Intrinsic and management-related factors associated with bull breeding soundness examination failure: a retrospective study

Chika Okafor; Lew Strickland; Brian Whitlock

doi:10.58292/CT.v18.13727

Chika Okafor Department of Biomedical & Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
Lew Strickland Department of Animal Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA; and Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
Brian Whitlock Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7247-0982

DOI: https://doi.org/10.58292/CT.v18.13727

Keywords: Breeding, bull, evaluation, reproductive soundness, infertility

Abstract

Bull breeding soundness examination (BBSE) is critical for identifying subfertile bulls and preventing reproductive and economic losses in cow/calf systems. This retrospective study evaluated intrinsic and extrinsic factors associated with BBSE failure in bulls. Data from 1,375 BBSE records (2008-2018) included age, breed, body condition, scrotal circumference (SC), semen quality traits, physical and reproductive findings, examining veterinarian, season, and prior BBSE history. Outcomes were classified as pass or fail. Among failures, sperm morphologic abnormalities were the predominant reason (73.3%), followed by inadequate SC (8.6%), penile abnormalities (5.5%), no ejaculate produced (4.6%), and lameness (3.1%). Bulls that previously failed BBSE were likely to fail again (> 6 times) with abnormal morphology accounting for 93% of repeat failures. Significant intrinsic predictors of failure included SC, sperm morphology, progressive motility, primary and secondary defects, gross motility, breed, and body condition score. Significant extrinsic predictors included examining veterinarian, year, quarter, and prior BBSE status. A significant downward trend (p = 0.0299) in failure prevalence was observed. In the multivariable model, previous BBSE, year of examination, and examination quarter remained independently associated with failure. Results highlighted the multifactorial nature of BBSE outcomes and emphasized the importance of considering prior evaluation history, seasonal timing, and persistent morphology abnormalities when interpreting results and managing herd reproductive performance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1.
White BJ: Beef herd record analysis: reproductive profiling. In: Hopper RM: editor. Bovine Reproduction. John Wiley Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey: 2014. p. 364–369. doi: 10.1002/9781118833971.ch40

2.
McGowan M: Approach to conducting bull breeding soundness examinations. In Pract 2004;26:485–491. doi: 10.1136/inpract.26.9.485

3.
Chenoweth PJ, McPherson FJ: Bull breeding soundness, semen evaluation and cattle productivity. Anim Reprod Sci 2016;169:32–36. doi: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2016.03.001

4.
Waldner CL, Kennedy RI, Palmer CW: A description of the findings from bull breeding soundness evaluations and their -association with pregnancy outcomes in a study of western Canadian beef herds. Theriogenology 2010;74:871–883. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.04.012

5.
Barth AD: Evaluation of potential breeding soundness of the bull. In: Current Therapy in Large Animal Theriogenology. St. Louis, MO; Elsevier: 2007. p. 228–240.

6.
Koziol JH, Armstrong CL: Manual for breeding soundness examination of bulls. 2nd edition, Pike Road, AL; Society for Theriogenology: 2018.

7.
Felton-Taylor J, Prosser KA, Hernandez-Medrano JH, et al: Effect of breed, age, season and region on sperm morphology in 11,387 bulls submitted to breeding soundness evaluation in Australia. Theriogenology 2020;142:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.09.001

8.
Hopkins FM, Spitzer JC: The new society for theriogenology breeding soundness evaluation system. Vet Clin N Am-Food Anim 1997;13:283–293. doi: 10.1016/S0749-0720(15)30341-8

9.
Kennedy SP, Spitzer JC, Hopkins FM, et al: Breeding soundness evaluations of 3648 yearling beef bulls using the 1993 Society for Theriogenology guidelines. Theriogenology 2002;58:947–961. doi: 10.1016/S0093-691X(02)00911-1

10.
Menon AG, Barkema HW, Wilde R, et al: Associations between sperm abnormalities, breed, age, and scrotal circumference in beef bulls. Can J Vet Res 2011;75:241–247. PMID: 22468020

11.
Monday JD, Larson RL, Theurer ME, et al: Factors associated with yearling bulls passing subsequent breeding soundness evaluations after failing an initial evaluation. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2018;253:1617–1622. doi: 10.2460/javma.253.12.1617

12.
Carson RL, Wenzel JGW: Observations using the new bull-breeding soundness evaluation forms in adult and young bulls. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 1997;13:305–311. doi: 10.1016/S0749-0720(15)30343-1

13.
Elmore RG, Bierschwal CJ, Martin CE, et al: A summary of 1127 breeding soundness examinations in beef bulls. Theriogenology 1975;3:209–218. doi: 10.1016/0093-691X(75)90139-9

14.
Carroll EJ, Ball L, Scott JA: Breeding soundness in bulls - a summary of 10,940 examinations. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1963;142:1105–1111. PMID: 14018903

15.
Roberts JN, Grooms DL, Thompson ER, et al: Evaluation of bull breeding soundness examination. Clinical Theriogenology 2018;10:397–408. doi: 10.58292/ct.v14.9293

16.
Barth AD, Waldner CL: Factors affecting breeding soundness classification of beef bulls examined at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine. Can Vet J 2002;43:274–284. PMID: 11963661

17.
Barth AD: Review: the use of bull breeding soundness evaluation to identify subfertile and infertile bulls. Animal 2018;12:S158–S164. doi: 10.1017/S1751731118000538

18.
Brito LF: Sexual development and puberty in bulls. In: Hopper RM: editor. Bovine Reproduction. John Wiley Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey: 2021; p. 58–78. doi: 10.1002/9781119602484.ch6

19.
Arteaga A, Baracaldo M, Barth AD: The proportion of beef bulls in western Canada with mature spermiograms at 11 to 15 months of age. Can Vet J 2001;42:783. PMID: 11665426

20.
Willett E, Ohms J: Measurement of testicular size and its relation to production of spermatozoa by bulls. J Dairy Sci 1957; 40:1559–1569. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(57)94678-7

21.
Johnson WH: The significance to bull fertility of morphologically abnormal sperm. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 1997;13:255–270. doi: 10.1016/S0749-0720(15)30339-X

22.
Holroyd R, Doogan V, De Faveri J, et al: Bull selection and use in northern Australia: 4. Calf output and predictors of fertility of bulls in multiple-sire herds. Anim Reprod Sci 2002;71:67–79. doi: 10.1016/s0378-4320(02)00026-x

23.
Pery V, Chenoweth P, Post T, et al: Patterns of development of gonads, sex-drive and hormonal responses in tropical beef bulls. Theriogenology 1991;35:473–486. doi: 10.1016/0093-691x(91)90297-q

24.
Fordyce G, Entwistle K, Norman S, et al: Standardising bull breeding soundness evaluations and reporting in Australia. Theriogenology 2006;66:1140–1148. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.03.009

25.
Meerhoeffer DC, Wettemann RP, Coleman SW, et al: Reproductive criteria of beef bulls during and after exposure to Increased ambient-temperature. J Anim Sci 1985;60:352–357. doi: 10.2527/jas1985.602352x

26.
Godfrey TA, Randel RD, Lunstra DD, et al: The effect of environment upon reproductive function of Brahman and Hereford bulls. Proc Soc Therio 1987; p. 32–55.

27.
King EH, Hopper RM: The bull breeding soundness examination and its application in the production setting. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2024;1:19–27. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2023.08.001

28.
Larsen RE, Chenoweth PJ: Diadem/crater defects in spermatozoa from two related Angus bulls. Mol Reprod Dev 1990;25:87–96. doi: 10.1002/mrd.1080250115

29.
Barth A, Brito L, Kastelic J: The effect of nutrition on sexual development of bulls. Theriogenology 2008;70:485–494. PMID: 18539319

30.
Barth AD, Bowman PA: The sequential appearance of sperm abnormalities after scrotal insulation or dexamethasonetreatment in bulls. Can Vet J 1994;35:93. PMID: 8069831