Alawneh J I, Williamson N B, Bailey D
Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
N Z Vet J. 2006 Apr;54(2):73-7. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2006.36615.
To compare the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and accuracy of detection of oestrus using a novel oestrus detection strip (ODS) and a camera-software device (CSD) with typical farm management practices of visual observation and use of tail paint in dairy cattle at pasture.
Dairy cows (n = 480) in a seasonal-calving herd managed at pasture under typical commercial conditions in New Zealand were stratified by age, body condition score and days in milk, then randomly allocated to one of two groups prior to the planned start of mating (PSM). Tail paint was applied to all cows and oestrus detected by visual observation of oestrous behaviour and removal of paint, by farm staff. One group (n = 240) was fitted with ODS and also monitored for signs of oestrus using a CSD, while the Control group (n = 240) was monitored using tail paint and visual observations only. Cows detected in oestrus were artificially inseminated (AI), and pregnancy status determined using rectal palpation and ultrasonography, 51-52 days after the end of a 55-day A period. Results of pregnancy diagnosis were used to confirm the occurrence of oestrus, and the sensitivity, specificity, predictive value and accuracy of detection of oestrus compared between oestrus detection methods.
The sensitivity and accuracy of oestrus detection in the Control group, using visual observation and tail paint, were low. Compared with the Control group, detection of oestrus using the ODS and CSD resulted in greater sensitivity (85% vs 78%; p = 0.006), specificity (99.6% vs 98.0%; p < 0.001), positive predictive value (PPV; 88% vs 51%; p < 0.001) and overall accuracy (99.0% vs 98.0%; p < 0.001). Negative predictive value (NPV) did not differ significantly between groups (99.4% vs 99.3%; p = 0.28). Pregnancy rate to first service was higher in the CSD group than in the Control group (72% vs 39%; p < 0.05). Use of the CSD significantly increased the cumulative proportion of cows pregnant to AI over the breeding period (p = 0.044).
The ODS and CSD was satisfactory for detection of oestrus in seasonal calving dairy herds grazing on pasture and could improve the sensitivity and accuracy of detection of oestrus in herds where these are low.
比较一种新型发情检测试纸(ODS)和一种摄像头-软件设备(CSD)与牧场奶牛传统农场管理方法(视觉观察和使用尾漆)在发情检测方面的敏感性、特异性、预测值和准确性。
在新西兰典型商业条件下,对一个季节性产犊牛群中的480头奶牛,按年龄、体况评分和泌乳天数进行分层,然后在计划配种开始前(PSM)随机分为两组。给所有奶牛涂抹尾漆,由农场工作人员通过观察发情行为和尾漆脱落来检测发情。一组(n = 240)安装了ODS,并使用CSD监测发情迹象,而对照组(n = 240)仅使用尾漆和视觉观察进行监测。检测出发情的奶牛进行人工授精(AI),在55天的A期结束后51 - 52天,通过直肠触诊和超声检查确定妊娠状态。妊娠诊断结果用于确认发情的发生,并比较发情检测方法之间发情检测的敏感性、特异性、预测值和准确性。
对照组使用视觉观察和尾漆进行发情检测的敏感性和准确性较低。与对照组相比,使用ODS和CSD检测发情的敏感性更高(85%对78%;p = 0.006)、特异性更高(99.6%对98.0%;p < 0.001)、阳性预测值(PPV;88%对51%;p < 0.001)和总体准确性更高(99.0%对98.0%;p < 0.001)。两组之间的阴性预测值(NPV)无显著差异(99.4%对99.3%;p = 0.28)。CSD组首次输精后的妊娠率高于对照组(72%对39%;p < 0.05)。在整个繁殖期,使用CSD显著提高了人工授精后怀孕奶牛的累积比例(p = 0.044)。
ODS和CSD对于在牧场上放牧的季节性产犊奶牛群的发情检测是令人满意的,并且可以提高发情检测敏感性和准确性较低的牛群中的发情检测水平。