Automated heat detection systems are becoming more and more popular throughout the U.S. and Canada. The systems are typically based on activity measured by one of two types of technologies. The first type is a pedometer that measures the steps a cow takes each day. The second type is an accelerometer that measures movement in three dimensions (i.e. up and down, side to side, and front to back). Both types of technology calculate an increase (heat) or a decrease (illness) in activity compared to a cow’s baseline.
As I flipped through some recent dairy magazines I noticed ads for several commercially available automatic heat detection systems. I wondered why some farmers choose to use an automated heat detection system while others do not. Especially when the research data from randomized trials indicate that the reproductive performance for automated heat detections systems based on activity are comparable to timed artificial insemination programs. In a recent survey of Canadian farmers using DHI, 56% of responding farmers did not use automated heat detection systems. The primary reason was that they were satisfied with their current herd reproductive performance. Other reasons were a perception that the cost was too high relative to the benefit and no expected improvement in herd reproductive performance. Interestingly, 30% of the farmers not using an automated heat detection system indicated that they were considering implementing the system in their herd.
Responding farmers that were using an automatic heat detection system based on activity indicated most often that they implemented the technology to improve herd reproductive performance. Other reasons included a lack of time to detect estrus themselves and a chance to monitor health along with heat. A farmer’s decision to use a system was primarily influenced by opinions of others farmers that had experience with the systems. Most of the farmers used a system for cows but not heifers, and performed artificial insemination 7 to 12 hours after peak activity which is close to the recommended interval of 9 to 16 hours. Farmers had improvements in reproductive performance after the first year of use of a system. The annual pregnancy risk increased from 15 to 17% and the insemination risk increased from 42 to 50%. As expected, there was no change in conception risk.
In a German survey, 94% of the responding farmers were satisfied with an automated heat detection system and indicated that reproductive management was easier with the system. Importantly, the farmers used fewer hormones for reproductive management. This result has the potential to impact public perception.
Author: Heather Dann, Miner Institute
