The cattle breeding industry, through both of its derivatives (dairy and beef), provides 81% of milk and 22% of meat required globally. If a breeding bull is sub-fertile, this impacts herd conception and birth rates, and it is generally accepted that having a proactive genetic screening programme can prevent further losses. Chromosome translocations are the leading genetic cause of infertility in livestock and, in cattle, this extends beyond the classical 1:29 to other Robertsonian translocations (RobTs) and to reciprocal translocations (RECTs). The incidence of both (collectively termed RTs) varies between breeds and herds; however, we estimate that RECTs are, most likely, at least twice as common as RobTs. The purpose of this study was to develop an industry economic model to estimate the financial impact of an RT event at the herd level. If we assume a conservative incidence rate of 0.4% for Rob1:29 with each one impacting the conception rate by 5%, we calculate that actively screening for and removing a Rob1:29 bull could benefit an impacted herd by GBP 2.3 million (approx. USD 2.8 million) over six years. A recently updated screening protocol developed in our lab for all RTs, however (with a projected combined incidence of 1.2%, impacting conception rates by 10%), could benefit an impacted herd by GBP 7.2 million (nearly USD 9 million) for each RT found. For an industry worth USD 827.4 billion (dairy) and USD 467.7 billion (beef), expanding knowledge on incidence and further dissection of the potential costs (financial and environmental) from RTs is essential to prevent further losses.

Pigs (Sus scrofa) have vast economic importance, with pork accounting for over 30% of the global meat consumption. Chromosomal abnormalities, and in particular reciprocal translocations (RTs), are an important cause of hypoprolificacy (litter size reduction) in pigs. However, these do not necessarily present with a recognizable phenotype and may cause significant economic losses for breeders when undetected. Here, we present a reappraisal of the incidence of RTs across several European pig herds, using contemporary methodology, as well as an analysis modelling the economic impact of these abnormalities. Molecular cytogenetic investigation was completed by karyotyping and/or multiprobe FISH (fluorescence in situ hybridisation) between 2016–2021, testing 2673 animals. We identified 19 types of chromosome abnormalities, the prevalence of these errors in the database was 9.1%, and the estimated incidence of de novo errors was 0.90%. Financial modelling across different scenarios revealed the potential economic impact of an undetected RT, ranging from £69,802 for an individual affected terminal boar in a commercial farm selling weaned pigs, to £51,215,378 for a genetics company with an undetected RT in a dam line boar used in a nucleus farm. Moreover, the added benefits of screening by FISH instead of karyotyping were estimated, providing a strong case for proactive screening by this approach.

Translational regenerative medicine, integrating human and veterinary approaches within the "One Health" framework, increasingly uses horses as models for human musculoskeletal conditions due to shared anatomical and functional features. Osteoarthritis and tendon disorders affect both species, often resulting from high-impact or repetitive strain activities. Regenerative medicine offers therapeutic opportunities by promoting tissue repair and modulating inflammation. Cellular orthobiologics such as mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (MSCs) show promise for treating osteoarthritis and tendon injuries in humans and horses, while non-cellular orthobiologics-including platelet-rich plasma, interleukin-1 receptor antagonist protein, and alpha-2 macroglobulin-provide growth factors and anti-inflammatory molecules that support tissue regeneration. However, challenges remain, including variable product manufacture, inconsistent MSC isolation and characterization protocols (particularly in equine applications), and regulatory or public scepticism toward these therapies. Standardized production methods and improved clinical integration are needed. Combinatory use of cellular and non-cellular orthobiologics offers strong translational potential to improve musculoskeletal repair across species.

The standard method for identification of male fertility status is a semen analysis. This is performed in fertility and pathology laboratories accredited by different bodies in the UK such as the HFEA or UKAS, and is based on whether they perform licenced clinical treatment or diagnostic testing. The WHO laboratory semen analysis criteria provide the most comprehensive guidance for best practice, yet this is not strictly adhered to. Our objective was to determine any differences in semen analyses between laboratories in the UK, based on the regulatory body they are registered with. A cross‐sectional survey was sent to NEQAS for andrology registrants (n = 184 laboratories), HFEA (n = 117 clinics), and individual ARCS members (n = 682). Most ARCS members are associated with NEQAS and/or the HFEA. A ∼50% laboratory response rate (n = 106 included responses) was found. Results were grouped based on accreditation: Group 1, UKAS accredited only (n = 38); Group 2, both UKAS accredited and HFEA licenced (n = 17); Group 3, HFEA licenced only (n = 42); and Group 4, no accreditation (n = 9). Over 85% of UKAS accredited laboratories (Groups 1 and 2) state they perform semen analysis according to WHO 2010 recommendations and adhere to best practice guidelines. A significantly fewer number of HFEA only laboratories (<74% Group 3, p < 0.01) adhere to both guidelines. Non‐HFEA laboratories (Groups 1 and 4) are almost all performing sperm counts according to WHO criteria, while <60% HFEA clinics (Groups 2 and 3) perform counts according to regulation (Group 1 vs. Groups 2 and 3: Fixed sperm, p < 0.05; Neubauer chamber: p < 0.005). QC is implemented in most laboratories, however there is a significant difference (p < 0.01) between non‐UKAS (Groups 3 and 4) and UKAS laboratories (Groups 1 and 2). There is a significant difference in semen analysis performance between UKAS and HFEA laboratories with regards to implementation of best practice guidelines and QC procedures. This may have a detrimental effect on result accuracy and consequently lead to patient misdiagnosis and mismanagement.