Performance of automated activity monitoring systems used in combination with timed artificial insemination compared to timed artificial insemination only in early lactation in dairy cows
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Identifying cows in estrus remains a challenge on dairy cattle farms, and tools and technologies have been developed and used to complement or replace visual detection of estrus. Automated activity monitoring (AAM) systems and timed artificial insemination (TAI) are technologies available to dairy farmers, but many factors can influence their relative performance. The objective of the present study was to compare reproductive performance of cows managed with an AAM system combined with TAI, or with a TAI program (Double Ovsynch) for insemination before 88 DIM. From April 2014 to April 2015, 998 cows from 2 herds were randomly assigned either to be inseminated at 85 ± 3 DIM exclusively using the Double Ovsynch protocol for TAI, or to be inseminated based on estrus detection by AAM without hormonal intervention between 50 and 75 DIM; if no alarm was detected by 75 DIM, cows were inseminated following the single Ovsynch protocol (AAM + Ovsynch). The herds used different AAM systems. Parity, hyperketonemia at wk 1 and 2 postpartum (PP), purulent vaginal discharge at wk 5 PP, body condition score at wk 7 PP, and anovulation to wk 9 PP were recorded. These health indicators did not significantly differ between treatments, but did between herds. The effect of treatment on pregnancy at first insemination and by 88 DIM were assessed using logistic regression models. Time to pregnancy was assessed using survival analysis. Results are reported from intention-to-treat analyses. Treatment did not affect pregnancy at first insemination or pregnancy by 88 DIM, but we found significant interactions between treatment and herd for both outcomes. In herd 2, marginal mean pregnancy at first AI was greater with Double Ovsynch (38%) than AAM + Ovsynch (31%), but no difference was observed in herd 1 (Double Ovsynch = 31%; AAM + Ovsynch = 34%). By 88 DIM, a smaller proportion of cows in herd 1 were pregnant in Double Ovsynch (31%) than AAM + Ovsynch (49%), but there was no difference in herd 2 (Double Ovsynch = 38%; AAM + Ovsynch = 38%). We observed a treatment by herd interaction for median (95% confidence interval) time to pregnancy, which were, in herd 1, 110 (106 to 129) and 98 (88 to 113) d, and, in herd 2, 126 (113 to 139) and 116 (105 to 131) d for the Double Ovsynch and AAM + Ovsynch treatments, respectively. The relative performance of AAM-based reproductive management compared with TAI only is likely influenced by herd-specific variables, in particular related to insemination rate when estrus detection is employed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».