Effect of synchronized breeding on genetic evaluations of fertility traits in dairy cattle

Estrus detection has become more difficult over the years due to decreases in the estrus expression of high-producing dairy cows, and increased herd sizes and animal density. Through the use of hormonal synchronization protocols, also known as timed artificial insemination (TAI) protocols, it is possible to alleviate some of the challenges associated with estrus detection. However, TAI masks cows' fertility performance, resulting in an unfair comparison of treated animals and innately fertile animals. Consequently, genetically inferior and superior cows show similar phenotypes, making it difficult to distinguish between them. As genetic programs rely on the collection of accurate phenotypic data, phenotypes collected on treated animals likely add bias to genetic evaluations. In this study, to assess the effect of TAI, the rank correlation of bulls for a given trait using only TAI records were compared with the same trait using only heat detection records. A total of 270,434 records from 192,539 animals split across heifers, first and second parity cows were analyzed for the traits: calving to first service, first service to conception, and days open. Results showed large reranking across all traits and parities between bulls compared based on either having only TAI records or only heat detection records, suggesting that a bias does indeed exist. Large reranking was also observed for both the heat detection and TAI groups among the top 100 bulls in the control group, which included all records. Furthermore, breeding method was added to the model to assess its effect on bull ranking. However, there were only minor changes in the rank correlations between scenario groups. Therefore, more complex methods to account for the apparent bias created by TAI should be investigated; for this, the method by which these data are collected needs to be improved through creating a standardized way of recording breeding codes. Though the results of this study suggest the presence of bias within current fertility evaluations, additional research is required to confirm the findings of this study, including looking at high-reliability bulls specifically, to determine if the levels of reranking remain. Future studies should also aim to understand the potential genetic differences between the fertility traits split via management technology, possibly in a multiple-trait analysis.