Extent of sexed-semen usage

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Modeling nuisance variables for phenotypic evaluation of bull fertility M. T. Kuhn, J. L. Hutchison, and H. D. Norman* Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory,
Advertisements

Factors affecting milk ELISA scores of cows tested for Johne’s disease H. D. Norman 1, J. R. Wright 1 *, and T. M. Byrem 2 1 Animal Improvement Programs.
Relationship of somatic cell score with fertility measures Poster 1390 ADSA 2001, Indiannapolis R. H. Miller 1, J. S. Clay 2, and H. D. Norman 1 1 Animal.
Impact of selection for increased daughter fertility on productive life and culling for reproduction H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright*, R. H. Miller Animal Improvement.
Sexed Semen and Beef Cattle UW Extension Livestock Team Spring 2010.
BEEF CATTLE GENETICS By David R. Hawkins Michigan State University.
ADSA 2002 (HDN-P1) 2002 Comparison of occurrence and yields of daughters of progeny-test and proven bulls in artificial insemination and natural- service.
THE ISRAELI BREEDING PROGRAM elite cows selected based on their genetic evaluations. About ½ of these cows are mated to local elite bulls, and.
But who will be the next GREAT one?. USA Bull Proofs * Bulls are ranked based upon their DAUGHTER’S (progeny) production and physical characteristics.
2003 Paul VanRaden, Melvin Tooker,* Ashley Sanders, and George Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville,
Reproductive Management of Dairy Cows with Particular Reference to Organic Systems Michael G Diskin & Frank Kelly Animal Production Research Centre,
Changes in the use of young bulls K. M. Olson* 1, J. L. Hutchison 2, P. M. VanRaden 2, and H. D. Norman 2 1 National Association of Animal Breeders, Columbia,
December 2014 Proof Changes
Sperm are sorted. “X” sperm are saved “Y” sperm and “undetermined” sperm are discarded.
2007 ADSA 2007 (1)H.D. Norman Effect of service sire and cow sire on gestation length H.D. Norman,* J.R. Wright, P.M. VanRaden, and J.B. Cole Animal Improvement.
ABS Real World Data ® Bull Fertility November 2012.
Opportunities and Challenges with Sexed Semen Joseph C. Dalton, PhD.
Comparison of Holstein service-sire fertility for heifer and cow breedings with conventional and sexed semen H. D. Norman*, J. L. Hutchison, and P. M.
2002 ADSA 2002 (HDN-1) H.D. NORMAN* ( ), R.H. MILLER, P.M. V AN RADEN, and J.R. WRIGHT Animal Improvement Programs.
2006 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA Fertility Trait.
Assessment of voluntary waiting period and frequency of estrus synchronization among herds R.H. Miller, 1, * H.D. Norman, 1 M.T. Kuhn, 1 and J.S. Clay.
AFGC Convention 2004 (1) 2004 Possibilities for Improving Dairy Cattle Performance Dr. H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural.
2007 Paul VanRaden, Mel Tooker, Jan Wright, Chuanyu Sun, and Jana Hutchison Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD National Association of Animal.
H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD NDHIA San Antonio.
H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Missouri Dairy Summit.
Genetic correlations between first and later parity calving ease in a sire-maternal grandsire model G. R. Wiggans*, C. P. Van Tassell, J. B. Cole, and.
Genetic Evaluation of Lactation Persistency Estimated by Best Prediction for Ayrshire, Brown Swiss, Guernsey, and Milking Shorthorn Dairy Cattle J. B.
Synchronization Effects on Parameters for Days Open M. T. Kuhn, J. L. Hutchison, and R. H. Miller* Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural.
2003 Melvin Tooker, Paul VanRaden, Ashley Sanders, and George Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville,
Factors affecting heifer fertility in U.S. Holsteins M. T. Kuhn* and J. L. Hutchison Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service,
Effect of temperature and humidity on gestation length H.D. Norman, J.R. Wright,* and J.B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural Research.
John B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Best prediction.
2006 Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (1) Is There a Need for Different Genetics in Dairy Grazing Systems? H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright, R. L.
2006 H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD
Methodology for Prediction of Bull Fertility from Field Data M. T. Kuhn* and J. L. Hutchison Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural Research.
J. B. Cole 1,*, P. M. VanRaden 1, and C. M. B. Dematawewa 2 1 Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville,
XX International Grassland Conference 2005 (1) 2005 Genetic Alternatives for Dairy Producers who Practise Grazing H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright, R. L. Powell.
Prediction of Service Sire Fertility M.T. Kuhn 1 *, J.L. Hutchison 1, and J.S. Clay 2 1 Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agriculture Research Service,
Genetic and environmental factors that affect gestation length H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright, M. T. Kuhn, S. M. Hubbard,* and J. B. Cole Animal Improvement.
H.D. Norman* and J.L. Hutchison Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD , USA
2005 George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Reproduction.
H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD NDHIA 2009 meeting.
H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD , USA EAAP.
2003 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic Evaluation.
Multi-trait, multi-breed conception rate evaluations P. M. VanRaden 1, J. R. Wright 1 *, C. Sun 2, J. L. Hutchison 1 and M. E. Tooker 1 1 Animal Genomics.
Ashley H. Sanders and H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD
H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD California Dairy Herd.
2004 P.M. VanRaden, M.E. Tooker*, and J.B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD
Effects of dam’s dry period length on heifer development H. D. Norman and J. L. Hutchison* Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural Research.
George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Considering.
H.D. Norman*, J.L. Hutchison, and J.R. Wright Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD
H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Dairy Cattle Reproductive.
Meori Rosen Past, Present, and Future Dairy Cattle Breeding in Israel.
You Determine: Higher or Lower?
IHFA Cork Club 27th Jan 2014.
Reproductive Management of Dairy Cattle
Possibilities and requirements for organic dairy breeding lines
Value of Sexed Semen Victor E. Cabrera
A National Sire Fertility Index
Domestic vs. imported AI semen for Holstein graziers in the US
Data Holstein breedings from 2006 through 2008 Total breedings
Percent of total breedings
Abstr. M4 Merit of obtaining genetic evaluations of milk yield for each parity on Holstein bulls H.D. Norman, J.R. Wright,* R.L. Powell, and P.M. VanRaden.
Alternatives for evaluating daughter performance of progeny-test bulls between official evaluations Abstr. #10.
M.T. Kuhn* and P. M. VanRaden USDA-AIPL, Beltsville, MD
Effectiveness of genetic evaluations in predicting daughter performance in individual herds H. D. Norman 1, J. R. Wright 1*, C. D. Dechow 2 and R. C.
Measures of Fertility: Heritabilities and Genetic Correlations
Reproductive trends of dairy herds in the United States
3Canadian Dairy Network, Guelph, ON Canada
Relationship of gestation length to stillbirth
Presentation transcript:

Extent of sexed-semen usage INTRODUCTION There has been increasing use of sex-sorted semen since 2006 because producers can obtain more animals of the gender they prefer (usually heifers). The sexing process compromises conception rate (CR), and is the basis for recommending its use primarily on heifers because they have better fertility than older animals. OBJECTIVE To document CR obtained in different situations so producers know more precisely what kind of fertility to expect with various types of breedings. DATA & METHODS Breeding reports were provided to AIPL by the dairy records processing centers using AIPL Format 5 Data included Holstein breedings from January 2006 through December 2008 1,250,132 heifer breedings (116,846 with sexed-semen) 10,592,318 cow breedings (24,239 with sexed-semen) The outcome for each breeding was coded as a failure (0) or a success (1), and was the basis for deriving CR CR was derived separately for: Virgin heifers (first through seventh services) Cows (first through seventh services for each parity 1 through 5 Correlation between sire conception rate (SCR) for traditional vs. sexed-semen was calculated RESULTS Extent of sexed-semen usage Cow breedings % Sexed-semen breedings Service number Lactation number 1 2 3 4 5 42 14 7 11 >4 Conception rate (%) Service number Lactation number All lactations 1 2 3 4 5 Conventional semen 35 31 30 28 26 32 34 29 >4 27 25 All services 33 Sexed-semen 22 23 24 15 20 17 19 21 Year of breeding Conventional semen Sexed-semen Number % Heifer breedings 2006 396,926 98.6 5,545 1.4 2007 394,660 90.6 41,186 9.4 2008 341,700 83.0 70,115 17.0 Cow breedings 2,490,850 99.9 2,003 0.1 4,105,396 99.8 7,951 0.2 3,971,833 99.6 14,285 0.4 53% of sexed-semen breedings occurred in first 2 services in first lactation; 72% occurred within first 2 lactations and first 2 services Mean CR achieved with sexed-semen was 27% for cows (31% for conventional semen) Trend toward increasing usage of sex-sorted semen from 2006 through 2008, nearly doubling in heifer usage in 2008 compared to 2007 82% of sexed-semen inseminations were on heifers 9.3% heifers bred using sexed-semen; 0.23% cows bred using sexed-semen across all years In most cases, CR decreased 5 to 8 percentage points (16 to 28% reduction) when using sexed-semen compared to conventional semen Correlation of SCR from conventional vs. sexed-semen was 0.49 for bulls with >300 breedings (51 bulls); 0.78 for bulls with >800 breedings (15 bulls) Heifer breedings CONCLUSIONS Trends show increasing usage of sexed-semen, especially in heifers from 2006 through 2008 93% of all sexed-semen inseminations were to either heifers or first lactation cows, where CR are typically higher Mean CR with sexed-semen averaged 43% for heifers (~75% of that achieved with conventional semen) and 27% for cows (~87% of that achieved with conventional semen) Based on mean CR, it takes 2.3 sexed services/pregnancy for heifers (1.8 using conventional) and 3.7 sexed services/pregnancy for cows (3.2 using conventional); a 0.5 increase in both heifers and cows Correlations with SCR indicate that success with conventional semen may not always be predictive of success with sexed-semen Service number % of total breedings % Sexed-semen breedings Conception rate (%) Conventional Sexed 1 56 8 82 60 45 2 21 14 38 3 51 35 >4 6 44 30 All services 57 43 9% of heifer breedings were to sexed-semen (82% in first service); 96% of sexed-semen breedings occurred within first 2 services Mean CR achieved with sexed-semen was 43% for heifers (57% for conventional semen) CR decreased 14 to 18 percentage points (25 to 32% reduction) during first 7 services when using sexed-semen compared to conventional semen Correlation of SCR from conventional vs. sexed-semen was 0.19 for bulls with >300 breedings (67 bulls); 0.32 for bulls with >800 breedings (31 bulls)