Dela Rue B T, Kamphuis C, Burke C R, Jago J G
a DairyNZ , Private Bag 3221, Hamilton 3240 , New Zealand.
N Z Vet J. 2014 Mar;62(2):57-62. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2013.841535. Epub 2013 Oct 25.
To assess the use and performance of activity-based oestrus detection systems (ODS) on two commercial dairy farms using a gold standard based on profiles of concentrations of progesterone in milk, artificial insemination (AI) records and pregnancy diagnosis results.
Two activity-based ODS were evaluated in mature cows on two large pasture-grazed dairy farms (>500 cows) over the first 3 weeks of AI. Farm 1 (n=286 cows) used a leg-mounted device and cows were drafted automatically based on activity alerts. Decisions regarding AI were then made based on tail-paint and cow history for these cows. Farm 2 (n=345 cows) used a collar-mounted device and activity alerts were used in conjunction with other information, before the farmer manually selected cows for AI. The gold standard to define the timing of oestrus was based on profiles of concentrations of progesterone in milk measured twice-weekly, used in conjunction with AI records and pregnancy diagnosis results. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated for the activity-based ODS data only, and then for AI decisions, against the gold standard.
Farm 1 had 195 confirmed oestrus events and 209 activity alerts were generated. The sensitivity of the activity-based ODS was 89.2% with a PPV of 83.3%. Using tail-paint and cow history to confirm activity-based alerts 175 cows were inseminated, resulting in a sensitivity of 89.2% and an improved PPV of 99.4%. Farm 2 had 343 confirmed oestrus events, and 726 alerts were generated by the activity-based ODS, giving a sensitivity of 69.7% with a PPV of 32.9%. A total of 386 cows had AI records, giving a sensitivity of 81.3% and PPV of 72.3%.
The two activity-based ODS were used differently on-farm; one automatically selecting cows and the other supporting the manual selection of cows in oestrus. Only one achieved a performance level suggested to be acceptable as a stand-alone ODS. Use of additional tools, such as observation of tail paint to confirm activity-based oestrus alerts before AI, substantially improved the PPV.
A well performing activity-based ODS can be a valuable tool in identifying cows in oestrus prior to visual confirmation of oestrus status. However the performance of these ODS technologies varies considerably.
基于牛奶中孕酮浓度曲线、人工授精(AI)记录及妊娠诊断结果这一黄金标准,评估基于活动的发情检测系统(ODS)在两个商业化奶牛场中的使用情况及性能。
在两个大型牧场放牧的奶牛场(奶牛数量>500头)的成熟奶牛中,于人工授精的前3周对两种基于活动的ODS进行评估。农场1(n = 286头奶牛)使用腿部安装装置,奶牛根据活动警报自动分组。然后根据这些奶牛的尾漆标记和奶牛历史记录做出人工授精决策。农场2(n = 345头奶牛)使用项圈安装装置,活动警报与其他信息结合使用,然后由农民手动选择进行人工授精的奶牛。定义发情时间的黄金标准基于每周两次测量的牛奶中孕酮浓度曲线,并结合人工授精记录和妊娠诊断结果。仅针对基于活动的ODS数据计算敏感性和阳性预测值(PPV),然后针对人工授精决策,与黄金标准进行对比计算。
农场1有195次确认的发情事件,产生了209次活动警报。基于活动的ODS的敏感性为89.2%,PPV为83.3%。使用尾漆标记和奶牛历史记录来确认基于活动的警报,175头奶牛进行了人工授精,敏感性为89.2%,PPV提高到99.4%。农场2有343次确认的发情事件,基于活动的ODS产生了726次警报,敏感性为69.7%,PPV为32.9%。共有386头奶牛有人工授精记录,敏感性为81.3%,PPV为72.3%。
两种基于活动的ODS在农场中的使用方式不同;一种自动选择奶牛,另一种辅助人工选择发情奶牛。只有一种达到了作为独立ODS可接受的性能水平。在人工授精前使用额外工具,如观察尾漆标记来确认基于活动的发情警报,可显著提高PPV。
性能良好的基于活动的ODS在发情状态目视确认之前识别发情奶牛方面可能是一种有价值的工具。然而,这些ODS技术的性能差异很大。