| Literature DB >> 30739361 |
Masahiro Osada1, Hitomi Iwabuchi1, Toru Aoki2, Kika Sasaki2, Hitoshi Ushijima1, Takeyuki Ozawa1.
Abstract
Artificial insemination using sex-sorted semen is employed to efficiently increase the number of female dairy calves born. Previous studies have determined that using sex-sorted semen is beneficial to improve the management, but the mechanism by which it increases cattle numbers through objective indices of breeding remains unclear. This study focused on a Brown Swiss cattle herd in which frozen female sex-sorted semen was systematically employed to increase the number of cattle. We analyzed the correlation between the increase in the number of cattle and the screening accuracy of sex-sorted semen, measuring indices such as pregnancy rate and birth rate of female calves. Study revealed that: (1) production cost for female calves is influenced by the pregnancy rate, rate of female calves, and using sex-sorted semen is less expensive than using nonsorted semen; (2) improvements in screening accuracy nearly doubled the number of cows and tripled the number of heifers in 5 years; and (3) use of sex-sorted semen improved milk quality. The pregnancy rate was lower when sex-sorted semen was used, but the birth rate of heifers was improved. Results suggest that artificial insemination using sex-sorted semen is beneficial because it economically produces offspring to increase the herd.Entities:
Keywords: Brown Swiss; artificial insemination; dairy; farm management; sex-sorted semen
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30739361 PMCID: PMC6594040 DOI: 10.1111/asj.13156
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anim Sci J ISSN: 1344-3941 Impact factor: 1.749
Figure 1Changes in price for first pregnancy cows, beef and dairy cross bred calves. Source: Agriculture and Livestock Industries and the Hokuren Federation of Agriculture Cooperatives
Figure 2Nationwide changes in births by type. Source: Livestock Breeding Center
Figure 3Nikko Kirifuri‐kogen Ozasa Farm (Resthouse in Background)
Brown swiss frozen semen conception rate 2013–2016
| Use of total sex‐sorted semen | Heifers | Female cows | Total | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female sex‐sorted semen | Non‐sorted semen | Female sex‐sorted semen | Non‐sorted semen | Female sex‐sorted semen | Non‐sorted semen | Total | ||||||||
| Year | % | % | Count | % | Count | % | Count | % | Count | % | Count | % | Count | % |
| 2013 | 63.5 | 52.4 | 21.0 | 62.5 | 8.0 | 50.0 | 26.0 | 36.8 | 19.0 | 51.1 | 47.0 | 44.4 | 27.0 | 48.6 |
| 2014 | 64.6 | 36.8 | 19.0 | 33.3 | 6.0 | 22.2 | 54.0 | 44.1 | 34.0 | 26.0 | 73.0 | 42.5 | 40.0 | 31.9 |
| 2015 | 49.0 | 41.7 | 36.0 | 65.2 | 23.0 | 30.6 | 36.0 | 28.8 | 52.0 | 36.1 | 72.0 | 40.0 | 75.0 | 38.1 |
| 2016 | 28.9 | 30.8 | 13.0 | 38.9 | 36.0 | 38.5 | 26.0 | 50.0 | 60.0 | 35.9 | 39.0 | 45.8 | 96.0 | 43.0 |
| Total | 51.5 | 40.4 | 22.3 | 50.0 | 18.3 | 35.3 | 35.5 | 39.9 | 41.3 | 37.3 | 57.8 | 43.2 | 59.5 | 40.4 |
Note. In case of multiple artificial insemination sessions per cycle, the number was recorded as “once.”
Estimated production cost per female offspring in 2016
| Division | Compound rate | Raw material | Rate of pregnancy (%) | Female offspring probability (%) | Cost (Yen) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trial calculation | Nonsorted semen | 3,000 | 6,000 | 40.0 | 48.0 | 46,875 |
| Female‐sexed semen | 3,000 | 9,000 | 30.0 | 90.0 | 44,444 | |
| Imported female‐sexed semen | 3,000 | 9,000 | 30.0 | 80.0 | 50,000 | |
|
2013–2016 | Nonsorted semen | 3,000 | 6,000 | 43.3 | 53.5 | 38,851 |
| Female‐sexed semen | 3,000 | 9,000 | 35.9 | 73.8 | 45,293 | |
| Sort 90 trial calculation | 3,000 | 9,000 | 35.9 | 90.0 | 37,140 | |
Note. It is regarded as a synonym for domestic distributed sex‐sorted frozen semen among Japanese dairy farmers.
Source: Interview publication, 2016.
Sort 90 is the private “Semen sexing technology” produced by Livestock Improvement Association of Japan (LIAJ).
Figure 4Changes to livestock numbers by type. Source: Interview Publication
Changes in management operations
| Year | Breeding count (per head %) | Breeding head count average growth rate (%) | Number of female offspring | Selected offspring | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cows | Growth rate | Heifers | Growth rate | ||||
| 2012 | 23 | — | 27 | — | — | 20 | — |
| 2013 | 28 | 21.7 | 32 | 18.5 | 20.0 | 17 | 6 |
| 2014 | 37 | 32.1 | 45 | 40.6 | 36.7 | 48 | 5 |
| 2015 | 42 | 24.3 | 58 | 28.9 | 22.0 | 28 | 5 |
| 2016 | 49 | 6.5 | 61 | 5.2 | 10.0 | 37 | 15 |
| Average | 35.8 | 21.2 | 44.6 | 23.3 | 22.2 | 30.0 | 7.8 |
Note. Source: Ozasa Farm Herd Examination Results and Individual Breeding Control Registers.
Factors affecting conception rate and precision of female‐sexed semen
| 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23.3 | 48.6 | 31.9 | 38.1 | 43.0 | |||||||
| Rate of conception(%) | Average | % | Factor | % | Factor | % | Factor | % | Factor | % | Factor |
| Heifer rate (nonconception) | 56.3 | 63.0 |
| 40.6 |
| 77.8 |
| 44.1 |
| 57.4 |
|
| Use of female‐sexed semen | 50.3 | ― | ― | 63.5 |
| 64.6 |
| 49.0 |
| 28.9 |
|
| Insemination with female‐sexed semen 2 or more times (%) | 38.3 | ― | ― | 23.3 |
| 45.9 |
| 41.5 |
| 40.0 |
|
| Semen accuracy | % | Factor | % | Head | % | Head | % | Head | % | Head | |
| Number of births from use of sex‐sorted Semen (number of female calves produced) | 73.8 | ― | 44.4 | 9(4) | 78.3 | 23(18) | 73.3 | 15(11) | 83.3 | 18(15) | |
| Number of births from nonsorted semen (number of female calves produced) | 53.5 | ― | 100.0 | 6(6) | 63.6 | 11(7) | 36.4 | 11(4) | 40.0 | 15(6) | |
| Rate of female calves birthed (%) | 65.7 | ― | 66.7 | 73.5 | 57.7 | 63.6 | |||||
Note. The average rate of nonfertile cattle is 56.3%, and the average sex‐selected semen utilization rate is 50.3%.
Source: Ozasa Farm Individual Breeding Control Registers.
Changes in technology indices
| Year | Calving interval (days) | Days open | Length of dry period (days) | Number of times required to conceive | Number of days after birth for initial insemination | Average age (months) | Average number of calves produced | Update rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 533 | 131.7 | 44.0 | 1.4 | 107.9 | 63.5 | 2.9 | – |
| 2013 | 442 | 169.8 | 125.3 | 2.6 | 95.2 | 51.9 | 2.0 | 47.8 |
| 2014 | 461 | 155.9 | 163.7 | 2.8 | 75.1 | 51.0 | 2.0 | 50.0 |
| 2015 | 462 | 182.0 | 267.0 | 2.5 | 70.9 | 54.0 | 2.2 | 27.0 |
| 2016 | 532 | 191.5 | 155.1 | 2.6 | 80.4 | 48.9 | 1.8 | 57.1 |
| Average | 486 | 166.8 | 151.0 | 2.4 | 85.9 | 53.9 | 2.2 | 45.5 |
| Technology Indices | 426 (432) | 135 | 60 (65) | 1.8 | ― | ― | 2.8 | 23 |
Calculated by the number of conceptions/total insemination number, including heifers.
Renewal rate calculated by the new number of cattle in a year/the number of cattle at the beginning of the year.
Technical indices are for Holsteins.
Source: Ozasa Farm Individual Breeding Control Registers.
Trends in production technology indicators
| Milk production per cow (kg) | Milk fat (%) | MFSF rate (%) | Somatic cells (10,000 units/ml) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 6,492 | 4.09 | 9.39 | 299 |
| 2016 | 6,082 | 4.36 | 9.51 | 108 |
Note. Source: Ozasa Farm Cattle Test Results.