Abbreviation key: NS = natural service breeding system, AI = artificial insemination, BV = breeding value, RBV = relative breeding value



Similar documents
Genetic improvement: a major component of increased dairy farm profitability

Evaluations for service-sire conception rate for heifer and cow inseminations with conventional and sexed semen

Genomic Selection in. Applied Training Workshop, Sterling. Hans Daetwyler, The Roslin Institute and R(D)SVS

Robust procedures for Canadian Test Day Model final report for the Holstein breed

The impact of genomic selection on North American dairy cattle breeding organizations

Scope for the Use of Pregnancy Confirmation Data in Genetic Evaluation for Reproductive Performance

NAV routine genetic evaluation of Dairy Cattle

MINISTRY OF LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT SMALLHOLDER DAIRY COMMERCIALIZATION PROGRAMME. Artificial Insemination (AI) Service

Genomics: how well does it work?

Artificial Insemination (AI) in Cattle

Major Advances in Globalization and Consolidation of the Artificial Insemination Industry

ANS 3319C Reproductive Physiology and Endocrinology Artificial Insemination in Cattle. Objectives. What are the advantages and disadvantages of AI?

Genetic parameters for female fertility and milk production traits in first-parity Czech Holstein cows

Genomic selection in dairy cattle: Integration of DNA testing into breeding programs

Reproductive technologies. Lecture 15 Introduction to Breeding and Genetics GENE 251/351 School of Environment and Rural Science (Genetics)

vision evolving guidelines

How To Read An Official Holstein Pedigree

Four Systematic Breeding Programs with Timed Artificial Insemination for Lactating Dairy Cows: A Revisit

SUMMARY Contribution to the cow s breeding study in one of the small and middle sizes exploitation in Dobrogea

Characterization of Pasture- Based Dairy Farms in Florida and Georgia

COMPARISON OF FIXED-TIME ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION VS. NATURAL SERVICE IN BEEF COWS: REPRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY AND SYSTEM COST

ANP 504 : ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION COURSE LECTURERS

INTRODUCTION. The identification system of dairy cattle; The recording of production of dairy cattle; Laboratory analysis; Data processing.

PRODUCERS can choose to use natural

A POWERFUL IN VITRO FERTILIZATION

STRATEGIES FOR DAIRY CATTLE BREEDING TO ENSURE SUSTAINABLE MILK PRODUCTION 1

Dr. G van der Veen (BVSc) Technical manager: Ruminants gerjan.vanderveen@zoetis.com

Breeding for Carcass Traits in Dairy Cattle

Presentation by: Ahmad Alsahaf. Research collaborator at the Hydroinformatics lab - Politecnico di Milano MSc in Automation and Control Engineering

Investing in genetic technologies to meet future market requirements and assist in delivering profitable sheep and cattle farming

Increasing Profitability Through an Accelerated Heifer Replacement Program

Impact of reproductive technologies on improved genetics in beef cattle

Dairy Data Flow Challenges and Opportunities

Economics of Estrus Synchronization and Artificial Insemination. Dr. Les Anderson and Paul Deaton University of Kentucky

The All-Breed Animal Model Bennet Cassell, Extension Dairy Scientist, Genetics and Management

::: Check out Poos Stadel Classic s full proof at ::: Poos Stadel Classic

RATES OF CONCEPTION BY ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION OF. 1 Miss. Rohini Paramsothy Faculty of Agriculture University of Jaffna

G. Cliff Lamb. North Florida Research and Education Center, Marianna, Florida University of Florida. Introduction

Replacement Heifers Costs and Return on Investment Calculation Decision Aids

ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION STUDY

ANIMAL SCIENCE RESEARCH CENTRE

1. About dairy cows. Breed of dairy cows

Australian Santa Gertrudis Selection Indexes

Dr. Marija Klopčič, Biotechnical Faculty (Department of Animal Science), University of Ljubljana (27 to 28 April 2015)

REPRODUCTION AND BREEDING Crossbreeding Systems for Beef Cattle

EFFICIENCY OF TREATMENT OF FOLLICULAR CYSTS IN COWS

Third International Scientific Symposium "Agrosym Jahorina 2012"

Artificial Insemination in Dairy Cattle 1

Artificial insemination:

Herd Navigator and reproduction management

EBLEX BEEF BRP MANUAL 4. Beef production from the dairy herd

Natural Breeding vs. Artificial Insemination: A Cost Comparison Analysis. By Patrick Jacobsen

Sustainability of dairy cattle breeding systems utilising artificial insemination in less developed countries - examples of problems and prospects

New York Science Journal 2014;7(9)

Cattlemen s Corner Beef Newsletter

AgSourceDM.com features

Proceedings, Applied Reproductive Strategies in Beef Cattle September 11 and 12, 2007, Billings, Montana NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR REPRODUCTION IN CATTLE

Pregnancy Rates Per Artificial Insemination for Cows and Heifers Inseminated at a Synchronized Ovulation or Synchronized Estrus 1

K.I. SAMEN. With a lot of pleasure we present you the first international newsletter of K.I. SAMEN b.v.

Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D.

It is well known that daughters of sires available

Replacement Heifers Costs and Return Calculation Decision Aids

Artificial Insemination in Cattle

Estrus Synchronization Protocols for Cows

Artificial Insemination (AI) and Oestrus Synchronisation of Beef Cattle

Successful Timed AI Programs: Using Timed AI to Improve Reproductive Efficiency in High Producing Dairy Cattle

Managing the Dairy Farm: Key Performance Indicators

Getting Cows Pregnant: Are Problem Cows Really the Problem?

Animal Birth Registration

SimHerd a tool to point out a herd specific reproduction strategy

REPRODUCTION AND BREEDING Influence of Nutrition on Reproduction in the Beef Cow Herd

FEEDING THE DAIRY COW DURING LACTATION

Value of Managing Beef Cattle Genetics

BREEDING SOUNDNESS EVALUATION OF BULLS

Animal Sciences. Timed-Artificial Insemination in Beef Cows: What are the Options?

REPRODUCTIVE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS USING DC305

Faculteit Diergeneeskunde. Prof. dr. G. Opsomer Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Ghent University.

SOME PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION OF BEEF CATTLE

Cattle. MRDP and Heifer

Relationship between weight at puberty and mature weight in beef cattle

Beef Cattle Breeds and Biological Types Scott P. Greiner, Extension Animal Scientist, Virginia Tech

Beef - Key performance indicators. Mary Vickers

What is the Cattle Data Base

New product approval for Fixed-Time AI. John Lee, DVM Zoetis Dairy Technical Services

Australian Dairy Herd Improvement Report 2014

ANALYSE OF PURE BRED BELGIAN BLUE BEEF CATTLE POPULATIONS

CMSS Newsletter October 2015

Artificial Insemination

Using estrus-detection patches to optimally time artificial insemination (AI) and improve pregnancy rates in suckled beef cows in a timed AI program

Key Performance Indicators to Diagnose Poor Farm Performance and Profitability of Smallholder Dairy Farmers in Asia

LIVESTOCK IMPROVEMENT S STUDENT RESOURCE SERIES ARTIFICIAL BREEDING

Business Planning for the Allocation of Milk Quota to New Entrants

Transcription:

Archiva Zootechnica 11:2, 29-34, 2008 29 Comparison between breeding values for milk production and reproduction of bulls of Holstein breed in artificial insemination and bulls in natural service J. 1, Zlata Lakomá 1, F. Louda 2 1 Research Institute for Cattle Breeding, Ltd., Rapotín, Výz 2 Agroresearch Rapotin ABSTRACT Breeding values of bulls in artificial insemination (AI) and bulls in natural service (NS) in the Czech Republic were evaluated. Examined bulls were of Holstein breed, born between the years 1996 and 2001. Concerning a breeding value for kg of milk (AI = 177.54; NS = 50.12) and a relative breeding value (EBV) for kg of protein (AI = 100.03; NS = 97.23) significant higher values (p > 0,05) in AI bulls compared to NS bulls were shown. Other indicators of milk production (kg, % of fat and protein) showed not significant values. NS bulls showed not significant more positive breeding values of reproduction indicators compared to AI bulls. Reproduction indicators involved in the research were: male fertility (AI = -0.45; NS = -0.02), female fertility (AI = -0.91; NS = 0.08) and a relative breeding value for fertility (AI = 99.95; NS = 102.1). Breeding values of AI bulls compared to NS bulls where significant higher in case of the milk production (kg Milk and RBV) but not significant lower in case of the fertility. Keywords: milk production, reproduction, natural service, artificial insemination, Holstein bulls INTRODUCTION Milk production is a key factor in breeding and economics of Holstein cattle. Using the best bulls for artificial insemination (AI) plays an important role in the Czech Republic. Increasing milk production often causes worse reproduction and thus many breeders solve this problem by using herd bulls in natural service (NS). This work has evaluated Holstein bulls in artificial insemination and bulls in natural service in the herds, where both methods of breeding are being used. Several studies have compared reproductive performance between AI and NS breeding systems. Williamson et al., 1978 analyzed dairy herds in Victoria (USA). Pregnancy rates obtained from dairy herd records of cows bred by AI or NS were not different (57.5%; 58.0%) but pregnancy rates from NS were more

30 et al. variable in NS herds. Vries et al., 2005 observed dairy herds in Florida and Georgia (USA) and compared efficiency of bulls in artificial insemination and in natural service. Although milk production was less in the natural service herds (7180 ± 135 kg/cow per year), the use of natural service bulls did not necessarily limit increases in herd milk production over the study period (artificial insemination herds 8513 ± 177 kg/cow per year). The results indicated that use of natural service bulls did not result in significant disadvantages in terms of pregnancy rates and changes in milk production over time. Cassell et al. (2002) reported that cows sired by proven artificial insemination sires produced 1400 kg more herd lifetime actual milk and were $148 more profitable when compared with daughters of non artificial insemination sires. Very important are unfavorable genetic correlations between yield and fertility and also low heritability of fertility. Abbreviation key: NS = natural service breeding system, AI = artificial insemination, BV = breeding value, RBV = relative breeding value MATERIAL AND METHODS In the Czech Republic calculation of breeding values of Holstein bulls is being made by the Czech Moravian Breeders Corporation Inc. and its being updated on a regular basis on a website (www.plemdat.cz). Milk production traits: In the Czech Republic there are two separate evaluations of breeding values - for Holstein population and Czech Fleckvieh population. In the model for Holstein breed there are cows included with at least 75% of Holstein or Red-Holstein blood proportion. Routine evaluation for milk production traits is performed quarterly. The same frequency is for publication of results. TDM results are used and published for all bulls born since 1992. Final breeding value for bulls is calculated as an average of all 3 lactations if bull has at least 20 daughters at 3 lactations with at least the 3 rd test day records. Breeding values for content of fat and protein are first calculated individually for each lactation. Averages used in equations are lactation averages for corresponding breed. Currently base for the 1 st lactation is set to the year 2000, for the 2 nd lactation to the year 1999 and for the 3 rd lactation to the year 1998. Relative breeding values are calculated from average breeding values for milk and protein yield and protein content (%). Fertility: the are two separate evaluations for maiden heifers and cows in the Czech Republic (male and female fertility - conception rate of maiden heifers and cows). A breeding value for a bull can be estimated only separately for maiden heifers and cows. If both the breeding values (for maiden heifers as well as for cows) are estimated they can be joined into an overall fertility breeding value. The overall breeding value is created as a weighting average. Breeding values of bulls are published if at least 20 inseminations of heifers or cows separately are included individually

Archiva Zootechnica 11:2, 29-34, 2008 31 for male fertility and female fertility. Only bulls born since 1992 are evaluated by the current model. The actual comparison of breeding values between bulls in artificial insemination and natural service has been made by standard mathematical methods using a SPSS 15.0 for Windows, Release 15.0.0 (6 Sep 2006) program. Bulls born between the years 1996 and 2001 were included in the evaluation. A minimal rate of the breeding value for milk production reliability in the examined bulls was 65 %. The breeding values of the bulls were counted by April 2007. Table 1 Number of bulls in natural service in the Czech Republic recorded in the Herdbook. Czech Fleckvieh 1 Holstein 2 Year Number of bulls recorded in the Herdbook Number of bulls recorded in the Herdbook Total Bulls in natural service Total Bulls in natural service n % n % 2001 124 21 16,94 292 47 16,10 2002 143 22 15,38 377 84 22,28 2003 167 60 35,93 380 81 21,32 2004 166 45 27,11 371 82 22,10 2005 173 39 22,54 393 101 25,70 2006 176 56 31,82 338 80 23,67 Mean 158,17 40,50 24,95 358,50 79,17 21,86 1. www.cestr.cz/index.php?file=www/cz/plkniha/prehledozapisub.html 2. www.holstein.cz/index.php?stranka=download-cs-9&sub=12&tree=9&catid=28&owner=0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Between the years 2000 and 2006 number of bulls in natural service registered in the Herdbook increased in the Czech Republic (Tab. 1). It concerns both the most prevalent dairy cattle strains Czech Fleckvieh and Holstein cattle. From the point of view of kg of milk production, AI bulls showed higher breeding values than NS bulls, especially in kg of milk (177.54 kg; 50.12 kg), where significant differences were proven (p > 0.05). In case of kg of fat (5.65 kg; 4.06 kg) and kg of protein (6.19 kg; 4.12 kg) the differences were not significant. Concerning a proportional content of milk elements (percentage of fat and protein) AI bulls showed not significant lower values than NS bulls (AI = 0.02%; 0.05; NS = 0.03%; 0.05%), which may be caused by lower milk production in kg of milk in NS bulls. The overall relative breeding value of kg of protein was in AI bulls significant higher (RBV 100.03) than in NS bulls (RBV 97.23). Also other authors have noticed lower milk production in

32 et al. daughters of NS bulls. Vries et al. (2005) found in dairy herds in Florida and Georgia (USA) milk production of NS bulls' daughters 7180 ± 135 kg/cow per year and milk production of AI bulls' daughters was 8513 ± 177 kg/cow per year. Table 2 Average breeding values of Holstein bulls in artificial insemination and natural service (R > 64.9%) R (%) Daughters Herds BV - Somatic cells count BV - kg Milk BV - % Fat BV - % Protein BV - kg Fet BV - kg Protein Relative breeding value (kg Protein) Male fertility Artificial insemination Female fertility Natural service Relative breeding value (Fertility) Mean 90.53 277.8 67.72 0.13 177.5 0.02 0.03 5.65 6.19 100-0.45-0.91 99.95 s x 6.61 572.3 72.53 3.92 585.6 0.28 0.14 22.02 17.81 11.98 3.01 2.9 12.09 n 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 1857 Std.Err Mean 0.15 13.28 1.68 0.46 62.85 0.03 0.02 2.38 1.97 1.26 0.2 0.096 0.47 Mean 75.28 38.34 2.6-0.01 50.12 0.05 0.05 4.06 4.12 97.23-0.02 0.08 102.1 s x 6.84 22.36 1.94 3.89 569.1 0.28 0.15 21.55 17.84 11.45 1.28 0.82 3.59 n 83 83 83 74 83 83 83 83 83 83 40 73 58 Std.Err Mean 2.47 0.21 0.46 0.09 13.59 6E-04 0.003 0.51 0.41 0.28 0.07 0.067 0.28 Difference 15.25 239.5 65.12 0.14 127.4* -0.03-0.02 1.59 2.07 2.8* -0.4-0.99-2.15 * p > 0.05 Cassell et al. (2002) came to similar conclusions. This author reported that cows sired by proven artificial insemination sires produced 1400 kg more herd lifetime actual milk and were $148 more profitable when compared with daughters of non artificial insemination sires. Evaluated reproduction indicators showed slightly more positive results in NS bulls compared to AI bulls but these differences were not significant. Breeding values of AI bulls where lower in case of male fertility (-0.45; -0.02), female fertility (-0.91; 0.08) and overall relative breeding value for reproduction (99.95; 102.1), too. Williamson et al., 1978 also proved not significant worse reproduction values in AI bulls compared to NS bulls. When pregnancy rates in dairy herds in Victoria (USA) were analyzed, AI and NS cows showed pregnancy rates 57.5%; 58.0% but pregnancy rates of NS were more variable in NS herds. Smith et al., 2004 reported shorter calving interval in herds that used NS bulls. However, the

Archiva Zootechnica 11:2, 29-34, 2008 33 advantage of a shorter actual calving interval was lost by longer dry days for herds using NS sires and fewer dry periods in the desirable range of 40 to 70 days. Van Raden et al. (2004) found the heritability of days open in first lactation, calculated by calving interval, also 0.037. Genetic correlations with first lactation milk, fat, and protein were 0.38, 0.33, and 0.32, respectively, indicating that selection for yield reduces fertility. Genetic correlation with productive life was 0.59, indicating that cow fertility plays a major role in longevity. Cow fertility was negatively correlated with milk yield but is a major component of longevity. CONCLUSIONS Concerning a breeding value for kg of milk (AI = 177.54; NS = 50.12) and a relative breeding value for kg of protein (AI = 100.03; NS = 97.23) significant higher values (p > 0.05) in AI bulls compared to NS bulls were shown. Other indicators of milk production (kg, % of protein and fat) showed not significant differences. NS bulls showed not significant more positive breeding values of reproduction indicators compared to AI bulls. Reproduction indicators involved in the research were: male fertility (AI = -0.45; NS = -0.02), female fertility (AI = -0.91; NS = 0.08) and a relative breeding value for fertility (AI = 99.95; NS = 102.1). The NS bulls bring a considerable advantage of conception of problematic cows, calving and start of the next lactation. Supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (MSM 2678846201) and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (LA 245). REFERENCES Cassell, B. G., S. M. Jobst, M. L. McGuillard, and R. E. Pearson., 2002: Evaluating sire selection practices using lifetime net income functions. J. Dairy Sci., 85, 3492 3498. Smith, J. W., Ely, L. O., Gilson, W. D., Graves, W. M., 2004: Effects of artificial insemination vs. natural service breeding on production and reproduction parameters in dairy herds. Prof. Anim. Sci., 20, 185 190. SPSS 15.0 for Windows, Release 15.0.0 (6 Sep 2006) Van Raden, P. M., Sanders, A. H., Tooker, M. E., Miller R. H., Norman, H. D., Kuhn, M. T., Wiggans, G. R., 2004: Development of a national genetic evaluation for cow fertility. J. Dairy Sci., 87, 2285 2292 Vries, de A., Steenholdt, C., Risco, C. A., 2005: Pregnancy Rates and Milk Production in Natural Service and Artificially Inseminated Dairy Herds in Florida and Georgia, J. Dairy Sci., 88, 948-956 Williamson, N. B., Morris, R.S., Anderson, G. A., 1978: Pregnancy rates and nonreturn rates following artificial and natural breeding in dairy herds. Aust. Vet. J., 54, 111 12

34 et al. www.holstein.cz/index.php?stranka=download-cs- 9&sub=12&tree=9&catid=28&owner=0 www.cestr.cz/index.php?file=www/cz/plkniha/prehledozapisub.html Address of Authors: Research Institute for Cattle Breeding, Ltd., Czech Republic jiri.bezdicek@vuchs.cz Tel. +420 583 392 152 ing. Zlata Lakomá Research Institute for Cattle Breeding, Ltd., Czech Republic Výz zlata.lakoma@vuchs.cz Tel. +420 583 392 154 Prof. Ing. František Louda, DrSc Research Institute for Cattle Breeding, Ltd., Czech Republic frantisek.louda@vuchs.cz Tel. +420 583 392 172