Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

25
Using successful inseminations to evaluate sensitivity of automated heat detection systems Claudia Kamphuis, WUR Kirsten Huijps, CRV

Transcript of Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Page 1: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Using successful inseminations to evaluate

sensitivity of automated heat detection systems

Claudia Kamphuis, WURKirsten Huijps, CRV

Page 2: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Challenges of detection-Time consuming-Error prone-Increased herd sizes

The importance of heat detection

Page 3: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

New Zealand survey 500 farmers25% wants it7% has it70% listed it in top 3 of technologies that gained benefit for farm(Edwards et al., 2014, APS)

Survey 212 farmers stating to have sensor technology41% of AMS farmers has it70% of CMS farmers has it(Steeneveld and Hogeveen, 2015, JDS)

Survey 109 farmers globally41% has itRated as useful to very useful(Borchers and Bewley, 2015, JDS)

35% of US respondents(Bewley, 2014, EAAP/EU-PLF conference)

Adoption rates

Page 4: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

What are the success factors?

Associated with clear management actions

Page 5: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

What are the success factors?

Associated with clear management actions

Investment is economically beneficial (Rutten et al., 2014)

for Dutch circumstances

Page 6: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

What are the success factors?

Associated with clear management actions

Investment is economically beneficial (Rutten et al., 2014)

for Dutch circumstances

Sensitivity 80% with specificity 95% (Rutten et al., 2013, JDS)

performance is OK

Page 7: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

But a specificity of 95%....

Still requires visual confirmation

701-05-2023

Page 8: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

But a specificity of 95%....

Still requires visual confirmation

100 cow herd:~1 cow in heat / day99 cows not in heat / day5 falsely alerted cows / day

801-05-2023

Page 9: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Alerts around P4 determined heat events(Kamphuis et al., 2014, EAAP/EU-PLF, Copenhagen, Denmark)

84% of all alerts generated +/- 3 days around P4 heatOnly 30 P4 heats included

Page 10: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Use successful inseminations

Avoid high costs and intensiveness of P4 method

Relatively easy way to increase numbers

Additional: study differences in performance between parities and lactation stages

Page 11: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Data collection: January-July 2014

Insemination data from CRVHeat alert data from systems’ software

Farm A Farm B

Herd size 450 250

Milking system Conventional AMS

Milk production (kg/cow/year)

9,500 9,800

Heat detection system A and B B and C

Page 12: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Defining successful inseminations

For cows with just 1 insemination

31 July1 January

Insemination>56 d

Successful GS+

Page 13: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Defining successful inseminations

For cows with >1 insemination

Insemination

>56 d

Successful GS+

Insemination

≤56 d

Unsuccessful

31 July1 January

Insemination

≤ 56 d

Unsuccessful

Insemination

>56 d

SuccessfulGS+

Insemination

≤56 d

Unsuccessful

1 January 31 July

Page 14: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Matching inseminations with alerts

Insemination data at daily level

Heat alerts per h or per 2h time blocks‘summarized at daily level’≥1 alert per day is an alerted day

Page 15: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Data collection: January-July 2014

Farm A Farm B

Herd size 450 250

Milking system Conventional AMS

Milk production (kg/cow/year)

9,500 9,800

Heat detection system A and B B and C

Cows with ≥1 successful inseminations

145 119

GS positive inseminations

153 129

Heat alerts A: 352B: 532 B: 117

C: 887

Page 16: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Matching inseminations with alerts

Sensitivity using a 1 day time-window

GS+

day

Page 17: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Matching inseminations with alerts

Sensitivity using a 2 day time-window

GS+

day

Page 18: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Detection performance differed between heat detection system

Sensitivity (%)A: 31B: 58C: 92

Page 19: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Detection performance differed between heat detection system

Sensitivity (%)A: 35B: 87C: 94

Page 20: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Detection performance did not differ between parity / lactation stage

Sensitivity 2 day time- window

System A System B System C

Parity

1 23 85 90

2 48 90 97

≥3 36 90 94

Lactation stage

≤56 days 44 100 91

>56 days 34 87 94

Page 21: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Discussion / conclusion

Lower performance of System A• consistent with EAAP/EU-PLF 2014• technical problems in data exchange

Page 22: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Discussion / conclusion

Lower performance of System A

Sensitivity may be overestimatedSummarizing h / 2h alerts to daily alertsexcluding data from cows that were

not detected by a systemnot visually confirmed by farmerinseminated incorrectlynot inseminated at all

Page 23: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Discussion / conclusion

Sensitivity in line with previous research (Rutten et al., JDS, 2013)

around 80-90% using a 2 day time-window

System C also alerts often 1 day after a successful insemination

No apparent differences in parity/lactation stageno apparent need for specific algorithmsfocus on getting more accurate and precise alerts

Page 24: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Ongoing data collection

Confirm or refute current findings statistically

Analyze data using hourly or 2hourly alert basis

Where to from here

Page 25: Kamphuis & huijps, ECPLF, milan, 2015 ss

Thank you for your attention

www.slideshare.net/claudiakamphuis ckamphuis