Modelling the economics of reproductive efficiency

Introduction

Reproductive efficiency is one of the most critical drivers of profitability in dairy farming. Every day a cow remains open (not pregnant) costs money—through lost milk production, delayed calving, and increased culling risk. Farmers have long relied on heat detection and veterinary checks to manage reproduction, but these methods can be inconsistent and labour-intensive. Fertility programs offer a way to synchronize ovulation and improve conception rates, yet their adoption varies widely due to management habits.

A recent study published in the Journal of Dairy Science by Wicaksono et al. (2024) sheds light on this debate. Using a sophisticated bioeconomic simulation model, the researchers compared traditional reproductive management—where hormones are used only after a veterinary diagnosis—with systematic programs that proactively apply hormones at specific stages of lactation. The results? Systematic hormone use can significantly boost farm profitability.

Prefer to listen to this article? Click the play button below and enjoy our podcast!

How do current reproductive practices compare with systematic use of fertility programs?

In many European countries, including the Netherlands, which was used as model, following the Guideline: Fertility treatments as part of veterinary support for dairy farms, published in 2021 by the Royal Dutch Society for Veterinary Medicine, as default reproductive management strategy where: cows are inseminated based on observed estrus, and hormones are administered only when a veterinarian diagnoses ovarian dysfunction during a fertility check.

In alternative, 3 systematic programs which take a different route were compared. Instead of waiting for problems, they apply fertility programs to all cows at predetermined days in milk (DIM), ensuring timely insemination and resynchronization for non-pregnant cows. The study evaluated three systematic strategies:

• FTAI (Fixed-Time Artificial Insemination): All cows receive a Double-Ovsynch protocol for first insemination and re-synch after negative pregnancy diagnosis.
• FTAI+ED: Combines Double-Ovsynch for first insemination with estrus detection for subsequent services and re-synch after negative pregnancy diagnosis.
• ED+TAI: Relies on estrus detection initially, but cows not detected in heat receive a PRID-synch protocol.

What approach did the study use to evaluate the returns generated by the changes in reproductive management?

The researchers used a dynamic, stochastic simulation model mimicking a 200-cow herd under Dutch conditions. The model ran daily time steps over multiple years, incorporating milk production, feed requirements, fertility dynamics, and economic flows. It accounted for ovarian disorders such as anestrus, cystic ovarian disease (COD), and subestrus—conditions that often derail reproductive performance.

Economic outputs were expressed as Net Economic Return (NER), calculated from revenues (milk and calves) minus costs (feed, hormones, labor, veterinary services, calving, and culling).

What were the key economic and reproductive benefits of systematic programs?

Systematic programs significantly increased Net Economic Return, reduced calving intervals, and improved milk and calf output. FTAI+ED delivered the highest annual gain, followed by FTAI and ED+TAI—all outperforming traditional management. Compared with the default program:

• FTAI+ED delivered the highest economic benefit, with €23,764 more net revenue per year.
• FTAI followed closely, adding €19,550 annually.
• ED+TAI still outperformed the default, with €14,314 extra revenue.

Why? Systematic programs shortened calving intervals (by up to 45 days), reduced infertility-related culling, and increased milk and calf output. For example:

• Calving interval dropped from 419 days (default) to 374 days (FTAI+ED).
• Average milk yield per cow rose from 8,502 kg to 8,840 kg.
• Calf production increased from 148 to 173 calves per year.

Although systematic programs incurred higher costs—mainly for hormones and labor—the additional revenues from milk and calves outweighed these expenses. For instance, FTAI+ED added €8,953 in costs but generated €32,654 in extra revenue.

Why It works?

Systematic programs ensure timely insemination, improve conception rates through synchronized ovulation, and quickly resynchronize open cows. These factors reduce days open and infertility-related culling, boosting productivity:

• Higher submission rates: Every cow gets inseminated on schedule, reducing reliance on heat detection.
• Better pregnancy rates: Protocols like Double-Ovsynch synchronize ovulation, increasing conception chances.
• Resynchronization of non-pregnant cows: Ensures quick turnaround for cows that fail to conceive, minimizing days open.

These factors collectively reduce the risk of infertility culling and maximize productive days in milk.

What should farmers consider before adopting systematic reproductive programs?

Before jumping into systematic programs use, farmers should weigh:

• Overall compliance and costs: Fertility programs are very efficient when administered with correct timing and dosages, labor for protocol administration, and veterinary checks and all the costs involved.
• Farm-specific conditions: Herd size, estrus detection capability, and milk price volatility.

For farms struggling with heat detection or aiming to tighten calving intervals, systematic programs—especially FTAI+ED—offer a compelling economic case. However, farms with high detection rates may find less dramatic benefits.

Conclusion

The message from Wicaksono et al.’s study is clear: the systematic use of fertility programs for reproductive management can transform dairy farm economics. By reducing days open, increasing milk yield, and lowering culling rates, these programs deliver substantial financial gains—even after accounting for higher costs.

For farms with poor estrus detection, the benefits are particularly pronounced. Yet, decisions should remain farm-specific, considering technical, economic, and societal factors. As technology evolves and sustainability pressures grow, the future may lie in hybrid approaches—combining systematic protocols with advanced heat detection tools and precision management.

Bottom line: If your herd struggles with reproduction, systematic hormone use isn’t just a veterinary tool—it’s a business strategy.

Take-home messages

Improving reproductive efficiency is one of the strongest levers to enhance dairy farm profitability and animal welfare. Systematic use of fertility programs—especially those combining fixed-time AI with estrus detection—shorten calving intervals, increase milk and calf output, and reduce infertility-related culling. By moving from reactive to proactive reproductive management, farmers can achieve more predictable breeding outcomes and stronger economic performance.

References

Wicaksono A, Edwardes F, Steeneveld W, van den Borne BHP, Pinho P, Randi F, Hogeveen H.

The economic effect of cow-based reproductive management programs with a systematic use of reproductive hormones. J Dairy Sci. 2024 Dec;107(12):11016-11035. doi: 10.3168/jds.2023-24109. Epub 2024 Aug 16. PMID: 39154727.