MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340706195 · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13505

Estrous detection intensity and accuracy and optimal timing of insemination with automated activity monitors for dairy cows

2017· article· en· W2340706195 on OpenAlexafffund
C.N.S. LeRoy, J.S. Walton, S.J. LeBlanc

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersDairy Farmers of Ontario
KeywordsEstrous cycleArtificial inseminationInseminationMedicineAnimal scienceActivity monitorGynecologyPregnancyAndrologyInternal medicineBiologyPhysical activitySpermPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this observational study were to assess the ability of automated activity monitoring (AAM) to detect estrus for first insemination, the accuracy of detection, and the optimum interval from the estrus alert from the AAM system to insemination. Four commercial farms using 1 of 2 commercial AAM systems were studied over 1 yr. Cows were inseminated between 55 and 80 d in milk (DIM) based on AAM only, then by a combination of AAM and timed artificial insemination (AI). Blood progesterone was measured in 1,014 cows at wk 5, 7, and 9 postpartum; purulent vaginal discharge (PVD) was assessed at wk 5; and lameness and BCS at wk 7. Overall, AAM detected 83% of cows in estrus by 80 DIM. Cows that had 3 serum progesterone <1 ng/mL, had PVD, or were both lame and had BCS ≤2.5 has lesser odds of being detected in estrus by 80 DIM (62, 68, and 53%, respectively). Blood samples were collected on the day of 445 AI based on AAM and 323 timed AI. The proportion of cows not in estrus (progesterone >1 ng/mL) on the day of AI was similar between AAM (4 ± 1.8%) and timed AI (3 ± 1.2%). Managers elected, based on subjective criteria, not to inseminate 17% of cows for which an AAM estrus alert was issued, of which 43% were not in estrus. Activity data were extracted from AAM software for 1,399 AI. Onset of estrus was calculated using the same or similar data processing criteria as the AAM system. Producers recorded the time of AI. The interval from onset of estrus to AI was categorized as 0 to 8, 8 to 16, or 16 to 24 h. We found no effect of AAM system on the probability of pregnancy per AI, but noted an interaction of interval with parity. For multiparous cows, the probability of pregnancy per AI was 31%, which did not differ with the interval to AI. For primiparous cows, the odds of pregnancy were greater if AI occurred 0 to 8 h (49%) than 8 to 16 (36%) or 16 to 24 h (31%) after the estrus alert from the AAM. Automated activity monitoring can detect estrus for first AI in just over the length of 1 estrous cycle for over 80% of cows, but the remainder would likely require intervention for timely insemination. For multiparous cows, performing AI based on AAM once per day would not affect pregnancy per AI, but for primiparous cows AI within 8 h of the onset of estrus may be advantageous.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207