Comparative analysis of semen quality and fertility in diverse rooster breeds: a systematic review

SUMMARY

Good semen quality is a vital tool for the rapid improvement of fertility by allowing maximum use of genetically improved roosters. Evaluation of the best quality semen for different chicken breeds increases artificial insemination efficiency and helps to improve chicken production through the wider usage of genetically superior roosters. The main aim of this systematic review is to summarise the fertility responses and semen quality parameters of different poultry strains to provide a summarised clue for breeders working on indigenous poultry breeds. There was a difference in semen volume per ejaculation between breeds’ fertility; however, there was similar semen volume for both Bar Plymouth Rock and Sasso breeds (0.8 mL). The semen volume of Bar Plymouth Rock ranged from 0.3 to 0.8 mL. There was a maximum (86%) of sperm motility in indigenous chickens from Chung University and a lower motility for indigenous chickens at the University of Urmia (29.6%). Viable sperm for Venda chicken was higher (96.8%) than the other breeds, and its performance ranged from 46.7% to 96.8%; however, there was the lowest (13%) sperm viability for Hubbard rooster. The sperm viability for White Leghorn also ranged from 49.7% to 82.5%. The abnormality of sperm was higher (72.6%) for the Rhode Island Red breed but lowest (3.2%) for indigenous chicken from Taiwan and 7% for Dahlem Red. Turkey’s breed was superior for spermatozoa concentration (10.6 × 10⁹/mL) than other rooster breeds. The lowest (1.2 × 10⁹/mL) sperm concentration was reported for Beijing chickens. In terms of the fertility rate, there was a higher (93%) fertility rate for White Leghorn (ranging from 81.7% to 93%) and the lowest (50.6%) fertility rate for South African Naked Neck (ranging from 50.6% to 55.7%. The observed difference in fertility and semen characteristics across the breeds was mainly attributed to the genetic, age, nutrition type, management difference, production type, agroecology difference, collection frequency and collection interval.

KEYWORDS:

• Semen
• fertility
• motility
• viability
• indigenous
• poultry breed

Acknowledgements

The corresponding author would like to thank Bahir Dar and Woldia University given to me the opportunity to study for my PhD program and their contribution to internet and office access. I would like to acknowledge all co-authors for their dedication and consistent advice for the improvement of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Author contributions

Conceptualisation: Bernabas Ayeneshet, Mengistie Taye and Wondmeneh Esatu

Writing, Original Draft: Bernabas Ayeneshet

Review & Editing: Bernabas Ayeneshet, Mengistie Taye, Wondmeneh Esatu and Assemu Tesfa

Additional information

Funding

We did not receive any particular funding for this review. However, under the national postgraduate assistance criteria, Woldia University has supported the corresponding author as a PhD student.