MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765487013 · doi:10.3168/jds.2016-12256

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

2017· article· en· W2765487013 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Denis-Robichaud, R.L.A. Cerri, Andria Jones‐Bitton, S.J. LeBlanc

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Guelph
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Dairy CommissionDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsArtificial inseminationPregnancyInseminationEstrous cycleMedicineHerdGynecologyLogistic regressionLactationAnimal scienceObstetricsBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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