Dr. Paul Fricke presented this information as a webinar for DAIReXNET on Monday, April 22, 2013. For more information, please see our archived webinars page at www.extension.org/pages/15830/archived-dairy-cattle-webinars.

1. New Tools to Manage
Dairy Cattle
Reproduction
Paul M. Fricke, Ph.D.
Professor of Dairy Science
University of Wisconsin-Madison

2. New Tools
• Accelerometer systems for
detection of activity/estrus
• Strategies for resynchronization
of ovulation
• New methods for nonpregnancy
diagnosis

3. Heatime
Accelerometer Systems

4. Heatime

7. Collaborating Farm
Majestic View Dairy
Lancaster, WI
Dairy farm
in southwestern
Wisconsin milking
1,000 cows
Implemented the
Heatime system in
late 2009

8. Experimental Design
Cows (n = 112) from 46 to 52 DIM were submitted to
a G-P protocol to synchronize estrus:
US +
Blood
US +
Blood +
Kamar
GnRH PGF2
3X US
Mon Mon Wed Thu Fri Mon
US
Cows that failed to synchronize (n = 23) were excluded
resulting in 89 cows included in the final analysis

9. Percentage of cows determined to be in estrus,
and distribution of cows by estrous activity and
ovulation Valenza et al., 2012; J. Dairy Sci. 95:7115-7127
Item
Accelerometer
system
Heatmount
detectors
-------- % (n/n) -------- -------- % (n/n) --------
Estrus 71 (63/89) 66 (59/89)
Ovulation 95 (60/63) 93 (55/59)
No ovulation 5 (3/63) 7 (4/59)
No Estrus 29 (26/89) 34 (30/89)
Ovulation 35 (9/26) 47 (14/30)
No ovulation 65 (17/26) 53 (16/30)

10. Interval from AI to ovulation
Valenza et al., 2012; J. Dairy Sci. 95:7115-7127
Mean = 7.9 ± 8.7 h
n = 38 cows
AI too late
(after ovulation)
AI too early
(before ovulation)

11. 7 Days 56 h
GnRH PGF2 GnRH
16 h
TAI
Pursley, Mee, & Wiltbank, 1995
Theriogenology 44:915
24-32 h
Ovulation

12. Conception Rates of Lactating Cows
Receiving TAI at Various Intervals from
the Second GnRH Injection of Ovsynch
Pursley et al., 1998. J. Dairy Sci. 81:2139-2144
32%
41%
45%
41%
37%
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 8 16 24 32
Hours after 2nd GnRH Injection
ConceptionRate(%)

14. Reproductive performance of
lactating dairy cows managed
for first service using timed
artificial insemination with or
without detection of estrus using
an accelerometer system
P. M. Fricke, A. Valenza, J. O. Giordano,
M. C. Amundson, and G. Lopes Jr.
J. Dairy Sci. 2012 abstract

15. TAIGnRH PGF GnRH
14 d 7 d 56 h 12 h
Estrous
Activity
DIM 39±3 VWP = 53±3 65±3 72±3 75±3
Treatment 1
TAIGnRHPGF PGF PGF GnRH
14 d 12 d 7 d 56 h 12 h
Estrous
Activity
Treatment 2
TAIGnRHPGF PGF PGF GnRH
7 d 56 h 12 h
Treatment 3
Estrous
Activity

16. Table 1. Effect of treatment on mean (±SD) days to first
AI and pregnancies per AI (P/AI).
Treatment
Item 1 2 3
n 326 334 331
Days to 1st AI 67.4 ± 10.4b
(50 - 92)
62.6 ± 8.5a
(51 - 78)
74.8 ± 2.2c
(72 - 78)
P/AI (%) at 35 d 31.1 31.1 38.4
a,b,cMeans with different superscripts differ (P<0.0001)
Percentages with different superscripts differ (P=0.05)

17. Treatment 2: Presynch/Ovsynch with AI to activity
DIM
TAIGnRHPGF PGF PGF GnRHCalving
39±3 53±3 65±3 72±3 75±3
14 d 12 d 7 d 56 h 12 h
Estrous
Activity
2.2 – Cows without activity receiving TAI
31% of cows
P/AI at 35 d = 35% (37/105)
2.1 – Cows inseminated to activity
69% of cows
P/AI at 35 d = 29% (67/230)

18. Treatment 3: Presynch/Ovsynch with 100% TAI
DIM
TAIGnRHPGF PGF PGF GnRHCalving
39±3 53±3 65±3 72±3 75±3
7 d 56 h 12 h
3.1 – Cows with activity receiving TAI
70% of cows
P/AI at 35 d = 41% (95/232)
3.2 – Cows without activity receiving TAI
30% of cows
P/AI at 35 d = 32% (32/99)
Estrous
Activity but
no AI
14 d 12 d

19. Table 2. Effect of treatment and parity on pregnancies
per AI (P/AI)1
Parity
Treatment Primiparous Multiparous P-value
1 36.5 (46/126) 27.7 (56/202) 0.10
2 32.3 (41/127) 30.4 (63/207) 0.72
3 47.3 (61/129) 32.7 (66/202) 0.01
Overall 38.7 (148/382) 30.3 (185/611) 0.01

21. Economic comparison among treatments
Treatment
Item 1 2 3
Net Present Value ($/cow/d) 5.85 5.86 5.86
Total activity system cost ($) 72,500 72,500 -
Activity system cost ($/d) 22.35 22.35 -
Activity system cost
($/cow/d)
0.027 0.027 -

22. Dataflow II System

23. Activity Graph

24. Technologies for
Resynchronization of
Ovulation
Paul M. Fricke, Ph.D.
Professor of Dairy Science
University of Wisconsin-Madison

25. Fertility to TAI by AI Number
Bred # %Conc #Preg #Open Other Abort %Tot
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ====
1 47 211 237 181 19 36
2 30 81 187 84 9 20
3 27 58 159 62 9 16
4 30 44 104 59 2 12
5 28 25 63 42 2 7
6 32 12 25 18 0 3
OTHERS 33 8 16 9 0 2
TOTALS 35 445 821 474 42 100

27. Materials and Methods
- Conducted on a commercial Farm in Wisconsin milking
8,000 cows from April to December 2010.
- Cows were enrolled at 25 3 days after a previous AI.
- Pregnancy diagnoses were performed using transrectal
ultrasonography at 32 3 days after AI.

28. Experimental Design
P TAIAI G2
P TAIAI G2
G1 +
Blood
G1 +
Blood
GPG 32 (n=289)
GPG 39 (n=219)
0 25±3 32±3 39±3 46±3 49±342±3
Days after previous AI

29. G1 +
Blood P TAIAI
Pre-
GnRH G2
GGPG 32 (n=335)
Experimental Design
P TAIAI G2
P TAIAI
Pre-
GnRH G2
P TAIAI G2
G1 +
Blood
G1 +
Blood
G1 +
Blood
GPG 32 (n=289)
GGPG 39 (n=229)
GPG 39 (n=219)
0 25±3 32±3 39±3 46±3 49±342±3
Days after previous AI

30. 0
10
20
30
40
50
GGPG 32 GPG 32 GGPG 39 GPG 39
Effect P-value
Day 0.33
GnRH 0.03
Day x GnRH 0.55
37%
34%
41%
34%
(n=269) (n=219)(n=335) (n=289)
Effect of Treatment on
Fertility 32 days after
Resynch TAI
PregnanciesperAI(%)

31. 7 Days
Pre-
G
56 h
PGF G2 12 h
TAI
32 days
After AI
39 d After AI
Preg check
with US
Resynch
Strategy
7 Days 56 h
G1 PGF G2
12 h
TAI

32. Technologies for
Nonpregnancy Diagnosis
Paul M. Fricke, Ph.D.
Professor of Dairy Science
University of Wisconsin-Madison

33. Chemical Pregnancy Tests
• Three commercial assays have been
developed to determine pregnancy status in
cattle by measuring PSPB (Sasser et al., 1986) and
PAG’s (Zoli et al., 1991, Green et al., 2005) in maternal
blood.

34. PSPB Concentrations in Pregnant
Dairy Cows
Sasser et al., 1986( n = 5 )

36. PAG Resynch Schedule Silva et al., 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
TAI
d 2
d 9
d 16
d 23 GnRH PAG
d 30 PGF GnRH TAI
d 37
d 44
d 51
US d 27

37. 6:30 a.m.
Time from sample
collection to
receive outcomes:
~36 h
6:00 p.m
8:00 am
Arrive at Monsanto,
St. Louis, MO
3:00 p.m.
Overnight
Express

38. Accuracy of PAG ELISA for determination
of pregnancy status 27 d after timed AI
Silva et al., 2007; J. Dairy Sci. 90:4612-4622
Sensitivity1
% (no./no.)
Specificity2
% (no./no.)
PPV3
% (no./no.)
NPV4
% (no./no.)
Accuracy5
% (no./no.)
Kappa
95.4
(596/625)
94.2
(987/1048)
90.7
(596/657)
97.1
(987/1016)
94.6
(1583/1673)
0.89
1Proportion of samples from pregnant cows with a positive PAG ELISA.
2Proportion of samples from not-pregnant cows with a negative PAG ELISA.
3Proportion of PAG ELISA with a pregnant outcome that truly were pregnant.
4Proportion of PAG ELISA with a not-pregnant outcome that truly was not-pregnant.
5Proportion of pregnancy status, pregnant and not-pregnant, that was correctly classified.

39. Accuracy of a PSP-B ELISA compared
with transrectal ultrasonography (US)
Romano and Larson, 2010; Theriogenology 74:932-939
Day after AI
28 30 35
US (no.) 246 246 246
PSP-B (no.) 246 229 246
Sensitivity (%) 93.9 96.0 97.2
Specificity (%) 95.5 93.9 93.6
PPV (%) 94.7 92.2 92.0
NPV (%) 94.7 96.8 97.8
Accuracy (%) 94.7 94.8 95.1
Uncertain samples (%) 8.5a (21) 4.8ab (11) 3.3b (8)
Kappa value 0.92 0.92 0.95
a,bWithin a row, percentages with different superscripts differ

40. ≥35 days postbreeding and 60 days postcalving
Frequency of testing is a consideration

41. Short communication: Field evaluation
of a pregnancy confirmation test using
milk samples in dairy cows LeBlanc, 2013
Target population:
683 cows on 8 different farms previously diagnosed
pregnant by a veterinarian and ≥60 d of gestation
Milk test outcomes were compared to
outcomes using transrectal palpation
Sensitivity = 99.2% (98.2 – 99.7%)
Specificity = 95.5% (78.2 – 99.2%)
Positive predictive value = 99.8% (99.1 – 99.96%)
Negative predictive value = 80.8% (61.3 – 90.9%)