Cross Breeding Beef and Dairy Breeds

Introduction

In the recent years, dairy producers have increased their interest in using beef semen on dairy cows as a strategy to increase subcontract profitability and manage heifer inventory (Geiger, 2019; Li and Cabrera, 2019a). The sales of beef semen in the U.s. increased from 2.54 1000000 doses in 2017 to 7.20 million doses in 2020, proportionally to the reduction of dairy semen sales from 23.two 1000000 doses in 2017 to 18.3 million 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 not new, dairy farmers are taking advantage of the advancements in technology in reproduction and genetics to maximize their incomes. For instance, drivers of this management include a positive trend in the reproductive performance of dairy herds (Berry et al., 2014), the increased use 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 upwards 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-beef crossbred calf prices have a college market value, with reports from $125 to $254/head (Reynold Livestock Market, 2021) compared to prices from $15/head to $150/caput for Holstein bull calves (Farmers Livestock Sale, 2021). The premium paid for dairy-beef crossbred calves over the marketplace price of purebred dairy calves is an economic opportunity for dairies, as it tin stand for a new profit center (Basham, 2020; De Vries, 2020). If sold at 1 day of age, dairy-beefiness crossbred calves increment the herd income over semen cost, especially if contracts with calf ranches are made (Li and Cabrera, 2019a). Other marketing channels include marketing 400-pound feeders and retaining buying through harvest (Basham, 2020). Additional positive outcomes of the utilise of beefiness semen on dairy herds are possible, if calving ease and beefiness bull fertility are considered (Morrell et al., 2018; McWhorter et al., 2020). Dairies with favorable reproductive performance (e.g., thirty% pregnancy rate vs. 15% pregnancy rate for poor operation) (Li and Cabrera, 2019a) have more opportunities to combine the use of sexed dairy semen, beef semen, and other strategies such as embryo transfer. For instance, farmers can breed heifers and genetically superior cows with sexed dairy semen, while using beef 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 as the reduction of the ecology 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 by dairy farmers is important to evaluate the impacts of the use of engineering science in reproduction and genetics too as to understand their perceptions and attitudes toward available breeding strategies. It is also useful to identify management opportunities that would maximize the economic render of the reproductive strategy adopted. This information is of import to guide research and extension activities that assistance farmers to maximize their economic returns of dairy operations by adjusting direction decisions such as breeding strategies, heifer inventory, alternative, and reproductive performance (Li and Cabrera, 2019b). Additionally, specific needs of the beef industry such as feed intake and conversion, weight proceeds, carcass yield, and quality are important aspects and must exist considered by the dairy farmer to back up a meliorate premium price for the dairy-beef crossbred animals to guarantee the sustainability of this market (Berry, 2021; Felix, 2021).

Fifty-fifty though the use of beef semen by dairy herds is growing across the US (Felix, 2021), it is particularly relevant for California dairy producers who represent approximately 18.5% of all the cattle produced and 19% of the milk production in the US (California Department of Food Agriculture, 2020; USDA, 2021). Therefore, the objectives of this cross-sectional study were to describe the current management practices on the apply of beef semen past dairy farms, using the California dairy industry as a model, and comparison these practices amongst regions of the state by herd size and breeds.

Additionally, we aimed to determine the associations between herd characteristics and the utilize of beefiness and sexed dairy semen and the toll of day-old dairy-beef crossbred calves. Our hypothesis was that herd size, region of the land, and apply of sexed dairy semen are associated with the apply of beef semen.

Materials and Methods

Study Design

For the designed cantankerous-sectional study, a questionnaire (Supplementary File 1) was created to obtain information on the utilise of beef semen by dairy herds. The state of California was chosen due to its importance for the US dairy industry and the variety of product systems according to the regions of the state. The questionnaire was reviewed and approved past the University of California, Davis Institutional Review Lath (IRB ID: 1510095-1). The survey was evaluated by three dairy producers for feedback on content and organisation of each question.

The questionnaire contained 33 questions and was categorized into iii sections: general herd data, beef semen direction, and sexed dairy semen management. Question format ranged from a unmarried choice of multiple options, multiple choices of multiple options, and fill up in the blank when the choice "other" was selected (a blank space was added to be filled past the respondent).

A complete list of California dairy producers was obtained from the California Department of Food and Agriculture in January 2020 (n = 1,256). Duplicate addresses (due north = 231) were excluded from the list. Online and paper versions of the survey were created using Qualtrics (Qualtrics Research Suite, Provo, Utah, USA). First, a postcard was sent by mail to all the dairy producers on our list on January 17, 2020 (n = 1,025). The postcard contained information about the research projection and survey and instructions on accessing the online version of the questionnaire. Eight postcards were returned due to an incorrect accost. One calendar week later, we mailed all the 1,017 dairy farmers a double-sided, 2-folio survey and an introductory letter with the goals of written report, researchers involved, the confidentiality of responses, and the method to return answers using a prepaid envelope. The first 100 respondents were rewarded with a $10 gift bill of fare. In March, a follow-up reminder postcard was sent to dairies that did non respond. Responses were received until May xxx, 2020.

Responses were categorized by herd breed every bit pure Holstein (HO), pure Jersey (JE), and others (OT), which included mixed breeds and/or crossbred cows and by herd size (<500, 501 to ane,500, and >1,500 lactating dairy cows). Responses were compared across three regions as described in Love et al. (2016): Northern California (NCA), Northern San Joaquin Valley (NSJV), and Greater Southern California (GSCA; Figure 1), to determine whether differences in the use of beef-on-dairy across the state existed, as these regions host different production systems. This comparison is also of import considering herd size and management differences across these regions be (Honey et al., 2016). The number of respondents per question varied considering the respondents were given the choice to answer or skip questions.

www.frontiersin.org

Figure 1. Map of California regions included in the beef semen survey: Northern California (NCA), Northern San Joaquin Valley (NSJV), and Greater Southern California (GSCA) (adjusted from Dearest et al., 2016).

Questions without an respond or with an unclear response were not included in the data analyses. All the data received were recorded in a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington, USA) and later were exported into a single file into SAS ix.4 (SAS Constitute Incorporation, Cary, North Carolina, U.s.a.). The error survey rate was calculated using the Survey Random Sample Reckoner (Custom Insight Inc., 2010) to obtain the accurateness of our data; an error survey charge per unit between 4 and viii% was deemed acceptable (Pollfish, 2021).

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were performed with the MEANS and FREQ procedures of SAS 9.four. The price received for the crossbred calf was a continuous variable; therefore, factors associated with it were determined using a general linear model in PROC GLM (SAS Institute Incorporation, Cary, North Carolina, U.s.a.). The factors considered were herd breed (HO, JE, and OT); region of the land (NCA, NSJV, and GSCA); herd size (≤500, 501 to 1,500, and >1,500 lactating dairy cows); average milk production (kg/cow per day); 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); elapsing of time using beef semen (<1 twelvemonth, betwixt 1 and 3 years, between 4 and 6 years, and more 6 years); percentage of cows bred with beef semen (<x%, between eleven and 20%, between 21 and 30%, and more than xxx%); and the employ of sexed dairy semen (yes or no). Interactions upward to the third society 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 by logistic regression using PROC LOGISTIC (SAS 9.4). For the use of beefiness semen (response variable), predictor variables were sexed dairy semen employ (yes or no); region (NCA, NSJV, and GSCA); herd size (<500, 501 to 1,500, and >1,500 lactating dairy cows); and herd breed (HO and OT; JE herds were not included as all the Bailiwick of jersey respondents were using beefiness semen). For the use of sexed dairy semen (response variable), predictor variables were beef semen use (yes or no); region (NCA, NSJV, and GSCA); herd size (<500, 501 to 1,500, and >1,500 lactating dairy cows); and herd breed (HO and OT). Two-way interactions were tested, only non kept in the model, every bit they were non significant.

Results

General Description of Respondents

A total of 141 responses (thirteen.nine%) from 21 countries in California were returned. Four respondents sold their operations; thus, the full number of surveys analyzed was 137, representing x.3% of all the California dairies in 2019 (California Department of Nutrient Agriculture, 2020). The number of respondents per region of California was proportional to the distribution of surveys mailed. Of the total surveys mailed, 17.nine% were sent to dairies in NCA and fifteen.9% of the respondents were from this region. Likewise, 40.ane and 42.0% of the surveys were mailed to NSJV and GSCA regions and 43.vi and 40.5% of the respondents were from these regions, respectively. The sum of lactating cows from the respondents was 206,496, representing 11.9% of the total number of lactating cows in California in 2019 (California Department of Food Agronomics, 2020). Of all the respondents, 23 (16.8%) respondents responded to the survey online. Overall, the error survey charge per unit was vii.seven%, with a 95% conviction level (Custom Insight Inc., 2010). The survey response was 65.0% past owners (n = 89), thirteen.i% past managers (n = 18), and ane.5% by partners (n = 2). A total of 28 (xx.four%) respondents did not indicate their job title.

Herd characteristics co-ordinate to the region of the land are given in Tabular array 1. Herd size ranged from 105 to 5,500 cows and the mean ± SD was ane,693 ± 1,311 lactating cows. Of the respondents, xviii.8% had <500 cows (northward = 23), 32.8% had between 501 and 1,500 cows (n = 44), and 48.4% had >1,500 lactating cows (northward = 55). Milk production (kg/cow per twenty-four hour period) averaged 35.2 kg and ranged from 18.ane to 45.3 kg. For all the data regardless of region, pure HO was the herd breed with the greatest number of responses (72.4%, n = 89), followed by other breeds (xviii.7%, n = 23) and JE breed (eight.nine%, northward = 11). Nearly respondents were in the NSJV, followed by GSCA, and the fewest respondents were in the NCA. The NCA had the smallest average herd size and lowest milk production per moo-cow.

www.frontiersin.org

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 beef semen on dairy cows (due north = 103). Amongst those herds, two respondents were using beef embryos (1.six%) and one respondent was convenance with male person-sexed beef semen (0.eight%). Extra profit (78.1%, n = 75), controlling heifer inventory (69.viii%, n = 67), genetic improvement (37.five%, due north = 36), and other factors such as improved conception rate and reproduction (eight.3%, n = viii) were the factors reported equally the chief advantages of using beefiness semen; furthermore, 54.half dozen% of the respondents (north = 53) reported both extra profit and command of heifer inventory as the main advantages of using beef semen on their dairy cows. Amongst 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, 41.7% of HO herds were from NSJV (due north = x), 20.viii% were from NCA (n = 5) and from GSCA (northward = 5), and 8.3% of the other herds were from NCA (n = 2) and GSCA (northward = 2).

Overall, 14% of respondents have been using beef semen for <one year (north = fourteen), a higher percentage of 58% were using from ane to iii years (n = 58), 20% were using from 4 to 6 years (n = 20), and a small-scale per centum were using it for more than half dozen years (eight.0%, n = 8). Approximately, 26% (north = 26) of the respondents were using beefiness semen in <ten% of their herd (nulliparous and multiparous cows), 21% (n = 21) were breeding between 11 and 20%, 19% (north = 19) were using beef semen in 21 to 30%, and 34% (due north = 34) were using beef semen in more than 30% of all the cows. The percentage of dairies raising their own dairy-beef crossbred calves was nineteen.4% (n = xix) and amongst those, 57.9% (north = xi) were both selling 1-day-quondam and raising dairy-beef crossbred calves. The majority of the respondents (82.7%, northward = 81) reported a cost of <$ten per harbinger of beef semen and 17.3% had a cost between $x and $xv.

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

www.frontiersin.org

Table 2. Dairy herd characteristics of all the respondents using beefiness semen by California region.

www.frontiersin.org

Figure 2. Most common beef semen breeds used co-ordinate 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, Bailiwick of jersey, and Holstein cows.

Pure Jersey herds mostly used Angus and Limousin semen. Other California dairy herds as well were breeding by and large with Angus and a smaller pct of Limousin semen. Overall, Angus semen was the near common single breed of beef semen used, followed by Limousin, Wagyu, Charolais, others (Limflex, Stabilizer, and Hereford), and Simmental. The proportion of respondents using more than ane beef brood for inseminating their cows was the greatest for Jersey herds (lxxx%, n = 8). Pure HO (81.7%, n = 58) and other herds (66.7%, n = 10) predominantly used one beefiness brood. 86% of the respondents using beefiness semen were as well reported the utilize of sexed dairy semen (n = 84).

The logistic regression model results for the associations betwixt herd characteristics and beefiness and sexed dairy semen employ is given in Tabular array 3. Region of the state tended (p = 0.061) to exist associated with the use 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 association between herd size and the utilise of beefiness semen, where herds with a number of lactating cows betwixt 501 and 1,500 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 apply 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: half dozen.912, CI: 2.054–23.262) and herds with 501–ane,500 lactating cows and more than i,500 lactating cows had 5.233 and 8.597 greater odds of using sexed dairy semen than dairies with <500 lactating cows (OR: five.233, CI: 1.181–23.177 and OR: viii.597, CI: one.734–42.612), respectively.

www.frontiersin.org

Tabular array three. Estimates and effect measure out from a logistic regression model for the association between herd characteristics and the use of beef and sexed dairy semen by California dairies in 2020.

Cow Selection Criteria

Criteria for selecting cows for convenance with sexed semen and beef semen are shown in Figures 3A,B, respectively. Overall, lactation number (n = 46), reproductive performance (n = 37), genomic testing (n = 34), and milk production (n = 31) were the master factors producers used to select cows to breed with sexed dairy semen (Figure 3A). Sexed dairy semen was more often than not existence used in heifers (94.1%, due north = 79) and beginning lactation cows (69.i%, n = 58). Based on reproductive performance, 26.iv% (n = xix) of producers were breeding sexed dairy semen on their cows on beginning breeding, 62.5% (n = 45) on showtime and 2nd breedings, half-dozen.9% (n = v) on start, second, and third breedings, ii.eight% (north = 2) from the first to quaternary breedings, and 1.39% (n = 1) were using sexed dairy semen from first to fifth breedings or more.

www.frontiersin.org

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

A total of 60% of the producers (northward = lx) combined more than one criterion for selecting cows to be eligible to receive beef semen. Reproductive operation (n = 74), lactation number (n = 54), and milk production (n = 42) were the most common criteria that farmers reported for selecting cows to breed with beef semen (Effigy 3B). Near farmers started using beefiness semen for breeding cows in their third and greater lactations (51.4%, n = 36), followed past second (37.i%, northward = 26) and first (22.9%, north = 16) lactations and 25.7% (north = 18) 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 breeding, 18.0% on the quaternary breeding, and 21.0% on the fifth breeding of cow onward. Overall, preference of the calf ranch (42.three%, n = 41), cost of the beef semen (42.3%, n = 41), and calving ease (21.six%, northward = 21) were the chief factors driving the selection of the beef semen used, simply 24.7% of respondents (n = 24) were combining more than one gene for beef semen selection. Amid respondents, nine.iv% (northward = nine) reported problems using beefiness semen. Fertility (55.six%, n = 5), dogie size (22.2%, northward = two), and calving difficulty (22.2%, northward = 2) were the main issues described.

Dairy-Beef Crossbred Calf Price

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

www.frontiersin.org

Figure four. Distribution of the day-former dairy-beef crossbred dogie sale price 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; 11.8%), contract with a dogie ranch (p < 0.0001, 31.one%), and the herd breed (p < 0.0001, 33.8%) were associated with the price received for the dairy-beef crossbred calf, explaining 76.7% of the observed variation of the 24-hour interval-old crossbred calf toll. The to the lowest degree-foursquare hateful prices (SE) for GSCA, NCA, and NSJV were $180.xxx ($eight.lx), $136.20 ($xiv.fifty), and $157.fifty ($7.xc), respectively. For herd breed, the least-foursquare means (SE) were $184.40 ($7.20, pure HO herds), $113.00 ($13.30, JE herds), and $176.threescore ($10.70, OT herds). The percentage of dairies that reported contracting with a calf ranch was 41.ii% (n = twoscore). When producers were asked the question "How exercise you feel the crossbred market will be in the adjacent few years?," 57.3% of respondents reported that the dairy-beef crossbred calf price would decrease (n = 55), few believed that the toll would increase (v.2%, n = v), and 27.1% reported that the market would remain the aforementioned (due north = 26).

Discussion

This cross-sectional study summarizes the practices with respect to the use of beef semen on dairy herds adopted by dairy producers and demonstrates factors associated with the day-old dairy-beef crossbred price. The apply of beef semen on dairy herds brings flexibility and economical opportunities to dairy farmers through their reproductive direction program. This strategy is not new, but has gained momentum due to current marketplace conditions. In California, most producers have started using beef on dairy in the last 4 years, regardless of herd size or breed, in accordance with the increase in the sales of beef semen in the United states (NAAB, 2021). Like California, dairies in other states across the Us are using beef semen as well. As reported past Agsource Dairy (2019) using data from 3,200 dairy farms from the eastern Usa, sixteen% of all the cow breedings in 2019 were with beefiness semen. A survey conducted in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa reported that almost 80% of respondents used beefiness genetics on their dairy cows (Halfman and Sterry, 2019), similar to what we reported in this written report. Even though our survey was conducted only amid California dairy farmers, California holds about xx% of all the dairy cattle in the US (USDA, 2021). The California dairy industry contributes 19–22% to the Usa beef production (Boetel, 2016), hence the importance of documenting the beef on dairy direction practices in the state.

The data presented here are representative of the variety 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 (Love et al., 2016; California Section of Food Agriculture, 2018; Martins et al., 2019), whereas the NSJV concentrates well-nigh of the commercial, freestall, and dry out lot herds.

Herds in the NCA region had lower odds of using beef and sexed dairy semen when compared to herds in the NSJV, regardless of size. Furthermore, the reported 24-hour interval-one-time 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 toll, heifer raising, and market conditions for the herds in these regions may explicate these differences. Herds using beef 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 study, producers reported actress turn a profit as the chief perceived reward for using beef 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 of import perceived advantage of using beefiness on dairy was the control of heifer inventory. Sexed dairy semen use, improvements in reproductive performance, and meliorate heifer management have resulted in an excess number of replacement heifers (Bickhart and Hutchison, 2016; De Vries, 2020). The electric current cost of raising heifers is estimated to be $2,016 (Overton and Dhuyvetter, 2020), but the average market price for California, for instance, for females due to calve is $i,350 (Farmers Livestock Market—Oakdale, California, Us, April 2021). Therefore, raising excess replacement heifers under electric current market conditions may atomic number 82 to economical losses (De Vries, 2020; Overton and Dhuyvetter, 2020) and increasing culling rates to accommodate backlog heifers are not an optimal economic decision (De Vries, 2017). Genetic improvement of the herd was as well perceived as an boosted advantage of using beefiness on dairy and in this study, producers reported the use of genomic selection to select cows to receive sexed dairy and beef semen. This strategy increases the genetic gain, reducing the genetic lag of the herd due to the use of dairy semen on the genetically superior heifers and cows (Ettema et al., 2017; De Vries, 2019). Nonetheless, the use of genomic information may be a less valuable strategy when beef semen is used and the prices of the day-old dairy-beef crossbred calves are loftier (De Vries, 2019).

The economic advantage of using beefiness on dairy would depend on herd reproductive functioning, the lifespan of cows, costs of the sexed dairy and beef semen (Pahmeyer and Britz, 2020), and market place weather condition such as heifer and the day-one-time crossbred dogie price (Li and Cabrera, 2019b). For instance, in an economic simulation from Li and Cabrera (2019a), considering an adequate supply of replacement heifers and a premium of $225/head paid on mean solar day-sometime dairy-beef crossbred calves, income from calves over semen costs would exist maximized when sexed dairy semen is used in the starting time and 2d breeding of heifers, in the showtime convenance of starting time and 2nd lactation cows, and all other breedings are done with beef semen. The reproductive practices reported by producers in this report are aligned with this strategy, equally they accept mostly used sexed dairy semen in heifers and first 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 day-onetime dairy-beef crossbred dogie. 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 by the widespread utilise of Angus semen, which is the semen with the highest domestic sales in the United states of america (NAAB, 2021). A greater number of Angus breedings generates data that may pb to the comeback of Angus bulls focused on dairy-beef crossbred performance (McWhorter et al., 2020), reinforcing its widespread use.

For dairy herds, conception charge per unit and calving ease are important features that must be considered when selecting the beef bull to be used, peculiarly due to the employ of beefiness semen on repeated breeders (Cauffman et al., 2019; Halfman and Sterry, 2019). In this written report, low formulation rates, calf size, and difficult calving were common issues reported by dairy farmers when using beef semen. Too, the sustainability of the dairy-beef crossbred marketplace as well depends on the power of dairy farmers to provide a loftier-quality product that would fulfill the needs of beefiness industry for feed efficiency in the feedlot and carcass characteristics. In this report, near dairy farmers reported choosing beef semen on the ground of the preferences of the calf rancher purchasing the day-old dairy-beef crossbred calf. Yet, semen cost is a criterion used by only xviii% of the dairy producers. Semen cost was reported as the virtually important attribute for beefiness semen choice by dairy producers in Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin (Halfman and Sterry, 2019). Even though semen cost may influence the income from calves over semen toll (Li and Cabrera, 2019a), it is possible to obtain proficient 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 written report, only 19% of respondents were raising their dairy-beef crossbred calves. Cognition virtually the beef market and its needs are an opportunity for dairy farmers to increase the premium received for their dairy-beef crossbred calves, peculiarly for Jersey herds that historically have received very low prices for their male calves (Bechtel, 2018). Dairy farmers could capture additional economic opportunities, if the buying of dairy-beef crossbred calves were kept until 180 kg or slaughtered. Basham (2020) reported that retaining ownership of dairy-beef crossbred calves up to 180 kg would be the most profitable strategy for dairy farmers, although higher risk incurs. Therefore, it is important to consider market conditions and plan the need for replacement heifers to obtain a maximum economic return from the use of beef semen on dairy cows and economical studies evaluating the most profitable management alternative for dairy farmers are warranted.

Last, this study may contain biases as dairy producers who practise not utilize beefiness semen may take been less likely to answer to the survey. Furthermore, of import aspects that may make up one's mind the opportunity to use beef semen past dairy herds such as reproductive performance of the herd, breeding programme, intention to expand the herd, heifer raising system and operation indexes, and type of product system were not captured past our survey. Another of import consideration is that some answers were received correct at the beginning of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-nineteen) pandemic in the United states of america, affecting dairy and beef markets greatly, and mayhap affecting some of the responses obtained.

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

The results of this study demonstrated the widespread utilise of beef semen in dairy herds. Parity and breeding number were the master criteria that dairy farmers used to cull which cows to receive sexed dairy and beef semen. There was high variability in the cost received for the day-quondam, dairy-beef crossbred dogie, and having a contract with a calf ranch, Angus crosses, and breed of the dairy herd were associated with the calf toll. The beef strategies on dairy practices reported here may not differ from other dairy herds across the US, but herd reproductive performance and market place weather condition may influence the adopted reproductive strategy.

Data Availability Argument

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will exist fabricated available past the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

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

Writer Contributions

FF secured funding for the study. FF and DB contributed to conception and design of the written report. JP and FF organized the distribution of the survey. JP led the data direction and performed statistical analysis, overseen by FF and MM. JP wrote the showtime draft 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).

Disharmonize 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 disharmonize of interest.

Publisher's Note

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

Acknowledgments

JP thanks CNPq, Brasilia, Federal District, Brazil, for financial back up of her graduate studies. The authors also give thanks the California dairy farmers for their collaboration on this report and Bill VerBoort (AgriTech, California) for his valuable insights and feedback on this written report.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can exist constitute online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fanim.2021.785253/full#supplementary-material

References

Basham, Westward. (2020). Dairy-Beef Retention 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 U.s.a.. J. Anim. Sci. 94:180. doi: 10.2527/jam2016-0372

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cauffman, A., Educator, Eastward. A., County, G., Sterry, R., Agent, E. A., County, South. C., et al. (2019). Considerations for Breeding Dairy Cattle to Beef Breeds for Meat Production. Available online at: https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2019/07/Beef-on-Dairy-Sire-Pick-07-16-19.pdf (accessed February 25, 2021).

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

Ettema, J. F., Thomasen, J. R., Hjortø, L., Kargo, M., Østergaard, S., and Sørensen, A. C. (2017). Economical opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 100, 4161–4171. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-11333