the option for tailoring the evaluation, there is room to provide comments on options for bulls that fall into the decision‐deferred category.
What is not so clear from the standards of different regions is the process of interpreting some aspects of the findings. This is not surprising, as cattle veterinarians are in the unenviable position of having to apply clinical judgment to the continuum of a biological system, while cattle producers are expecting clear “yes/no” answers. To assist with standardized interpretation and reporting it seems there are two requirements: (i) a standardized data recording and reporting system, which all regions provide; and (ii) CPD to ensure there are standardized data collection techniques and interpretation. While two of the regions have provided comprehensive manuals to assist with CPD, other regions appear more dependent on undergraduate training providing a sound knowledge base. Yet, with the knowledge surrounding BBSE constantly evolving, there is a need for experience and on‐going training to attain and retain competency. For example, anecdote from the ACV suggests there can be 2‐ to 5‐cm differences in the SC measurements between experienced and inexperienced operators. Similarly, there can be confusion and variable recommendations when conditions such as hocks with joint effusion, interdigital fibromas, aberrations in leg conformation, or neutrophils in the semen are encountered. Assessing extremes in these conditions is not difficult, but standardizing the interpretation of mild to moderate presentations appears less straight‐forward. One way to reduce this variation is to provide supervised training, recurrent updates, and where relevant, abnormality scales with exemplars.
For the BBSE to maintain integrity, it is essential that producers have a clear understanding of what to expect when they have their bull assessed. The corollary to having a clear process to follow is that veterinarians will need ready access to CPD in order to maintain currency in the process. The SFT in the USA has taken the lead in the CPD area for close to 50 years, as evidenced in their current and prior manuals for the breeding soundness evaluation of bulls [10]. But perhaps the most extreme evolution of CPD identified in this review is the BBSE Accreditation scheme developed by the ACV in Australia. This scheme provides veterinarians with the opportunity to submit themselves for compulsory postgraduate education and assessment in order to receive accreditation. The accreditation provides them with the commercial advantage of marketing themselves as having industry‐recognized skills and competency in the BBSE process.
For credibility of the BBSE process to be maintained, the following points seem important:
1 The system must have standardized data collection processes.
2 There must be standardized data interpretation.
3 There must be standardized reports to allow the end users to easily interpret the findings in order to compare bulls.
4 It seems suitable to move away from a system that places veterinarians in the position of having to “pass” or “fail” bulls using a system that is based on incomplete science – particularly when there is limited opportunity for a detailed assessment and there is incomplete understanding of all factors affecting future fertility. To this end, using a reporting system that simply states the findings for each category and allows for interpretive comments may be a good option.
5 There must be continuing professional education in the processes of BBSE for veterinarians so that producers have confidence in the outcome for their bull.
6 Consideration should be given to an accreditation program for veterinarians performing these procedures. This point is particularly important considering the profound influence outcomes from these evaluations can have on the financial viability of seed‐stock producers.
Considering points 5 and 6, the three parameters that commonly concern bull producers are the measurement of SC, the individual motility percentage, and the assessment of sperm morphology. Effective, worldwide extension surrounding the influence of these three parameters on bull fertility means that poor results can lead to a bull not passing the BBSE and either not being able to be sold through normal channels or having a reduced sale price. Alternatively, the bull may have a reduced sale price even if the result meets fertility standards but is lower than contemporaries. Due to the physiologic and economic importance of these parameters and their highly visible nature to producers, it is essential that veterinarians are adequately trained in these techniques to provide consistent results.
A summary of notable variations in the bull evaluation processes from different regions that may help inform future iterations include:
Removal of the word “soundness” from the description of the process.
Provision of opportunities to tailor the evaluation process based on varied managerial contexts.
Consideration to moving away from a “Pass/Fail” concept to a risk assessment paradigm.
The provision of more robust guidelines and abnormality scales for interpreting some of the findings.
Consideration of increasing the opportunities for veterinarians to gain and maintain competence in the processes, which may or may not include an accreditation program.
Consideration of a quality assurance program for morphology assessment that may, in part, include all veterinarians and morphologists registered with respective regulatory bodies receiving QA samples for evaluation on a regular basis.
References
1 1 Swanson, E. and Herman, H. (1941). Variations in bull semen and their relation to fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 24: 321–331.
2 2 Williams, W. (1909). Veterinary Obstetrics, Including Diseases of Breeding Animals and of the New‐Born. Ithaca, NY: Williams, W.L.
3 3 Williams, W. and Savage, A. (1925). Observations upon the seminal micropathology of bulls. Cornell Vet. XV: 353–375.
4 4 Lagerlof, N. (1936). Sterility in bulls. Vet. Rec. 48: 1159–1170.
5 5 Ball, L., Ott, R., Mortimer, R., and Simons, J. (1983). Manual for the breeding soundness examination of bulls. Theriogenology 12: 1–65.
6 6 Fordyce, G., Entwistle, K., Norman, S. et al. (2006). Standardising bull breeding soundness evaluations and reporting in Australia. Theriogenology 66: 1140–1148.
7 7 Carroll, E., Ball, L., and Scott, J. (1963). Breeding soundness in bulls – a summary of 10,940 examinations. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 142: 1105–1111.
8 8 Chenoweth, P., Hopkins, F., Spitzer, J., and Larsen, R. (2010). Guidelines for using the bull breeding soundness evaluation form. Clin. Ther. 2: 43–50.
9 9 Hopkins, S. (1997). The new Society for Theriogenology breeding soundness evaluation system. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract.: 283–293.
10 10 Koziol, J. and Armstrong, C. (2018). Society for Theriogenology Manual for Breeding Soundness Examination of Bulls, 2e. Pike Road, AL: Society for Theriogenology.
11 11 Chenoweth, P. (2002). Objectives and outcomes from selection and management of fertile bulls. In: Bull Fertility: Selection and Management in Australia (ed. G. Fordyce), 1–7. Canberra: Australian Cattle Veterinarians.
12 12 Norman, S. (2007). Bull breeding soundness accreditation scheme. Australian Reproduction Veterinarians Annual Conference. Canberra: Australian Cattle Veterinarians.
13 13 Fordyce, G. (2002). Bull Fertility: Selection and Management in Australia. Canberra: Australian Cattle Veterinarians.
14 14 Entwistle, K. and Fordyce, G. (2003). Evaluating and Reporting Bull Fertility. Canberra: Australian Cattle Veterinarians.
15 15 Norman, S., Fordyce, G., and Fordyce, P. (2004). Bull reporter – the development of a computerised system for the standardised recording and reporting of bull breeding soundness evaluation and semen morphology data. Canberra: Australian Cattle Veterinarians.
16 16 Garcia‐Paloma, J. (2015). A bull breeding soundness evaluation system with greater emphasis on scrotal circumference. Pesqui. Vet. Bras. 35: 817–821.
17 17 Coulter, G., Mapletoft, R.,