Dairy Beef Cattle Sexed Semen Cost Angus Holstein

Introduction

In the recent years, dairy producers have increased their interest in using beef semen on dairy cows every bit a strategy to increment farm profitability and manage heifer inventory (Geiger, 2019; Li and Cabrera, 2019a). The sales of beef semen in the United states of america increased from 2.54 million doses in 2017 to 7.20 million doses in 2020, proportionally to the reduction of dairy semen sales from 23.two million doses in 2017 to eighteen.3 meg doses in 2020 (NAAB, 2021). This increase is associated with the use of beef semen on dairy cows (McWhorter et al., 2020). Fifty-fifty though this strategy is non new, dairy farmers are taking advantage of the advancements in engineering in reproduction and genetics to maximize their incomes. For instance, drivers of this direction include a positive trend in the reproductive performance of dairy herds (Berry et al., 2014), the increased employ of sexed dairy semen since 2009 (Bickhart and Hutchison, 2016), excess supply of replacements in dairy herds, loftier costs to raise a purebred dairy heifer up to 24 months of age (Overton and Dhuyvetter, 2020), the increased value of dairy-beef crossbred offspring when compared to the traditional male person calf, the low market price of surplus heifers (Farmers Livestock Auction, 2021), and years of depressed milk prices (USDA, 2020).

Dairy-beefiness crossbred calf prices have a higher market value, with reports from $125 to $254/caput (Reynold Livestock Market, 2021) compared to prices from $fifteen/head to $150/head for Holstein bull calves (Farmers Livestock Auction, 2021). The premium paid for dairy-beef crossbred calves over the market price of purebred dairy calves is an economic opportunity for dairies, as it can represent a new profit center (Basham, 2020; De Vries, 2020). If sold at 1 day of historic period, dairy-beef crossbred calves increase the herd income over semen toll, especially if contracts with calf ranches are made (Li and Cabrera, 2019a). Other marketing channels include marketing 400-pound feeders and retaining ownership through harvest (Basham, 2020). Additional positive outcomes of the use of beef semen on dairy herds are possible, if calving ease and beef balderdash fertility are considered (Morrell et al., 2018; McWhorter et al., 2020). Dairies with favorable reproductive operation (east.g., 30% pregnancy rate vs. xv% pregnancy rate for poor functioning) (Li and Cabrera, 2019a) accept more opportunities to combine the employ of sexed dairy semen, beefiness semen, and other strategies such as embryo transfer. For instance, farmers can breed heifers and genetically superior cows with sexed dairy semen, while using beefiness semen in genetically inferior cows (Ettema et al., 2017). Furthermore, controlling heifer inventory is an important economic opportunity for dairy farmers (Overton and Dhuyvetter, 2020) and it presents additional benefits such equally the reduction of the environmental footprint of dairy production through the reduction of methyl hydride and phosphorus emissions (Hristov et al., 2013; Vellinga and de Vries, 2018).

Documenting current convenance decisions adopted past dairy farmers is important to evaluate the impacts of the use of applied science in reproduction and genetics as well as to sympathize their perceptions and attitudes toward bachelor breeding strategies. It is likewise useful to identify management opportunities that would maximize the economic return of the reproductive strategy adopted. This information is important to guide research and extension activities that assistance farmers to maximize their economic returns of dairy operations by adjusting management decisions such every bit breeding strategies, heifer inventory, culling, and reproductive functioning (Li and Cabrera, 2019b). Additionally, specific needs of the beef manufacture such as feed intake and conversion, weight proceeds, carcass yield, and quality are important aspects and must be considered past the dairy farmer to back up a better premium price for the dairy-beefiness crossbred animals to guarantee the sustainability of this market (Berry, 2021; Felix, 2021).

Even though the apply of beefiness semen by dairy herds is growing across the US (Felix, 2021), it is specially relevant for California dairy producers who stand for approximately eighteen.five% of all the cattle produced and 19% of the milk production in the United states (California Department of Nutrient Agriculture, 2020; USDA, 2021). Therefore, the objectives of this cross-sectional study were to draw the current management practices on the utilise of beefiness semen by dairy farms, using the California dairy industry as a model, and comparing these practices among regions of the state by herd size and breeds.

Additionally, nosotros aimed to determine the associations betwixt herd characteristics and the utilise of beef and sexed dairy semen and the price of day-onetime dairy-beefiness crossbred calves. Our hypothesis was that herd size, region of the country, and utilise of sexed dairy semen are associated with the use of beef semen.

Materials and Methods

Study Pattern

For the designed cross-sectional report, a questionnaire (Supplementary File 1) was created to obtain data on the use of beef semen by dairy herds. The state of California was chosen due to its importance for the U.s.a. dairy industry and the diversity of production systems according to the regions of the state. The questionnaire was reviewed and approved by the University of California, Davis Institutional Review Lath (IRB ID: 1510095-i). The survey was evaluated past three dairy producers for feedback on content and organization of each question.

The questionnaire contained 33 questions and was categorized into three sections: full general herd information, beefiness semen management, and sexed dairy semen management. Question format ranged from a single pick of multiple options, multiple choices of multiple options, and make full in the bare when the option "other" was selected (a blank space was added to exist filled past the respondent).

A complete list of California dairy producers was obtained from the California Section of Nutrient and Agriculture in January 2020 (n = i,256). Indistinguishable addresses (northward = 231) were excluded from the listing. Online and paper versions of the survey were created using Qualtrics (Qualtrics Research Suite, Provo, Utah, USA). First, a postcard was sent past mail service to all the dairy producers on our list on Jan 17, 2020 (n = 1,025). The postcard contained data about the research projection and survey and instructions on accessing the online version of the questionnaire. Eight postcards were returned due to an incorrect address. One calendar week later, we mailed all the one,017 dairy farmers a double-sided, ii-page survey and an introductory letter of the alphabet with the goals of report, researchers involved, the confidentiality of responses, and the method to render answers using a prepaid envelope. The start 100 respondents were rewarded with a $10 gift bill of fare. In March, a follow-upward reminder postcard was sent to dairies that did not answer. Responses were received until May 30, 2020.

Responses were categorized by herd breed equally pure Holstein (HO), pure Jersey (JE), and others (OT), which included mixed breeds and/or crossbred cows and by herd size (<500, 501 to 1,500, and >i,500 lactating dairy cows). Responses were compared across three regions equally described in Dear et al. (2016): Northern California (NCA), Northern San Joaquin Valley (NSJV), and Greater Southern California (GSCA; Figure i), to determine whether differences in the use of beefiness-on-dairy across the land existed, every bit these regions host dissimilar production systems. This comparison is also important because herd size and management differences across these regions exist (Beloved et al., 2016). The number of respondents per question varied because the respondents were given the option to answer or skip questions.

Figure i. Map of California regions included in the beef semen survey: Northern California (NCA), Northern San Joaquin Valley (NSJV), and Greater Southern California (GSCA) (adapted from Love et al., 2016).

Questions without an answer or with an unclear response were not included in the data analyses. All the information received were recorded in a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington, Usa) and subsequently were exported into a unmarried file into SAS 9.4 (SAS Constitute Incorporation, Cary, Northward Carolina, U.s.). The error survey rate was calculated using the Survey Random Sample Calculator (Custom Insight Inc., 2010) to obtain the accuracy of our data; an fault survey charge per unit between 4 and eight% was deemed acceptable (Pollfish, 2021).

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were performed with the MEANS and FREQ procedures of SAS 9.4. The price received for the crossbred calf was a continuous variable; therefore, factors associated with information technology were determined using a general linear model in PROC GLM (SAS Institute Incorporation, Cary, North Carolina, USA). The factors considered were herd brood (HO, JE, and OT); region of the state (NCA, NSJV, and GSCA); herd size (≤500, 501 to ane,500, and >1,500 lactating dairy cows); boilerplate milk production (kg/cow per twenty-four hour period); whether the farmer raised the dairy-beef crossbred calves (yes, no, or both, meaning raised some and sold some); whether a contract with a calf ranch existed (yes or no); duration of time using beefiness semen (<1 twelvemonth, between 1 and three years, between 4 and 6 years, and more than half-dozen years); percentage of cows bred with beef semen (<10%, betwixt 11 and 20%, between 21 and xxx%, and more 30%); and the apply of sexed dairy semen (yep or no). Interactions upward to the third club were tested. Significance was considered at p <0.05 and tendency at 0.05 < p < 0.10.

The use of beef semen and the utilise of sexed dairy semen (yep or no) were analyzed past logistic regression using PROC LOGISTIC (SAS 9.4). For the use of beef semen (response variable), predictor variables were sexed dairy semen use (yes or no); region (NCA, NSJV, and GSCA); herd size (<500, 501 to one,500, and >one,500 lactating dairy cows); and herd brood (HO and OT; JE herds were not included every bit all the Bailiwick of jersey respondents were using beef semen). For the utilize of sexed dairy semen (response variable), predictor variables were beefiness semen utilise (yeah or no); region (NCA, NSJV, and GSCA); herd size (<500, 501 to one,500, and >one,500 lactating dairy cows); and herd breed (HO and OT). Two-way interactions were tested, but not kept in the model, as they were non significant.

Results

General Description of Respondents

A total of 141 responses (13.ix%) from 21 countries in California were returned. Four respondents sold their operations; thus, the total number of surveys analyzed was 137, representing 10.3% of all the California dairies in 2019 (California Section of Food Agriculture, 2020). The number of respondents per region of California was proportional to the distribution of surveys mailed. Of the total surveys mailed, 17.ix% were sent to dairies in NCA and 15.nine% of the respondents were from this region. Also, 40.i and 42.0% of the surveys were mailed to NSJV and GSCA regions and 43.6 and 40.5% of the respondents were from these regions, respectively. The sum of lactating cows from the respondents was 206,496, representing 11.ix% of the full number of lactating cows in California in 2019 (California Section of Food Agriculture, 2020). Of all the respondents, 23 (xvi.8%) respondents responded to the survey online. Overall, the error survey rate was 7.7%, with a 95% confidence level (Custom Insight Inc., 2010). The survey response was 65.0% by owners (n = 89), thirteen.1% past managers (n = 18), and i.5% by partners (due north = ii). A total of 28 (20.4%) respondents did not indicate their job title.

Herd characteristics co-ordinate to the region of the country are given in Table ane. Herd size ranged from 105 to 5,500 cows and the mean ± SD was i,693 ± 1,311 lactating cows. Of the respondents, xviii.8% had <500 cows (n = 23), 32.eight% had betwixt 501 and one,500 cows (n = 44), and 48.four% had >one,500 lactating cows (n = 55). Milk production (kg/cow per day) averaged 35.2 kg and ranged from xviii.1 to 45.3 kg. For all the data regardless of region, pure HO was the herd breed with the greatest number of responses (72.four%, n = 89), followed by other breeds (eighteen.7%, northward = 23) and JE breed (8.9%, north = eleven). Nearly respondents were in the NSJV, followed past GSCA, and the fewest respondents were in the NCA. The NCA had the smallest boilerplate herd size and lowest milk production per moo-cow.

Table 1. Dairy herd characteristics of all the respondents by region of the California beefiness semen survey.

Beef and Sexed Dairy Semen Practices

A total of 81% of respondents were using beefiness semen on dairy cows (n = 103). Among those herds, 2 respondents were using beef embryos (ane.half dozen%) and one respondent was convenance with male-sexed beef semen (0.8%). Extra turn a profit (78.one%, north = 75), controlling heifer inventory (69.viii%, n = 67), genetic improvement (37.five%, n = 36), and other factors such as improved conception rate and reproduction (8.3%, n = 8) were the factors reported equally the master advantages of using beef semen; furthermore, 54.6% of the respondents (northward = 53) reported both extra profit and command of heifer inventory as the primary advantages of using beef semen on their dairy cows. Among producers who were not using beef semen (n = 25), 21 were HO herds (84%) and four were herds classified as other breeds (xvi%). All the Jersey herds were using beef semen to breed their dairy cows. From those herds that were not using beef semen, 41.seven% of HO herds were from NSJV (due north = 10), twenty.eight% were from NCA (northward = v) and from GSCA (northward = five), and eight.3% of the other herds were from NCA (n = two) and GSCA (n = two).

Overall, 14% of respondents have been using beefiness semen for <1 year (n = 14), a higher pct of 58% were using from ane to three years (north = 58), 20% were using from 4 to vi years (n = xx), and a modest per centum were using it for more than 6 years (viii.0%, northward = eight). Approximately, 26% (n = 26) of the respondents were using beef semen in <x% of their herd (nulliparous and multiparous cows), 21% (n = 21) were convenance between 11 and twenty%, nineteen% (n = 19) were using beef semen in 21 to xxx%, and 34% (due north = 34) were using beef semen in more than 30% of all the cows. The percent of dairies raising their own dairy-beef crossbred calves was 19.4% (due north = nineteen) and amidst those, 57.nine% (north = xi) were both selling 1-day-one-time and raising dairy-beef crossbred calves. The majority of the respondents (82.7%, n = 81) reported a price of <$10 per straw of beef semen and 17.3% had a cost betwixt $10 and $15.

A summary of beef semen practices of all the respondents past California region is given in Table 2. About respondents breeding more than than 30% of their cows with beef semen were from GSCA, followed by NSJV then NCA. Figure ii shows the most common beefiness breeds used past dairy farmers in California in 2020 for inseminating their cows. More than than 90% of pure HO herds were convenance with Angus semen, followed by Wagyu and Charolais at <10%.

Table 2. Dairy herd characteristics of all the respondents using beef semen past California region.

Figure 2. Nigh mutual beef semen breeds used according to dairy herd brood in California in 2020. An, Angus; Ch, Charolais; Li, Limousin; Ot, Limflex, Stabilizer, and Hereford semen; Si, Simmental; Wa, Wagyu; others, Indicates herds with crossbred, Jersey, and Holstein cows.

Pure Jersey herds more often than not used Angus and Limousin semen. Other California dairy herds besides were breeding mostly with Angus and a smaller percentage of Limousin semen. Overall, Angus semen was the most mutual unmarried brood of beef semen used, followed by Limousin, Wagyu, Charolais, others (Limflex, Stabilizer, and Hereford), and Simmental. The proportion of respondents using more than than one beef breed for inseminating their cows was the greatest for Jersey herds (80%, n = 8). Pure HO (81.7%, n = 58) and other herds (66.7%, northward = 10) predominantly used ane beef brood. 86% of the respondents using beefiness semen were also reported the use of sexed dairy semen (n = 84).

The logistic regression model results for the associations between herd characteristics and beef and sexed dairy semen use is given in Table 3. Region of the state tended (p = 0.061) to be associated with the utilize of beef semen where compared with the NSJV, herds in the NCA had lesser odds of using beefiness semen [odds ratio (OR): 0.139, CI: 0.025–0.776]. No difference was observed between GSCA and NSJV (OR: 1.077, CI: 0.289–4.016). A tendency (p = 0.067) was also observed for the clan between herd size and the use of beefiness semen, where herds with a number of lactating cows between 501 and i,500 had lower odds of using beef semen when compared to herds with <500 lactating cows (OR: 0.166, CI: 0.027–1.002). Herd breed was not associated with the utilize of beef (p = 0.446) or sexed dairy semen (p = 0.857). Farmers who use beef semen had greater odds of using sexed dairy semen (OR: vi.912, CI: 2.054–23.262) and herds with 501–ane,500 lactating cows and more than 1,500 lactating cows had 5.233 and viii.597 greater odds of using sexed dairy semen than dairies with <500 lactating cows (OR: 5.233, CI: 1.181–23.177 and OR: 8.597, CI: 1.734–42.612), respectively.

Tabular array iii. Estimates and consequence measure from a logistic regression model for the association between herd characteristics and the use of beefiness and sexed dairy semen by California dairies in 2020.

Moo-cow Pick Criteria

Criteria for selecting cows for convenance with sexed semen and beef semen are shown in Figures 3A,B, respectively. Overall, lactation number (due north = 46), reproductive performance (n = 37), genomic testing (n = 34), and milk production (n = 31) were the main factors producers used to select cows to breed with sexed dairy semen (Figure 3A). Sexed dairy semen was mostly existence used in heifers (94.1%, n = 79) and kickoff lactation cows (69.ane%, due north = 58). Based on reproductive operation, 26.4% (due north = 19) of producers were breeding sexed dairy semen on their cows on kickoff convenance, 62.v% (n = 45) on get-go and second breedings, vi.9% (north = five) on first, second, and third breedings, 2.eight% (n = two) from the first to 4th breedings, and 1.39% (n = 1) were using sexed dairy semen from first to fifth breedings or more.

Figure 3. Distribution of dairy herds according to the master factors considered for convenance cows with (A) sexed dairy semen or (B) beefiness semen in 2020. Respondents had the pick to select more than one strategy; thus, percentages exercise not full to 100%.

A total of sixty% of the producers (due north = 60) combined more than i benchmark for selecting cows to be eligible to receive beef semen. Reproductive performance (n = 74), lactation number (n = 54), and milk product (north = 42) were the most common criteria that farmers reported for selecting cows to breed with beef semen (Effigy 3B). Well-nigh farmers started using beef semen for breeding cows in their tertiary and greater lactations (51.4%, north = 36), followed by 2d (37.1%, north = 26) and first (22.nine%, n = sixteen) lactations and 25.vii% (n = xviii) of respondents reported starting using beef semen on their heifers.

The greatest percent of farmers (45.0%) reported starting breeding with beef semen on the third convenance, xviii.0% on the quaternary breeding, and 21.0% on the fifth breeding of moo-cow onward. Overall, preference of the calf ranch (42.3%, north = 41), cost of the beefiness semen (42.iii%, north = 41), and calving ease (21.vi%, northward = 21) were the primary factors driving the selection of the beef semen used, but 24.7% of respondents (north = 24) were combining more than one factor for beef semen selection. Amongst respondents, 9.4% (n = ix) reported problems using beef semen. Fertility (55.6%, due north = 5), dogie size (22.2%, n = 2), and calving difficulty (22.2%, due north = 2) were the master bug described.

Dairy-Beef Crossbred Calf Price

The prices received past the respondents for their twenty-four hours-old dairy-beef crossbred calves are shown in Figure iv. Regardless of the herd breed, Angus-dairy crossbred calves had the greatest day-old price variation, from <$50/calf to more than $250/dogie. Within HO herds, the range of mean solar day-onetime crossbred calf prices was between <$50/calf to more than than $250/calf, simply the highest prices were obtained when Wagyu and Charolais semen were used (more than $250). For Jersey herds, the day-old crossbred calf prices were betwixt <$50/calf to $201–$250/calf. Within Jersey herds, using Charolais semen earned the best market place value for the crossbred dogie ($201–$250).

Figure 4. Distribution of the day-old dairy-beef crossbred calf auction cost co-ordinate to breeds of dairy cows and beef semen used in California in 2020. An, Angus; Ch, Charolais; Li, Limousin; Ot, Limflex, Stabilizer, and Hereford semen; Si, Simmental; Wa, Wagyu; others, indicates herds with crossbred, Jersey, and Holstein cows.

Region of the state (p = 0.017; xi.eight%), contract with a calf ranch (p < 0.0001, 31.1%), and the herd breed (p < 0.0001, 33.8%) were associated with the price received for the dairy-beef crossbred calf, explaining 76.seven% of the observed variation of the 24-hour interval-old crossbred calf price. The to the lowest degree-square hateful prices (SE) for GSCA, NCA, and NSJV were $180.30 ($8.60), $136.twenty ($14.l), and $157.50 ($7.90), respectively. For herd breed, the least-square means (SE) were $184.40 ($7.twenty, pure HO herds), $113.00 ($13.30, JE herds), and $176.60 ($x.70, OT herds). The pct of dairies that reported contracting with a calf ranch was 41.2% (due north = twoscore). When producers were asked the question "How do yous experience the crossbred market volition be in the next few years?," 57.iii% of respondents reported that the dairy-beefiness crossbred calf price would decrease (n = 55), few believed that the price would increment (v.2%, n = 5), and 27.ane% reported that the market would remain the same (north = 26).

Discussion

This cross-sectional study summarizes the practices with respect to the utilize of beef semen on dairy herds adopted past dairy producers and demonstrates factors associated with the mean solar day-onetime dairy-beef crossbred price. The apply of beef semen on dairy herds brings flexibility and economic opportunities to dairy farmers through their reproductive management program. This strategy is not new, but has gained momentum due to current marketplace conditions. In California, most producers take started using beef on dairy in the last 4 years, regardless of herd size or breed, in accordance with the increment in the sales of beef semen in the U.s. (NAAB, 2021). Similar California, dairies in other states across the US are using beef semen equally well. Every bit reported past Agsource Dairy (2019) using data from three,200 dairy farms from the eastern US, 16% of all the moo-cow breedings in 2019 were with beef semen. A survey conducted in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa reported that almost eighty% of respondents used beef genetics on their dairy cows (Halfman and Sterry, 2019), similar to what we reported in this study. Fifty-fifty though our survey was conducted only amongst California dairy farmers, California holds nearly 20% of all the dairy cattle in the The states (USDA, 2021). The California dairy industry contributes 19–22% to the US beef production (Boetel, 2016), hence the importance of documenting the beef on dairy direction practices in the state.

The data presented hither are representative of the multifariousness of farms that comprise the California dairy manufacture. Dairies in the NCA region are characterized by small herds, certified organic producers, and pasture-based herds (Beloved et al., 2016; California Department of Food Agriculture, 2018; Martins et al., 2019), whereas the NSJV concentrates most of the commercial, freestall, and dry lot herds.

Herds in the NCA region had lower odds of using beefiness and sexed dairy semen when compared to herds in the NSJV, regardless of size. Furthermore, the reported day-old dairy-beef crossbred prices received by producers in the NCA were lower than prices received by producers in the NSJV and GSCA. Differences in reproductive performance, milk price, heifer raising, and market atmospheric condition for the herds in these regions may explicate these differences. Herds using beefiness semen had greater odds of using sexed dairy semen. This result agrees with the literature as the availability and use of sexed dairy semen allows farmers to obtain the number of heifers needed from a reduced number of breedings (De Vries, 2019), giving the producers a greater opportunity to manage their reproductive programs.

In this written report, producers reported actress turn a profit as the main perceived advantage for using beefiness semen on dairy cows. Overall, economic opportunities of using beef on dairy have been highlighted by other studies (Ettema et al., 2017; Li and Cabrera, 2019a). The second most important perceived advantage of using beef on dairy was the control of heifer inventory. Sexed dairy semen utilize, improvements in reproductive performance, and better heifer direction have resulted in an excess number of replacement heifers (Bickhart and Hutchison, 2016; De Vries, 2020). The current price of raising heifers is estimated to exist $2,016 (Overton and Dhuyvetter, 2020), but the average market price for California, for case, for females due to calve is $1,350 (Farmers Livestock Market—Oakdale, California, USA, April 2021). Therefore, raising excess replacement heifers under current marketplace conditions may lead to economic losses (De Vries, 2020; Overton and Dhuyvetter, 2020) and increasing culling rates to adjust excess heifers are non an optimal economic decision (De Vries, 2017). Genetic improvement of the herd was besides perceived as an additional advantage of using beef on dairy and in this written report, producers reported the employ of genomic selection to select cows to receive sexed dairy and beef semen. This strategy increases the genetic proceeds, reducing the genetic lag of the herd due to the apply of dairy semen on the genetically superior heifers and cows (Ettema et al., 2017; De Vries, 2019). Nonetheless, the apply of genomic information may be a less valuable strategy when beef semen is used and the prices of the mean solar day-former dairy-beefiness crossbred calves are high (De Vries, 2019).

The economic reward of using beef on dairy would depend on herd reproductive operation, the lifespan of cows, costs of the sexed dairy and beefiness semen (Pahmeyer and Britz, 2020), and market conditions such every bit heifer and the day-old crossbred calf price (Li and Cabrera, 2019b). For instance, in an economical simulation from Li and Cabrera (2019a), considering an adequate supply of replacement heifers and a premium of $225/head paid on day-quondam dairy-beef crossbred calves, income from calves over semen costs would be maximized when sexed dairy semen is used in the kickoff and second breeding of heifers, in the first breeding of first and second lactation cows, and all other breedings are washed with beefiness semen. The reproductive practices reported by producers in this written report are aligned with this strategy, as they have mostly used sexed dairy semen in heifers and starting time breeding of cows, with parity and breeding number being the main criteria used to select which cows would receive each blazon of semen.

Nosotros observed a large variation in the beef semen chosen and, consequently, in the price of the solar day-former dairy-beef crossbred calf. The herd breed, having a contract with a dogie ranch, and the region of California where the farm is located (a proxy for the blazon of farm) were factors associated with the price received when dairy-beef crossbred calves were sold. The greatest variation observed for Angus crosses may be explained past the widespread use of Angus semen, which is the semen with the highest domestic sales in the U.s.a. (NAAB, 2021). A greater number of Angus breedings generates data that may lead to the improvement of Angus bulls focused on dairy-beef crossbred performance (McWhorter et al., 2020), reinforcing its widespread utilise.

For dairy herds, conception rate and calving ease are important features that must be considered when selecting the beef balderdash to be used, particularly due to the use of beef semen on repeated breeders (Cauffman et al., 2019; Halfman and Sterry, 2019). In this written report, low conception rates, calf size, and hard calving were common issues reported by dairy farmers when using beefiness semen. Besides, the sustainability of the dairy-beef crossbred market also depends on the power of dairy farmers to provide a high-quality product that would fulfill the needs of beef industry for feed efficiency in the feedlot and carcass characteristics. In this study, well-nigh dairy farmers reported choosing beef semen on the basis of the preferences of the dogie rancher purchasing the twenty-four hour period-onetime dairy-beefiness crossbred calf. However, semen price is a benchmark used by but 18% of the dairy producers. Semen price was reported as the about important aspect for beefiness semen selection by dairy producers in Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin (Halfman and Sterry, 2019). Even though semen price may influence the income from calves over semen cost (Li and Cabrera, 2019a), it is possible to obtain skillful reproductive performance on the dairy side and greater results on feed intake and carcass weight and quality on the beefiness side (Twomey et al., 2020).

In this study, only xix% of respondents were raising their dairy-beef crossbred calves. Cognition about the beef marketplace and its needs are an opportunity for dairy farmers to increase the premium received for their dairy-beef crossbred calves, especially for Bailiwick of jersey herds that historically have received very low prices for their male calves (Bechtel, 2018). Dairy farmers could capture additional economic opportunities, if the ownership of dairy-beefiness crossbred calves were kept until 180 kg or slaughtered. Basham (2020) reported that retaining ownership of dairy-beefiness crossbred calves up to 180 kg would exist the most profitable strategy for dairy farmers, although higher risk incurs. Therefore, information technology is important to consider market weather condition and plan the demand for replacement heifers to obtain a maximum economic render from the employ of beef semen on dairy cows and economic studies evaluating the well-nigh profitable management alternative for dairy farmers are warranted.

Last, this report may contain biases as dairy producers who practise not use beef semen may accept been less probable to answer to the survey. Furthermore, of import aspects that may make up one's mind the opportunity to utilise beef semen past dairy herds such as reproductive performance of the herd, breeding program, intention to expand the herd, heifer raising system and performance indexes, and type of production system were non captured by our survey. Some other important consideration is that some answers were received correct at the beginning of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United states of america, affecting dairy and beef markets profoundly, and possibly affecting some of the responses obtained.

Even so, the information presented here demonstrates the multiplicity of beef on dairy strategies adopted by farmers and highlights the need for further studies on the topic.

The results of this written report demonstrated the widespread use of beef semen in dairy herds. Parity and breeding number were the main criteria that dairy farmers used to choose which cows to receive sexed dairy and beef semen. There was high variability in the price received for the day-erstwhile, dairy-beef crossbred calf, and having a contract with a dogie ranch, Angus crosses, and breed of the dairy herd were associated with the calf price. The beef strategies on dairy practices reported here may non differ from other dairy herds beyond the US, but herd reproductive operation and market conditions may influence the adopted reproductive strategy.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will exist made bachelor by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ideals Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved past the University of California, Davis Institutional Review Board (IRB ID: 1510095-1). The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Writer Contributions

FF secured funding for the written report. FF and DB contributed to conception and pattern of the study. JP and FF organized the distribution of the survey. JP led the data management and performed statistical assay, overseen by FF and MM. JP wrote the first typhoon of the manuscript. JP, MM, and FF wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision and approved the submitted version.

Funding

Scholarship by the JP was supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq).

Conflict of Involvement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Annotation

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and practice non necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Whatever product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made past its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed past the publisher.

Acknowledgments

JP thanks CNPq, Brasilia, Federal District, Brazil, for financial support of her graduate studies. The authors too thank the California dairy farmers for their collaboration on this written report and Neb VerBoort (AgriTech, California) for his valuable insights and feedback on this study.

Supplementary Fabric

The Supplementary Material for this article tin be plant online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/x.3389/fanim.2021.785253/total#supplementary-material

References

Basham, W. (2020). Dairy-Beefiness Memory Options. (Master's thesis), Kansas Country Academy, Manhattan, KS (USA).

Google Scholar

Bickhart, D. M., and Hutchison, J. 50. (2016). Sexed-semen usage for holstein AI in the United States. J. Anim. Sci. 94:180. doi: 10.2527/jam2016-0372

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cauffman, A., Educator, Due east. A., County, Grand., Sterry, R., Agent, E. A., County, S. C., et al. (2019). Considerations for Breeding Dairy Cattle to Beef Breeds for Meat Product. Available online at: https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2019/07/Beef-on-Dairy-Sire-Choice-07-16-xix.pdf (accessed Feb 25, 2021).

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

De Vries, A. (2019). "Culling, beef and sexed semen: which strategies make economic sense?," in Proceeding Dairy Cattle Nutrition Workshop (Hershey, PA).

Google Scholar

Ettema, J. F., Thomasen, J. R., Hjortø, Fifty., Kargo, M., Østergaard, Southward., and Sørensen, A. C. (2017). Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 100, 4161–4171. doi: x.3168/jds.2016-11333

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Felix, T. (2021). "The role of nutrition & imoants in dairy beef wellness & animal performance," in Proceeding I-29 Moo Academy–Dairy Beefiness Brusk Class (Orangish City).

Google Scholar

Hristov, A. N., Ott, T., Tricarico, J., Rotz, A., Waghorn, G., Adesogan, A., et al. (2013). SPECIAL TOPICS-mitigation of marsh gas and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: II. A review of manure management mitigation options. J. Anim. Sci. 91, 5070–5094. doi: ten.2527/jas.2013-6584

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, W., and Cabrera, V. E. (2019a). "Economics of using beef semen," in Proceeding Western Dairy Management Conference (Reno, NV), 66–79.

Google Scholar

Li, Due west., and Cabrera, V. E. (2019b). "Dairy × beef: fad or sustainable future," in Proceeding Dairy Cattle Reproduction Council Briefing (Pittsburgh, PA; New Prague, MN: Dairy Cattle Reproduction Council), 32–40.

Google Scholar

Love, W. J., Lehenbauer, T. W., Karle, B. M., Hulbert, 50. E., Anderson, R. J., Van Eenennaam, A. 50., et al. (2016). Survey of management practices related to bovine respiratory affliction in preweaned calves on California dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 99, 1483–1494. doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-9394

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Martins, J. P. N., Karle, B. Grand., and Heguy, J. G. (2019). Needs assessment for cooperative extension dairy programs in California. J. Dairy Sci. 102, 7597–7607. doi: ten.3168/jds.2018-15959

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McWhorter, T. Chiliad., Hutchison, J. Fifty., Norman, H. D., Cole, J. B., Fok, Thousand. C., Lourenco, D. A. Fifty., et al. (2020). Investigating formulation charge per unit for beef service sires bred to dairy cows and heifers. J. Dairy Sci. 103, 10374–10382. doi: x.3168/jds.2020-18399

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Overton, M. W., and Dhuyvetter, One thousand. C. (2020). Symposium review: An abundance of replacement heifers: what is the economical impact of raising more than are needed? J. Dairy Sci. 103, 3828–3837. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-17143

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Twomey, A. J., Ring, S. C., McHugh, Northward., and Berry, D. P. (2020). Carcass and efficiency metrics of beef cattle differ by whether the calf was born in a dairy or a beefiness herd. J. Anim. Sci. 98, 1–11. doi: ten.1093/jas/skaa321

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vellinga, T. V., and de Vries, G. (2018). Effectiveness of climate change mitigation options because the corporeality of meat produced in dairy systems. Agric. Syst. 162, 136–144. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.026

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

croweamosout.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fanim.2021.785253/full

Share this post