Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:28:20.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Profitability of a dairy sheep genetic improvement program using artificial insemination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2010

G. E. Valergakis ,
A. I. Gelasakis ,
G. Oikonomou ,
G. Arsenos ,
P. Fortomaris  and
G. Banos
G. E. Valergakis*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Production, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, PO Box 393, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
A. I. Gelasakis
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Production, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, PO Box 393, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
G. Oikonomou
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Production, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, PO Box 393, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
G. Arsenos
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Production, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, PO Box 393, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
P. Fortomaris
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Production, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, PO Box 393, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
G. Banos
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Production, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, PO Box 393, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
†E-mail: geval@vet.auth.gr
Get access

Abstract

This simulation study investigated the farm-level economic benefits of a genetic improvement scheme using artificial insemination (AI) with fresh ram semen in dairy sheep of the Chios breed in Greece. Data were collected from 67 farms associated with the Chios Sheep Breeders’ Cooperative ‘Macedonia’, describing the percentage of ewes that would be artificially inseminated in the flock, pregnancy rate, annual ram costs that could be saved using AI rather than natural mating, expected improvement in milk production, annual costs of semen and feed, milk price and number of years of AI usage. The study considered 77 760 possible scenarios in a 3 × 4 × 4 × 3 × 3 × 3 × 4 × 15 factorial arrangement. Analysis of variance was used to investigate the effect of each factor on farm profitability. All factors considered were statistically significant (P < 0.001), but their effect varied. The number of years using AI had the greatest effect on profitability and farmers should become aware that using AI is a long-term investment. Semen price, pregnancy rate and improvement in milk production also had substantial effects. The price of milk and feed had a considerably lower effect on profitability, as did the annual cost of maintaining rams that would be replaced by AI. A positive annual and cumulative return was achieved in the model within the first 6 years. The cost of semen was estimated at 8€ to 10€ per dose for the first 5 years. Where the annual improvement in milk production was 1% of annual phenotypic mean (e.g. 3.0 kg) profitability of the scheme was improved greatly.

Keywords

sheepgenetic improvementartificial insemination
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 10 , October 2010 , pp. 1628 - 1633
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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

Abbott, KA 1994. Cost–benefit evaluation of artificial insemination for genetic improvement of wool-producing sheep. Australian Veterinary Journal 71, 353–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anon 2008. Les filières ovines dans l’UE. Des moutons bien mal gardés. Rédaction: Département Economie (GEB). Novembre 2008, no. 383, Institut de l’élevage, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Arranz, JM, Freret, S, Fidelle, F, Fatet, A, Druart, X, Beckers, JF, Sulon, J, Sousa, NM, Bodin, L, David, I, Lagriffoul, G, Beltran de Heredia, I, Sasieta, L, Arrese, F, Maeztu Sardina, F, Lana Soto, MP, Lasarte, M 2008. Réussite a l’insémination en élevages ovins laitiers pyrénéens: facteurs de variation lies aux conduits de troupeaux. Les Journées 3R, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Barillet, F, Marie, C, Jacquin, M, Lagriffoul, G, Astruc, JM 2001. The French Lacaune dairy sheep breed: use in France and abroad in the last 40 years. Livestock Production Science 71, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyazoglu, J, Morand-Fehr, P 2001. Mediterranean dairy sheep and goat products and their quality: a critical review. Small Ruminant Research 40, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chios Sheep Breeders Cooperative ‘Macedonia’ 2004. Sheep of the Chios breed. Annual Bulletin. Chios Sheep Breeders Cooperative ‘Macedonia’, Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
David, I, Robert-Granié, C, Manfredi, E, Lagriffoul, G, Bodin, L 2008a. Environmental and genetic variation factors of artificial insemination success in French dairy sheep. Animal 2, 979–986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
David, I, Leymarie, C, Lagriffoul, G, Manfredi, E, Robert-Granié, C, Bodin, I 2008b. Facteurs de variation génétiques et environnementaux de la production de semences et de la réussite de l’insémination artificielle en ovin. Les Journées 3R, Paris, France.Google Scholar
deRancourt, M, Fois, N, Lavin, MP, Tchakérian, E, Vallerand, F 2006. Mediterranean sheep and goat production: an uncertain future. Small Ruminant Research 62, 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, A, Hanrahan, JP, Kummen, E, Duffy, P, Boland, MP 2004. Fertility in the ewe following cervical insemination with fresh or frozen-thawed semen at a natural or synchronised oestrus. Animal Reproduction Science 84, 359–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, G, Maxwell, WMC 1987. Salamon’s Artificial Insemination of Sheep and Goats, p. 194. Butterworths, Sydney.Google Scholar
Eurostat 2004. Agricultural statistics – Quarterly Bulletin 1/2004. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Fatet, A, Leboeuf, B, Freret, S, Druart, X, Bodin, L, Caillât, H, David, I, Palhière, I, Boué, P, Lagriffoul, G 2008. L’insémination dans les filières ovines et caprines. Les Journées 3R, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Garrick, D 2005. A systematic approach to the design and enhancement of breeding programs. Abstracts of the 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, p. 318. Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Gelasakis, AI, Arsenos, G, Valergakis, GE, Fortomaris, P 2009. A proposed novel breeding system for intensively reared dairy flocks (poster presentation). Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the British Society of Animal Science, Southport, UK, p. 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelasakis, AI, Valergakis, GE, Arsenos, G, Basdagianni, Z, Sinapis, E, Banos, G 2008. Reproductive management in Chios breed flocks of the “Macedonia” Cooperative (in Greek). Animal Science Review, Special edition no. 34, Hellenic Association of Animal Science, pp. 94–95.Google Scholar
Gordon, I 1997. In: Controlled Reproduction in Sheep and Goats (ed. Gordon I) vol. 2, pp. 116–145. CAB International, UK.Google Scholar
Hassoun, P, Bocquier, F 2007. Alimentation des ovins. In Tables INRA 2007, pp. 121–136. Editions Quae, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
Hygate, L 2002. Improving profitability of Merino properties through the rational use of artificial insemination and objective measurement in sheep selection. International Journal of Sheep and Wool Science 50, 417–422.Google Scholar
Kuehn, LA, Lewis, RM, Notter, DR 2007. Managing the risk of comparing estimated breeding values across flocks or herds through connectedness: a review and application. Genetics Selection Evolution 39, 225–247.Google ScholarPubMed
Lewis, RM, Simm, G 2000. Selection strategies in sire referencing schemes in sheep. Livestock Production Science 67, 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, D, Skerritt, J 2003. Improved breeding in dairy goats and milking sheep, publication no. 02/150, pp. 27–39. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Kingston ACT, Australia.Google Scholar
Morand-Fehr, P, Boyazoglu, J 1999. Present state and future outlook of the small ruminant sector. Small Ruminant Research 34, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, FW 1996. Genetic improvement through reproductive technology. Animal Reproduction Science 42, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perret, G, Castres, A 2001. Compte rendu annuel sur l’insémination artificielle ovine, Campagne 2000, CR no. 3063, Août 2001. Institut de l’élevage, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Salamon, S, Maxwell, WMC 1995. Frozen storage of ram semen. II. Causes of low fertility after cervical insemination and methods of improvement. Animal Reproduction Science 38, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smulders, JP, Serrano, M, Perez-Guzman, MD, Jimenez, MA, Uribe, H, Jurado, JJ 2007. Stochastic simulation of Manchega sheep breed selection scheme. Impact of artificial insemination, progeny testing system and nucleus size on genetic progress and inbreeding. Livestock Science 106, 218–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, DL 2004. Overview of the dairy sheep sector in Canada and the United States. Proceedings of the 10th Great Lakes Dairy Sheep Symposium, November 4–6, pp. 166–177. Hudson, WI, USA.Google Scholar
Valergakis, GE, Arsenos, G, Basdagianni, Z, Banos, G 2008. Grouping strategies and lead factors for ration formulation in milking ewes of the Chios breed. Livestock Science 115, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valergakis, GE, Gelasakis, AI, Arsenos, G, Basdagianni, Z, Banos, G 2009. Rearing costs of Chios rams and breeding costs per ewe (in Greek). Animal Science Review, special edition no. 35, Hellenic Association of Animal Science (in press).Google Scholar
Windsor, DP, Szell, AZ, Buschbeck, C, Edward, AY, Milton, JTB, Buckrell, BC 1994. Transervical artificial insemination of Australian Merino ewes with frozen-thawed semen. Theriogenology 42, 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zygogiannis, D 2006. Sheep production in the world and in Greece. Small Ruminant Research 62, 143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar