DETECTION OF ESTRUS AND MASTITIS: FIELD PERFORMANCE OF A MODEL

A new detection model ( ‘ IMAG model ’ ) for estrus and mastitis in dairy cows was tested on four farms during several years. Such a test is necessary because information is lacking about the performance of detection models under field conditions. The test gave insight into the field performance of the IMAG model and the results were compared with the results of older models and with the results predicted by experts. Sensor data of milk yield, milk temperature, electrical conductivity of milk and animal activity were the inputs for the IMAG model. The IMAG model is based on time series analysis combined with a Kalman filter. This structure yields cow–dependent model parameters and combines data of different sensors. Results were compared with the manufacturer ’ s model (supplied with the sensors), based only on exponential smoothing on data from one sensor. The sensor equipment differed between farms. The sensitivity (percentage of estruses detected) for estrus varied from 63 to 80%, depending on the threshold used. Specificity (non–estruses not detected as estrus) varied from 94 to 98%. The sensitivity for clinical mastitis varied from 55 to 80%, depending on the threshold used. The specificity for mastitis varied from 94 to 99%. Significant differences existed between farms, in sensitivity for estrus and mastitis. The applied equipment could only partially explain the differences in estrus and mastitis detection results between farms. No relation between stage of lactation and activity level was found, although a lower activity level in the first period of lactation might be expected. The main conclusion is that a detection model can give good results, but only if the equipment is working properly. The new model outperformed the manufacturer ’ s model.

[1]  Quantifying characteristics of information-technology applications based on expert knowledge for detection of oestrus and mastitis in dairy cows. , 1998, Preventive veterinary medicine.

[2]  A. Keen,et al.  A simple approach for the analysis of generalizea linear mixed models , 1994 .

[3]  B. Engel,et al.  Predicting optimal time of insemination in cows that show visual signs of estrus by estimating onset of estrus with pedometers. , 1997, Journal of dairy science.

[4]  Analysis of Activity Measurement for Accurate Oestrus Detection in Dairy Cattle , 1994 .

[5]  G. H. Kroeze,et al.  Description of a detection model for oestrus and diseases in dairy cattle based on time series analysis combined with a Kalman filter , 1999 .

[6]  G. H. Kroeze,et al.  Results of a multivariate approach to automated oestrus and mastitis detection , 1997 .

[7]  J. Hillerton,et al.  Detection of clinical mastitis by changes in electrical conductivity of foremilk before visible changes in milk. , 1996, Journal of dairy science.

[8]  P. H. Hogewerf,et al.  The efficacy of in-line measurement of quarter milk electrical conductivity, milk yield and milk temperature for the detection of clinical and subclinical mastitis , 1992 .

[9]  Y. Schukken,et al.  Herd Health and Production Management in Dairy Practice , 1998 .

[10]  Dieter Schlünsen,et al.  Automatic health and oestrus control in dairy husbandry through computer aided systems , 1987 .

[11]  J. A. Lines,et al.  A review of livestock monitoring and the need for integrated systems , 1997 .

[12]  Alfonso Zecconi,et al.  Evaluation of the electrical conductivity of milk as a mastitis indicator , 1998 .

[13]  R M de Mol,et al.  Application of fuzzy logic in automated cow status monitoring. , 2001, Journal of dairy science.

[14]  Gregory S. Lewis,et al.  Oestrus detection in cattle: recent developments , 1992 .

[15]  Rony Geers Electronic monitoring of farm animals: a review of research and development requirements and expected benefits , 1994 .