CAHNRS CW Network > Veterinary Medicine Extension > News > Dairy > The impact of the Estrus Detection Method on the production, reproduction, and profitability of dairy farms

The impact of the Estrus Detection Method on the production, reproduction, and profitability of dairy farms

By Giulia Berzoini Costa Leite, Master’s student
Department of Animal Sciences, Washington State University

One of the main points of reproductive efficiency is correctly identifying cows in estrus. A slight change in estrus (heat) detection efficiency can have substantial impacts on a farm’s profitability. In a study recently conducted by the WSU Department of Animal Science, a computer model was used to simulate the impact of the heat detection method on farm profitability in three scenarios: 1) visual observation (VO); 2) rump/tail markers; 3) or electronic detection (pedometers, collars, or any other device). The model accounted for a 6% and a 12% improvement in heat detection when changing from VO to RM and from RM to ED, respectively. Simulations were run for two climatic scenarios based on the states of Washington and Florida, totaling 6 scenarios.

Results from this study revealed a substantial enhancement in both estrus detection and pregnancy rates with the incorporation of technology into the system. Although the changes in conception rates were numerically modest (as depicted in Figure 1 A, B, and C, respectively), these findings were in line with our initial expectations. The heightened accuracy of estrus detection facilitated more precise insemination procedures, thereby augmenting the likelihood of successful breeding outcomes in cattle.

Figure 1: Estimated estrus detection (A), pregnancy rate (B), and conception rate (C) according to the adopted heat detection method in Florida and Washington.

Figure 1. (A)

Figure 1. (B)

Figure 1. (C)

Figure 2: Costs associated with the chosen heat detection method implementation (A), labor usage for estrus detection (B), and total cost of reproduction (C), which includes semen and artificial insemination materials prices.

If we take a closer look at the investment made to implement each estrus detection method alongside the total expenses associated with breeding, it is clear that electronic methods are more expensive initially, but they also require less human labor, which could be extremely persuasive due to employee shortages in the US.

Figure 2. (A)
Figure 2. (B)
Figure 2. (C)

Figure 3: Farm annual profit according to the chosen heat detection method on Florida and Washington dairy operations.

Figure 3.

Lastly, when evaluating herd productivity and farm rentability, adding technology has the potential to increase the system’s efficiency, maximizing profit especially in colder environments (i.e., WA state). This phenomenon can be attributed to two primary factors. Firstly, enhanced reproductive efficiency reduces the number of open animals, thereby minimizing unproductive individuals within the dairy operation. Enabling fast and precise estrus identification helps increase calf production per year and limits milk loss due to “stale” cows. Secondly, it is well-established that Holsteins are particularly susceptible to heat stress and given the increased number of warm months in Florida compared to Washington, this concern becomes even more pronounced. Irrespective of improvements made to reproductive protocols, heat stress will hinder cattle from expressing their maximum genetic and productive potential.

In conclusion, using technology to enhance heat detection has the potential to be a valuable long-term investment for farms. By implementing such advancements, farms can effectively reduce unproductive time for animals, increase average yearly production, and consequently boost annual profits. This holds particularly true in controlled environmental stress situations, where the benefits of incorporating technology become even more pronounced.

References

  1. de Vries. Economics of Delayed Replacement When Cow Performance is Seasonal. Journal of Dairy Science, Volume 87, Issue 9, 2004, Pages 2947-2958, ISSN 0022-0302.
  2. E.E. At-Taras, S.L. Spahr. Detection and Characterization of Estrus in Dairy Cattle with an Electronic Heatmount Detector and an Electronic Activity Tag1. Journal of Dairy Science, Volume 84, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 792-798, ISSN 0022-0302.
  3. J Saumande. Electronic detection of oestrus in postpartum dairy cows: efficiency and accuracy of the DEC® (showheat) system. Livestock Production Science, Volume 77, Issues 2–3, 2002, Pages 265-271, ISSN 0301-6226.
  4. O.A. Peralta, R.E. Pearson, R.L. Nebel. Comparison of three estrus detection systems during summer in a large commercial dairy herd. Animal Reproduction Science, Volume 87, Issues 1–2, 2005, Pages 59-72, ISSN 0378-4320.
  5. P.M. Fricke, P.D. Carvalho, J.O. Giordano, A. Valenza, G. Lopes, M.C. Amundson. Expression and detection of estrus in dairy cows: the role of new technologies. Animal, Volume 8, Supplement 1, 2014, Pages 134-143, ISSN 1751-7311.
  6. R. C. Chebel, J. E.P. Santos, J. P. Reynolds, R. L.A. Cerri, S. O. Juchem, M. Overton. Factors affecting conception rate after artificial insemination and pregnancy loss in lactating dairy cows. Animal Reproduction Science, Volume 84, Issues 3–4, 2004, Pages 239-255, ISSN 0378-4320.
  7. T. Lodkaew, K. Pasupa, C. K. Loo. CowXNet: An automated cow estrus detection system. Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 211, 2023, 118550, ISSN 0957-4174.