Cargando…

Comparison between a Calving Predictive System and a Routine Prepartal Examination in German Holstein Heifers and Cows

The objective was to validate the efficacy of Moocall(®) comparing it to a routine clinical examination. Altogether 38 Holstein cows were enrolled in this study (Moocall(®) group: 16 heifers and 8 cows; control group: 9 heifers and 5 cows). Clinical examinations were performed every 6 h over the 7 d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Górriz-Martín, Lara, Koenig, Annabel, Jung, Klaus, Bergforth, Wiebke, von Soosten, Dirk, Hoedemaker, Martina, Bajcsy, Árpád Csaba
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9025200/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35448690
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9040192
_version_ 1784690810306953216
author Górriz-Martín, Lara
Koenig, Annabel
Jung, Klaus
Bergforth, Wiebke
von Soosten, Dirk
Hoedemaker, Martina
Bajcsy, Árpád Csaba
author_facet Górriz-Martín, Lara
Koenig, Annabel
Jung, Klaus
Bergforth, Wiebke
von Soosten, Dirk
Hoedemaker, Martina
Bajcsy, Árpád Csaba
author_sort Górriz-Martín, Lara
collection PubMed
description The objective was to validate the efficacy of Moocall(®) comparing it to a routine clinical examination. Altogether 38 Holstein cows were enrolled in this study (Moocall(®) group: 16 heifers and 8 cows; control group: 9 heifers and 5 cows). Clinical examinations were performed every 6 h over the 7 days period before the predicted calving date. The examined traits were changes in pelvic ligament relaxation, edema of the vulva, teat filling, vaginal secretion, tail tip flexibility, tail raising and behavior. There were no significant differences in Moocall(®) alerts between heifers and cows. The time lag between the first warning of Moocall(®) and the onset of labor was 21.2 ± 20.2 h (max: 95.4 h; min: 0.1 h; p = 0.87) for heifers and 29.6 ± 29.6 h (max: 177.8 h; min: 0 h; p = 0.97) for cows. Linear models including Moocall(®) alerts showed a significantly better fit to the time until calving than models without Moocall(®) information (without variable selection: p = 0.030, with variable selection: p < 0.01). In the best-fitting model, class 2 alerts (enhanced tail activity over 2 h) contributed with a higher significance (p < 0.01). Vice versa, models including additional traits were outperformed the use of Moocall(®) alerts alone. In the best fitting model, class 2 alerts (enhanced tail activity during 2 h) contributed with a higher significance (p < 0.01) than any of the best clinical predictive parameters, such as pelvic ligament relaxation (p = 0.01), tail tip flexibility (p = 0.01) or behavior (p = 0.01).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9025200
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90252002022-04-23 Comparison between a Calving Predictive System and a Routine Prepartal Examination in German Holstein Heifers and Cows Górriz-Martín, Lara Koenig, Annabel Jung, Klaus Bergforth, Wiebke von Soosten, Dirk Hoedemaker, Martina Bajcsy, Árpád Csaba Vet Sci Article The objective was to validate the efficacy of Moocall(®) comparing it to a routine clinical examination. Altogether 38 Holstein cows were enrolled in this study (Moocall(®) group: 16 heifers and 8 cows; control group: 9 heifers and 5 cows). Clinical examinations were performed every 6 h over the 7 days period before the predicted calving date. The examined traits were changes in pelvic ligament relaxation, edema of the vulva, teat filling, vaginal secretion, tail tip flexibility, tail raising and behavior. There were no significant differences in Moocall(®) alerts between heifers and cows. The time lag between the first warning of Moocall(®) and the onset of labor was 21.2 ± 20.2 h (max: 95.4 h; min: 0.1 h; p = 0.87) for heifers and 29.6 ± 29.6 h (max: 177.8 h; min: 0 h; p = 0.97) for cows. Linear models including Moocall(®) alerts showed a significantly better fit to the time until calving than models without Moocall(®) information (without variable selection: p = 0.030, with variable selection: p < 0.01). In the best-fitting model, class 2 alerts (enhanced tail activity over 2 h) contributed with a higher significance (p < 0.01). Vice versa, models including additional traits were outperformed the use of Moocall(®) alerts alone. In the best fitting model, class 2 alerts (enhanced tail activity during 2 h) contributed with a higher significance (p < 0.01) than any of the best clinical predictive parameters, such as pelvic ligament relaxation (p = 0.01), tail tip flexibility (p = 0.01) or behavior (p = 0.01). MDPI 2022-04-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9025200/ /pubmed/35448690 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9040192 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Górriz-Martín, Lara
Koenig, Annabel
Jung, Klaus
Bergforth, Wiebke
von Soosten, Dirk
Hoedemaker, Martina
Bajcsy, Árpád Csaba
Comparison between a Calving Predictive System and a Routine Prepartal Examination in German Holstein Heifers and Cows
title Comparison between a Calving Predictive System and a Routine Prepartal Examination in German Holstein Heifers and Cows
title_full Comparison between a Calving Predictive System and a Routine Prepartal Examination in German Holstein Heifers and Cows
title_fullStr Comparison between a Calving Predictive System and a Routine Prepartal Examination in German Holstein Heifers and Cows
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between a Calving Predictive System and a Routine Prepartal Examination in German Holstein Heifers and Cows
title_short Comparison between a Calving Predictive System and a Routine Prepartal Examination in German Holstein Heifers and Cows
title_sort comparison between a calving predictive system and a routine prepartal examination in german holstein heifers and cows
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9025200/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35448690
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9040192
work_keys_str_mv AT gorrizmartinlara comparisonbetweenacalvingpredictivesystemandaroutineprepartalexaminationingermanholsteinheifersandcows
AT koenigannabel comparisonbetweenacalvingpredictivesystemandaroutineprepartalexaminationingermanholsteinheifersandcows
AT jungklaus comparisonbetweenacalvingpredictivesystemandaroutineprepartalexaminationingermanholsteinheifersandcows
AT bergforthwiebke comparisonbetweenacalvingpredictivesystemandaroutineprepartalexaminationingermanholsteinheifersandcows
AT vonsoostendirk comparisonbetweenacalvingpredictivesystemandaroutineprepartalexaminationingermanholsteinheifersandcows
AT hoedemakermartina comparisonbetweenacalvingpredictivesystemandaroutineprepartalexaminationingermanholsteinheifersandcows
AT bajcsyarpadcsaba comparisonbetweenacalvingpredictivesystemandaroutineprepartalexaminationingermanholsteinheifersandcows