Effect of Using Reproductive Technologies on Genetic Progress in Sistani Native Cattle of Iran: A Simulation Study

Subject Areas : Camel

ه.  فرجی-آروق ¹ (Research Center of Special Domestic Animals, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran)
م.  رکوعی ² (Department of Animal Science and Bioinformatics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran)
ع.  مقصودی ³ (Department of Animal Science and Bioinformatics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran)
م.  مهری ⁴ (Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran)
س.  انصاری مهیاری ⁵ (Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran)
ا.  کریستین سورنسن ⁶ (Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Blichers Allé 208830, Tjele, Denmark)

Received: 2018-01-16 Accepted : 2018-07-31 Published : 2019-03-01

Keywords: artificial insemination, embryo transfer, random mating, Sistani cattle,

Abstract :

The effect of artificial insemination (AI), embryo transfer (ET) to bull dams (BD), and sexed semen (SS) to cow dams (CD) with and without controlling inbreeding were studied using stochastic simulation. Three levels of embryo transfer (no ET, ET on all BD, and ET on 20% of BD), five levels of sexed semen (no SS: control, SS-X on all CD, SS-X on 20% CD, SS-Y on all CD, and SS-Y on 20% CD), three levels of artificial insemination (no AI, AI on 50% cows, and AI on 90% cows), two levels of mating system (random and minimum consistory) were combined together to make 66 scenarios in which the combination of no ET, no SS, and no AI are assigned as a control. The simulated population consisted of 40 herds with 50 cows each was monitored for 30 years. The results showed that the use of AI, ET, and SS techniques increased the annual change of total merit index (TMI), inbreeding, and selection accuracy. Compared to control, the rate of annual change in TMI and inbreeding were increased as 41.95, 36.91 and 83.91%; and 192, 57 and 207%, for using of AI, ET and combination of SS + AI + ET, respectively. The minimum consistory mating decreased inbreeding, but not affected other parameters. The results suggested that using of ET on 20% BD, SS-Y for all CD, and 90% AI alone or in combination with each other along with minimum consistory mating might resulted in high genetic progress and low inbreeding rate. These technologies and inbreeding control strategies may increase the ratio of annual change of TMI to inbreeding.

References:

Abdel-Azim G. and Schnell S. (2007). Genetic impacts of using female-sorted semen in commercial and nucleus herds. J. Dairy Sci. 90, 1554-1563.

Andrabi S. and Moran C. (2007). Selection of dairy cow bulls for artificial insemination. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 9, 175-178.

Barati F., Niasari- Naslaji A., Bolourchi M., Razavi K., Naghzali E. and Sarhaddi F. (2007). Pregnancy rates of frozen embryos recovered during winter and summer in Sistani cows. Iranian J. Vet. Res. 8, 151-154.

Betz G.C.M. (2007). Using the rate of genetic change and the population structure of cattle to better target genetic progress. Pp. 103-109 in Proc. 39^th Beef Improv. Federation Symp., Fort Collins, United states.

Bodmer M., Janett F., Hässig M., Den Daas N., Reichert P. and Thun R. (2005). Fertility in heifers and cows after low dose insemination with sex-sorted and non-sorted sperm under field conditions. Theriogenology. 64, 1647-1655.

Borchersen S. and Peacock M. (2009). Danish AI field data with sexed semen. Theriogenology. 71, 59-63.

Boro P., Naha B.C., Madkar A. and Prakash C. (2016). Sexing of semen in bulls: A mini review. Int. J. Appl. Res. 2, 460-462.

Bouquet A., Sørensen A.C. and Juga, J. (2015). Genomic selection strategies to optimize the use of multiple ovulation and embryo transfer schemes in dairy cattle breeding programs. Livest. Sci. 174, 18-25.

Bourdon R.M. (1997). Understanding animal breeding. Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, United States.

Buch L.H., Sørensen M.K., Berg P., Pedersen L.D. and Sørensen A.C. (2012). Genomic selection strategies in dairy cattle: Strong positive interaction between use of genotypic information and intensive use of young bulls on genetic gain. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 129(2), 138-151.

Caballero A., Santiago E. and Toro M. (1996). Systems of mating to reduce inbreeding in selected populations. Anim. Sci. 62, 431-442.

Dahlen C., Jamie L. and Lamb G.C. (2014). Impacts of reproductive technologies on beef production in the United States. Pp. 97-114 in Current and Future Reproductive Technologies and World Food Production. G.C. Lamb, N. DiLorenzo, Eds., Springer, New York.

De Jarnette J.M., Nebel R.L. and Marshall C.E. (2009). Evaluating the success of sex-sorted semen in 374 US dairy herds from on farm records. Theriogenology. 71, 49-58.

Ferraz J., Eler J. and Rezende F. (2012). Impact of using artificial insemination on the multiplication of high genetic merit beef cattle in Brazil. Anim. Reprod. 9, 133-138.

Filho M.F., Nichi M., Soares J.G., Vieira L.M., Melo L.F., Ojeda A., Campos Filho E.P., Gameiro A.H., Sartori R. and Baruselli P.S. (2014). Sex-sorted sperm for artificial insemination and embryo transfer programs in cattle. Anim. Reprod. 11, 217-224.

Fleming A., Abdalla E.A., Maltecca C. and Baes C.F. (2018). Invited review: Reproductive and genomic technologies to optimize breeding strategies for genetic progress in dairy cattle. Arch. Anim. Breed. 61, 43-57.

Galli C., Duchi R., Crotti G., Turini P., Ponderato N., Colleoni S., Lagutina I. and Lazzari G. (2003). Bovine embryo technologies. Theriogenology. 59, 599-616.

Gengler N. and Druet T. (2002). Impact of biotechnology on animal breeding and genetic progress. Pp. 33-45 in Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry. R. Renaville and A. Burny, Eds., Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Ghavi Hossein-Zadeh N.G. (2010). Evaluation of the genetic trend of milk yield in the multiple ovulation and embryo transfer populations of dairy cows, using stochastic simulation. Compt. Rend. Biol. 333, 710-715.

Granleese T., Clark S.A., Swan A.A. and Van der Werf J.H. (2015). Increased genetic gains in sheep, beef and dairy breeding programs from using female reproductive technologies combined with optimal contribution selection and genomic breeding values. Genet. Sel. Evol. 47, 1-13.

Hansen P.J. and Siqueira L.G.B. (2017). Postnatal consequences of assisted reproductive technologies in cattle. Pp. 490- 496 in Proc. 31^st Ann. Meet. Brazilian Emb. Technol. Soc., Cabo de Santo Agostinho, Pernambuco, Brazil.

Harris D.L. and Newman S. (1994). Breeding for profit: Synergism between genetic improvement and livestock production (a review). J. Anim. Sci. 72, 2178-2200.

Henryon M., Sørensen A. and Berg P. (2009). Mating animals by minimising the covariance between ancestral contributions generates less inbreeding without compromising genetic gain in breeding schemes with truncation selection. Anim. 3, 1339-1346.

Jeon G., Mao I., Jensen J. and Ferris T. (1990). Stochastic modeling of multiple ovulation and embryo transfer breeding schemes in small closed dairy cattle populations. J. Dairy Sci. 73, 1938-1944.

Kaniyamattam K., Block J., Hansen P.J. and De Vries A. (2017). Comparison between an exclusive in vitro–produced embryo transfer system and artificial insemination for genetic, technical, and financial herd performance. J. Dairy. Sci. 100, 5729-5745.

Kaya A., Gunes E. and Memili E. (2018). Application of reproductive biotechnologies for sustainable production of livestock in Turkey. Turkish. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 42, 143-151.

Kinder J., Osborne J., Davis M. and Day M. (2006). Impact of reproductive technologies on improved genetics in beef cattle. Pp. 141-146 in Australian Beef - the Leader Conf., Armidale, Australia.

Madsen P., Sørensen P., Su G., Damgaard L.H., Thomsen H. and Labouriau R. (2006). DMU-a package for analyzing multivariate mixed models. Pp. 11-27 in Proc. 8^th World Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod., Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

Meuwissen T. (1997). Maximizing the response of selection with a predefined rate of inbreeding. J. Anim. Sci. 75, 934-940.

Mortazavi M. (2011). From ancient to modern urbanization: intermediary function of an urban society. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 15, 126-137.

Nirea K.G., Sonesson A.K., Woolliams J.A. and Meuwissen T. (2012). Effect of non-random mating on genomic and BLUP selection schemes. Genet. Sel. Evol. 44(11), 1-7.

Pedersen L., Sørensen A., Henryon M., Ansari-Mahyari S. and Berg P. (2009). ADAM: A computer program to simulate selective breeding schemes for animals. Livest. Sci. 121, 343-344.

Pedersen L.D.,Kargo M., Berg P., Voergaard J., Buch L.H. and Sørensen A.C. (2012). Genomic selection strategies in dairy cattle breeding programmes: sexed semen cannot replace multiple ovulation and embryo transfer as superior reproductive technology. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 129, 152-163.

Pellegrino C.A.G., Morotti F., Untura R.M., Pontes J.H.F., Pellegrino M.F.O., Campolina J.P., Seneda M.M., Barbosa F.A. and Henry M. (2016). Use of sexed sorted semen for fixed-time artificial insemination or fixed-time embryo transfer of in vitro–produced embryos in cattle. Theriogenology. 86, 888-893.

Pruzzo L., Cantet R. and Fioretti C. (2003). Risk-adjusted expected return for selection decisions. J. Anim. Sci. 81, 2984-2988.

Rath D., Barcikowski S., De Graaf S., Garrels W., Grossfeld R., Klein S., Knabe W., Knorr C., Kues W., Meyer H., Michl J., Moench-Tegeder G., Rehbock C., Taylor U. and Washausen S. (2013). Sex selection of sperm in farm animals: status report and developmental prospects. Reproduction. 145, 15-30.

Seidel G.E. and Garner D.L. (2002). Current status of sexing mammalian spermatozoa. Reproduction. 124, 733-743.

Seidel G.E. (2014). Update on sexed semen technology in cattle. Animal. 8(1), 160-164.

Sonesson A.K. and Meuwissen T.H. (2000). Mating schemes for optimum contribution selection with constrained rates of inbreeding. Genet. Sel. Evol. 32, 231-248.

Sørensen M.K., Voergaard J., Pedersen L.D., Berg P. and Sørensen A.C. (2011). Genetic gain in dairy cattle populations is increased using sexed semen in commercial herds. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 128, 267-275.

Team R Core. (2017). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org.

Van Doormaal B., Miglior F., Kistemaker G. and Brand P. (2005). Genetic diversification of the Holstein breed in Canada and internationally. Interbull Bulletin. 33, 93-97.

Van Vleck L. (1981). Potential genetic impact of artificial insemination, sex selection, embryo transfer, cloning, and selfing in dairy cattle. Pp. 221-242 in New technologies in Animal Breeding. B.G. Brackett, G.E. Seidel and S.M. Seidel, Eds., Academic Press, London, United Kingdom.

Villanueva B., Woolliams J. and Simm G. (1994). Strategies for controlling rates of inbreeding in MOET nucleus schemes for beef cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 84, 177-184.

Walsh S., Williams E. and Evans A. (2011). A review of the causes of poor fertility in high milk producing dairy cows. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 123, 127-138.