View
18
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Using Estrous Synchroniza2on and Ar2ficial Insemina2on to Increase Compe2veness and Profitability of Beef Farms
Dennis J. A2yeh, Michael J. Baker1 and Nancy I. Glazier2 1 Cornell University Department of Animal Science Senior Extension Associate, 2 Northwest New York (NWNY) Dairy, Livestock and Field Crops Team Extension Support Specialist
• Estrous synchroniza2on (ES) allows for estrous cycle
manipula2on so all animals come into heat at the same period of 2me, allowing for the use of ar2ficial insemina2on (AI) in an efficient and effec2ve manner.
• ES and AI of beef caVle has shown to: 1. increase gene2c quality of progeny and 2. be economically compe22ve with natural service
(NS) • While this technology is size neutral, it has not been well
adopted in the beef industry.
1. Evaluate the value of breeding caVle with ES and AI versus NS
2. Assist in ar2ficially breeding caVle 3. Learn to AI caVle and apply estrous synchroniza2on
protocols 4. Perform daily farm tasks such as feeding caVle and fixing
fence
• Assump2ons made for the analysis: 1) numeric values
were based off of New York State (NYS) averages and current market prices, 2) weaning weight was the only Expected Progeny Difference (EPD) value calculated, 3) breeding season starts early in the year.
• Three different sized herds were accounted for in this study: 1) 13 head herd (NYS average), 25 head herd and 50 head herd.
• Cow and calf expenses were calculated and subtracted from the calf sale receipts, giving the net return from NS and ES/AI.
• NS and ES/AI calcula2ons included 1st and 2nd services. • Analysis of economics between NS and ES/AI was
adapted from Mississippi State Extension “Economic Comparisons of Ar/ficial Insemina/on vs. Natural Ma/ng for Beef Ca<le Herds.”
• The expenses for ES and AI decreased as the herd size increased. This results from the distribu2on of expenses over more head of caVle.
• Similarly, calf sale receipts and net return increased with an increase in herd size. Higher returns occurred with increased herd size and higher weaning weights for ES and AI herds.
• The expenses of ES and AI were greater than NS with the 13 and 25 head herd (Tables 1 and 2) but were less in a 50 head herd (Table 4).
• Calf receipts and net returns for the 13 and 25 head herd were less than the NS herds (Tables 1 and 2) but 50 head herd calf receipts and net returns were greater than NS herds (Table 4).
• Based on this study, using ES and AI for smaller herds may
not be profitable for beef producers. However, these reproduc2ve prac2ces should not be viewed as a financial burden, but as a means to improve the overall performance of the herd.
• With 2me, the value of gene2c improvement in the herd can outweigh the cost of ES and AI.
Introduc2on
Objec2ves
Discussion
Methods
Conclusion
Results
I would like to give a special thanks to Dr. David Wilson for showing me the ropes on his beef farm and Calvin Crosby for teaching me to ar2ficially inseminate caVle. For further ques2ons, contact Dennis A2yeh (dja234@cornell.edu).
Acknowledgements and Contact Informa2on
References Mississippi State University Extension (2016). Economic
Comparisons of Ar/ficial Insemina/on vs. Natural Ma/ng for Beef Ca<le Herds. Publica2on 2468 (POD-‐01-‐16).
Table 1. Budget assump2ons made for the economic analysis of NS versus ES and AI
Table 2. Evalua2on of 13 head herd for NS versus ES and AI
Table 3. Evalua2on of 25 head herd for NS versus ES and AI
Table 4. Evalua2on of a 50 head herd for NS versus ES and AI
AI Technique
1. 3. 5. 7.
2. 4. 6. 8.
Recommended