<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJVM</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Veterinary Medicine</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2165-3356</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojvm.2019.93003</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJVM-92593</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Genital Tract Morphopathology of Red Sokoto and West African Dwarf Does in Makurdi
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ibrahim</surname><given-names>Garba</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Philip</surname><given-names>Makama Dawuda</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Iyorhemba</surname><given-names>Utim Ate</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jerry</surname><given-names>Ngutor Abenga</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Veterinary Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Federal University of Agriculture Makurdi, Makurdi, Nigeria</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Theriogenology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Federal University of Agriculture Makurdi, Makurdi, Nigeria</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>23</day><month>05</month><year>2019</year></pub-date><volume>09</volume><issue>03</issue><fpage>21</fpage><lpage>44</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>25,</day>	<month>September</month>	<year>2018</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>26,</day>	<month>March</month>	<year>2019</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>29,</day>	<month>March</month>	<year>2019</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  This study was conducted with the aim to record pathological conditions of the female genital tract of Red Sokoto (RS) and West African Dwarf (WAD) does with the objective of comparing the prevalence of genital tract pathology between the two breeds. Of the 211 (RS) and 221 (WAD) genital tract collected and examined, 104 (49.3%) of RS and 97 (43.3%) of WAD showed different types of pathological conditions. Highest occurrence of pathological conditions found in RS was in the uterus (38.4%), followed by those in the ovary (30.8%), cervix (6.6%), salpinx (6.2%) and vagina (1.4%) while in WAD, pathological conditions were highest in the uterus (28.1%), and followed by ovary (26.8%), salpinx (5.0%), cervix (2.2%) and vagina (0.5%). In RS and WAD does, respectively, endometritis (11.9% and 7.1%) was the most common pathology followed by ovaro-bursal adhesion (10.4% and 5.4%), inactive ovaries (4.3% and 4.9%), cystic Graffian follicles (4.2% and 2.2%), paraovarian cyst (3.3% and 3.1%), uterine haemorrhage (3.8% and 2.7%), and ovarian hypoplasia (2.4% and 4.5%). Other pathological conditions found in RS and WAD does include cervical lesions: cervicitis (2.8% and 1.8%), haemorrhage (3.2% and 0.5%); uterine lesions: hydrometra (1.9% and 1.3%), pyometra (2.8% and 1.8%), mucometra (2.8% and 3.6%), metritis (2.4% and 1.3%), post parturient metritis (2.8% and 1.8%), caruncular atrophy (1.4% and 0.5%), endometrial hyperplasia (1.0% and 1.8%), melanosis (1.9% and 1.8%), post parturient emphysematous metritis (1.4% and 2.2%), perimetritis (1.4% and 2.2%), uterine congestion (1.9% and 2.2%), oedema (1.0% and 0.5%) and 
  Cysticercus tenuicolis cyst (0.5% and 0.5%); esophageal lesions: salpingitis (1.9% and 3.1%), hydrosalpinx (1.0% and 0.5%), tubo-bursal cyst (3.3% and 0.9%), ovarian lesions: cystic corpora lutea (2.8% and 1.8%), oophoritis (0.5% and 1.8%), and 
  Cysticercus tenuicolis cyst (1.0% and 0.9%). Hyperaemia (0.5%) and calcification of cervical caudal rugae (0.5%) occurred in RS only. Genital lesions were not statistically different (P &gt; 0.05) between RS and WAD does. In the two breeds, the 13 - 24 months age group had high prevalence of genital lesions. The current study has shown that endometritis and ovaro-bursal adhesions are the common female genital tract pathological conditions in Red Sokoto and West African Dwarf does. The high prevalence of female genital tract abnormalities may suggest that genital diseases are of serious limitation to goat production in Makurdi.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Female Genital Tract</kwd><kwd> Prevalence</kwd><kwd> Morphopathology</kwd><kwd> Red Sokoto Doe</kwd><kwd> West African Dwarf Doe</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Goat keeping has assumed a key position in the rural development programmes of the developing countries especially Nigeria. This is because they contribute meat, milk, fibre, manure etc. that are useful to rural and semi-urban life. Small ruminants make up the bulk of the population of animals in Nigeria [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref1">1</xref>] and constitute about 63.9% of the total grazing domestic livestock [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref3">3</xref>] . The 2011 National Agricultural Sample Survey indicated Nigeria has an estimated 72.5 million goats and 41.3 million sheep [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref4">4</xref>] .</p><p>The demand for animal protein has been on the increase in Nigeria because of the increase in population over the years which have resulted into increased importation of meat and milk products to supplement the local shortfalls [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref5">5</xref>] . The average daily animal protein consumption per head in Nigeria was put at 15 g/day [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref6">6</xref>] with a further decline to 9.0 g/day [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref2">2</xref>] which is far less than the WHO recommendation of 35 g/day. Regular and successful reproduction is the key to profitable goat production. This entails early attainment of sexual maturity and raising of two crops of kids per year with a twinning rate of 10% - 30% during a doe’s reproductive life [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref8">8</xref>] . This target may not be attained due to reproductive problems among female goats.</p><p>Genital tract abnormalities play an important role in animal production either by causing sub-fertility, infertility or sterility, longer inter-kidding interval, and increased expense on medication in farm resulting in huge economic loss to the livestock owners [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref11">11</xref>] . These disorders can be caused by congenital or hereditary, infectious, nutritional or environmental factors [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref12">12</xref>] .</p><p>The occurrence of genital pathologies has been reported to cause reproductive disturbances ranging from 1.9% to 23.32% in female goats [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref14">14</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref15">15</xref>] . The prevalence of genital pathologies has also been reported to increase with age in female goats [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref16">16</xref>] and between breeds in cows [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref17">17</xref>] .</p><p>Although reports on genital disorders in goats are scanty as compared to cattle and ewes, the information on the prevalence of female genital abnormalities may suggest the role of genital diseases in the limitation to goat production in order to improve their reproductive performance and proffer solutions. However, there is a paucity of information on the prevalence, causes and nature of pathological conditions of the genitalia of female goats especially the Red Sokoto and West African Dwarf does. Hence, the present study was undertaken to investigate abattoir specimens for the prevalence and types of genital tract morphopathologies in female goats.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Study Location</title><p>The study was carried out at the pathology laboratory of the veterinary teaching hospital annex, Federal University of Agriculture, Makurdi. Makurdi is located on the east central part of Nigeria on longitude 8˚35''E and latitude 7˚44''N and has a radius of 16 km. The climate is tropical and the vegetation is predominantly guinea savannah with an annual rainfall of 1090 mm. The area is defined by two seasons: the rainy season lasting from April to October and the dry season lasting from November to March with an average relative humidity of 26.3% to 71.3% throughout the year. The atmospheric temperature ranges from 27.38˚C to 34.09˚C [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref18">18</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Sample Size</title><p>Sample size was determined by using the formula of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref19">19</xref>] at 95% confidence level and prevalence rate of 15.14% as reported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref9">9</xref>] in Maradi Goats, Ibadan, Nigeria. Therefore, at least 200 non-pregnant genital tracts from Red Sokoto and West African Dwarf does, respectively, were collected.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Source of Genital Organs</title><p>Does genital organs sampled for the study were collected after the Halal slaughter procedure from Wurukum and international cattle market abattoirs, respectively, Makurdi, Benue State. Ethical approval for the research was obtained from the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Federal University of Agriculture, Makurdi and National Veterinary Research Institute (NVRI), vom.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Sample Collection and Handling of Genital Organs of Does</title><p>Samples were collected each for at least three days per week from March to September, 2016. Non-pregnant genitalia were used for the study. Age estimation was based on eruption and erosion of pair of incisor teeth pairs as described by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref20">20</xref>] . The animals were grouped into four age groups of 6 to 12, 13 to 24, 25 to 36 and &gt;36 months respectively. Prevalence of genital abnormalities of the two breed and age groups of RS and WAD were recorded. The genital organs of does were collected after evisceration and placed into ice packed well labeled sterile containers then taken to the pathology laboratory, Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Annex, Federal University of Agriculture, Makurdi for examination.</p></sec><sec id="s2_5"><title>2.5. Gross Examination of Genital Organs of RS and WAD Does</title><p>Systematic examination of the doe genital organs was carried out as described by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref21">21</xref>] . Evaluation was done by visual appraisal, palpation and incision. Lesions were examined and described by their size, consistency, colour, shape, smell or location as described by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref22">22</xref>] and the malformation of the different parts of the genital tracts were also observed and recorded. Each reproductive tract was opened by cutting with a pair of sterilized scissors, starting from the vulva, into the vagina through the cervix and uterine body, into each horn, oviduct and finally the ovaries.</p><p>Syringe and needle was used to aspirate fluid/pus into a graduated cylinder to measure the volume (ml). Size, diameter and length of the abnormalities were measured using a meter rule (mm). Follicles and corpus luteum &gt; 12 mm were considered cystic [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref23">23</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s2_6"><title>2.6. Preparation of Tissue Samples for Histological Examination</title><p>The paraffin wax method described by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref24">24</xref>] was used for processing tissue for histological examination. Representative samples were preserved in 10% formalin and processed after proper fixation to make paraffin embedded blocks in Spin tissue processor (STP), 120 Thermoscientific&#174; at the National Veterinary Research Institute, Vom, Plateau State. Tissues were sectioned using a rotary microtome (MICROM HM340E) ThermoScientific&#174; set at 4 micromes, picked onto slides and stained using H&amp;E stain method described by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref25">25</xref>] . The processed slides were examined by light microscopy at various magnifications (&#215;4, &#215;10 and &#215;40). Pathological conditions in various parts of female genital tract were categorized based on characteristic gross as well histopathological features.</p></sec><sec id="s2_7"><title>2.7. Data Analysis</title><p>Descriptive statistics were used to represent the data generated. Chi-square was used to compare association between the prevalence of lesion and breed. Odd ratio was determined to test the correlation between age and lesions.</p><p>Prevalence of abnormalities expressed in percentage was determined using the relationship:</p><p>Prevalence rate ( % ) = Number of does affected Total number of does &#215; 100</p><p>All data analysis was subjected to Graphpad Prism Statistical Software version 7.03 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref26">26</xref>] . P-value was considered significant at P &lt; 0.05.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>The prevalence of doe genital lesions of 104 (49.3%) in Red Sokoto (RS) breed was higher as compared to 97 (43.3%) prevalence in West African dwarf (WAD) breed (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). There was no association between breed and prevalence of genital lesions.</p><p>Genital tract abnormalities with regard to age are shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>. The prevalence of genital lesions among age groups was found in the 13 - 24 months old in both breeds but higher in RS (25.6%) as compared to that in WAD (17.0%). There was no correlation in age and prevalence of genital lesions between RS and WAD does.</p><p>A total of 435 genital tracts of slaughtered does collected from the abattoir were examined of which 176 (83.4%) of RS and 139 (62.0%) of WAD exhibited various types of pathological conditions (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). The pathological conditions were sometimes found as multiple lesions involving various parts of the same genital tract. The prevalence of pathological conditions found on the different parts of the genital tract samples collected were found to be highest in the uterus (38.4%) and (28.1%), followed by the ovary (30.8%) and (26.8%), cervix (6.6%) and (2.2%), oviduct (6.2%) and (5.0%) and vagina (1.4%) and (0.5%) in RS and WAD does, respectively. There was no significant difference (P &gt; 0.05) in the occurrence of pathologies on the different parts of the genital tracts examined between RS and WAD does, respectively.</p><p>The uterus exhibited the highest prevalence of diversity and frequency of lesions in both RS and WAD, however, the occurrence of uterine lesions was higher in RS (38.4%) as compared to that of WAD (28.1%). Various pathological conditions recorded in the uterus on the basis of gross and microscopic lesion are presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>. Endometritis had the highest occurrence among different lesions of the uterus viz: 25 (24%) cases in RS does with prevalence rate of 11.9% and 16 (16.5%) cases in WAD does with a prevalence rate of 7.2% (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). Based on microscopic examination, endometritis in RS and WAD were classifies as chronic (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>) (12.5% and 10.3%), acute (7.7% and 6.2%) and granulomatous endometritis (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>) (3.9% and 0.0%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). Hydrometra (Plate 3) (3.9% and 3.1%), pyometra (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>) (5.8% and 4.1%), uterine hemorrhages (7.7%, and 6.2%), mucometra (5.8% and 8.3%), post parturient metritis (5.8% and 4.1%), metritis (4.8% and 3.1%), uterine melanosis (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref>) (3.9% and 2.1%) and uterine congestions (3.9% and 5.2%) were frequently noticed in RS and WAD, respectively. Other uterine lesions found</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Prevalence of genital lesions in RS and WAD does</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Breed of Doe</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number sampled</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number affected</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Prevalence of lesions (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >RS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >211</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >104</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.3<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >WAD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >224</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.3<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total: 435</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >203</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46.7</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>RS (P = 0.8131, χ2 = 0.9508) and WAD (P = 0.3066, χ2 = 3.612). No significant difference (P &gt; 0.05) between breed and prevalence of genital lesion. Figures with same superscript are not significantly different.</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Age and prevalence of genital lesions in RS and WAD does</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Breed of doe</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Age (month)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number sampled</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number affected</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Prevalence of lesions (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >RS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 &lt; 12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (40.0%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.95</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13 - 24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >103</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54 (52.4%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25 - 36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41(46.1%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (50.0%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >211</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >104</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >WAD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 &lt; 12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (42.1%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13 - 24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38 (42.2%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25 - 36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38 (50.7%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13 (32.5%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >224</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >RS + WAD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 &lt; 12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (41.7%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13 - 24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >193</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >92 (47.7%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25 - 36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >164</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79 (48.2%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 (37.0%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >435</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >201</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46.2</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>RS breed (P = 0.9252, χ2 = 0.471, odd ratio &lt; 1) and WAD breed (P = 0.3066, χ2 = 3.612, odd ratio &lt; 1). No statistical correlation in age and prevalence of genital lesions between RS and WAD does.</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Prevalence of pathologies on different parts of the genital tracts of RS and WAD does</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Parts of genital organ</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Breed</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Prevalence of lesions</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Overall prevalence</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >RS</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >WAD</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >(%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >of lesions (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number of lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >% affected out of 104 genital</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number of lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >% affected out of 97 genital</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >RS (n = 211)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >WAD (n = 224)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(RS + WAD) (n = 435)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >lesion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >lesion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ovary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Oviduct</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Uterus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cervix</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vagina</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >176</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >139</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72.4</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>No significant difference (P &gt; 0.05) in the occurrence of pathologies on the different parts of the genital tracts between RS and WAD, respectively and for the two breeds.</p><p>include: endometrial hyperplasia (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>), uterine oedema, post-paturient emphysematous metrtitis (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7</xref>), perimetritis and Cysticercus tenuicollis cyst (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8">Figure 8</xref>) were also found.</p><p>The prevalence of lesions in the ovary was higher in the RS does (30.6%) as compared to WAD does (26.8%) are shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>. The occurrence of</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Prevalence of uterine lesions in RS and WAD does</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Lesion</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Breed</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Prevalence</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >RS</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >WAD</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >(%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number affected</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >% affected out of 104 genital</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number affected</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >% affected out of 97 genital</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >RS (n = 211)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >WAD (n = 224)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Uterine heamorrhage</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chronic endometritis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Acute endometritis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Granulomatous endometritis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hydrometra</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pyometra</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mucometra</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Metritis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Post parturient metritis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Caruncular atrophy</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Endometrial hyperplasia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Uterine melanosis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Post parturient emphesematous-metritis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Perimetritis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Uterine congestion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cysticercus tenuicolis cyst</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0,5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Uterine oedema</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>No significant difference (P &gt; 0.05) in uterine lesions between RS and WAD.</p><p>ovarian lesions was 62.5% and 61.9% of RS does and WAD does, respectively. However, ovaro-bursal adhesion was the common pathological conditions of the ovary and was higher in RS does (21.2%) as compared to WAD does (12.4%). Bilateral bursal adhesions (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig9">Figure 9</xref>) to the ovary and the oviduct occurred in 10 (9.6%) and 8 (8.3%) cases of RS and WAD does, respectively. However, the right ovary 11 (10.6%) was the most affected in the RS does. Cystic Graffian follicles</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Prevalence of ovarian lesions in RS and WAD does</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Lesion</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Breed</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Prevalence</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >RS</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >WAD</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >(%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number affected</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >% affected out of 104 genital</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number affected</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >% affected out of 97 genital</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >RS (n = 211)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >WAD (n = 224)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ovario-bursal adhesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >tubo-bursal adhesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Follicular cyst</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Luteal cyst</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cystic corpora lutea</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Oophoritis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ovarian hypoplasia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ovarian inactivity</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Paraovarian cyst</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cysticercus tenuicolis cyst</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>No significant difference (P &gt; 0.05) in left and right ovarian lesions between RS and WAD does, respectively. No significant difference (P &gt; 0.05) between left and right ovarian lesions across RS and WAD does.</p><p>(<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>0) included follicular and luteal cysts were found. Follicular cyst occurred in 7(6.7%) and 5 (5.2%) of RS and WAD does, respectively, while luteal cyst 2 (1.9%) was found in RS only. They occurred as single cysts of about 12 mm to 15 mm in diameter and were unilateral. Seven follicular cyst (5-left sided</p><p>and 2-right sided) in RS and five unilateral (2-left sided and 3-right sided) were found. Two cases of right-sided luteal cyst occurred. Follicular cysts were either yellowish or milky white in colour with a transparent wall containing clear fluid which pits on pressure. The cystic follicular walls were thinner and made of degenerative granulosa cells and a partially luteinised thecal cell layer. In cross section, the luteal cysts walls were about thick with meaty like consistency. There was fibrous connective tissue encapsulation around the luteal body, proliferation of connective tissue in the ovarian cortex and multi-layers of lutein granulosa cells with area of vacuolization. One case of cystic follicles was found in association with tubo-bursal cyst in RS of 13 - 24 months old age group. The &gt; 36 months old age group was the most affected.</p><p>Paraovarian cysts (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>1) (1.6%) each of RS and WAD does. They were unilateral (1-left sided and 6-right sided) in RS while in WAD (3-left sided and 4-right sided). The right ovary is the most affected. Inactive ovaries (8.7% and 11.2%) were recorded in RS and WAD does, respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>). Eleven cases were bilateral in both RS and WAD while nine cases were unilateral (1-left sided and 3-right sided in RS while 4-left sided and 1-right sided in WAD). The ovaries were devoid of mature follicles (&lt;4 mm) in diameter and/or corpora lutea and its degenerative stages or hypoplasia in some cases.</p><p>Ovarian hypoplasia (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>2(a)) was found in 5 (4.8%) and 10 (10.3%) of RS and WAD does, respectively, (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>). The prevalence was higher in WAD (4.5%) than in RS (2.5%). One bilateral and two unilateral case in RS while in WAD four are bilateral and six unilateral (4-right sided and 2-left sided) were observed. The ovaries appeared “V”, “C” and bean-shaped with no visible follicles or corpus luteum on the ovaries (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>2(a), <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>2(b)). Histology revealed fibrosis around the oocytes with distortion of zona pellucida. Granulosa theca cells and the tunica albuginea were thickened and the ovarian cortex was reduced in thickness and contained some atretic follicles (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>2(d)).</p><p>Other ovarian lesions found in RS and WAD include: Cysticercus tenuicolis cyst (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>3) (0.5%), Cystic corpora lutea (5.8% and 4.1%), each and Oophoritis (1.0% and 4.1%). There was no significant difference (P &gt; 0.05) in lesions found on left and right ovary between RS and WAD does, respectively.</p><p>The prevalence rate of salpingitis in RS (1.9%) does was lower as compared to WAD (3.1%) does (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>). Hydrosalpinx (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>4) prevalence rate of 1.0% in RS does and 0.5% in WAD does were recorded (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>). Bilateral salpingitis was more common than unilateral (left or right) and occurred more in the RS (3.0%) as compared to that in WAD (2.1%) while unilateral hydrosalpinx was more common and occurred more in RS does (1.0%) each of left and right and only on the left salpinx in WAD doe (1.0%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>). Tubo-bursal cysts (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>5) occurred in 7 (6.7%) of RS and were higher than 2 (2.1%) of WAD does (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>). There was no significant difference (P &gt; 0.05) in lesions found on the left and right salpinx between RS and WAD does, respectively, and between left and right salpingeal lesions in RS and WAD does.</p><p>Cervicitis was higher in RS does (2.8%) as compared to WAD does (1.8%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>). They were characterized by cervical mucosa hyperaemia and lined by thin serosanguinous exudates. Necrosis and sloughing of the mucosal epithelium in few cases and diffuse mucosal infiltration by lymphocytes were observed.</p><p>Haemorrhagic necrotising cervicitis (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>). The external cervical opening was dilated and hemorrhagic (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>6(a)). Necrosis of the cervical wall and diffuse infiltration by lymphocytes and few macrophages were observed microscopically (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>6(b)). Other cervical lesions include: haemorrhage (3.2% and 0.5% in RS and WAD, respectively), and calcification of caudal cervical rugae (0.5%) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>7). There was no significant difference (P &gt; 0.05) in cervical lesions between RS and WAD does.</p><p>The prevalence of vaginal hyperaemia was 0.5% each of RS and WAD does and vaginal haemorrhage occurred in 1.0% of RS and none occurred in WAD</p><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Prevalence of salpingeal lesions in RS and WAD does</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Lesion</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Breed</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Prevalence</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >RS</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >WAD</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >(%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number affected</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >% affected out of 104 genital</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number affected</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >% affected out of 97 genital</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >RS (n = 211)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >WAD (n = 224)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Salpingitis (overall)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >a) Left oviduct</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >b) Right oviduct</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >c) Bilateral</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hydrosalpinx (overall)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >a) Left oviduct</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >b) Right oviduct</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tubo-bursal cyst</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>No significant difference (P &gt; 0.05) in left and right salpingeal lesions between RS and WAD does, respectively.</p><table-wrap id="table7" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref></label><caption><title> Prevalence of cervical lesions in RS and WAD does</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Lesion</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Breed</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Prevalence</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >RS</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >WAD</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >(%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number affected</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >% affected out of 104 genital</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number affected</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >% affected out of 97 genital</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >RS (n = 211)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >WAD (n = 224)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cervicitis (overall)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1) Chronic cervicitis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2) Acute (non-suppurative) Cervicitis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3) Hemorrhagic necrotizing cervicitis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cervical haemorrhages</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Calcification of caudal cervical rugae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Nosignificant difference (P &gt; 0.05) of cervical lesions between RS and WAD does.</p><p>(<xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref>). There was no significant difference (P &gt; 0.05) in vaginal lesions between RS and WAD does.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>Results of the present study show that the occurrence of female genital lesions in the two breeds of 49.3% and 43.3%, respectively, were high compared to the findings of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref22">22</xref>] , in Indian goats [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref15">15</xref>] , in Nigeria and [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref19">19</xref>] in Uganda, who reported prevalence of 1.9% to 23.32% of female genital disorders in goats, respectively. Although no statistical difference (P &gt; 0.05) in the occurrence of genital pathologies between RS and WAD in the present study, the high prevalence may have been due to breed difference and environmental effect.</p><p>The prevalence of genital lesions was highest in the 13 - 24 months age group in RS and WAD breeds, respectively, in the present study. This could mean that</p><table-wrap id="table8" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref></label><caption><title> Prevalence of vaginal lesions in RS and WAD does</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Lesion</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Breed</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Prevalence</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >RS</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >WAD</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >(%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number affected</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >% affected out of 104 genital</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number affected</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >% affected out of 97 genital</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >RS (n = 211)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >WAD (n = 224)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >lesions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vaginal hyperaemia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Haemorrhage</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>No significant difference (P &gt; 0.05) in vaginal lesions between RS and WAD does.</p><p>age is an important intrinsic factor that contributes to the distribution of reproductive abnormalities. This agrees with findings of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref15">15</xref>] and [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref16">16</xref>] who reported that susceptibility to reproductive disease increases with age. Thus, the high occurrence of genital tract pathology in this age group may have been due to their active reproductive age. This is in line with the report of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref27">27</xref>] and [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref28">28</xref>] . Hence, this age group is more prone to different pathological changes of the genital tracts. However, there was no statistical correlation in age and lesions between RS and WAD in this study.</p><p>Pathological conditions of the uterus of RS (38.4%) and WAD (25.6%) were lower than earlier reports of 53.24%, 41.34% and 70% by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref14">14</xref>] and [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref29">29</xref>] in Iranian and India does, respectively, but higher than that reported [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref15">15</xref>] of 14.6% goats.</p><p>Previous studies show that endometritis occurred as the most common pathological condition in caprine uterus collected from local abattoirs [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref30">30</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref31">31</xref>] . The prevalence in RS (11.9%) and WAD (7.2%), however, are higher than the report of 3.9% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref15">15</xref>] , 4% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref14">14</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref31">31</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref32">32</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref33">33</xref>] , 4.46% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref30">30</xref>] , 5.8% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref34">34</xref>] and 5.6% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref11">11</xref>] in goats but lower than the reports of 24.76% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref29">29</xref>] and 13.7% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref35">35</xref>] in ewes. The cause could be due to unhygienic management practices or ascending infections, though not life-threatening, it may cause embryonic loss by disruption of uterine tissue or by direct cytolysis of embryo [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref36">36</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref37">37</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref38">38</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref39">39</xref>] .</p><p>Chronic endometritis in this study was higher than reports of 3.8% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref11">11</xref>] , 3.9% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref15">15</xref>] , and 0.9% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref40">40</xref>] in goats. Chronic endometritis is usually associated with varying degrees of infertility depending on the extent of endometrial damage. Acute endometritis with prevalence of 3.8% and 2.7% of RS and WAD does, respectively, in this studies was higher than similar reports of 1.36% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref11">11</xref>] and 2.0% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref15">15</xref>] in goats and 0.5% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref41">41</xref>] and 0.45% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref42">42</xref>] in ewes.</p><p>Uterine haemorrhage was reported in 30 out of 1200 (2.5%) goats [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref15">15</xref>] , which was much lower than current findings. Although the high figures in this study may have been due to sample size. Average occurrence of hydrometra in Brazilian and Dutch dairy goats was reported to be 10.4% and 9% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref43">43</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref44">44</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref45">45</xref>] , respectively. These finding were much higher than 1.9% (RS) and 1.3% (WAD) in the present study. Ithas been observed that difference in breeds of goats does nothave any influence on hydrometra incidence [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref46">46</xref>] . Hydrometra have been shown to cause infertility by interfering with embryo attachment to the endometrium as a result of glandular changes thereby impeding the success of pregnancy [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref47">47</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref48">48</xref>] .</p><p>Occurrence of pyometra in this study was consistent with other reports in ewes, does and cattle [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref17">17</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref32">32</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref42">42</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref49">49</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref50">50</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref51">51</xref>] . Other studies reported lower findings of 0.4%, 0.1% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref41">41</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref52">52</xref>] , respectively, in ewes and does. However, the prevalence of 81.8% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref53">53</xref>] in goats, 8.0%, 100%, and 7.1% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref53">53</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref54">54</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref55">55</xref>] , respectively, in ewes, were higher than figures obtained in this study. Pyometra may ensue when sufficient damage to endometrium occur, thereby preventing PGF<sub>2α</sub> production to lyse corpus luteum with persistent production of progesterone causing closure of the cervix and making the uterus more susceptible to infection and prohibits pregnancy success [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref55">55</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref56">56</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref57">57</xref>] . Poor reproductive management (postpartum care, unhygienic environment) and genital infections predisposed by postpartum complications (dystocia, abortion, retained fetal membranes, coitus and a prolonged luteal phase) have been reported to cause pyometra [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref50">50</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref58">58</xref>] .</p><p>Salpingitis (1.9%) and (3.1%) in RS and WAD, respectively, in this study were higher than previous reports in goat of 0.45%, 0.8%, 0.3% and 0.57% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref34">34</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref49">49</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref59">59</xref>] , respectively, but lower than the report of 3.7% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref9">9</xref>] . It has been commonly associated with secondary or nonspecific infections ascending from the uterus [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref60">60</xref>] . Bilateral hydosalpinx causes sterility but unilateral hydroslpinx and mild salpingitis have been reported to cause varying degrees of infertility in goats since the sloughed or degenerated epithelium is unable to support ovum survival [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref36">36</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref60">60</xref>] . Hydrosalpinx, like hydrometra, can lead to infertility and subfertility, since intraluminal fluid interferes with embryo attachment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref48">48</xref>] .</p><p>Most of the ovaro-bursal adhesions in this study occurred unilaterally (right-sided)in association with inflammatory conditions of uterus, ovary and salpinx and the figures obtained in RS (10.4%) and WAD (5.4%) were higher compared to3.7%, 0.45%, 1.9% and 2.99% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref61">61</xref>] in goats, respectively. The result of this study is consistent with 6.36% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref52">52</xref>] reported in ewes. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref15">15</xref>] reported that chronic pelvic inflammatory reaction sequential to previous abortions or post-partum complications seems to be the cause of ovaro-bursal adhesions. The incidence was more prevalent in the RS compared to WAD does. Ovaro-bursal and tubo-bursal adhesions can cause infertility by interfering with ovulation and/or the passage of ova into the oviduct [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref61">61</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref62">62</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref63">63</xref>] .</p><p>The prevalence of cystic Graffian follicle in RS (4.3%) and WAD (2.2%) in this study were lower than reports of 1.2%, 0.9% and 0.41% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref61">61</xref>] in does, respectively, 1.14% and 0.6% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref41">41</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref64">64</xref>] in ewes, respectively and 1.88% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref59">59</xref>] in cows but consistent with finding of 4.3% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref65">65</xref>] in ewes. One case of follicular cyst was found in association with tubo-bursal cyst which agrees with similar finding in goat [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref9">9</xref>] . Cystic ovarian disease is idiopathic; insufficient releases of luteinising hormone, heredity, phosphorous deficiency and oestrogenic pastures have been implicated as the cause [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref66">66</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref67">67</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref68">68</xref>] .</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref55">55</xref>] and [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref61">61</xref>] reported 1.0% and 0.55% of ovarian hypoplasia in ewes and does, respectively, which were lower than the 2.4% in RS does and 4.5% in WAD in this study. Ovarian hypoplasia in this study was characterized by the incomplete development or ovarian dysgenesis and ovary lacking in primordial follicles. The cause could not be established in this study but like many other ovarian abnormalities, it can cause anestrous.</p><p>The prevalence Cysticercus tenuicolis cysts of 1.5% in RS and 1.4% in WAD in this study were higher than previous reports of 0.1% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref9">9</xref>] . They were found on the uterine body and attached to the ovarian pole and occurred bilateraly and unilateral in this study. This agrees with previous report by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref23">23</xref>] . Cysticercus tenuicolis cysts and paraovarian cysts can impair fertility if exerting pressure on the oviduct [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref23">23</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref69">69</xref>] .</p><p>Cervicitis usually occurs with an overshadowing endometritis or vaginitis [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref59">59</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref68">68</xref>] , trauma (during kidding), cervical infection or unhygienic management practices in kidding pens are possible causes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref9">9</xref>] . The prevalence in this study of 2.8% (RS) and 1.8% (WAD) were higher than other documented findings of 1.4% and 0.7% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref39">39</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref42">42</xref>] , respectively, in Iraqi ewes. However, [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref11">11</xref>] reported a higher prevalence of 6.4% than the figures obtained in this study.</p><p>The abnormalities of the vagina in this study could be due to vaginal trauma e.g. during kidding, natural breeding [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref3">3</xref>] , extension of utero-cervical hemorrhages [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref11">11</xref>] orinfections [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.92593-ref70">70</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>The prevalence of genital tract pathology is higher in the RS (49.3%) as compared to WAD (43.3%) breeds but is not statistically significant (P &gt; 0.05). The two breeds suffer from genital pathologies which were predominated by the uterus, followed by those in the ovary, cervix, salpinx and vagina. Endometritis is the most common pathological lesion found followed by ovaro-bursal adhesions. Genital tract pathologies occur more in the 13 - 24 months old group which is the most active reproductive age. The genital pathologies found may cause varying degrees and potential infertility or sterility in does. The findings of this study will give a window to investigation of genital disorders on the farm and seasonal variation incidences to ascertain their possible impact on the reproductive performance of does.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>The assistance and cooperation rendered by the abattoir workers during sample collection for this study is gratefully acknowledged. The authors are thankful to the Directors, Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Federal University of Agriculture, Makurdi (FUAM) and National Veterinary Research Institute (NVRI), Vom, for providing necessary facilities for this study.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Garba, I., Dawuda, P.M., Ate, J.I. and Abenga, U.N. (2019) Genital Tract Morphopathology of Red Sokoto and West African Dwarf Does in Makurdi. Open Journal of Veterinary Medicine, 9, 21-44. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojvm.2019.93003</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.92593-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Food and Agriculture Organization (2006) FAOSTAT Database. FAO, Rome.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Larmode, A.G. (1997) Animal Health and Nutrition as a Major Constraint to Improving Livestock Productivity. Paper Presented at National Workshop on Improving Agricultural Productivity of Peasant Farmers in Nigeria, 10 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Lawal-Adebowale, O.A. (2012) Dynamics of Ruminant Livestock Management in the Context of the Nigerian Agricultural System. In: Javed, K., Ed., Livestock Production, IntechOpen, London, 61 p. https://doi.org/10.5772/52923</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">News Agency of Nigeria (2016).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Baba, S.S., Bobbo, A.G., Akoma, M.B. and Osiyemi, T.I. (1994) Slaughter House Survey for Antibodies against Selected Ruminant Sera in Maiduguri, Borno State, Nigeria. Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health, 95, 55-62.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Abdullahi, A.K. (1985) An Economic Analysis of a Settlement Model for Fulani Pastoralists in Sokoto State of Nigeria. PhD Thesis, School of Agriculture, University of Nottingham, Leicestershire, 197 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cupps, P.T. (1991) Reproduction in Domestic Animals. 4th Edition, Academic Press Inc., Cambridge, 491-508.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ogwal-Okwot (2000) The Role of Livestock in the Eradication of Protein under Nutrition in Uganda. Uganda Veterinary Journal, 6, 169.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Francis, M. (2009) Caprine Ovarian and Uterine Lesions: An Abattoir Survey. M.Sc. Thesis, Makerere University, Kampala, 6-42.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fatima, B. (2011) Cystic Endometrial Hyperplasia in Algerian Goats and Ewes. Veterinary Scan, 6, Article 84.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Beena, V., Pawaiya, N., Shivasharanappa, K., Gururaj, V.K., Gupta, N.K., Gangwar, D.D., Singh, M., Karikalan, A.K., Sharma, H.K.A., Kumar and Singh, R. (2015) Occurrence of Pathological Conditions in the Female Genitalia of Goats. Indian Journal of Veterianry Pathology, 39, 197-201. https://doi.org/10.5958/0973-970X.2015.00049.8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wekhe, S.N. and Yahaya, M.A. (1999) Prevalence of Reproductive Abnormalities among Slaughtered House Animals in Port Harcourt City. Tropical Journal of Animal Science, 1, 175-180. https://doi.org/10.4314/tjas.v1i2.49611</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Virmani, N. (1993) Studies on Pathology of Female Genital Tract of Sheep and Goats. MVSc. Thesis, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, 56 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Archana, S., Vijay, M., Anita, B. and Indu, V. (2013) Pathological Study on Occurrence of Various Reproductive Diseases in Goats at Rajasthan. Journal of Immunology and Immunopathology, 15, 134.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ogunbodede, M.A., Oladele, G.M., Ode, O.J. and Ubah, S.A. (2014) Survey of Gross Abnormalities and Microbial Load on the Female Reproductive Tract of Maradi Goats Slaughtered at Bodija Abattoir, Nigeria. Advanced Journal of Agricultural Research, 2, 001-007.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Butswat, I.S.R., Kalla, D.J.U., Mbap, S.T., Molokwu, J.U. and Chuo, R.B. (2001) Evaluation of the Reproductive Problems of the Friesians, Bunajis and Crossed Cows in Subtropical Environment. Nigerian Journal of Animal Production, 28, 123-127.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Simenew, K., Bekana, M., Fikre, L., Tilahun, Z. and Wondu, M. (2011) Major Gross Reproductive Tract Abnormalities in Female Cattle Slaughtered at Sulta Slaughterhouses in Ethiopia. Global Veterinaria, 6, 506-513.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Omudu, E.A. and Amuta, E.U. (2007) Parasitology and Urban Livestock Farming in Nigeria: Prevalence of Ova in Faecal and Soil Samples and Animal Ectoparasites in Makurdi. The South African Veterinary Association, 78, 271-278. https://doi.org/10.4102/jsava.v78i1.285</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Thrushfield, M. (1997) Veterinary Epidemiology. 2nd Edition, Butterworths Limited, London, 20 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Williamson, G. and Payne, W.J. (1984) An Introduction to Animal Husbandry in the Tropics. 4th Edition, ELBS and Longman, Essex, 1098 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Drennan, W.G. and Macpherson, J.W. (1966) The Reproductive Tract of Bovine Slaughter Heifers (a Biometrical Study). Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine and Veterinary Science, 30, 224-227.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Assey, R.J., Kessy, B.M., Matovelo, J.A. and Minga, U. (1998) Incidence of Gross Reproductive Abnormalities in Small East African Zebu Cattle. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 30, 361-368. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005144721298</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Smith, K.C., Parkinson, T.J. and Long, S.E. (1999) Abattoir Survey of Acquired Reproductive Abnormalities in Ewes. Veterinary Record, 144, 491-496. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.144.18.491</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Avwioro</surname><given-names> O.G. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2011</year>)<article-title>Staining Reactions of Microwave Processed Tissues Compared with Conventional Paraffin Wax Processed Tissues</article-title><source> European Journal of Experimental Biology</source><volume> 1</volume>,<fpage> 57</fpage>-<lpage>62</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kiernan, J.A. (1990) Histological and Histochemical Methods: Theory and Practice. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 433 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">GraphPad Software Inc. (2016) GraphPad Prism Version 7.03.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Arthur, G.H., Noakes, D.E. and Pearson, H. (1983) Veterinary Reproduction and Obstetrics (Theriogenology). 6th Edition, Bailliere Tindall, London, 444-456.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Matthews, J. (2001) Diseases of the Goat. Blackwell Science, Hoboken, 1-51.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kassim, F., Abdul-Kareem, A., Al-Mayah, A.S. and Kaisar, D. (2007) Abnormalities of Reproductive Organs in Ewes: A Prospective Histopathological Study. Basrah Journal of Veterinary Research, 6, 97-107.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ijapure, K.P., Singh, B.K. and Chauhan, R.A.S. (2002) Incidence of Pathological Affections of Genitalia in She Goats. Indian Veterinary Journal, 79, 298-299.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Reddy, K.C.S., Reddy, V.S.C. and Rao, A.S. (1997) Studies on the Incidence of Reproductive Abnormalities in Local Non-Descript Female Goats. Indian Journal of Animal Reproduction, 18, 51-53.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Biswas, H.C. (2013) Gross and Histopathological Study of Reproductive Tract of Indigenous Ewe. Ms Thesis, Department of Surgery and Obstetrics, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh, 60 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ramachandran, K., Iyer, C.P.N. and Nair, K.P. (1984) Pathological Conditions in the Bursa, Salpinx and Uterus of Does. Kerala Journal of Veterianry Science, 15, 112-117.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Roy, B. (2001) Pathology of Female Reproductive System of Goats in Mymensingh District of Bangladesh. MS Thesis, Department of Pathology, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 30-42.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dhurova, I., Mrinov, M., Marinov, P. and Tashev, S. (1985) Morphological Changes in the Genitalia of Culled Sheep. Veterinarno-Medicinski Nauki, 22, 43-52.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Acland, A.M. (2001) Reproductive System: Female. In: Thomson’s Special Veterinary Pathology, 3rd Edition, Mosby Inc., St. Louis, 601-614.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gilbert, R.O., Yang, X., Jiang, S., Schlafer, D.H.V., Saluste, V. and Scheytt, A. (1995) Effects of Aseptic Inflammation on Development of Bovine Embryos In-Vivo and In-Vitro. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Society for Theriogenology, San Antonio, 1995, 312 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hansen, P.J., Soto, P. and Natzke, R.P. (2004) Mastitis and Fertility in Cattle, Possible Involvement of Inflammation or Immune Activation in Embryonic Mortality. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology, 51, 294-301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0897.2004.00160.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sheldon, I.M. and Dobson, H. (2004) Postpartum Uterine Health in Cattle. Animal Reproductive Science, 82-83, 295-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2004.04.006</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Timurkaan, F. and Ozer, H. (2002) Uterus Didelphys in a Goat. Veterinary Record, 151, 217. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.151.7.217</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Benchaib, F. and Aldahash, S.Y. (2002) Gross Abnormalities Affecting Genital Tracts of Algerian Ewes, Assiut, Egypt. Veterinary Medical Journal, 47, 199-203.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Timurkaan, F. and Karadas, E. (2000) Morphological Investigations on Pathological Changes of the Female Reproductive Organs in Goats: Ovarium and Oviduct. F&amp;#305;rat üniversitesi Sa&amp;#287;l&amp;#305;k Bilimleri Dergisi, 14, 197-207.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hesselink, J.W. and Elving, L. (1996) Pedigree Analysis in a Herd of Dairy Goats with Respect to the Incidence of Hydrometra. Veterinary Quarterly, 18, 24-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01652176.1996.9694607</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lopes, J.E.S., Cruz, J.F., Teixeira, D.I., Limaverde, J.B., Paula, N.R., Rondina, D. and Freitas, V.J. (2004) Pseudopregnancy in Saneen Goats (Capra hircus) Raised in North East Brazil (Abstract). Veterinary Research Communications, 28, 119. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:verc.0000012112.79820.e0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Moraes</surname><given-names> E.P.B.X. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2007</year>)<article-title>Hydrometra and Mucometra in Goats Diagnosed by Ultrasound and Treated with PGF2α</article-title><source> Medicina Veterinaria</source><volume> 1</volume>,<fpage> 33</fpage>-<lpage>39</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wittek, T., Richter, A., Erices, J. and Elze, K. (1997) Incidence, Diagnosis, Therapy and Subsequent Fertility in Goats with Hydrometra. Tier&amp;#228;rztliche Praxis, 25, 576-582.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ben-Rafael, Z. and Orvieto, R. (1992) Cytokine Involvement in Reproduction. Fertility and Sterility, 58, 1093-1099. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)55548-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chien, L.W., Au, H.K., Xiao, J. and Tzeng, C.R. (2002) Fluid Accumulation within the Uterine Cavity Reduces Pregnancy Rates in Women Undergoing IVF. Human Reproduction, 17, 351-356. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.2.351</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ahmed</surname><given-names> J.U. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1993</year>)<article-title>Incidence of Gynaeco-Obstetrical Disorders in Black Bengal Goats</article-title><source> BAU Research Progress</source><volume> 7</volume>,<fpage> 499</fpage>-<lpage>505</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Kennedy, P.C. and Miller, R.B. (1993) The Female Genital System. In: Jubb, K.V.F., Kennedy, P.C. and Palmer, N., Eds., Pathology of Domestic Animals, 4th Edition, Academic Press, San Diego, 349-454. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-391607-5.50012-1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Khammas, D.J., Ibrahim, N.S., Buni, F.E. and Alwan, A.F. (2013) Macroscopic Study of Lesions Affecting Genital Tract of Iraqi Ewes. The Iraqi Journal of Veterinary Medicine, 37, 266-268.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Iqbal, M., Safri, S.A. and Khan, S.S. (1992) A Research Note: Incidence of Various Reproductive Disorders in Female Teddy Goats in Different Age Groups. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research, 13.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Neils, J.S., Abdu, P.A. and Sackey, A.K.B. (2009) Some Reproductive Disorders of the Indigenous Sheep and Goats in Zaria, Northern Nigeria. Nigerian Veterinary Journal, 30, 46-50. https://doi.org/10.4314/nvj.v30i1.65160</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ahammad, S.Md., Rashedul, I., Rakesh, K.Y., Rupaly, A. and Jalal, U.A. (2015) Prevalence of Different Reproductive Disorders of Small Ruminants in Five Upazillas of Mymensingh District. Asian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 1, 74-79. https://doi.org/10.3329/ajmbr.v1i1.25501</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Saberivand, A. and Haghighi, M. (2006) Acquired Reproductive Tract Abnormalities of Ewes in Northwest of Iran: An Abattoir Survey. Iranian Journal of Veterinary Research, 7, 14.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ramadan, A.A., Johnson, G.L. and Lewis, G.S. (1997) Regulation of Uterine Immune Function during the Estrous Cycle and in Response to Infectious Bacteria in Sheep. Journal of Animal Science, 75, 1621-1632. https://doi.org/10.2527/1997.7561621x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lewis, G.S. (2003) Steroidal Regulation of Uterine Resistance to Bacterial Infection in Livestock. Reproduction Biology and Endocrinology, 1, 117. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-1-117</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ababneh, A.M. and Degefa, T. (2007) Bacteriological Findings and Hormonal Profiles in the Post-Partum Balady Goats. Reproductive Domestic Animal, 4, 12-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2006.00638.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hatipoglu, F., Ortatatli, M., Kiran, M.M., Erer, H. and Ciftci, M.K. (2002) An Abattoir Study of Genital Pathology in Cows: II. Uterus, Cervix and Vagina. Revue de Medicine Veterinaire, 153, 93-100.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jubb, K.V.F., Kennedy, P.C. and Palmer, N.C. (2007) Pathology of Domestic Animals. 5th Edition, Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia, 2340 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Abdul, S. and Khan, M.Z. (1988) Incidence and Pathology of Ovarian Diseases of Goat. Pakistan Veterinary Journal, 8, 18-21.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Herenda</surname><given-names> D. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1987</year>)<article-title>An Abattoir Survey of Reproductive Organ Abnormalities in Beef Heifers</article-title><source> Canadian Veterinary Journal</source><volume> 28</volume>,<fpage> 33</fpage>-<lpage>37</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Farin, P.W. and Estill, C.T. (1993) Infertility Due to Abnormalities of the Ovaries in Cattle. Veterinary Clinical North America Food Animal Practice, 9, 291-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-0720(15)30647-2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Khodakaram-Tafti</surname><given-names> A. and Davari </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2013</year>)<article-title>A Congenital and Acquired Abnormalities of Reproductive Tract of Non-Pregnant Ewes Slaughtered in Fars Province, Shiraz University, Iran</article-title><source> Iranian Journal of Veterinary Research</source><volume> 14</volume>,<fpage> 140</fpage>-<lpage>144</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Regassaa, F., Mengeshaa, D., Dargiea, M. and Tolosab, T. (2009) Abattoir Evidence on Association between Uterine and Ovarian Abnormalities in Ethiopian Highland Ewes. Journal of Animal Science, 111, 384-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2008.03.020</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Arthur, G.H., Noakes, D.E. and Pearson, H. (1983) Veterinary Reproduction and Obstetrics (Theriogenology). 6th Edition, Balliere Tindal, 59, 444-456.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Smith, K.C., Morgan, K.L. and Parkinson, T.J. (1996) Mating Patterns and Reproductive Wastage in Commercial Lowland Ewes in West Somerset. Veterinary Record, 139, 563-566.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jones, T.C., Hunt, D.R. and King, W.N. (1997) Veterinary Pathology. 6th Edition, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, 1149-1221.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Smith, K.C., Long, S.E. and Parkinson, T.J. (1998) Abattoir Survey of Congenital Reproductive Abnormalities in Ewes. Veterinary Record, 143, 679-685.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.92593-ref70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Martins, G., Figueira, L., Penna, B., Brand&amp;#227;o, F., Varges, R., Vasconcelos, C. and Lilenbaum, W. (2009) Prevalence and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Vaginal Bacteria from Ewes Treated with Progestin-Impregnated Intravaginal Sponges. Small Ruminant Research, 81, 182-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2008.12.003</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>