Breeding Strategies for Specific Goals

#### **Chapter 2**

## Technology for Carbon Neutral Animal Breeding

*Getahun Belay Mekonnen*

#### **Abstract**

Animal breeding techniques are to genetically select highly productive animals with less GHG emission intensity, thereby reducing the number of animals required to produce the same amount of food. Shotgun metagenomics provides a platform to identify rumen microbial communities and genetic markers associated with CH4 emissions, allowing the selection of cattle with less CH4 emissions. Moreover, breeding is a viable option to make real progress towards carbon neutrality with a very high rate of return on investment and a very modest cost per tonne of CO2 equivalents saved regardless of the accounting method. Other high technologies include the use of cloned livestock animals and the manipulation of traits by controlling target genes with improved productivity.

**Keywords:** breeding, GHG, animals, cloned, technology, carbon neutral

#### **1. Introduction**

A serious, systemic problem that affects us now, not in the future, is climate change [1]. C-neutral farming collaborates with farmers and agri-food companies to develop a technological solution that lessens the impact on the environment. All industries, including agriculture, must significantly reduce their emissions if we are to reach net-zero emissions. Achieving net-zero emissions will have an impact on productivity, the environment, and land use, though the precise effects on the livestock industry are unknown. To achieve carbon neutrality, it is necessary to change dietary habits, increase the value of food and agricultural waste, switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy, develop low-carbon technologies and low-carbon agriculture, build resilient cities and buildings, implement decentralized energy systems, and electrify the transportation industry [2]. To enable SHF to realize its climate-resilient dairy development strategies, interventions at various points along the dairy value chain are required [3]. The importance of raising the carbon peak, pursuing a strategy that is carbon-neutral, and supporting the long-term development of animal husbandry [4].

The idea of modifying an animal to make it more environmentally friendly raises questions about its wider sustainability and ethical implications, even though there are still significant gaps in the evidence proving the effectiveness of the solutions being advanced.

Perhaps the most significant result of relying on climate engineering to provide low-cost and straightforward ways to control our climate is the failure to critically

examine, much less address, the constantly increasing demand, production, and food waste. The already shaky political will for other important and radical climate change responses may also be weakened as a result. I illustrate my point by making a comparison between the extensive measures taken to change a cow's regular behaviour and the major efforts made to meaningfully challenge the regular actions, consumption patterns, and dietary choices of the public [5].

The continued increase in global population, the unequal distribution of wealth, and the rising demand for socially and nutritionally sustainable livestock products will shape the future of livestock. Other uses of land and water are predicted to compete fiercely, making more socially acceptable, efficient, and sustainable livestock production necessary. Climate change, environmental mitigation, and animal adaptation are recent issues in the field of animal breeding that have new demands on breeding procedures and research [6]. However, putting a negative economic value on methane would encourage action and help to reach the reduction goal in fewer generations. Therefore, it seems that including methane in the breeding objective will aid dairy cattle in more quickly reducing their methane emissions [7].

#### **2. Efficient and robust animals**

Sustainability in animal breeding is defined as the on-going availability of breeding animals and their germinal products for commercial production, which now and in the future meet the needs of a wide range of stakeholders, including breeders, farmers, livestock keepers, producers, consumers, and others while promoting more animal welfare-conscious agriculture. The implementation of international agreements encourages the development of sustainable breeding and production policies for animals. Long-term policy perspectives are necessary for animal breeding and livestock development strategies because poor choices can have negative long-term consequences [8].

The management and breeding of dairy cattle for a reduced impact on the environment are the two most significant applications of CH4 proxies. Single or multiple proxies can be used as indirect criteria for the breeding objective when selecting traits with lower environmental impact, but care must be taken to prevent unfavourable correlated responses.

Finally, even though combinations of proxies seem to offer the most accurate estimates of CH4, their current greatest drawback is the fragility of their general applicability. Therefore, future work should focus on creating proxy combinations that are reliable and usable in a variety of production systems and environments [9].

Additionally, genetically modified animals have significant positive effects on human health and the environment because they are more effective at turning feed into animal protein and produce less waste. In vitro methods for studying genes and their regulation, various methods for gene therapy, and the development of novel strains of existing microorganisms for use in medicine or industry all fall under the umbrella of genetic engineering. There are an increasing number of useful applications for genetic engineering in animal production, including the creation of transgenic animals that are disease-resistant, raising animal productivity, treating genetic disorders, and creating vaccines [10]. This entails creating novel heritable genetic material combinations using recombinant nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) techniques and then incorporating that material either directly through micro-injection, macro-injection, or micro-encapsulation techniques or indirectly through a vector system [11].

#### *Technology for Carbon Neutral Animal Breeding DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110383*

Animals that are consistently able to increase their output per unit of input because they are less susceptible to diseases and changes in their environment and management are the focus of breeding and reproduction organizations. Farmers can now request that breeding organizations label their products based on their use of resources, susceptibility to disease or stress, and climate adaptability. In Europe, there are voluntary codes of good practice for breeding organizations. The advantages are long-lasting and accumulate over time: genetic advancement currently accounts for 0.5–1% of an increase in animal productivity annually. Targeted breeding programs can help to increase this even more, but the context and farming system will determine the suitability of particular breeds, their ability to mitigate risks, and any trade-offs with other breeding goals. Emerging issues in the field of animal breeding include climate change, environmental mitigation, and animal adaptation, which place new demands on breeding practices and research [6]. Regardless of the accounting method, breeding, despite its slowness, is a realistic option for moving closer to carbon neutrality because it offers a very high rate of return on investment and a very low cost per tonne of CO2 equivalents saved [12]. Agricultural areas produce the most carbon emissions from animal husbandry, followed by agro-pastoral areas (which are on the decline) and pastoral (with a rising trend) [13].

Breeding objectives are set to support sustainability's many facets, including quality, diversity, acceptability, the environment, and economics (Elzbieta [8]) states that the implementation of international agreements aids in the development of policies for sustainable animal breeding and production. Better health, reproduction, feed efficiency, heat stress, and other adaptation traits are likely to be prioritized over higher production in countries where cattle production has already been intensified. This could necessitate the use of cutting-edge phenotyping technologies as well as additional new big data techniques to extract data for breeding [14].

Precision animal breeding will be made possible by incorporating thorough mechanistic models of animal performance in a given environment into genetic evaluation techniques that allow the prediction of genetic merit for underlying biological traits [15]. The idea of telos, which was previously primarily discussed in discussions about traditional genetic engineering, has been applied to genome editing and genomic selection to enhance animal welfare. It contests prevalent understandings of telos and offers a substitute theory that can be applied to recently developed breeding technology applications. This account rejects both removing the desire to pursue characteristic activities and altering animal bodies in ways that compromise their ability to perform such activities, while conditionally allowing increasing robustness against environmental stress [16]. The identification of genes and genetic markers suggests that it is possible to design strategies for breeding cows with the desired microbiota composition associated with phenotypes [17]. Wheat inclusion in the dairy cow diet could be an effective strategy for significantly lowering methane emissions; it also reduced milk fat percentage and milk fat and energy-corrected milk production [18].

#### **3. Improved performance on low-quality feed**

A significant portion of the global GHG emissions related to livestock production is caused by the production and feeding of animal feed. Though current research identifies traits for selecting animals that show excellent performance on lowerquality feed, most animals perform better on high-quality feed. Once they have been located, breeding organizations can choose these animals for their breeding and

reproduction programs and sell them. Monogastric animals that thrive on subpar feed should be commercially available in five years. This should take 8–10 years for cattle.

This development benefits both extensive systems that depend on lower-quality feed and the intensive livestock industry by allowing adjustments to current feeding regimens. Enhancing efficiency is one of the best ways to lower emissions from the production of beef. "Improved efficiency" can refer to better feed utilization, less need to clear more land, and fewer emissions of greenhouse gases per kilogram of beef produced. Researchers are working on techniques to breed animals for lower emissions after discovering that enteric methane intensity is a genetic trait. These technologies are still being developed, though [19].

When nitrates and vegetable oils were added to the diet, they both reduced enteric CH4 yield by 6-20%. Under smallholder conditions, cattle can be fed condensed tannins, saponin, and starch found in the leaves, pods, and seeds of tropical trees and shrubs, along with nitrates and vegetable oils. Strategies for enteric CH4 mitigation in cattle grazing poor-quality tropical forages can successfully boost productivity while lowering enteric CH4 emissions overall and per unit of product (such as meat or milk), thereby lowering the contribution of ruminants to GHG emissions and consequently to climate change [20]. In high-yielding dairy cows fed a partial mixed ration based on maize silage without access to pasture, the longer rumination time is associated with lower methane emissions as well as lower methane production per milk unit [21].

#### **4. Selecting for low-methane producing ruminants**

In milk production systems, enteric methane is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions [22]. An additional cost-effective, long-lasting, and cumulative mitigation strategy involves breeding animals that take advantage of the natural variation in CH4 emissions. Selective breeding can reduce CH4 intensity by 24% in 2050 if the Dutch breeding goal is expanded to include CH4 production. This demonstrates that breeding is a valuable addition to the full range of mitigation tactics that could be used to meet the objectives for 2050 set by the EU. If it is determined that using animal breeding techniques will reduce enteric CH4 production while also having the desired effect on breeding [23]. Another effective, long-lasting, and cumulative mitigation strategy is animal breeding, which takes advantage of natural variations in CH4 emissions [23].

When the cost of feed in the breeding objective is high, multiple-trait selection can reduce overall GHG emissions while improving the economic performance of beef cattle at a low carbon price. Both the overall and per-unit GHG emissions of the product were decreased. Any plan to lower beef cattle's GHG emissions must include selection. When the cost of feed is low, selecting beef cattle without considering the cost of emissions will significantly increase GHG emissions [24]. Breeding makes a significant contribution to the overall arsenal of mitigation tactics that could be used to meet the EU's goals for 2050. If animal breeding techniques are chosen to reduce enteric CH4 production and have the desired effect on breeding [23]. A potential strategy to lessen the contribution of the dairy industry is the genetic selection of low-CH4-emitting cows [25].

Genetics can also influence the parameters that determine herd structure, such as cow replacement rates or calf death rates. The herd structure or the relative proportions of each animal type within the herd, influences the overall amount of emissions

#### *Technology for Carbon Neutral Animal Breeding DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110383*

and meat or milk produced [26]. Recent research suggests that genetically improving cattle can significantly reduce emissions at a negative cost, i.e., while providing net financial benefits. The use of concentrates may have to be increased as a result of improved genetics, which would reduce the use of fiber. As a result, it is clear that traits related to the feed efficiency of the bird are the key determinants of changes in EI and how they can be influenced by animal breeding. Broiler birds' daily feed intake has increased as a result of breeding, in order to support their faster growth. The ability to increase growth rate and daily feed intake influences the future potential of breeding to reduce GHG emissions associated with broiler production. By switching to slower-growing birds, feed efficiency will inevitably decrease, increasing GHG emissions and nutrient excretion. Over the years, breeding has significantly increased potential productivity (the number of eggs per hen per year), improved feed efficiency, and lowered the intensity of GHG emissions. Further emissions reductions through breeding, however, are probably going to be less than 10% below the current level as productivity is getting close to its biological limits [26].

To increase our understanding of the taxonomic and functional profiles of microbes connected to this rare and endangered pig breed, we studied the faecal microbiome of a local pig breed [27]. The industry's importance is evidenced by the rise in investment in genomic technologies in Canada, which aim to increase feed efficiency and cut greenhouse gas emissions [28]. The most optimistic predictions for advancements in genomic technologies have been exceeded, allowing for the industrial application of genomic selection. There are already a wide variety of analytical tools available, and many more will be created thanks to advancements in sensor technology and artificial intelligence. Possibly the biggest revolution will be the explicit inclusion of high-dimensional phenomics in animal breeding methods. Phenomics data will undoubtedly improve our understanding of the biological principles underlying phenotypes in the interim [29].

Although breeding is an effective strategy for reducing methane yield, traits like wool, live weight, and fat deposition may be impacted over time and should be watched closely [30]. Genetic selection for residual feed intake is an indirect method for reducing enteric methane (CH4) emissions in beef and dairy cattle (RFI). If enteric CH4 production is measured directly, it should be expressed as residual CH4 production or as CH4 production (g/animal per day) after accounting for body size, growth, body composition, and dry matter intake (DMI). Additionally, RFIfat cattle may benefit from a 1% to 2% increase in dry matter and CP digestibility compared to +RFIfat cattle due to lower DMI, shorter feeding intervals, improved rumen fermentation, and a different rumen bacterial profile. The rate of genetic change using this method is expected to boost feed efficiency and reduce enteric CH4 emissions from cattle by 0.75–1.0% per year with equal levels of body size, growth, and excess weight when compared to cattle not selected for RFIfat [31]. To lessen the impact of dairy cattle products on the environment, phenotypes must be chosen for emitting animals. This includes a direct selection for breath measurements, in addition to indirect selection using traits such as feed intake, milk spectral data, and rumen microbial communities. Even with a few registrations, it is still possible to include methane emission as a breeding goal trait with genomic selection. Many of these characteristics are either expensive or difficult to record. If methane emission reduction became a reality, there would be little disagreement about which phenotype to choose: methane in grams or liters per day, methane in liters per kilogram of energy-corrected milk or dry matter intake, or a residual methane phenotype, where methane production is adjusted for milk production and cow weight [32]. Rumen microbial biomarkers have been linked

to methane production in dairy cows; if heritable, these biomarkers could be used for targeted methane-reduction selection programs in the dairy cattle industry [33]. It is also discussed how the systems biology approach can be used to integrate and assess various levels of biological data, which can help with understanding the genetic underpinnings and biology of traits that cause ruminants to produce CH4 and reduce agriculture's overall environmental impact [34]. In particular, the order Veillonellales and the phylum Proteobacteria were found to be enriched in low emitters, while the order Desulfovibrionales and the order Proteobacteria were found to be enriched in high emitters [35]. Consequently, it is possible to target the rumen microbiome and cow genome separately by breeding low-methane-emitting cows and concurrently by looking into potential methods that target changes in the rumen microbiome to reduce CH4 emissions in the cattle industry [36].

As predicted for Australian macro pods, lower emissions were accompanied by increased Succinovibrionaceae abundance, changes in acetate and hydrogen production, and decreased methanogens. Numerous predicted protein sequences were different between cattle that emit more and less methane [35]. Propionate pathway enhancement in high-quality forage diets serves as a hydrogen sink for methanogens. In the propionate pathway, which is enhanced by high-quality forage-based diets, betaproteobacteria genes were found to be present, suggesting a syntrophic relationship may be at play to lower methane emissions in beef cattle [37]. The distinct group of rumen methanogens whose transcriptional profiles along the ethnogenesis pathway correlate with methane yields and offer fresh options for reducing CH4 at the levels of microbiota composition and transcriptional control [38]. Metagenomics has recently been the main technology used to describe the GI microbiome and its connection to host nutrition and health [39]. As predicted for Australian macropods, lower emissions were accompanied by increased Succinovibrionaceae abundance, changes in acetate and hydrogen production, and decreased methanogenesis. Between high and low methane-emitting cattle, there were differences in a significant number of predicted protein sequences. Ninety-nine percent were unidentified, indicating a promising future resource [35].

A thorough and high-quality protein sequence database that enables accurate protein identification and quantification, representative samples, precise protein extraction, and fractionation are all essential for conducting meaningful and accurate metaproteomic analyses [40]. These findings demonstrate that using conventional PETs improved animal performance while reducing the environmental impact of the feedlot cattle industry. As a result, eliminating them would result in an increase in the environmental impact of beef produced for both domestic and foreign markets [41].

A sophisticated technique called transgenesis allows for targeted gene modification and has the potential to boost genetic diversity by producing animals with improved productivity, reduced environmental impact, and disease resistance. The ability to alter a single gene is becoming more feasible as more data from genomic sequencing projects becomes available. A tool to address new issues and global challenges facing production agriculture could be the use of transgenic technologies in the production of farm animals. However, proponents of biotechnology tools like cloning and transgenesis will probably encounter resistance from the public at large, which does not understand or accept these reproductive methods for producing animals [42]. Although cloning is a potent tool for creating genetically identical copies of desired donor animals, its effectiveness is still debatable. For a variety of reasons, many scientists and regular people are against cloning. Due to the high failure rate of cloned animal growth from fetus to adulthood, it has been deemed an ineffective

#### *Technology for Carbon Neutral Animal Breeding DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110383*

technique up until this point [43]. In this instance, selective breeding was successful in reducing methane production by 20% over the course of ten years, but at the cost of increasing the ad hoc weight of methane in the selection index to 33% and slowing the genetic gain for production traits from 6 to 18%. This demonstrates the feasibility of incorporating environmental characteristics into the selection indices while maintaining populations that are profitable for producers [44].

In contrast to selection based on measured CH4 using respiration chambers (13%), which was used in our population, selection based on the abundances of the 30 most informative microbial genes offered a mitigation potential of 17% of mean CH4 emissions per generation. This shows the great potential of microbiome-driven breeding to reduce CH4 emissions over time and slow down climate change. Markerassisted and genomic selection could be used to improve phenotypes like PME that are challenging and expensive to measure. Additionally, the ability of VFA indicators to predict methane emissions may help to increase the size of the reference population needed for genomic selection and genome-wide association studies [45].

If they are heritable, the rumen microbial biomarkers linked to dairy cows' methane production could be used for targeted methane-reduction selection programs in the dairy cattle industry [33]. Wide phenotypic variation and a lack of accurate methane measurements at the individual level are the main obstacles to the implementation of reduced methane emission traits in breeding programs. CH4 production trait heritability is generally moderate, and breeding programs can use it to target changes in microbial composition to decrease CH4 emission in the dairy industry for long-term environmental benefits at the expense of a minimal genetic gain reduction in production traits [46]. The current meta-analysis demonstrated that dairy cow's exhibit additive genetic variation for methane emission traits that could be used in genetic selection strategies [47]. The intensity of CH4 would be drastically reduced to about 0.2 kg CH4/kg LW gain, as observed in some intensive feeding systems, by optimizing the LW gain of grazing sheep and cattle to thresholds of 0.14 and 0.7 kg/ day, respectively. This might indicate a 55% mitigation potential for livestock products in pasture-based systems. Our findings add fresh information to the discussion about reducing the negative environmental effects of pastoral ecosystems [48].

Nitrates, essential oils, and tannins are rumen environment modifiers that influence methanogens and reduce the availability of fermentation products required for CH4 formation. Breeding interventions may also be used to directly or indirectly select low-CH4-emitting animals, and genome-wide association studies are predicted to help with this process. Overall, dietary changes and the addition of feed additives have short-term, reversible effects, whereas selective breeding results in long-term, cumulative reductions in CH4 emissions [49]. The rumen microbiome of cows likely has no genetic influence on the variation in CH4 emission. As a result, breeding low-methane emitting cows while simultaneously researching potential strategies that target changes in the rumen microbiome to reduce CH4 emissions in the cattle industry allows for separate targeting of the rumen microbiome and cow genome [36].

Wide phenotypic variation and a lack of accurate methane measurements at the individual level are the main obstacles to the implementation of reduced methane emission traits in breeding programs. CH4 production trait heritability is generally moderate, and breeding programs can use it to target changes in microbial composition to decrease CH4 emission in the dairy industry for long-term environmental benefits at the expense of a minimal genetic gain reduction in production traits [46]. Since residual methane and feed intake have a moderate correlation and a positive correlation response, including residual feed intake in the breeding goal could further reduce methane. A significant reduction in methane emissions could be achieved while maintaining an increase in milk production by adding a negative economic value for methane [50].

Future breeding goals should take into account how both traits differ along with (and across) lactation(s) and how they correlate with various production, maintenance, and intake traits [51]. Dairy cows that were given concentrates while grazing produced more milk overall and produced less CH4 per unit of milk [52]. In this instance, selective breeding was successful in reducing methane production by 20% over the course of ten years, but at the cost of increasing the ad hoc weight of methane in the selection index to 33% and slowing the genetic gain for production traits from 6% to 18%. This study demonstrates the feasibility of incorporating environmental characteristics into selection indices while maintaining populations that are profitable for producers [44]. The current meta-analysis demonstrated that dairy cattle exhibit additive genetic variation for methane production traits that could be used in genetic selection strategies [47].

Feed is an important factor in breeding goals because it makes up a significant portion of the variable costs linked to dairy systems. As a result, traits that indicate feed efficiency are increasingly in demand for genetic analysis. Many countries already have an idea of how much energy is required for milk production, maintenance, and so on, their breeding goals are to take feed efficiency into account. Currently, it is not possible to take actual feed intake variation into account when determining traits like residual feed intake (RFI), which is the difference between actual and predicted feed (or energy) intake. Given the high cost of accurately measuring feed intake in numerous cows, phenotypes derived from it are obvious candidates for genomic selection, provided that the trait is heritable and the accuracy of genomic predictions is acceptable to those using the breeding values. If breeding values are estimated for heifers rather than cows, the traits of the heifer and cow must be correlated. According to research on beef and dairy cattle, genomic predictions of dry matter intake (DMI) and RFI have an accuracy of about 0.4. There are ways to improve prediction accuracy; for instance, it has been demonstrated that combining data from three research herds (in Australia and Europe) can raise DMI genomic prediction accuracy from 0.33 within the country to 0.35 using a three-country reference population. Genetic correlations with other traits must first be estimated before RFI is included as a selection objective. Because of the mathematical relationship between RFI and energy balance calculation, failure to properly account for the mobilization of body reserves may result in the selection of a trait that is similar to the selection for a reduced energy balance.

Therefore, if RFI is to become a selection objective, it should be incorporated into a multi-trait selection index with net profit as the breeding objective, as this would allow genetic correlations with other traits to be properly taken into account. RFI is an obvious breeding goal if genetic parameters are accurately predicted. In the event that these are uncertain, DMI may be preferred [53].

Reduced CH4 emissions from ruminants may be achieved through the adoption of genetic selection and, in the future, genomic selection. Short-term (a few minutes to several hours) and long-term (days) feed intake is closely related to CH4 emissions. Even though there is less genetic variation than there is for CH4 emissions, CH4 yield (MY, g CH4 per kg dry matter intake) is a heritable and repeatable trait when measured over the medium term. Individual animal CH4 emissions are only moderately repeatable across diets and feeding levels when measured in respiration chambers. Short-term measurements have lower repeatability, possibly as a result of changes in the amount of feed consumed before the measurement and variations in time.

#### *Technology for Carbon Neutral Animal Breeding DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110383*

Even though repeated measurements are beneficial, it is best if they are taken at least three to fourteen days apart. But in order for short-term measurements to be helpful for genetic evaluation, we believe that a number (between 3 and 20) of measurements taken over a long period of time will be necessary (weeks to months). There are opportunities to use short-term measurements to measure CH4 in standardized feeding situations, such as breath "sniffer" devices attached to milking parlors or total mixed ration feeding bins [54].

The potential to reduce national livestock emissions by implementing these dietary interventions could be estimated using the confidence intervals derived for the mitigation efficacy [55]. The potential to reduce national livestock emissions by implementing these dietary interventions could be estimated using the confidence intervals derived for the mitigation efficacious [56].

When nitrates and vegetable oils were added to the diet, they both reduced enteric CH4 yield by 6–20%. Condensed tannins, saponins, and starch found in the leaves, pods, and seeds of tropical trees and shrubs can be fed to cattle under smallholder conditions, along with nitrates and vegetable oils. Strategies for enteric CH4 mitigation in cattle grazing low-quality tropical forages can successfully increase productivity while reducing enteric CH4 emissions overall and per unit of product (such as meat or milk), thereby lowering the contribution of ruminants to GHG emissions and subsequently to climate change [20].

Consuming milk products from cows fed nitrate may be safe in terms of residual nitrate and nitrite levels and the linseed plus nitrate combination may have a long-term CH4-mitigating effect on dairy cows. To prevent decreased cow performance, more work needs to be done to optimize the linseed and nitrate doses [57]. Diets had little effect on protozoa concentration or rumen fermentation parameters. Tea saponin is ineffective in this experiment's conditions at lowering dairy cows' methane emissions [58].

Ruminant feeding of whole-plant oat forage may reduce CH4 emissions, but lower biodegradability may also hurt animal performance. In contrast, feeding barley forage may reduce emissions without hurting animal performance [59]. Rumen fermentation profiles and enteric CH4 emissions per unit of ECM, GEI, and ADG demonstrate excellent potential for enteric CH4 emissions estimation [60]. By decreasing methane emissions by 40% + and 90%, respectively, the supplements 3-nitrooxypropanol and the seaweed Asparagopsis increased animal productivity with negligible effects on animal health or product quality. Methane emissions were reduced by 10% or less using biochar, nitrate, grape marc, vaccination, genetic selection, or vaccination. Cattle browsing legumes, such as Desmanthus or Leucaena species, and best management practices increase animal productivity and mitigate methane to a small extent. Large daily doses of ground wheat fed to dairy cows reduced methane emissions by about 35%, but the reduction was not long-lasting [61].

The gas emitted by ruminants that has the biggest negative impact on the environment is methane from enteric fermentation. It may be possible to reduce rumen methane emissions by adding lovastatin (Lv) to feedstocks, which would reduce the number of methanogenic archaea (MA). However, in vivo tests showed that there was a decline in VFA production. During in vitro and in vivo tests, Lv had no detrimental effects on the digestibility of dry matter; in fact, there is evidence that it may even increase digestibility [62].

Although their long-term impact has not been well established, some feed supplements have had the potential to lower ruminant CH4 emissions, even though some of them are toxic or may not be practical from an economic standpoint [63]. A potential feed ingredient for reducing goats' enteric methane emissions is red yeast

rice. However, it needs to be used carefully because it might stop some nutrients from being digested [64].

A potential feed ingredient for reducing goats' enteric methane emissions is red yeast rice. However, it must be used with caution as it may prevent some nutrients from being digested [65]. With low feed inclusion, Asparagopsis retains its significant methane-mitigating potential in a commercial feedlot setting [66]. Tea saponin alone, when added to pelleted concentrates, had no effect on reducing enteric methane emissions in non-lactating dairy cows under experimental conditions [67].

#### **5. Finding new traits for GHG emissions**

The potential for breeding and selection programs to choose for lower-emitting animals increases with any variation in emissions among individual animals; these are already being studied. The makeup of the microbial ecosystems in the animal's stomach and the structure of the stomach serves as the foundation for additional factors affecting the animal's emissions. For instance, early-life feeding practices may have a lasting impact on the rumen microbial composition and, consequently, methane emissions throughout an animal's productive life. Currently, research is being done on the possibility of altering the rumen microbial composition in lambs and calves after weaning to reduce methane production in adulthood. Genome editing will help us achieve these goals only if global regulatory and policy frameworks allow their use in agricultural breeding programs and deployment to farms. The regulatory environment for genome editing products is rapidly changing on a global scale, with an increasing number of nations putting more emphasis on product qualities and whether they could be achieved through conventional breeding than on the technologies involved in their creation [68].

One of the tasks assigned to the committee was to produce a report evaluating methods for identifying potential unintended compositional changes in the range of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), proteins, metabolites, and nutrients that may occur in food derived from cloned animals that have not had their genes altered through the use of genetic engineering techniques. The committee was also tasked with researching ways to spot the unintended negative health effects of foods made from cloned animals [69].

The direct selection of a residual methane production trait would favorably influence all other methane traits. The large standard errors emphasize the need to increase data sets by assessing the methane emissions and DMI of more animals or by investigating proxy traits and combining data through international cooperation [70].

According to this meta-analysis, sheep have low to moderate genetic control over their gas emission traits. When accurate phenotypic records or genetic parameter estimates for traits related to gas emissions are unavailable, the average genetic parameter estimates that were obtained could be taken into account in genetic selection programs for sheep [47].

*Technology for Carbon Neutral Animal Breeding DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110383*

#### **Author details**

Getahun Belay Mekonnen Debre Markos University, Ethiopia

\*Address all correspondence to: georgisyam@gmail.com; getahun\_belay@dmu.edu.et

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Arla. Arla Foods Aims for Carbon Net Zero Dairy. 2019. Available from: https:// www.arla.com/company/ news-andpress/2019/pressrelease/arla-foods-aimsfor-carbon-net-zero-dairy-2845602/ [Accessed: December 2019]

[2] Chen L, Msigwa G, Yang M, et al. Strategies to achieve a carbon neutral society: A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters. 2022;**20**:2277-2310. DOI: 10.1007/s10311-022-01435-8

[3] Feyissa AA, Senbeta F, Diriba D, et al. Understanding variability in carbon footprint of smallholder dairy farms in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2022;**54**:411. DOI: 10.1007/ s11250-022-03379-1

[4] Cheng M, Yao W. Trend prediction of carbon peak in China's animal husbandry based on the empirical analysis of 31 provinces in China. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2022;**99**. DOI: 10.1007/ s10668-022-02794-6

[5] Ormond J. Geoengineering super low carbon cows: Food and the corporate carbon economy in a low carbon world. Climatic Change. 2020;**163**:135-153. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-020-02766-7

[6] Cassandro M. Animal breeding and climate change, mitigation and adaptation. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics. 2020;**137**:121-122. DOI: 10.1111/jbg.12469

[7] Manzanilla-Pech CIV, Stephansen RB, Difford GF, Løvendahl P, Lassen J. Selecting for feed efficient cows will help to reduce methane gas emissions. Frontiers in Genetics. 2022;**13**:885932. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.885932

[8] Martyniuk E. Policy effects on the sustainability of animal breeding. Sustainability. 2021;**13**:7787. DOI: 10.3390/su13147787

[9] Negussie E, de Haas Y, Dehareng F, Dewhurst RJ, Dijkstra J, Gengler N, et al. Invited review: Large-scale indirect measurements for enteric methane emissions in dairy cattle: A review of proxies and their potential for use in management and breeding decisions. Journal of Dairy Science. 2017;**100**(4):2433-2453. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2016-12030. Epub 2017 Feb 1

[10] Kindinew Y, Abaynew G, Haben F. Genetic engineering application in animal breeding—Review. Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research;**32**(4):2020. DOI: 10.26717/ BJSTR.2020.32.005284

[11] Getabalew M, Alemneh T, Zewdie D. Genetic engineering and its application in animal breeding: Mini-review. Archives in Biomedical Engineering & Biotechnology. 2020;**4**(4):ABEB.MS.ID.000595

[12] Rowe S, Hickey S, Johnson P, Bilton T, Jonker A, Bain W, et al. The contribution animal breeding can make to industry carbon neutrality goals. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics. 2022;**24**:15-18

[13] Shi R, Irfan M, Liu G, Yang X, Su X. Analysis of the impact of livestock structure on carbon emissions of animal husbandry: A sustainable way to improving public health and green environment. Frontiers in Public Health. 2022;**10**:835210. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.835210

[14] Strandén J, Kantanen MH, Lidauer T, Mehtiö EN. Animal board invited review: *Technology for Carbon Neutral Animal Breeding DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110383*

Genomic-based improvement of cattle in response to climate change. Animal. 2022;**16**(12):100673. DOI: 10.1016/j. animal.2022.100673. ISSN 1751- 7311. Available from: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1751731122002300

[15] Dekkers JC. 48 The impact of new technologies on livestock breeding; what's next? Journal of Animal Science. 2019;**97**(Supplement\_3):53. DOI: 10.1093/jas/skz258.107

[16] Kramer K, Meijboom FLB. Using breeding technologies to improve farm animal welfare: What is the ethical relevance of *Telos*? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2021;**34**:2. DOI: 10.1007/s10806-021-09843-6

[17] Zhang Q, Difford G, Sahana G, et al. Bayesian modeling reveals host genetics associated with rumen microbiota jointly influence methane emission in dairy cows. The ISME Journal. 2020;**14**:2019- 2033. DOI: 10.1038/s41396-020-0663-x

[18] Moate PJ, Williams SRO, Jacobs JL, Hannah MC, Beauchemin KA, Eckard RJ, et al. Wheat is more potent than corn or barley for dietary mitigation of enteric methane emissions from dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 2017;**100**(9):7139-7153. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2016-12482. Epub 2017 Jul 12

[19] Waite R, Cover JZ. Opportunities to Reduce Emissions from Beef Production. Washington, D.C.: World Resource Institute; 2022

[20] Ku-Vera JC, Castelán-Ortega OA, Galindo-Maldonado FA, Arango J, Chirinda N, Jiménez-Ocampo R, et al. Review: Strategies for enteric methane mitigation in cattle fed tropical forages. Animal. 2020;**14**(S3):s453-s463. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731120001780. Epub 2020 Aug 18

[21] Mikuła R, Pszczola M, Rzewuska K, Mucha S, Nowak W, Strabel T. The effect of rumination time on milk performance and methane emission of dairy cows fed partial mixed ration based on maize silage. Animals (Basel). 2021;**12**(1):50. DOI: 10.3390/ani12010050

[22] Tricarico JM, de Haas Y, Hristov AN, Kebreab E, Kurt T, Mitloehner F, et al. Symposium review: Development of a funding program to support research on enteric methane mitigation from ruminants. Journal of Dairy Science. 2022;**105**(10):8535-8542. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2021-21397. Epub 2022 Jun 7

[23] de Haas Y, Veerkamp RF, de Jong G, Aldridge MN. Selective breeding as a mitigation tool for methane emissions from dairy cattle. Animal. 2021;**15**(Supplement 1):100294. DOI: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100294. ISSN 1751-7311. Available from: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1751731121001373

[24] Barwick SA, Henzell AL, Herd RM, Walmsley BJ, Arthur PF. Methods and consequences of including reduction in greenhouse gas emission in beef cattle multiple-trait selection. Genetics, Selection, Evolution. 2019;**51**(1):18. DOI: 10.1186/s12711-019-0459-5

[25] Knapp JR, Laur GL, Vadas PA, Weiss WP, J.M. Tricarico invited review: Enteric methane in dairy cattle production: Quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. Journal of Dairy Science. 2014;**97**:3231-3261

[26] Macleod M, Leinonen I, Wall E, Houdijk J, Eory V, Burns J, et al. Impact of Animal Breeding on GHG Emissions and Farm Economics, EUR 29844 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2019. DOI: 10.2760/731326. ISBN 978-92-76- 10943-3 (online), JRC117897

[27] Mollenhorst H, de Haas Y. The Contribution of Breeding to Reducing Environmental Impact of Animal Production. Wageningen: Wageningen Livestock Research (Wageningen Livestock Research Report 1156) – 47. Animal Breeding & Genomics. WIAS. Research Report. 2019

[28] Hailu G. The Role of Animal Genomics in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute; 2018. Available from: http:// www.capi-icpa.ca/

[29] Pérez-Enciso M, Steibel JP. Phenomes: The current frontier in animal breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution. 2021;**53**:22. DOI: 10.1186/ s12711-021-00618-1

[30] Hickey SM, Bain WE, Bilton TP, Greer GJ, Elmes S, Bryson B, et al. Impact of breeding for reduced methane emissions in New Zealand sheep on maternal and health traits. Frontiers in Genetics. 2022;**13**:910413. DOI: 10.3389/ fgene.2022.910413

[31] Basarab JA, Beauchemin KA, Baron VS, Ominski KH, Guan LL, Miller SP, et al. Reducing GHG emissions through genetic improvement for feed efficiency: Effects on economically important traits and enteric methane production. Animal. 2013;**7**(Suppl. 2):303-315. DOI: 10.1017/ S1751731113000888

[32] Haas Y, Windig JJ, Calus MP, Dijkstra J, Haan M, Bannink A, et al. Genetic parameters for predicted methane production and potential for reducing enteric emissions through genomic selection. Journal of Dairy Science. 2017;**94**(12):6122-6134. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2011-4439

[33] Ramayo-Caldas Y, Zingaretti L, Popova M, Estellé J, Bernard A, Pons N, et al. Identification of rumen microbial biomarkers linked to methane emission in Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics. 2020;**137**(1): 49-59. DOI: 10.1111/jbg.12427. Epub 2019 Aug 16

[34] Asselstine V, Lam S, Miglior F, Brito LF, Sweett H, Guan L, et al. The potential for mitigation of methane emissions in ruminants through the application of metagenomics, metabolomics, and other -OMICS technologies. Journal of Animal Science. 2021;**99**(10):skab193. DOI: 10.1093/jas/ skab193

[35] Wallace RJ, Rooke JA, McKain N, et al. The rumen microbial metagenome associated with high methane production in cattle. BMC Genomics. 2015;**16**:839. DOI: 10.1186/s12864-015-2032-0

[36] Difford GF, Plichta DR, Løvendahl P, Lassen J, Noel SJ, Højberg O, et al. Host genetics and the rumen microbiome jointly associate with methane emissions in dairy cows. PLoS Genetics. 2018;**14**(10):e1007580. DOI: 10.1371/ journal.pgen.1007580

[37] Knoell AL. Understanding rumen microbial community structure and function towards decreasing methane emissions [theses and dissertations in Animal Science]. 2021. p. 212. Available from: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ animalscidiss/212

[38] Shi W, Moon CD, Leahy SC, et al. Methane yield phenotypes linked to differential gene expression in the sheep rumen microbiome. Genome Research. 2014;**24**:1517-1525. DOI: 10.1101/ gr.168245.113

[39] Kim M, Park T, Yu Z. Invited review, metagenomic investigation of gastrointestinal microbiome in cattle. Animal Bioscience.

*Technology for Carbon Neutral Animal Breeding DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110383*

2017;**30**(11):1515-1528. DOI: 10.5713/ ajas.17.0544

[40] Andersen TO, Kunath BJ, Hagen LH, Arntzen M, Pope PB. Rumen metaproteomics: Closer to linking rumen microbial function to animal productivity traits. Methods. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2020.07.011

[41] Aboagye IA, Cordeiro MRC, McAllister TA, May ML, Hannon SJ, Booker CW, et al. Environmental footprints of conventional and alternative natural productivityenhancing technologies in beef production. In: GGAA 2022 | June 5-9 - Orlando, Florida, USA. 2022

[42] Hernandez Gifford JA, Gifford CA. Role of reproductive biotechnologies in enhancing food security and sustainability. Animal Frontiers. 2013;**3**(3):14-19. DOI: 10.2527/ af.2013-0019

[43] Ibtisham F, Niu Y, Wang Z, et al. Animal cloning drawbacks—An overview. Journal of Dairy, Veterinary & Animal Research. 2016;**3**(4):139-143. DOI: 10.15406/jdvar.2016.03.00087

[44] González-Recio O, López-Paredes J, Ouatahar L, Charfeddine N, Ugarte E, Alenda R, et al. Mitigation of greenhouse gases in dairy cattle via genetic selection: 2. Incorporating methane emissions into the breeding goal. Journal of Dairy Science. 2020;**103**(8):7210-7221. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2019-17598. Epub 2020 May 29

[45] Jalil Sarghale A, Moradi Shahrebabak M, Moradi Shahrebabak H, et al. Genome-wide association studies for methane emission and ruminal volatile fatty acids using Holstein cattle sequence data. BMC Genetics. 2020;**21**:129. DOI: 10.1186/s12863-020-00953-0

[46] Mahala S, Kala A, Kumar A. Host genetics associated with gut microbiota and methane emission in cattle. Molecular Biology Reports. 2022;**49**(8):8153-8161. DOI: 10.1007/ s11033-022-07718-1. Epub 2022 Jul 1

[47] Ghavi, Hossein-Zadeh N. Estimates of the genetic contribution to methane emission in dairy cows: A meta-analysis. Scientific Reports. 2022;**12**(1):12352. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-16778-z

[48] Zubieta ÁS, Savian JV, de Souza FW, Wallau MO, Gómez AM, Bindelle J, et al. Does grazing management provide opportunities to mitigate methane emissions by ruminants in pastoral ecosystems? Science of the Total Environment. 2021;**754**:142029. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142029. Epub 2020 Aug 31

[49] Fouts JQ, Honan MC, Roque BM, Tricarico JM, Kebreab E. Enteric methane mitigation interventions. Translational Animal Science. 2022;**6**(2):txac041. DOI: 10.1093/tas/txac041

[50] Manzanilla-Pech CIV, Vendahl PL, Mansan Gordo D, Difford GF, Pryce JE, Schenkel F, et al. Breeding for reduced methane emission and feed-efficient Holstein cows: An international response. Journal of Dairy Science. 2021;**104**(8):8983-9001. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2020-19889. Epub 2021 May 15

[51] Manzanilla-Pech CIV, Difford GF, Løvendahl P, Stephansen RB, Lassen J. Genetic (co-)variation of methane emissions, efficiency, and production traits in Danish Holstein cattle along and across lactations. Journal of Dairy Science. 2022;**105**(12):9799- 9809. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2022-22121. Epub 2022 Oct 12

[52] Jiao HP, Dale AJ, Carson AF, Murray S, Gordon AW, Ferris CP. Effect of concentrate feed level on methane emissions from grazing dairy

cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 2014;**97**(11):7043-7053. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2014-7979. Epub 2014 Aug 28

[53] Pryce JE, Wales WJ, de Haas Y, Veerkamp RF, Hayes BJ. Genomic selection for feed efficiency in dairy cattle. Animal. 2014;**8**(1):1-10. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731113001687. Epub 2013 Oct 16

[54] Pickering NK, Oddy VH, Basarab J, Cammack K, Hayes B, Hegarty RS, et al. Animal board invited review: Genetic possibilities to reduce enteric methane emissions from ruminants. Animal. 2015;**9**(9):1431-1440. DOI: 10.1017/ S1751731115000968. Epub 2015 Jun 9

[55] Yanibada B, Hohenester U, Pétéra M, Canlet C, Durand S, Jourdan F, et al. Inhibition of enteric methanogenesis in dairy cows induces changes in plasma metabolome highlighting metabolic shifts and potential markers of emission. Scientific Reports. 2020;**10**(1):15591. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-72145-w

[56] Almeida AK, Hegarty RS, Cowie A. Meta-analysis quantifying the potential of dietary additives and rumen modifiers for methane mitigation in ruminant production systems. Animal Nutrition. 2021;**7**(4):1219-1230. DOI: 10.1016/j. aninu.2021.09.005. Epub 2021 Oct 6

[57] Guyader J, Doreau M, Morgavi DP, Gérard C, Loncke C, Martin C. Longterm effect of linseed plus nitrate fed to dairy cows on enteric methane emission and nitrate and nitrite residuals in milk. Animal. 2016;**10**(7):1173-1181. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731115002852. Epub 2016 Jan 6

[58] Guyader J, Eugène M, Doreau M, Morgavi DP, Gérard C, Martin C. Tea saponin reduced methanogenesis in vitro but increased methane yield in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science.

2017;**100**(3):1845-1855. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2016-11644. Epub 2017 Jan 18

[59] Aboagye IA, Rosser CL, Baron VS, Beauchemin KA. In vitro assessment of enteric methane emission potential of whole-plant barley, oat, triticale and wheat. Animals (Basel). 2021;**11**(2):450. DOI: 10.3390/ani11020450

[60] Min BR, Lee S, Jung H, Miller DN, Chen R. Enteric methane emissions and animal performance in dairy and beef cattle production: Strategies, opportunities, and impact of reducing emissions. Animals (Basel). 2022;**12**(8):948. DOI: 10.3390/ ani12080948

[61] Black JL, Davison TM, Box I. Methane emissions from ruminants in Australia: Mitigation potential and applicability of mitigation strategies. Animals (Basel). 2021;**11**(4):951. DOI: 10.3390/ani11040951

[62] Ábrego-Gacía A, Poggi-Varaldo HM, Robles-González V, Ponce-Noyola T, Calva-Calva G, Ríos-Leal E, et al. Lovastatin as a supplement to mitigate rumen methanogenesis: An overview. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology. 2021;**12**(1):123. DOI: 10.1186/s40104-021-00641-8

[63] Hristov AN, Oh J, Firkins JL, Dijkstra J, Kebreab E, Waghorn G, et al. Special topics—Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science. 2013;**91**(11):5045-5069. DOI: 10.2527/jas.2013-6583. Epub 2013 Sep 17

[64] Lu Q, Wu J, Wang M, Zhou C, Han X, Odongo EN, et al. Effects of dietary addition of cellulase and a *Saccharomyces cerevisiae* fermentation product on nutrient digestibility, rumen *Technology for Carbon Neutral Animal Breeding DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110383*

fermentation and enteric methane emissions in growing goats. Archives of Animal Nutrition. 2016;**70**(3):224-238. DOI: 10.1080/1745039X.2016.1163002

[65] Wang LZ, Zhou ML, Wang JW, Wu D, Yan T. The effect of dietary replacement of ordinary rice with red yeast rice on nutrient utilization, enteric methane emission and rumen archaeal diversity in goats. PLoS One. 2016;**11**(7):e0160198. DOI: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0160198

[66] de Almeida AK, Cowley F, Hegarty R, Kinley RD. The red seaweed *Asparagopsis taxiformis* inhibits methane emissions in feedlot beef cattle. In: GGAA 2022 | June 5-9; Orlando, Florida, USA. 2022

[67] Guyader J, Eugène M, Doreau MM, Morgavi D, Gérard C, et al. Nitrate but not tea saponin feed additives decreased enteric methane emissions in nonlactating cows. Journal of Animal Science. 2015;**93**(11):5367-5377. DOI: 10.2527/jas.2015-9367

[68] Wray-Cahen D, Bodnar A, Rexroad C, et al. Advancing genome editing to improve the sustainability and resiliency of animal agriculture. CABI Agriculture and Bioscience. 2022;**3**:21. DOI: 10.1186/s43170-022-00091-w

[69] National Research Council (US) Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health. Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. Subreport, Methods and Mechanisms of Genetic Manipulation and Cloning of Animals. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2004. Available from: https://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK215769/

[70] Richardson CM, Nguyen TTT, Abdelsayed M, Moate PJ, Williams SRO, Chud TCS, et al. Genetic parameters for methane emission traits in Australian dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 2021;**104**(1):539-549. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2020-18565. Epub 2020 Oct 31

#### **Chapter 3**

## Breeding Soundness Evaluation in Ram and Bucks under Community-Based Breeding Program (CBBP) Sites of the Amhara Region, Ethiopia

*Assemu Tesfa, Mesfin Lakew, Chekole Demis, Mulatu Gobeze and Alayu Kidane*

#### **Abstract**

The objective of this study was to evaluate the breeding soundness (BSE) of rams and bucks used in community-based breeding programs (CBBPs). The evaluation was done in April 2022. The data were analyzed using the general linear model (GLM) procedures of the SPSS (version 22). Based on the criteria set for physical soundness, 88.89% and 87.32% of rams and bucks were satisfactory. The overall semen volume per ejaculation in small ruminants under study was 0.67 0.04 ml with a minimum of 0.1 ml in buck and 1.2 ml both in rams and bucks. The average gross semen motility score was 3.55 0.09 (>70% of sperm cells are active). A significant (P < 0.05) difference was observed between ram and buck semen concentrations, which was 4.06 0.42 (10<sup>9</sup> ) and 3.89 0.23 (10<sup>9</sup> ), respectively. Based on the selected examination parameters, 84.23% of the mating males of small ruminants were satisfactory for breeding, from which rams and bucks contribute to 86.48% and 82.18%, respectively. Rams and bucks above 22 cm of scrotal circumference at two and lower age, alert and active with no feet, eye, and conformation abnormalities can be selected for mating. In CBBP sites, it is better to furnish semen evaluation equipment and technical capacity to implement artificial insemination.

**Keywords:** breeding soundness, bucks, rams, satisfactory, semen characteristics

#### **1. Introduction**

Reproductive capacity of the herd/flock is influenced by numerous factors such as reproductive health, fertility, prolificacy, the ability to mount, and the nutritional level of individuals [1]. A successful breeding period relies on mating an appropriate number of sound males to reproductively active females and monitoring to identify any problems [2]. In fact, 50% of the reproductive potential and genetic change of a flock is

provided by the mating male animal [3, 4], care and strategic management of them is required. To help identify males that are capable or not capable of settling females, producers can perform breeding soundness examinations (BSE). Breeding soundness examination is an overall assessment of a male's potential ability to service and impregnate a given number of females during a given period of time [3]. The evaluation consists of a physical examination, body condition score, scrotal circumference, inspection of the reproductive organs, semen evaluation [5, 6], libido assessment [3], and screening for sexually transmitted disease [4]. Measurement of scrotal circumference reflects the weight of the gonad and therefore the ability of sperm production [7], and it has a great value as an indicator of the onset of puberty, total semen production, semen quality, pathological conditions of testes, and the potential subfertility or infertility [8].

Breeding soundness examination should be performed at least two months before breeding season [9] to allow animals to recover from pathologies or poor physical conditions [3], and it also should be a routine activity in breeding programs [2, 4]. Periodical BSE identifies the main causes of ram/buck failures, making it an important tool to increase the reproductive efficiency of the herd [10]. Rams/bucks are subsequently classified as sound/satisfactory, temporarily unsound/questionable, or unsound [2]. The satisfactory rams will achieve good reproductive performance if joined to ewes at a ratio of 1:50 for 60 days [5, 11].

The selection and distribution of rams/bucks for mating in the existing CBBP sites of Ethiopia were based on physical evaluation, pedigree information, and breeding values for selected target traits. And they are handled at farmers' hands with varying management levels. Both of these methods do not guarantee the fertility of these animals. Currently, the number of CBBP sites has increased, and scaling-out plans of the CBBP were also implemented. In the document [12], rams to be distributed for the scaling out sites were sourced from existing CBBPs, and as these animals are genetic materials, their failure to mate after distribution costs the program. Therefore prior to distribution, BSE should be done as a routing activity. This paper, therefore, was initiated to address the following objectives:


#### **2. Material and methods**

#### **2.1 Working sites and breeds**

The activity was conducted at established community-based breeding program sites of the Washera breed at the Sekela district, Simien sheep at the Dabat district, and Central highland goat at the Gondar Zuria district (**Figure 1**).

**Sekela district:** It is located 160 km away to the South East from Bahir Dar, the capital of the Amhara National Regional State, and 74 km away North East from Finote Selam, the capital town of West Gojjam Zone. The estimated total area coverage of the district is 6534.5 hectares, from which 70%, 18%, and 12% were highland (Dega), midland (Woynadega), and lowland (Qola) agroecologies. It is located at an

*Breeding Soundness Evaluation in Ram and Bucks under Community-Based Breeding… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110240*

**Figure 1.** *Map of the study districts.*

elevation of 3062 meters above sea level and 10°55<sup>0</sup> <sup>0</sup>″ N latitude and 37°31<sup>0</sup> <sup>60</sup>″ <sup>E</sup> longitude. The average annual rainfall of the area ranges from 1600 mm to 1800 mm with an average temperature of 18°C [13].

**Dabat district:** It is located at 12°59<sup>0</sup> <sup>3</sup>″ N and 37°45<sup>0</sup> <sup>54</sup>″ E in Amhara National Regional State, North Gondar Zone. It receives an average annual rainfall of about 1100 mm with the main rainy season extending from June to October. The average annual maximum and minimum temperatures are 19.9°C and 8.58°C, respectively [14].

**Gondar Zuria district:** It is located in the Central Gondar Zone of the Amhara Regional State, northwest Ethiopia. The District is among the 11 districts of the Central Gondar zone and has 41 rural and three urban Kebeles. The total area of the district is around 48,204 km2 . The district receives monthly average maximum and minimum temperatures of 29.96°C and 15.72°C, respectively. The altitude ranges from 1500 to 3200 m above sea level. Agroecologically, the district falls into two zones: Weyna Dega (72%) and Dega (28%). Mixed farming is predominant in the district (i.e., crop production and livestock rearing (90%)) [15].

#### **2.2 Source and type of data**

Semen evaluation was done in April 2022. A total of 63 and 92 body measurements from ram and bucks, respectively, were collected. The rams were Washera and Simien sheep breeds, while the bucks are Central Highland goats. Semen parameter evaluation was done from 16 rams and 15 bucks, which are under mating at CBBP sites.

#### **2.3 Data collection procedures**

#### *2.3.1 Physical soundness examination*

The physical soundness examination includes symmetricity of testicles (1 = symmetric and 2 = nonsymmetric), shape of testicles (1 = normal and 2 = abnormal) as

#### **Figure 2.**

*Ways of measuring SC (A) and different scrotal abnormalities (B) [3].*

indicated (**Figure 2B**), firmness of the scrotum (1 = firm rubber ball and 2 = extremely hard and very soft), body condition score (thin (1–2 score), moderate (2–3), and fattened (above 3)), rear leg conformation (1 = desirable and 2 = camped behind, bowleggedness (base narrow) and toed-out stance (base wide)), general health condition of eye, feet, head and neck, nasal cavity and alertness (1 = healthy and alert and 2 = nonhealthy and inactive). These parameters were collected with a degree of acceptance. Each level of the evaluation was done based on the reference standards used for BSE [3, 16], and the interpretation was done [11].

#### *2.3.2 Scrotal and other linear body measurements*

The scrotal circumference was measured at the widest part of the scrotum and recorded in centimeters (**Figure 2A**). Body measurements of heart girth (cm), weight (kg), height at prepuce (cm), rump height (cm), body length (cm), height at weather (cm), and face length (cm) were collected from rams at the CBBP sites. Estimated body weight was calculated with the following formula [17]:

$$\text{BW} = \frac{\text{HG } (inch)^2 \ast \text{BL } (inch)}{300} \tag{1}$$

where BW is estimated body weight in pound, HG is heart girth by inch, and BL is body length by inch.

#### **2.4 Semen analysis**

**Semen collection:** Semen was collected by an artificial vagina (AV) with temperature of 42–43°C. Prior to collection, the prepuce of the ram was cleaned to prevent contamination of the semen. The collection was performed in the morning and shade areas to avoid tiredness of rams and sperm death due to direct sunlight. The libido of the ram was recorded during semen collection and scored from 5 (excellent) to 1 (very poor) [11, 18].

**Semen evaluation:** The color of semen was scored subjectively and classified as: milky, watery, thin creamy, creamy, and thick creamy [18]. Semen volume was recorded using a graduated collecting glass (0.1 mL accuracy). While being processed, ejaculates were placed in a thermos flask containing water at 35–37°C. Sperm mass motility was estimated subjectively by using a phase contrast microscope. For that semen was taken with a pipette, dropped on the slide and covered with a cover slip and observed with 10� magnification on the objective lens. The mass motility was graded from 0 to 5 scores based on the passion of the wave motion [18].

*Breeding Soundness Evaluation in Ram and Bucks under Community-Based Breeding… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110240*

Measurement of the sperm concentration was done by using a portable spectrophotometer pre-calibrated for ram semen (Ovine-caprine Accuread photometer; IMV®, France). Sperm cell concentration was estimated using a micropipette to take normal saline (0.9%) and put 4 ml of normal saline and 10 microliters of fresh semen on the UV Macro cell (UV Macro Cell 2.5 ml– 4.5 ml, Great Britain) and mix gently and measure the concentration using Accu Read IMV Technologies SA, 232 Spectrophotometer.

For spermatozoa live/dead ratio (semen morphology), semen was stained with eosin-nigrosin stain followed by microscopic examination (40�). Spermatozoa with red head were counted as dead cells and the colorless ones as live spermatozoa [11]. The proportion of morphologically abnormal spermatozoa was determined by examining 200 spermatozoa in an eosin-nigrosin smear under the same magnification. The spermatozoa were evaluated for vitality (percentage of live spermatozoa) and abnormal percentage (head, midpiece, and tail abnormal). The semen quality analysis was done in collaboration with Debre Berhan Agricultural Research Center (DBARC).

#### **2.5 Statistical analysis**

Breed, body condition score, scrotal circumference, libido, and age were used as a factor to evaluate the semen characteristics. The data were analyzed using the general linear model (GLM) procedures of the SPSS (version 22). Post-hoc least significant difference (LSD) tests were used to assess differences between means. The results are presented as mean (�SE), and the level for statistical significance was set to P < 0.05.

$$\mathbf{Y}\_{\text{ijklmno}} = \mu + \mathbf{M}\_{\text{i}} + \mathbf{L}\_{\text{j}} + \mathbf{C}\_{\text{k}} + \mathbf{S}\_{\text{l}} + \mathbf{A}\_{\text{m}} + \mathbf{B}\_{\text{n}} + \mathbf{e}\_{\text{ijklmno}}.\tag{2}$$

where

Yijklm = semen characteristics (volume, motility, color, concentration, vitality, and abnormality),

μ = overall mean,

Mi = effect of ith mating male animals (ram and buck),

Lj = effect of jth libido score (3, 4, and 5),

Sk = effect of kth body condition score (medium (2–3 BCS) and good (>3BCS)),

Cl = effect of lth scrotal circumference (acceptable (≤20 cm), satisfactory (21–

23 cm), and excellent (>23 cm)),

Am = effect of mth age (0PPI, 1PPI, 2PPI, and 3PPI),

Bn = effect of nth birth type (single and multiple), and eijklm = residual effect.

#### **3. Result and discussions**

#### **3.1 Physical soundness of rams and bucks at CBBP sites**

Based on the criteria set for physical soundness, 88.10% (88.89% of rams and 87.32% of bucks) were satisfactory (**Figure 3**). The observed result in the current study is a good indicator of satisfactory ram, which is capable to mount and mate female animals, and an indication of the care during ram and buck selection as a replacement at the same CBBP and for distribution to other sites. The observed lower percentage in firmness of the scrotum is an indicator of the absence of reproductive organ palpation during selection and this should get attention during selection. Good

#### **Figure 3.**

*Physical soundness examination result for ram and buck at CBBP sites. SymTesti = symmetricity of testicles; ShaTes ti = shape of testicles; FirTesti = firmness of the testicles; Conform = rear leg conformation; BCS = body condition score (above 2); HelCond = health condition.*

physical soundness is an indicator of the ram to deliver semen to ewes and management level of the producers [19]. Physical problems such as lameness, blindness, and penile or perpetual problems may not interfere with semen production or quality, but rams will not be able to find estrous ewes and/or mate them, resulting in poor reproductive performance [11]. During the physical examination, the body condition of the ram during the breeding season is an indicator of its breeding efficiency [10].

#### **3.2 Effect of fixed factors on semen quality parameters**

#### *3.2.1 Semen volume*

The mean (SE) semen volume per ejaculation in small ruminants under study was 0.67 0.04 ml with a minimum of 0.1 ml in buck and 1.2 ml in both rams and bucks. The volume of semen could be higher if there would be training of the artificial vagina before a day or two. The body condition score and libido had shown a significant (P < 0.01) effect on semen volume. The best animals in libido had higher volume per ejaculation (**Table 1**). A significant difference between semen volume and age was also reported [1, 20] for different sheep breeds of Spain. The average volume of semen per ejaculate (ml) was comparable with Menz sheep ram (0.7 ml) [18], Abergelle buck (0.64 0.03 ml) [21], 0.5 0.3 ml reported by Siddiqua et al. [22]; higher than 0.27 0.12 ml [23] ranging from 0.43 0.03 to 0.45 0.22 in black Bengal bucks [24]; and lower than 1.0 0.2 ml in Norduz goats [25]. The difference in semen volume within the same species was due to breed differences.

#### *3.2.2 Gross semen motility score*

The average gross semen motility score was 3.55 0.09, which is above 70% of sperm cells are active (**Table 1**). All the factors considered in the current study had no significant (P > 0.05) difference in semen motility. Nonsignificant difference of breed


#### *Breeding Soundness Evaluation in Ram and Bucks under Community-Based Breeding… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110240*

**Table**  *Mean*

**1.**

*\**

*P < 0.05.*

*\*\*P < 0.01.\*\*\*P < 0.001..*

 *( SE) of values of semen quality parameters across different fixed factors.* and BCS on semen motility was reported [1]. The mass motility score was comparable with the Menz sheep ram (3.17) [18].

#### *3.2.3 Semen concentration*

The average semen concentration (10<sup>9</sup> ) reported in the current study was 3.98 0.24. A significant difference was observed between ram and buck semen concentrations (**Table 1**), which was 4.06 0.42 (10<sup>9</sup> ) and 3.89 0.23 (10<sup>9</sup> ), respectively. Besides, the respective minimum and maximum concentrations were observed in rams 7.7 (106 ) of Simien sheep and 6.98 (109 ) of Washera sheep. Libido score had also a significant (P < 0.001) effect on sperm concentration (**Table 1**); the higher the libido score the higher the concentration. The observed concentration has given a good insight to conduct artificial insemination in the genetic improvement programs. As indicated by Larsen [26], 300 million spermatozoa were used for a single insemination in small ruminants; based on this, with the average 3.98 0.24 (10<sup>9</sup> ) number of spermatozoa recorded in the current study, 13 ewes can be inseminated. The average semen concentration (10<sup>9</sup> ) recorded in the current study was higher than Menz (2.44), Awassi cross Menz (3.34) [18], and Abergelle bucks (3.14 0.11) [21]. Significantly lower sperm cell count (0.98 <sup>10</sup><sup>9</sup> ) in the testicles of West African dwarf bucks was reported [27]. The concentration of the current study was considered as normal based on the study of Faigl et al. [28], which reported a concentration range from 3.5 to 6.0 billion as normal. A similar report on a nonsignificant difference of breed and BCS on sperm concentration was reported [1].

#### *3.2.4 Semen morphology*

The morphology analysis was done for vitality and abnormality percentage (**Table 1**). The average vitality and abnormality percentage of the current study was 90.71 0.36 and 9.00 0.24, respectively. The head, midpiece, and tail abnormalities for ram were 0.12, 0.51, and 8.41%, and for bucks were 1.0, 1.0, and 8.0%, respectively; the proportion is presented in **Figure 4**. Age had shown a significant effect on semen vitality (P < 0.05) and abnormality (P < 0.01), and libido score and birth type had a significant (P < 0.05) effect on semen vitality and abnormality, respectively. The current result was higher than the reports of Faigl et al. [28] and Goshme et al. [18] who reported an average vitality range of 70–80 and 84.04% for different breeds, respectively. Varying level of head, midpiece, and tail abnormality in sperm cell was reported (**Figure 5**) [29]. Based on the study by Petrovic et al. [30], sperm

*Breeding Soundness Evaluation in Ram and Bucks under Community-Based Breeding… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110240*

abnormality is varied depending on the seasons of the year on which higher abnormality was recorded during hot seasons. **Figures 6** and **7** present sperm abnormalities at different parts.

#### *3.2.5 Semen color*

The average value for semen color was 2.68 0.27, which is characterized as a thin creamy from the five color ranges (**Figure 5**). The color observed in the current study was in line with the finding of Pankaj et al. [31] who reported a color range of 1.9 1.0

**Figure 5.** *Reading: semen volume (left) and concentration (right).*

**Figure 6.** *Morphologically normal sperm cells (eosin-nigrosin stain).*

**Figure 7.**

*Morphologically abnormality of sperm cells: (a) bended and terminally coiled tails and (b) abnormal head (eosinnigrosin stain).*

to 4.0 0.0. Color is an indicator of injury or infection in the reproductive tract [31] and sperm concentration. Body condition and libido score had shown a significant (P < 0.05) effect on semen color (**Table 1**).

#### *3.2.6 Correlation between semen quality parameters*

A positive significant (P < 0.05) correlation was observed in body weight with semen volume (P < 0.01) and color (P < 0.05); libido score with semen volume, color, and concentration; and body condition with semen volume and color (**Table 2**). Besides, there is also a correlation between semen volume with color and concentration, color with motility and concentration, and motility with concentration. A similar significant difference between age and semen volume; scrotal circumference with age and BCS was reported [1].

#### *3.2.7 Scrotal circumference and mating test (libido score)*

The average scrotal circumference, body condition score, and libido score were 22.14 0.23, 2.06 0.04, and 4.19 0.14, respectively. There was a significant (P < 0.05) difference in SC and BCS between mating animals. Higher scrotal circumference (22.56 0.49) was observed in rams compared with bucks (21.86 0.21). Similarly higher body condition score (2.18 0.07) was observed in rams than in bucks (1.98 0.05). In considering the scrotal circumference for classifying mating ram and buck, it is paramount important to consider age, breed, season, nutrition and other diseases, and previous reproductive history [2]. The libido score for rams and bucks was 4.31 0.19 and 4.07 0.21, respectively, and there is no significant difference (P < 0.05) between mating animals. The observed higher libido score in the study breeds was an important indicator in the efficiency of the rams and bucks to deliver semen for females [11], and poor libido was reported as a cause of infertility or reduced fertility [30].

The average scrotal circumference observed in rams was lower than 27.5 1.29 cm [32] and 24.2 1.8 cm [33]. For Ethiopian sheep breeds, average scrotal circumference range from 25 cm at one year to 30 cm at four years of age was reported [4]. Besides, considerably higher (22.52 3.61 cm) and lower (17.25 0.76 cm) scrotal circumference was reported for Algeria Indigenous Bucks [34] and West African dwarf bucks [27], respectively. Compared with these findings and the guideline [6, 11], the average scrotal circumference recorded in the study of rams and bucks can be categorized as satisfactory for breeding purposes.

#### *3.2.8 Breeding soundness examination (BSE) and interpretation*

Based on the BSE, rams and bucks are classified into three, *viz*, satisfactory, questionable, and unsatisfactory [2]. The category was based on physical examination score, scrotal circumference, and semen characteristics [11]. In the current study, to evaluate the satisfactory rams, finding above average were considered as cutoff values. Based on the selected examination parameters, 84.23% of the mating males of small ruminants were satisfactory for breeding (**Table 3**), from which rams and bucks contribute to 86.48% and 82.18%, respectively. The main reasons contributing to the failure of physical examination were body condition, scrotal circumference, and semen color. Relatively higher ram BSE failure (22.15%) was reported [10]. Similarly, confirmation as a reason for ram BSE failure [1] and body condition and semen


*Breeding Soundness Evaluation in Ram and Bucks under Community-Based Breeding… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110240*

> **Table 2.**

*Partial correlation between semen quality parameters.*

#### *Breeding Strategies for Healthy and Sustainable Development of Animal Husbandry*


#### **Table 3.**

*Breeding soundness examination parameters for satisfactory rams.*

character [10], and physical abnormalities [11] was reported. The satisfactory rams can successfully serve above 30 ewes in an unsynchronized free-grazing flock.

The aforementioned failure causes for BSE in mating animals are highly correlated with the season of the year and nutrition [18, 35–37], which indicated that these mating animals can be satisfactory if they are well managed and fed. Poor management may result in rams or bucks that are either not sound for breeding or are culled or die well before the end of their productive lives [2]. Rams and bucks evaluated under these circumferences, therefore, are categorized as questionable those need further evaluation. Besides these, the satisfactory ram should be good in general health, good conformation, normal genital tract, and no previous history of infertility [11]. **Table 3** indicates the average values set for satisfactory mating animals based on different evaluation criteria [1, 4, 6, 11].

#### **4. Conclusion and recommendations**

Implementing BSE as a routine activity under CBBP sites can improve the productivity of participant farmers under the program through the introduction of fertile ram and buck. About 15.77% of the mating animals at CBBP sites of sheep and goats failed in the general breeding soundness examination. The main reasons were physical examination, body condition, scrotal circumference, and semen color, which all can be improved through successful management. The semen characteristics and libido observed in both breeds were better, and it allows conducting artificial insemination to fasten the genetic and economical gain from the program. In areas where there is no laboratory support for semen evaluation, rams and lambs above 22 cm of scrotal circumference at two and lower age, alert and active with no feet, eye, and conformation abnormalities can be selected for mating. If there is a lab facility to evaluate the semen, the above-indicated cutoff values can be considered as a minimum standard for satisfactory ram and buck under BSE. Besides these BSE parameters, rams and bucks with better breeding values based on target traits should also be considered for selection.

• Better management throughout the year could better be implemented for mating and candidate rams and bucks.

*Breeding Soundness Evaluation in Ram and Bucks under Community-Based Breeding… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110240*

• In CBBP sites, it is better to furnish semen evaluation equipment to better evaluate mating animals, and technical capacity on artificial insemination had better be developed to speed up the achievement and gain from the CBBP sites.

#### **Acknowledgements**

Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) gets the honor of the authors for the collaboration and financial support made to this study. The authors express their gratitude to Shanbel Goshme (Coordinator of national sheep research commodity) for his keen collaboration and support made for the success of this activity. Gondar Agricultural Research Center (GARC) and Debre Birhan Agricultural Research Center (DBARC) researchers get the appreciation of the authors for their contribution in the fieldwork.

#### **Author details**

Assemu Tesfa<sup>1</sup> \*, Mesfin Lakew<sup>2</sup> , Chekole Demis<sup>3</sup> , Mulatu Gobeze<sup>4</sup> and Alayu Kidane<sup>5</sup>


© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Arrebola-Molina FA, Almudena S, Francisco JQ, Carlos P, Francisco B, José AA. Semen characteristics of a ram population in southern Spain: An onfarm program of elimination of lowfertility males diagnosed by electro ejaculation. Small Ruminant Research. 2020;**183**(2020):106038. DOI: 10.1016/j. smallrumres.2019.106038

[2] Ridler AL, Smith SL, West DM. Ram and buck management. Animal Reproduction Science. 2012;**130**(2012): 180-183

[3] Mozo R, Ana IG, José LA, Enrique F, José F. Evaluating the reproductive ability of breeding rams in North-Eastern Spain using clinical examination of the body and external genitalia. BMC Veterinary Research. 2015;**11**:289. DOI: 10.1186/s12917-015-0600-9

[4] Rekik. Rams' Breeding Soundness Evaluation. Year Round Management for Rams that are Fit for Successful Reproduction. 2016. Available from: http://www.icarda.org/

[5] Kroeze B. Breeding Soundness Exams. Posted on April 22, 2013 by Ask-a-Vet Sheep. 2013

[6] Pezzanite L, Bridges A, Neary M. Breeding Soundness Examinations of Rams and Bucks. West Lafayette: Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service; 2019

[7] Salhab SA, Zarkawi M, Wardeh MF, Al-Masri MR, Kassem R. Characterization and evaluation of semen in growing Awassi ram lambs. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2003;**35**(5):455-463

[8] Ott RS. Breeding Soundness Examination of Bulls. Urbana:

Department of Veterinary Medicine. College of Veterinary Medicine. University of Illinois; 1991. p. 61801

[9] Fthenakis GC, Karagiannidis A, Alexopoulos C, Brozos C, Saratsis P, Kyriakis S. Clinical and epidemiological findings during ram examination in 47 flocks in southern Greece. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2001;**52**:43-52

[10] Oliveira SR, Jardim JO, Koetz C, Peripolli V, Andrighetto ME, McManus C, et al. 2014. Annual breeding soundness evaluation of rams. Rev Colomb Cienc Pecu. 2014;**27**:133-137

[11] Tibary A, Boukhliq R, El Allali K. Ram and Buck Breeding Soundness Examination. Rev. Mar. Sci. Agron. Vét. 2018;**6**(2):241-255

[12] EIAR (Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research). Livestock Research Strategies: Dairy, Beef, Sheep, Goats and Camels (2016–2030). 2017

[13] Yaregal T. The cost and benefit analysis of climate change adaptation strategies among smallholder crop producers in the case of Sekela district, West Gojjam zone, Ethiopia. Cogent Economics & Finance. 2021;**9**(1): 1999590. DOI: 10.1080/ 23322039.2021.1999590

[14] Tafere M. The Role of Participatory Varietal Selection for seed production in Case, Dabat District, North Western Ethiopia. Global Advanced Research Journal of Agricultural Science. 2012;**1** (9):257-260

[15] Mequannt M, Fikadu Y, Mebrahtu H, Filmon T. Farmers' choices and factors affecting adoption of climate change adaptation strategies: Evidence from northwestern Ethiopia. Heliyon.

*Breeding Soundness Evaluation in Ram and Bucks under Community-Based Breeding… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110240*

2020;**6**(2020):e03867. DOI: 10.1016/j. heliyon.2020.e03867

[16] Yelich J. Fertility and Breeding Evaluation of Bulls. Florida Beef Cattle Short Course. 2008

[17] How to Calculate Sheep or Goat Weight. Available from: https://practica lfarmers.org

[18] Goshme S, Banerjee S, Rekik M, Haile A, Yitagesu E, Getachew T. Evaluation and characterization of semen quality in rams of Menz, Dorper and Awassi crosses in different seasons in Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 2020;**32**(11):2020

[19] Alemgezahu M. Spermatogenesis and Spermatozoa. Lecture note. 2020. Available from: file:///C:/Users/ARARI/ Downloads/lecturenote\_1709115275Spe rmatogenesis%20&%20Sperm%20Func tional%20%20%20%20Morphology.pdf

[20] Rege JEO, Toe F, Mukasa-Mugerwa E, Tembely S, Anindo D, Baker RL, Lahlou-Kassi A. Reproductive characteristics of Ethiopian highland sheep: II. Genetic parameters of semen characteristics and their relationships with testicular measurements. 2000

[21] Bekahegn W. Estrus Synchronization and Artificial Insemination Technologies in Abergelle Goat at Station and on-farm Conditions of Waghemira Zone, Ethiopia. MSc thesis. Bahir Dar Ethiopia: Bahir Dar University; 2019. Available from: https://repo.mel.cgiar.org/handle/ 20.500.11766/10153?show=full

[22] Siddiqua A, Islam N, Rahman M, Khandoker Y, Bari A. Evaluation of semen quality of Black Bengal Goat in Bangladesh. International Journal of Natural and Social Sciences. 2016;**3**(1): 05-09

[23] Khan RA. A quantitative study on semen characteristics of Black Bengal buck [MS thesis]. Mymensingh-2202, Bangladesh: Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Bangladesh Agricultural University; 1999

[24] Islam R, Afroz S, Khandoker Y, Akter S, Rahman S. Semen characteristics of black bengal buck in relation to age, body weight and scrotal circumference. Short Communication. Journal of Bangladesh Agricultural University. 2008;**6**(1):65-71

[25] Koray T, Ali D. Effect of different extenders on motility and some sperm kinematics parameters in Norduz goat semen. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences. 2016;**40**:490-495 accessed at: http://journals.tubitak.gov. tr/veterinary/

[26] Larsen JWA. Ram Reproductive Management. MSD and the MSD Veterinary Manual. 2021. Available from: https://www.msdvetmanual.com

[27] Ugwu SOC. Relationship between scrotal circumference, in situ testicular measurements and sperm reserves in the West African dwarf bucks. African Journal of Biotechnology. 6 Apr 2009;**8** (7):1354-1357. DOI: 10.5897/AJB09.154

[28] Faigl V, Vass N, Jávor A, Kulcsár M, Solti L, Amiridis G, et al. Artificial insemination of small ruminants – A review. Acta Veterinaria Hungarica. 2012; **60**(1):115-129. DOI: 10.1556/ AVet.2012.010

[29] Ahemen T, Bitto II, Anugwa FOI. Semen characteristics of the West African Dwarf Rams in the Southern Guinea Savannah of Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Animal Science. 2011;**2011, 13**:38-44

[30] Petrovic MP, Caro Petrovic V, Ruzic Muslic D, Maksimovic N, Milosevic B,

Stojkovic J. Some important factors affecting fertility in sheep. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry. 2012;**28**(3):517-528

[31] Pankaj KJ, Golam SA, Taohidul I, al Abdullah M, Farida YB. Selection of breeding rams by evaluating semen quality. Journal of Applied Animal Science. 2018;**11**(1):9-20

[32] Tesfaye G, Sisay L, Solomon G, Ayele A. Assessment of Adaptability and Productivity of Washera Rams and its Crosses in the Highlands of Eastern Amhara region of Ethiopia. Unpublished Report. 2009

[33] Melaku S, Kidane A, Abegaz S, Tarekegn A, Tesfa A. Phenotypic characterization of Simien sheep in Simien Mountain Region, Ethiopia. International Journal of Agricultural Bioscience. 2019;**8**(4):178-185. Available from: www.ijagbio.com

[34] Sahi S, Afri-Bouzebda F, Bouzebda Z, Ouennes H, Djaout A. Testicular biometry and its relationship with age and body weight of indigenous bucks (Algeria). Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences. 2019;**7**(10):882-887. DOI: 10.17582/journal.aavs/2019/7.10.882.887

[35] Bagley CV. Breeding Soundness Examination of Rams. Animal Health Fact Sheet: AH/Sheep/02. 1997

[36] Mehari E, Mekonnen H, Azage T. A study on testicular characteristics of Ram Lambs of Arsi Breed Fed on Two Maize Varieties (QPM And BH540). SINET Ethiopia Journal of Science. 2009;**32**(1): 37-44

[37] Vipond J, Morgan C. Ram Management and Purchase. Scotland: Scottish Agricultural College; 2008. No. SC003712. Available from: https:// greyface-dartmoor.org.uk

### Section 3
