Abstract #334
Section: Reproduction (orals)
Session: Reproduction I
Format: Oral
Day/Time: Tuesday 10:15 AM–10:30 AM
Location: Room 300 AB
Session: Reproduction I
Format: Oral
Day/Time: Tuesday 10:15 AM–10:30 AM
Location: Room 300 AB
# 334
Economics of replacement dairy heifers managed with reproductive management programs that favor insemination at detected estrus or timed AI.
Magdalena Masello*1, Martin M. Perez1, German E. Granados1, Matias L. Stangaferro1, Bob Ceglowski2, Mark J. Thomas2, Julio O. Giordano1, 1Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 2Dairy Health and Management Services, Lowville, NY.
Key Words: profitability, timed AI, dairy heifer
Economics of replacement dairy heifers managed with reproductive management programs that favor insemination at detected estrus or timed AI.
Magdalena Masello*1, Martin M. Perez1, German E. Granados1, Matias L. Stangaferro1, Bob Ceglowski2, Mark J. Thomas2, Julio O. Giordano1, 1Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 2Dairy Health and Management Services, Lowville, NY.
Our objective was to evaluate the economics of dairy heifers managed for first AI service with programs that relied primarily on insemination at detected estrus (AIE) or timed AI (TAI). After a voluntary waiting period (VWP) of 12 mo, Holstein heifers from 2 farms received first AI after: 1) PG+AIE (n = 246): AIE after PGF2α (PGF) treatments 14 d apart (up to 3) starting at the end of the VWP. Heifers not AIE within 9 d of the third PGF were enrolled in a 5d-Cosynch protocol (5dCP = CIDR+GnRH-5d-CIDR-out+PGF-3d-GnRH+TAI), 2) TAI (n = 235): TAI after a 5dCP protocol, and 3) PG+TAI (n = 250): AIE after the second of 2 PGF treatments 14 d apart. Heifers not AIE within 9 d after the second PGF were enrolled in the 5dCP. Individual heifer costs and revenues were collected for 15 mo after their VWP [all rearing period (RP) and part of the first lactation (FL)]. Total cash flow (CF) for 15 mo was the aggregation of RP reproductive cost (RC), RP feed cost (FDC), RP replacement cost (RPLC), RP fixed cost (FXC), calf value (CFV), FL income over feed cost (IOFC), FL RPLC, and FL FXC. All results are in Table 1. Time to pregnancy was only reduced for TAI vs. PG+AIE. During the RP, the RC was greater for TAI but no differences (P > 0.10) were observed for FDC, RPLC, and FXC. During FL, all parameters evaluated were similar (P > 0.10). We conclude that despite some differences in reproductive performance and some factors that affect overall cash flow, economics were similar for heifers managed with reproductive programs that relied primarily on AIE or TAI. Supported by NYFVI Project AOR2015-020.
Table 1. Reproductive performance and economics
1HR TAI vs PG+TAI 1.13 (0.96–1.32).
PG + AIE | TAI | PG + TAI | P-value | |
Time to pregnancy, HR (95%CI)1 | Referent | 1.20 (1.02–1.42) | 1.07 (0.91–1.26) | 0.08 |
Rearing, $/heifer | ||||
RC | 56.0 ± 1.9a | 73.1 ± 2.6b | 59.8 ± 1.9a | <0.01 |
FDC | 395 ± 4.0 | 390 ± 4.5 | 387 ± 3.8 | 0.41 |
RPLC | 3.31 ± 3.1 | 1.33 ± 1.5 | 0.40 ± 0.8 | 0.59 |
FXC | 266 ± 2.6 | 264 ± 3.1 | 261 ± 2.4 | 0.43 |
First lactation | ||||
CFV | 126 ± 3.9 | 125 ± 4.0 | 132 ± 3.5 | 0.33 |
IOFC | 1,034 ± 26 | 1,057 ± 31 | 1,083 ± 25 | 0.48 |
RPLC | 99.1 ± 21.5 | 76.0 ± 18.9 | 67.2 ± 17.3 | 0.50 |
FXC | 349 ± 7.7 | 354 ± 9.1 | 365 ± 7.0 | 0.43 |
CF 15 mo | −23.3 ± 36.4 | 3.1 ± 38.0 | 61.6 ± 32.6 | 0.25 |
Key Words: profitability, timed AI, dairy heifer