First insemination records of 35 inseminators in Breeders' Association in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 years, number of calves and success rates of inseminators were given in Table 1.
Table 1
Distribution of artificial inseminations of 35 inseminators by years
Years
|
Number of Insemination\(\)\(\stackrel{-}{X}\pm {S}_{\stackrel{-}{x}}\)
|
Total Number of Insemination
(N)
|
Number of Calves
\(\stackrel{-}{X}\pm {S}_{\stackrel{-}{x}}\)
|
Total Number of Calves (N)
|
Inseminators Success
|
2016
|
1908 ± 176
|
66768
|
811.4±71.1
|
28398
|
0.425A
|
2017
|
1655 ± 153
|
57920
|
681.4±63.1
|
23848
|
0.412AB
|
2018
|
1561 ± 121
|
54628
|
626.3±48.8
|
21921
|
0.401B
|
2019
|
1371 ± 136
|
47981
|
560.2±59.1
|
19606
|
0.409B
|
Overall
|
1624±29.79
|
227297
|
669.8±19.21
|
93773
|
0.413
|
A, B: (p<0.01) |
A total of 227297 inseminations were made by 35 inseminators in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, and 93773 calves were obtained from these inseminations. While the overall inseminators success was 0.413, the success rates for 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 were determined as 0.425, 0.412, 0.401 and 0.409. While the inseminator’s success in 2016 was statistically insignificant than in 2017, it differed significantly (p<0.01) from their success than 2018 and 2019 years.
According to a total of 227297 insemination results for the years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 in Table 2, the differences between the insemination success of 35 inseminators were found to be statistically significant (p<0.01). According to the results of the Duncan multiple range test, while the differences of insemination success between inseminator 5 with 47.67% and inseminator 24 with 36.38%, and also four inseminators (8, 10, 24 and 31) were found to be statistically significant (p<0.01), the differences between the others were found to be statistically insignificant. A difference of 15.82% was determined between the inseminator with the highest success (inseminator 5;47.67%) and the inseminator with the lowest success (inseminator 9; 31.85%).
Table 2
The results of insemination success of 35 inseminators in four years
Inseminators
|
Insemination success (%)
\(\stackrel{-}{X}\pm {S}_{\stackrel{-}{x}}\)
|
Number of calves / Number of Insemination
|
1
|
41.40±0.0297ABC
|
1956/4717
|
2
|
43.23±0.0330AB
|
2889/6683
|
3
|
40.53±0.0530ABC
|
1157/2841
|
4
|
39.75±0.0198ABC
|
2205/5556
|
5
|
47.67±0.0217A
|
1489/3121
|
6
|
44.05±0.0135AB
|
1793/4077
|
7
|
36.25±0.0239BC
|
2688/7388
|
8
|
41.40±0.0136ABC
|
3187/7660
|
9
|
31.85±0.0458C
|
2206/6801
|
10
|
42.23±0.0203ABC
|
3193/7536
|
11
|
43.05±0.0258AB
|
2660/6207
|
12
|
43.70±0.0291AB
|
2819/6441
|
13
|
42.63±0.0217ABC
|
3268/7678
|
14
|
44.45±0.0236AB
|
4783/10717
|
15
|
39.60±0.0282ABC
|
2701/6920
|
16
|
42.72±0.0202AB
|
2435/5718
|
17
|
41.28±0.0135ABC
|
5244/12681
|
18
|
44.63±0.0477AB
|
3818/8599
|
19
|
45.70±0.0398AB
|
663/1537
|
20
|
38.95±0.0084ABC
|
4775/12281
|
21
|
40.98±0.0090ABC
|
5249/12814
|
22
|
36.38±0.0520BC
|
2623/7148
|
23
|
39.60±0.0174ABC
|
5889/14882
|
24
|
44.25±0.0403AB
|
4305/9682
|
25
|
43.60±0.0114AB
|
3155/7252
|
26
|
42.85±0.1160AB
|
2647/6430
|
27
|
36.20±0.0558BC
|
1262/3538
|
28
|
42.33±0.0446ABC
|
1753/4105
|
29
|
41.95±0.0906ABC
|
3450/8182
|
30
|
42.75±0.0481AB
|
1543/3440
|
31
|
43.30±0.0291AB
|
1407/3233
|
32
|
38.75±0.0140ABC
|
1788/4569
|
33
|
39.10±0.0280ABC
|
1085/2720
|
34
|
38.48±0.0320ABC
|
570/1498
|
35
|
42.05±0.0652ABC
|
1118/2645
|
Overall
|
41.36±0.0469
|
93773/227297
|
A, B, C: p<0.01 |
The results of insemination success of 35 inseminators presented in Table 2 is given graphically in Figure 1 according to years, and too.
As can be seen from Figure 1, an increase in the success percentages (>0.5) of some inseminators was observed in 2018. The highest insemination success rate is around 0.5 in other years. Individually, the lowest insemination success rates were in 2019. It can be stated that the Cattle Breeder’s Association should retrain the inseminators with a lower success rate than the overall. If this cannot be done, due to reproductive costs besides more importantly extended calving intervals, feeding costs, calves, lactations and time losses, etc. employment of more successful insemination staff instead of them will increase the success. For a better understanding of Table 2 and Figure 1, the frequency distributions of insemination success of 35 inseminators in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Insemination success distribution of 35 inseminators by years (%)
Inseminator Success Groups (%)
|
Years
|
Overall
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2019
|
f
|
%
|
f
|
%
|
f
|
%
|
f
|
%
|
f
|
%
|
<35.9
|
-
|
0.0
|
4
|
11.4
|
4
|
11.4
|
5
|
14.3
|
13
|
9.3
|
36.0-39.9
|
7
|
20.0
|
7
|
20.0
|
14
|
40.0
|
11
|
31.4
|
39
|
27.9
|
40.0-44.9
|
15
|
42.9
|
17
|
48.6
|
15
|
42.9
|
13
|
37.1
|
60
|
42.9
|
45.0-49.9
|
13
|
37.1
|
6
|
17.1
|
-
|
0.0
|
5
|
14.3
|
24
|
17.1
|
>50.0
|
-
|
0.0
|
1
|
2.9
|
2
|
5.7
|
1
|
2.9
|
4
|
2.9
|
Overall
|
35
|
|
35
|
|
35
|
|
35
|
|
140
|
100
|
As can be seen from Table 3, the percentage of inseminators with a total insemination success rate of more than 50% is very low, such as 2.9%. Besides, the percentage of those who achieved 35.9% and below was 9.3%. According to the inseminator success range, there was 17.1% in the range of 0.450-0.499, 42.9% in the range of 0.40-0.449, 27.9% in the range of 0.36-0.399 and 9.3% in the 0.359 and below groups. As a result, 87.9% of the inseminators were found to be in the success range of 0.499 and 0.360. This result is also important in terms of demonstrating the success of the inseminator in Turkey. At the same time, as can be seen from Table 2, the success rate is 41.36. The average number of insemination per calf is 2.42. With an optimistic approach, it can be said that success is achieved in one of every two inseminations, in other words, at least two insemination cost is paid for a pregnancy.
Buckley et al., (2003) computed the mean (and range) conception rates for commercial artificial insemination and do-it-yourself operators within this analysis were 53% (37–63%) and 49% (27–69%) in their study on insemination factors affecting the conception rate in seasonal calving Holstein-Friesian cows, respectively. Desalegn et al., (2009) stated that the mean (± SE) conception rate to first inseminations was approximately 27.06%. In the study assessed for a three-year period on 4 855 insemination acts carried out by 5 inseminators in 3 664 cows of 5 different breeds belonging to 1 600 breeders distributed in two areas about the conception rate of artificial insemination in small cattle dairy farms in an Algerian semi-arid area, Mouffok et al., (2019) reported that the success rate recorded in 1st artificial insemination was evaluated at 64%. The insemination success rate determined as 41.36% in this study found to be lower than Buckley et al., (2003) and Mouffok et al., (2019) findings, and also higher than Desalegn et al., (2009) finding. Alexander et al., (1997) was found that the overall conception ratios ranged from 27.8–58.5% in the Mid Country Wet Zone of Sri Lanka.
On the study of a total of 1112 heads AI mating acceptors and their conception rates conducted by six inseminators for the three frozen semen doses from two sires, Anggraeni et al., (2016) determined that the performance of inseminator 1 (35.3% and 81.6%-89.6%) was the best among the other five inseminators for in terms of getting higher AI mating acceptors (9.5%-22.7%) and conception rates (43.9%-79.7%). As was previously stated, researchers stated that the skill of inseminators was important as a result.
Anzar et al., (2003) found that the conception rates varied significantly due to artificial technicians and ranged from zero and 100%. Also, inseminators success was determined as 27.45% including professional inseminators (34.2%) and technicians (20.0%) in overall from a total of 459 inseminations data including 280 cattle and 179 buffaloes during 1994 and 1995 years by 18 inseminators in Punjab state of Pakistan. Jamel and Lemma (2015) stated that the skill of the inseminator is an important element in the success of the artificial insemination program and regular practice at inseminating time is required to maintain high conception rates. Besides researchers reported that the site of semen deposition has an important role in achieving conception of AI in cattle and so that the deposition of semen in the uterine body resulting in a higher non-return rate than cervical deposition due to inseminated just into the short uterine body. In the study evaluated from the first four successive inseminations of 3 664 inseminated cows during a three-year period, Mouffok et al., (2019) determined that the conception rations of artificial insemination in small cattle dairy farms in an Algerian semi-arid area ranged from 4.3–63.4% and showed that the difference was about 20% between inseminators. Variation in the efficiency of artificial insemination service can be caused by inseminations into the cervix and vagina, site of semen placement in the reproductive tract, sire, and environmental temperature the day after insemination (Gwazdauskas et al., 1981), timing of insemination in relation to the onset of heat, frozen semen technology, factors affecting on drop in post thaw motility or fertility of frozen semen, selection of the appropriate thawing technique, a hygienically pipetting of semen in vagina and properly use artificial insemination devices by inseminators (Bhosrekar, 1990; Dzung et al., 2001). In addition, it has been reported that factors such as breeds, regions, semen (domestic and exotic) and herd management are effective on the conception rate of artificial insemination (Mouffok et al., 2019). In addition, some breeders have used “cleaning bull” for mating in herd management in case inseminators have a high insemination failure (Grusenmeyer et al., 1983).
In this study, the number of insemination per calves which was determined as 2.42 was higher than 1.7 (Hamudikuwanda et al., 1987), 1.99 (Alexander et al., 1997) and 1.88 (Desalegn et al., 2009) and lower than 2.76 (Islam et al., 2004). However, the values reported by these researchers were the number of inseminations per pregnancy, and it is not clear whether calves were obtained as a result of each pregnancy in their studies.
The NIPP value of 1.5 is considered normal in herd management (Şekerden & Özkütük 1990). While it is theoretically possible for NIPP to be 1.0, 1.5 of the NIPP value can be achieved both theoretically and practically in the herd management (Boztepe and Aytekin 2017). According to Smith and Becker (1994) and Grusenmeyer et al. (1983), each 0.1unit increment from the target NIPP average (1.5 NIPP) costs 1.5 $. This cost may not be a huge amount per animal, but the cost of NIPP 2.0 instead of 1.5 in a herd of 1000 heads is 7500 $/year. Considering only semen and application cost except for other losses in Turkey, while the cost of one insemination is at least 100-150 TL, the cost of 0.5 insemination is nearly 50-75 TL in Turkey. Besides, NIPP will continue to increase if the problem/problems related to achieving pregnancy in the herd are not resolved and the costs will, even more, increase as a result (Boztepe &Aytekin 2017). Although the number of inseminations per pregnancy is one of the reproductive parameters in herd management, it is not a very accurate approach in the evaluation of reproductive performance because of calculating from inseminations per pregnancy according to Boztepe and Aytekin (2017). To put it clearly, estrus must be detected in order for insemination to be carried out. Evaluating the data and information obtained from the dairy farms, cows that did not become pregnant can be found even though they were inseminated 10, 16, 17 and even 19 times. This problematic reproduction management situation is also seen by the evaluation of the average DIM values of the enterprises.
The fact that the average DIM is 250 and above in farms that are said to have no problems in dairy cattle enterprises confirms this situation in the field. The explanation of NIPP not being a good breeding parameter can be explained as follows; for example, it showed estrus 10 times, but the first nine could not be detected, the last one was caught, inseminated and the animal became pregnant. In this situation, if the data is evaluated, the GBTS is one (1) and herd management looked very successful as a result. However, whether this value reflects the truth or not can be understood by looking at the service period or calving interval. For an accurate evaluation, the parameter should be the number of estrus per pregnancy (NEPP), which is more compatible with other breeding parameters such as service period and calving interval instead of NIPP.
Also, it can also be understood from the parameter of insemination per cow (NIPC) that NEPP is more favorable. To further explain this situation, NIPP is calculated from those who are inseminated and conceived in a herd. However, there are also cows in the herd that does not get pregnant after insemination. From this perspective, real success in herd management should be based on the low or high number of inseminations per cow. Whichever of these evaluation parameters, the skill of the inseminator is still an important element.