Neves R C, LeBlanc S J
Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1.
Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1.
J Dairy Sci. 2015 Apr;98(4):2801-11. doi: 10.3168/jds.2014-8221. Epub 2015 Feb 7.
The objectives of this study were to describe the characteristics and motivations of producers who had implemented automated activity-monitoring (AAM) systems and to compare herd reproductive performance before and after the implementation of an AAM system and between herds with AAM and herds managing reproduction based on timed artificial insemination (TAI) or based on other programs. Freestall dairy herds located in Ontario and the western provinces of Canada and enrolled in Dairy Herd Improvement were surveyed through a mail questionnaire between April and July 2010. The data describe the characteristics and reproductive management practices of herds using AAM systems. A total of 505 questionnaires (29%) were returned. On average, 21-d pregnancy risk, conception risk, and 21-d insemination risk did not differ between herds managing reproduction based on an AAM system (18, 39, and 50%, respectively) or a TAI-based program (17, 38, and 49%, respectively). Herds that implemented an AAM system had a significant increase in annual pregnancy risk, from 15 to 17%, and insemination risk increased from 42 to 50%, whereas conception risk was unchanged (37 and 35%) following adoption of the system. The majority of respondents with AAM systems first used the system to manage reproduction in lactating cows. Most herds with AAM were performing artificial insemination twice per day, most commonly with an interval from the estrus alarm to artificial insemination of 7 to 12 h. The most commonly reported reason to adopt an AAM system was a desire to improve reproductive performance. These results support the findings from randomized trials that AAM-based programs can yield comparable reproductive performance to TAI-based programs.
本研究的目的是描述已实施自动活动监测(AAM)系统的生产者的特征和动机,并比较实施AAM系统前后牛群的繁殖性能,以及拥有AAM系统的牛群与基于定时人工授精(TAI)或其他程序管理繁殖的牛群之间的繁殖性能。2010年4月至7月间,通过邮寄问卷对位于安大略省和加拿大西部省份且参加奶牛群改良计划的散栏式奶牛场进行了调查。这些数据描述了使用AAM系统的牛群的特征和繁殖管理实践。共收回505份问卷(29%)。平均而言,基于AAM系统管理繁殖的牛群(分别为18%、39%和50%)与基于TAI计划的牛群(分别为17%、38%和49%)在21天妊娠风险、受孕风险和21天授精风险方面没有差异。实施AAM系统的牛群年度妊娠风险显著增加,从15%升至17%,授精风险从42%增至50%,而采用该系统后受孕风险未变(分别为37%和35%)。大多数采用AAM系统的受访者首先使用该系统管理泌乳奶牛的繁殖。大多数采用AAM系统的牛群每天进行两次人工授精,最常见的是从发情警报至人工授精的间隔为7至12小时。采用AAM系统最常报告的原因是希望提高繁殖性能。这些结果支持了随机试验的结果,即基于AAM的计划可产生与基于TAI的计划相当的繁殖性能。