LAUSR

The primary objective of this randomized controlled experiment was to evaluate the insemination dynamic and reproductive performance of cows managed with a targeted reproductive management (TRM) program designed to prioritize artificial insemination (AI) at detected estrus (AIE) and optimize timing of AI by grouping cows based on detection of estrus during the voluntary waiting period (VWP). Our secondary objective was to evaluate reproductive outcomes for cows with or without estrus during the VWP. Lactating Holstein cows fitted with an ear-attached sensor for detection of estrus were randomly assigned to a TRM treatment that prioritized AIE based on detection of estrus during the VWP (TP-AIE; n = 488), a non-TRM treatment that prioritized AIE (P-AIE; n = 489), or an all-timed AI (TAI) treatment with extended VWP (ALL-TAI; n = 491). In TP-AIE, cows with or without automated estrus alerts (AEA) recorded during the VWP received AIE if detected in estrus for at least 31 ± 3 or 17 ± 3 d after a 49 d VWP, respectively. Cows not AIE with or without AEA during the VWP received TAI after Ovsynch with progesterone supplementation and 2 PGF2α treatments (P4-Ov) at 90 ± 3 or 74 ± 3 d in milk (DIM), respectively. In P-AIE, cows received AIE if detected in estrus for 24 ± 3 d after a 49 d VWP, and if not AIE received TAI at 83 ± 3 DIM after P4-Ov. In ALL-TAI, cows received TAI at 83 ± 3 DIM after a Double-Ovsynch protocol. Data were analyzed by logistic and Cox's proportional hazard regression. The proportion of cows AIE did not differ for TP-AIE (71.0%) and P-AIE (74.6%). Overall P/AI at 39 d after first service was greater for the ALL-TAI (47.6%) than for the P-AIE (40.2%) and TP-AIE (39.5%) treatments. The hazard of pregnancy up to 150 DIM was greater for cows in TP-AIE (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-1.4) and P-AIE (hazard ratio = 1.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-1.4) than for cows in the ALL-TAI treatment which resulted in median time to pregnancy of 89, 89, and 107 d. Conversely, the proportion of cows pregnant at 150 DIM did not differ (ALL-TAI 78.5%, P-AIE 76.3%, TP-AIE 76.0%). Except for a few outcomes for which no difference was observed, cows detected in estrus during the VWP had better performance than cows not detected in estrus. Cows with AEA during the VWP were more likely to receive AIE, had greater P/AI, and greater pregnancy rate up to 150 DIM regardless of first service management. We conclude that a TRM program designed to prioritize AIE by grouping cows based on detection of estrus during the VWP was an effective strategy to submit cows for first service resulting in similar or improved performance than a non-TRM program that prioritized AIE or an all-TAI program with extended VWP. Also, AEA recorded during the VWP might be used as a strategy for identifying subgroups of cows with different reproductive performance.