Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T18:31:07.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of widespread and limited use of sexed semen on genetic progress and reproductive performance of dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2012

S. Khalajzadeh ,
A. Nejati-Javaremi  and
H. Mehrbani Yeganeh
S. Khalajzadeh*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Saveh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Saveh, Iran
A. Nejati-Javaremi
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
H. Mehrbani Yeganeh
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
*
†E-mails: Saeedkhalajzade@yahoo.com; saeedkhalaj@iau-saveh.ac.ir
Get access

Abstract

Stochastic simulation was used for studying the impacts of sexed semen on genetic progress and reproductive performance of dairy cows. Three strategies were compared: WSS (use unsexed semen in cows and heifers), SSH (use sexed semen in heifers and unsexed semen in cows) and SSCH (use sexed semen in both cows and heifers). Conception rate (CR) of unsexed semen was considered to be 35% and 65% in cows and heifers, respectively. CR of sexed semen was considered to be 15 (20% in cows and 50% in heifers), 10, 5 and 0 percentage points lower than unsexed semen. Thus, four subschemes were compared under SSCH (SSCH15, SSCH10, SSCH5, SSCH0) and SSH (SSH15, SSH10, SSH5, SSH0). Moreover, the effect was studied in four distinct paths of selection: active sires (AS), young bulls (YB), bull dams (BD) and milking cows (CW). The average genetic superiority of CW was 12% and 9.5% in SSCH15 and SSH15 strategies relative to a base scheme, respectively. The average genetic superiority of CW was 19% and 10.5% in SSCH0 and SSH0, respectively. Regression analysis showed that genetic superiority of CW increased significantly, that is, 0.5% and 0.1% per every 1% increase in CR in SSCH and SSH, respectively. The result showed that there is a significant difference between genetic superiority of cows in SSCH and SSH schemes. Widespread and limited use of sexed semen in commercial dairy herds resulted in a large genetic advantage in CW. The genetic advantage of gender control was minimal in the selection paths of AS, YB and BD. Open days and services per conception reached to 153 v. 125 days and 5 v. 2.86 under SSCH15 compared with WSS. The age at first calving increased from 774 to 790 days in SSH15 and SSCH15 strategies. Mean of parities decreased to 2.26 v. 2.42 by using sexed semen. The widespread use of sexed semen increased the age average of cows in all parities. Sexed semen increased selection intensity in the CW path, and this contributed to the genetic merit of future cows. On the other hand, sexed semen had a negative effect on the reproductive performance of dairy cows. Generally, although the effect of widespread use of sexed semen (SSCH) on genetic progress is significantly more than limited use of sexed semen (SSH), SSCH decreased reproductive performance of dairy herds dramatically, and this suggests that SSH scenarios might be more appropriate in animal breeding programs. Finally, to make a decision of which schemes are more convenient, it is necessary to compare the economic aspects of schemes.

Keywords

sexed semenselectionprogeny testopen daysdairy cow
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 9 , September 2012 , pp. 1398 - 1406
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdel-Azim, G, Freeman, AE 2002. Superiority of QTL-assisted selection in dairy cattle breeding schemes. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1869–1880.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abdel-Azim, G, Schnell, S 2007. Genetic impacts of using female-sorted semen in commercial and nucleus herds. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 1554–1593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, M, Taponen, J, Kommeri, M, Dahlbom, M 2006. Pregnancy rates in lactating Holstein–Friesian cows after artificial insemination with sexed sperm. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 41, 95–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, RL, Shannon, P, Garrick, DJ, Blair, HT, Wickham, BW 1990. The future impact of new opportunities in reproductive physiology and molecular biology on genetic improvement programmes. Proceedings of New Zealand Society Animal Production 50, 197–210.Google Scholar
Crichton, E, Huffman, S, McSeeney, K, Schenk, J 2006. Artificial insemination of lactating Holstein cows with sexed sperm. Reproduction Fertility Development 18, 281 (Abstract).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, A, Overton, M, Fetrow, J, Leslie, K, Eicker, S, Rogers, G 2008. Exploring the impact of sexed semen on the structure of dairy industry. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 847–856.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeJarnette, JM, Nebel, RL, Meek, B, Wells, J, Marshall, CE 2007. Commercial application of sex-sorted semen in Holstein heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 90 (suppl. 1), 228 (Abstract).Google Scholar
DeJarnette, JM, Nebel, RL, Marshall, CE, Moreno, JF, McCleary, CR, Lenz, RW 2008. Effects of sex-sorted sperm dosage on conception rates in Holstein heifers and lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 1778–1785.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, DS, Mackay, TFC 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edition. Longman Group Ltd, Essex, UK.Google Scholar
Garner, DL, Seidel, GE 2003. Past, present and future perspectives on sexing sperm. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 83, 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, LB, Freeman, AE, and Berger, PJ 1983. Variances, repeatabilities and age adjustments of yield and fertility in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 66, 281–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hohenboken, WD 1999. Application of sexed semen in cattle production. Therigenology 52, 1421–1433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, LA, Welch, GR, Rens, W 1999. The Beltsville sperm sexing technology: high-speed sperm sorting gives improved sperm output for in vitro fertilization and AI. Journal of Animal Science 77 (suppl. 2), 213–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, LA, Flook, JP, Look, MV 1987. Flow cytometry of X and Y chromosome-bearing sperm for DNA using an improved preparation method and staining with Hoechst 33342. Gamete Research 17, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, MT, Boettcher, PJ, Freeman, AE 1994. Potential biases in predicted transmitting abilities of females from preferential treatment. Journal of Dairy Science 77, 2428–2437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenk, JL, Cran, DG, Everett, RW, Seidel, GE Jr 2009. Pregnancy rates in heifers and cows with cryopreserved sexed sperm: effects of sperm numbers per inseminate, sorting pressure and sperm storage before sorting. Theriogenolgy 71, 717–728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seidel, GE 2007. Overview of sexing sperm. Therigenology 68, 443–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorensen, MK, Voergaard, J, Pedersen, LD, Berg, P, Sorensen, AC 2009. Genetic gain in dairy cattle populations is increased using sexed semen in commercial herds. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 128, 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Vleck, LD 1981. Potential genetic impacts of artificial insemination, sex selection, embryo transfer, cloning and selfing in dairy cattle. In New technologies in animal breeding (ed. BG Brackett, GE Seidel and SM Seidel), pp. 222–242. Academic Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Weigel, KA 2004. Exploring the role of sexed semen in dairy production systems. Journal of Dairy Science 87 (E. Suppl.), E120–E130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar