Abstract #839
Section: Production, Management and the Environment
Session: Production, Management, and the Environment VI
Format: Oral
Day/Time: Thursday 8:30 AM–8:45 AM
Location: Panzacola F-4
Session: Production, Management, and the Environment VI
Format: Oral
Day/Time: Thursday 8:30 AM–8:45 AM
Location: Panzacola F-4
# 839
Associations between management practices and reproductive performance in Canadian dairy herds.
José Denis-Robichaud*1, Ronaldo L. A. Cerri2, Andria Jones-Bitton1, Stephen J. LeBlanc1, 1Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 2Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Key Words: dairy cow, management, reproduction
Associations between management practices and reproductive performance in Canadian dairy herds.
José Denis-Robichaud*1, Ronaldo L. A. Cerri2, Andria Jones-Bitton1, Stephen J. LeBlanc1, 1Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 2Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
The objective of this study was to identify management practices associated with reproductive performance on Canadian dairy farms. A questionnaire was distributed online and by mail to Canadian dairy farmers from March to May 2014 to assess reproduction management. From 833 responses, reproduction management was categorized as mainly visual heat detection (n = 415 herds), timed artificial insemination (TAI; n = 175), automated activity monitoring (AAM; n = 85) where each represented >50% of AI, or “combined” practices (n = 131). Pregnancy rate (PR), insemination rate (IR), and conception risk (CR) per 21 d for 2013 were extracted from dairy herd information (DHI) files of 346 farms. Univariable linear regression models adjusted for region were used to identify associations of these reproduction performance measures with farms’ characteristics and management practices. The average (±SD) PR, IR, and CR were 17 ± 4.7%, 43 ± 11.3%, and 40 ± 8.5%, respectively. Pregnancy rate was lower in tiestall barns (15.2% CI = 14.4–16.0) than in freestall barns (17.9% CI = 17.2–18.6), in herds inseminating once per day (15.7% CI = 14.9–16.6) than in herds inseminating twice per day (17.8% CI = 16.8–18.7), and in herds with <100 lactating cows (16.2% CI = 15.5–16.8) than in herds with more than 250 lactating cows (20.1% CI = 17.2–22.9). Pregnancy rates were not significantly different by main reproduction management practice: visual heat detection (15.9% CI = 15.0–16.8), TAI (16.7% CI = 15.4–18.0), AAM (17.4% CI = 16.0–18.9), or combined practices (18.2% CI = 16.6–19.9). Insemination rates were lower in herds using visual heat detection (40.0% CI = 37.3–42.6) than in herds using TAI (47.4% CI = 43.8–50.9), or combined practices (46.7% CI = 42.6–50.7), but not significantly different from herds using AAM (44.0% CI = 40.3–47.7). Conception risks were higher in herds using visual heat detection (40.7% CI = 37.2–44.1) than in herds using TAI (36.8% CI = 33.0–40.3), but not significantly different from herds using AAM (40.0% CI = 36.1–43.9), or combined practices (39.8% CI = 35.8–43.9). Performance was influenced by factors other than the reproductive management program.
Key Words: dairy cow, management, reproduction
