Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 7, 2025

The Use of an Automated System GreenFeed to Monitor Enteric Methane and Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Ruminant Animals
Published on: September 7, 2015
Evaluation of Four Different Automated Activity Monitoring Systems to Identify Anovulatory Cows in Early Lactation
Lukas Frieder Bretzinger1, Marvin Hölper1, Christie Marie Tippenhauer1
1Farm Animal Clinic, Unit for Reproduction Medicine and Udder Health, Division for Ruminants and Camelids, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universitaet Berlin, Koenigsweg 65, 14163 Berlin, Germany.
Abstract:
The objective of this study was to evaluate four different automated activity monitoring (AAM) systems to identify anovulatory cows in early lactation. A total of 852 lactating Holstein cows (221 primiparous and 631 multiparous cows) from four commercial dairy herds were enrolled. On each farm, cows were equipped with a respective AAM system (SB: Smartbow; HT: Heatime; DP: Delpro; and CM: CowManager). Each cow was sampled three times within the voluntary waiting period (VWP) in a two-week interval to detect the blood progesterone (P4) concentration. Cows were classified based on the concentration of P4 as follows: (1) none of the three blood P4 concentrations exceeded 1.0 ng/mL (anovulatory); (2) at least one of the three blood P4 concentrations was above 1.0 ng/mL (ovulatory). Cows were classified based on estrus alerts as follows: (1) no estrus alert was detected by an AAM system from 7 to 60 DIM (anestrus); (2) at least one estrus alert was detected by an AAM system from 7 to 60 DIM (estrus). Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for each AAM system for anovulatory cows [(SB: 77.6%; 26.8%; 89.3%; 36.7%; and 84.1%); (HT: 79.2%; 63.6%; 83.6%; 52.8%; and 88.9%); (DP: 47.2%; 78.8%; 41.5%; 19.5%; and 91.6%); (CM: 80.5%; 23.7%; 92.7%; 39.1%; and 85.3%)].

