associated with production systems, increased productivity levels, making the most efficient and sustainable creation. Advances are notorious when there is the use of simple management tools and technology. The computer programs for the evaluation of sperm kinetics may be more objective and more repeatable printing on the observations compared to the subjective analysis. Computer analysis (Computer-Assisted Sperm Analysis - CASA) allow a precise and accurate kinetics of sperm, perfecting the process of evaluation of semen. One of the biggest challenges for the analysis of sperm cells is the selection and standardization of the best image capture method. Thus, this study aimed to test three low-cost image capture methods, in order to facilitate the future use of the software in development. We used 20 samples of frozen bovine semen for making images. The straws (0.5ml) were thawed at 37 ° C / 30 seconds and hot plate kept until the movement od analysis. With the aid of a micropipette, semen 10μL were deposited between slide and cover slip and evaluated bright field microscopy with a device-camera (1.3 MP Coleman), a digital camera (Coolpix L340, Nikon) and a cell phone camera (5C iPhone, Apple), positioned in the eye. 20 seconds of video have been made to the device for each sample, and from them, sewed up photos to 10 seconds of each video. It held the count of sperm cells of photos to compare the range and accuracy of each image capture device, comparing them with the analysis of a technician. The results were submitted to analysis of variance and the means compared by Tukey test at the 5% significance level. The average sperm count in the image of each sample was 145.10 ± 101.28 for Microscope Camera (Coleman), 17.90 ± 11.54 for the digital camera (Nikon) and 407.80 ± 307.20 to cell phone camera (iPhone). The latter differed from the others (p <0.05). The broader scope of the microscopic field was obtained by phone (iPhone). The best result for the definition / picture clarity was obtained by the microscope camera. The mounting system is simple and easy, with the support of specific camera to the microscope found in virtual store on the internet. Support for the mobile phone is provided for general use and has been adapted for this use. It is assumed that all kinds of images can be used by software. However, a specific setting must be performed for each one with a different algorithm for converting the number of sperm counted for sperm concentration of the sample. We conclude that there is great variation in the performance of different types of image capture, and the camera phone had the best performance.