Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:04:57.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic and non-genetic factors related to the success of artificial insemination in dairy goats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2015

V. Furstoss ,
I. David ,
A. Fatet ,
K. Boissard ,
V. Clément  and
L. Bodin
V. Furstoss*
Affiliation:
INRA, UE1373 Ferlus, F-86600 Lusignan, France
I. David
Affiliation:
INRA, GenPhySE (Génétique, Physiologie et Systèmes d’Elevage), F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France Université de Toulouse, INP, ENSAT, GenPhySE (Génétique, Physiologie et Systèmes d’Elevage), F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France Université de Toulouse, INP, ENVT, GenPhySE (Génétique, Physiologie et Systèmes d’Elevage), F-31076 Toulouse, France
A. Fatet
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR85 Physiologie de la Reproduction et des Compor tements, F- 37380 Nouzilly, France CNRS, UMR 7247, F-37380 Nouzilly, France Université François Rabelais de Tours, F-37000 Tours, France IFCE, F-37380 Nouzilly, France
K. Boissard
Affiliation:
INRA, UE1373 Ferlus, F-86600 Lusignan, France
V. Clément
Affiliation:
Institut de l’Élevage, F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
L. Bodin
Affiliation:
INRA, GenPhySE (Génétique, Physiologie et Systèmes d’Elevage), F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France Université de Toulouse, INP, ENSAT, GenPhySE (Génétique, Physiologie et Systèmes d’Elevage), F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France Université de Toulouse, INP, ENVT, GenPhySE (Génétique, Physiologie et Systèmes d’Elevage), F-31076 Toulouse, France
*
†E-mail: Vincent.furstoss @lusignan.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate genetic and non-genetic factors influencing artificial insemination (AI) success in French dairy goats. Data analysis, on a total of 584 676 and 386 517 AI records for Alpine and Saanen breed, respectively, collected from 1992 to 2009, was conducted separately on each breed. We used a linear simple repeatability animal model which combined male and female random effect and environmental fixed effects. The most important environmental factor identified was the period within year effect due to the European heat wave of 2003. The estimated values of the annual fertility exhibited a negative trend of 1% loss of AI success per 10 years for Alpine breed only. The range of variation for the flock×within years random effect was 70% and 65% for Alpine and Saanen breeds. The negative effect on AI success of antibody production after repetitive hormonal treatment was confirmed. We observed an important positive relationship between fertility and protein yield expressed as quartile within flock×years of protein 250-day yield for female with lactation number over 1, while this trend was negative for primiparous females. We detected a negative effect of the duration of conservation of semen with a difference of about 4% of AI success between extreme values (2 to 8+ or 9+ years). Heritability estimates for male fertility were 0.0037 and 0.0043 for Alpine and Saanen breed respectively, while estimates for female fertility was 0.040 and 0.049. Repeatability estimates for males were 0.008 and 0.010 for Alpine and Saanen, respectively, and 0.097 and 0.102 for females. With such low values of heritability, selection can hardly affect fertility.

Keywords

dairy goatsfertilitygenetic parametersenvironmental effect
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 12 , December 2015 , pp. 1935 - 1942
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Baril, G, Remy, B, Leboeuf, B, Beckers, JF and Saumande, J 1996. Synchronization of estrus in goats: the relationship between eCG binding in plasma, time of occurrence of estrus and fertility following artificial insemination. Theriogenology 45, 1553–1559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, S and Gagnon, C 2001. Production of reactive oxygen species by spermatozoa undergoing cooling, freezing, and thawing. Molecular Reproduction and Development 59, 451–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corteel, JM 1981. Collection, proceeding and artificial insemination of goat semen. In Goat production (ed. Gall C), pp. 171–191. Academic Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
Cutullic, E, Delaby, L, Gallard, Y and Disenhaus, C 2012. Towards a better understanding of the respective effects of milk yield and body condition dynamics on reproduction in Holstein dairy cows. Animal 6, 476–487.Google Scholar
David, I, Bodin, L, Lagriffoul, G, Leymarie, C, Manfredi, E and Robert-Granié, C 2007. Genetic analysis of male and female fertility after artificial insemination in sheep: comparison of single-trait and joint models. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3917–3923.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
David, I, Robert-Granié, C, Manfredi, E, Lagriffoul, G and Bodin, L 2008. Environmental and genetic variation factors of artificial insemination success in French dairy sheep. Animal 2, 979–986.Google Scholar
Delgadillo, JA, Leboeuf, B and Chemineau, P 1992. Abolition of seasonal variations in semen quality and maintenance of sperm fertilizing ability by photoperiodic cycles in goat bucks. Small Ruminant Research 9, 47–59.Google Scholar
Drion, PV, Furstoss, V, Baril, G, Manfredi, E, Bouvier, F, Pougnard, JL, Bernelas, D, Caugon, P, McNamara, EM, Remy, B, Sulon, J, Beckers, JF, Bodin, L and Leboeuf, B 2001. Four years of induction/synchronization of estrus in dairy goats: effect on the evolution of eCG binding rate in relation with the parameters of reproduction. Reproduction Nutrition Development 41, 401–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engle, RF 1984. Wald, likelihood ratio, and Lagrange multiplier tests in econometrics. Handbook of Econometrics 2, 775–826.Google Scholar
Fatet, A, Pellicer, MT, Palhière, I, Bouix, J, Lagriffoul, G, Piacère, A, Martin, P, Boué, P, Leboeuf, B and Bodin, L 2009. Impact of a restrictive use of hormones on breeding and selection management in small ruminants. Paper presented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, August 24 to 27, 2009, Barcelona, Spain. Retrieved February 4, 2015, from http://www.eaap.org/Previous_Annual_Meetings/2009Barcelona/Sessions/Session%2025.html Google Scholar
Friggens, NC, Berg, P, Theilgaard, P, Korsgaard, IR, Ingvarsten, KL, lovendahl, P and Jensen, J 2007. Breed and parity effects on energy balance profiles through lactation: evidence of genetically driven body energy change. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 5291–5305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furstoss, V, Borderes, F, Forgerit, Y, Guillouet, P and Leboeuf, B 2010. The value of the percentage of motile sperm in predicting a significant portion of the fertility variation of frozen-thawed buck semen. Theriogenology 74, 1197–1206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gianola, D and Sorensen, D 2004. Quantitative genetic models for describing simultaneous and recursive relationships between phenotypes. Genetics 167, 1407–1424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilmour, AR, Gogel, BJ, Cullis, BR and Thompson, R 2006. ASReml User Guide Release 2.0, VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, HP1 1ES, UK.Google Scholar
Haugan, T, Grohn, YT, Kommisrud, E, Ropstad, E and Reksen, O 2007. Effects of sperm concentration at semen collection and storage period of frozen semen on dairy cow conception. Animal Reproduction Science 97, 1–11.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, J, Van der Lugt, AW, van der Werf, JHJ and Ouweltjes, W 1994. Genetic and phenotypic parameters for milk production and fertility traits in upgraded dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 40, 225–232.Google Scholar
Houdeau, E, Furstoss, V, Forgerit, Y, Bonné, JL and Leboeuf, B 2008. Short-duration insemination with frozen semen increases fertility rate in nulliparous dairy goats. Animal 2, 1496–1500.Google Scholar
Janett, F, Schilter, E, Weber, E, Witschi, U and Thun, R 2008. Effects of straw handling during storage on semen quality in the bull. Schweizer Archiv fur Tierheilkunde 150, 591–597.Google Scholar
Karlsson, JOM and Toner, M 1996. Long-term storage of tissues by cryopreservation: critical issues. Biomaterials 17, 243–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leboeuf, B, Manfredi, E, Boue, P, Piacère, A, Brice, G, Baril, G, Brocqua, C, Humblot, P and Terqui, M 1998. Artificial insemination of dairy goats in France. Livestock Production Science 55, 193–203.Google Scholar
Leboeuf, B, Boué, P and Jenot, F 2012. Les grandes étapes du développement de l’insémination artificielle caprine en France. Ethnozootechnie 93, 75–82.Google Scholar
Leboeuf, B, Delgadillo, JA, Manfredi, E, Piacère, A, Clément, V, Martin, P, Pellicer, M, Boué, P and De Cremoux, R 2008. Management of goat reproduction and insemination for genetic improvement in France. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 43, 379–385.Google Scholar
Leboeuf, B, Restall, B and Salamon, S 2000. Production and storage of goat semen of artificial insemination. Animal Reproduction Science 62, 113–141.Google Scholar
Lessard, C, Parent, S, Leclerc, P, Bailey, JL and Sulivan, R 2000. Cryopreservation alters the levels of the bull sperm surface protein P25b. Journal of Andrology 21, 700–707.Google Scholar
Ramirez-Valverde, R, Misztal, I and Bertrand, JK 2001. Comparison of the threshold vs linear and animal vs sire models for predicting direct and maternal genetic effects on calving difficulty in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 79, 333–338.Google Scholar
Ranberg, IMA, Herinstad, B, Klemetsdal, G, Svendsen, M and Steine, T 2003. Heifer fertility in norwegian dairy cattle: variance components and genetic change. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2706–2714.Google Scholar
SAS Institute 1999. SAS/STAT® user’s guide (version 8. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Walsh, SW, Williams, EJ and Evans, ACO 2011. A review of the causes of poor fertility in high milk producing dairy cows. Animal Reproduction Science 123, 127–138.Google Scholar
Windig, JJ, Calus, MPL and Veerkamp, RF 2005. Influence of herd environment on health and fertility and their relationship with milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 335–347.Google Scholar