Activity Monitoring in Combined

Timed AI and Heat-Detection

Programs

Jeffrey S. Stevenson, PhD

Dept. of Animal Sciences and Industry

jss@k-state.edu

Physiologic Changes during Estrus

• Vaginal cytology and pH

• Electrical resistance of vaginal mucus and genital tissues

• Body temperature

• Pulse and heart rate

• Pheromones and odors

• Blood metabolites and hormones

• Milk yield and feed intake

• Increased physical activity

Challenges of

Heat Detection

Detection of Estrus (Heat)

• Cow problems • Poor footing; sore and wet feet

• Inadequate space for sexual behavior

• High-producing cows show less behavior

• People problems • Limited visual detection

• Chalking/painting tail heads = heat detection

• Occasional visual heats detected

• A.I.-breeding pregnant or luteal phase cows

93

35

40

14

6

7

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Visual observation

Tail chalk/paint

Bulls

Heat mount patches

HeatWatch

Other

Pedometer

Percentage

Heat Detection Methods on U.S. Dairy Farms

NAHMS (2007)

• Increased activity is a correlated trait

with estrus—increases up to 400% in

93% of estrous periods (Kiddy, 1977).

• Pedometers quantifying either movement or actual steps provided 70 to 80% accuracy (Roelofs et al., 2010).

• Cows housed in free stalls were 2.75 times more active during estrus than during diestrus.

• Relatively little within-cow variation from day to day when cows are NOT in estrus.

Physical Activity

Systems Sold by an A.I. Organizations

System

Company

AfiTag ABS Global

ai24 Semex

ALPRO Genex

Cow Alert Alta

Genetics

CowScout S Accelerated

Genetics

Heatime Select Sires

Select Detect Select Sires

Slide courtesy of Dr. Ray Nebel, Select Sires Inc.

Three Basic Components Sensor

Hardware

Software

Systems that Interface

with Milking Parlor

DeLaval AfiKim

Dairymaster

Slide courtesy of Dr. Ray Nebel, Select Sires Inc.

Systems with Rumination,

Eating, or Chewing

Ai24 or

Heatime

Agis CowManager, SensOor

Slide courtesy of Dr. Ray Nebel, Select Sires Inc.

Heatime Select Detect

Accelerometers

Question

Response

(%)

Agreed that heat-detection rate

had increased 93.1

Agreed that reproductive

management had become easier 92.3

Satisfaction with the system 94.1

Would install the system again 94.5

Survey of 219 German Dairy Farmers1

1 Heatime system (SCR Engineers Ltd., Netanya, Israel); herd size averaged

97 cows.

Source: Michaelis et al. (2013)

Factors Affecting

Physical Activity

Detection

BCS and Parity Affects Peak Activity

Index and Duration of Activity1,2

Item Class

% cows with high

peak activity

index (> 50) P

% cows with long

duration (≥ 8 h)

activity P

BCS

Low (≤ 2.5) 68.3

(138/202)

0.008

65.8

(133/202)

0.02 Moderate

(2.75 to 3.00)

78.8

(578/733)

75.3

(552/733)

High (≥ 3.25) 75.5

(120/159)

74.2

(118/159)

Parity

Primiparous 78.1

(289/370) 0.49

74.3

(275/370) 0.41

Pluriparous 75.5

(545/720)

73.1

(526/720)

1 Total of 1,163 estrus events in 346 lactating dairy cows. 2 Heatime (SCR Engineers Ltd, Netanya, Israel).

Courtesy of R.L.A. Cerri

Madureira et al., 2013

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

No Correlation between Peak of Physical

Activity and Milk Production

Milk yield (kg/day )

Peak o

f A

ctivity

r = 0.0023

Ovulation

Prediction

When does ovulation occur

relative to increased activity?

Select Detect Automated

Activity Monitors (n = 133)

Heatwatch® pressure-sensitive

rump-mounted transmitters (n = 65)

• Lactating Holstein cows were enrolled in the study

beginning at 50 DIM.

• Estrus was induced by 25 mg PGF2α (PG) or 100 µg

GnRH i.m. 7 days before PG or spontaneous estrus

• Ovarian scans begun at 14-16 h and repeated every 3 h.

Experimental Design

HeatWatch, Cow Chips LLC

Transmitter Receiver

Buffer

Repeater HW HW

Daily Activity of Select Detect

Hourly Activity of Select Detect

Cow #3830

HeatWatch First stand at 8:53 p.m. (1/7)

Last stand at 5:56 a.m. (1/8)

Heat duration of 9 hr 3 min

Stood 15x for total of 25 sec

Ovulated 29 hr after first stand

Select Detect Threshold at 10:00 p.m. (1/7)

Ovulated 1:55 a.m. (1/9)

Ovulated 28 hr after threshold

14.9

11.9

37.3 35.8

11.1

26.5 27.4

35.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

< 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 > 30

%

Hours to Ovulation

HeatWatch (n = 65)

Select Detect (n = 117)

Stevenson (2013)

P = 0.407 P = 0.026 P = 0.122 P = 0.800

Proportion of Cows Ovulating

7.7 6.7

27.2

21.1

12.5

25.3

14.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Estrus duration,h

Standing events,no.

Ovulation afteronset, h

Ovulation afterend, h

HeatWatch

Automated Activity Monitor

Stevenson (2013)

Activity and Estrus Characteristics

Associated with Ovulation Prediction

Onset of Estrus to Ovulation

15

20

25

30

35

15 20 25 30 35 40 45

On

se

t o

f t

hre

sh

old

to

ovu

latio

n, h

Onset of first standing event to ovulation, h

y = 0.616x + 8.536

R2 = 0.516

n = 58

Stevenson (2013)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20

Dura

tion o

f activity,

h

Duration of standing estrus, h

y = 0.233x + 9.649

R2 = 0.020

n = 48

Duration of Estrus

Stevenson (2013)

End of Estrus to Ovulation

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

10 15 20 25 30 35

En

d o

f a

ctivity t

o o

vu

latio

n, h

End of standing estrus to ovulation, h

y = 0.535x + 4.261

R2 = 0.277

n = 42

Stevenson (2013)

Activity Monitor vs.

Heatmount Detector Patches1

Activity system2 Heatmount3

Item % (no. of cows detected / total no. of cows)

Estrus 71 (63/89) 66 (59/89)

Ovulation 95 (60/63) 93 (55/59)

No estrus 29 (26/89) 34 (30/89)

Ovulation 35 ( 9/26) 47 (14/30)

1 Of 112 cows treated with GnRH and PGF 7 d later. Cows

enrolled had a CL, a follicle > 10 mm in diameter, and luteolysis

by 48 h after PGF. 2 Heatime (SCR Engineers Ltd, Netanya, Israel). 3 Estrotech heat-detection patches (Rockway Inc., Spring Valley, WI)

Valenza et al., 2012

Pregnancy

Risk using

Activity

Monitors

36 3841

45

38

32 32 3329

23

05

101520253035404550

0 to 4 5 to 8 9 to 12 13 to 16 17 to 26

Con

ception

rate

(%

)

Interval to AI (h)

1st lactation 2nd+ lactation

268

361

467

607

467

656

254

435

207

297

b c

b

c

ab

d

a

cd

ab Means within 1st lactation group differ (P < 0.05) cd Means within 2+ lactation group differ (P < 0.05).

ab

c

Pregnancy Outcomes in 19 herds

Within Herd Comparison:

Timed AI vs. Activity Monitors

Cows were enrolled randomly at calving in 832-cow dairy

located in central Pennsylvania:

• Timed AI program (n = 414)

• AI according to the activity system (n = 394)

for the first 3 services starting at 50 DIM.

GnRH

AI PGF

7 days

GnRH GnRH

7 days

TAI GnRH-2

PGF GnRH-1

56h

8-

16h

PGF PGF

7 d 11 d 14 d

Presynch 14x11

PD

56h

Distribution of First Services

Total timed AI

program for first

and 2 repeat

inseminations

Conception Risk at First Service1

Lactation

number

n 1 2+

System

effect

Conception risk, %

Select Detect 394 45.9 25.6 35.0

Timed AI 412 45.8 35.8 39.8

Lactation effect 45.8 31.1

1System x lactation number interaction (P = 0.067).

Activity Monitors vs. Timed AI

66

36 35

74 68

75

42 44 42

52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Days at 1st AI CR at 1st AI(%)

Overall CR(%)

HDR (%) Preg at 150DIM (%)

Activity

Timed AI

Proportion Pregnant

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

50 70 90 113 134 154 174 194 214 234 254 274 294

Pro

po

rito

n o

f co

ws n

ot

pre

gn

an

t

Days in Milk

Activity monitors

Timed AI

Median = 115 days

Mean = 134 ± 4

Median = 95 days

Mean = 123 ± 4

Wilcoxon test

P < 0.001

Three Within Herd Comparisons:

Activity Monitors vs. Timed AI

Holstein cows (n = 1,429) in 3 commercial Ontario herds

were enrolled during 1 yr in a randomized controlled

experiment.

Automated activity monitoring system (Heatime, SCR

Engineers Ltd., Netanya, Israel)

vs.

Timed-AI based program:

Herd A Herd B Herd C

Presynch 14x14 Ovsynch 56 CO-Synch 72

Neves et al., 2012

Median Days to Pregnancy

All inseminations

(including visually

based)

Only program assigned

inseminations

Neves et al., 2012

Pregnancy Survival Curve (n = 924 cow-6-month periods)

Neves et al., 2012

Timed AI

Median = 125 days

Automated

activity monitor

Median = 82 days

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f cow

s n

ot pre

gn

ant

Days to pregnancy

Benchmarks Before and After

Activity Monitor Installation1

Berning

Acres

Furseth

Dairy

Goeser

Dairy

Reuter

Dairy

Sturgis

Dairy

Item Bef Aft Bef Aft Bef Aft Bef Aft Bef Aft

Milk (lbs) 82 91 86 87 82 87 85 91 85 82

21-d PR (%) 13 22 15 22 15 23 23 26 13 18

1st CR (%) 28 46 40 45 35 37 36 39 23 28

All CR (%) 23 32 29 33 31 35 33 36 18 20

DIM 182 176 193 178 210 189 183 169 210 183

HDR (%) 51 56 58 69 62 67 65 75 59 63

DFS 89 86 73 72 74 74 75 73 71 70

1 2011 Repro Invitational Panelists, Select Sires.

Betham Brothers Dairy – McBain, MI

June 7, 2010

(before)

June 7, 2013

(after 3 yr)

Herd size 664 981

Rolling herd average, lb 27,705 29,258

Calving interval, mo 13.5 12.8

Days open 132 109

21-day pregnancy rate, % 19 24

First-service CR, % 38 40

Overall CR, % 36 39

Days to first service 71 71

% time inseminated 46 1 1 Prostaglandin injections are administered every 14 days until 100 DIM and

then cows are treated with a CIDR insert (only 5% of cows). Open cows are

pregnancy diagnosis are given PGF if a CL is present.

Take Home Messages

• Time of ovulation relative to start of increased

activity or standing estrus is predictable:

• Standing estrus = 27.2 ± 0.6 h

• Activity monitor = 25.3 ± 0.6 h

• Automated activity monitors increase heat-detection

rates, but may not increase conception risk.

• Activity monitors reduce inter-insemination intervals

and help get cows pregnant at a faster rate.

• Activity monitors add value to the reproductive

management program, but do not identify all heats.

Happy AI-breeding!

Activity Monitoring in Combined Timed

AI and Heat-Detection Programs

16.7

25.8 24.2

33.3 31.1

22.7

17.4

28.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0100 to 0600 0601 to 1200 1201 to 1800 1801 to 2400

Onset of activity (

%)

Time when estrus began

HeatWatch (n = 66) Activity Monitor (n = 132)

P = 0.031 P = 0.638 P = 0.257 P = 0.518

Onset of Estrus Activity