Reprod Dom Anim doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0531.2011.01971.
x
ISSN 0936-6768
Review Article
Towards an Automated Detection of Oestrus in Dairy Cattle
M Saint-Dizier1,2,3 and S Chastant-Maillard4
1
INRA, UMR 1198 Biologie du De´veloppement et Reproduction, Jouy en Josas, France; 2ENVA, UMR 1198, Maisons-Alfort, France;
3
AgroParisTech, UFR Ge´ne´tique Elevage Reproduction, Rue Claude Bernard, Paris Cedex, France; 4Reproduction, Ecole Nationale Véte´rinaire de
Toulouse, Chemin des Capelles, Toulouse Cedex, France
Contents
Heat detection is a key factor in the profitability of dairy herds.
However, this detection demands a significant part of the
breeder’s working time and is made difficult by the short
duration and the discrete behavioural changes associated with
oestrus in modern dairy cows. Progress has been made in
monitoring cow with electronics, biosensors and computer. As
a result, automated heat detection systems have been devel-
oped. Currently available tools are automated detectors of
standing heat, activity-metres and automated in-line systems
measuring milk progesterone. Camera-software systems and
monitoring of body temperature are being developed and may
also be used as heat detection tools. The heat detection rate of
most systems is above 80% with a specificity of detection
generally higher than 90%. The accuracy, however, may vary
considerably depending on the tool and model developed. The
initial investment of several thousands of euros required for
these automated systems becomes a source of profit in large
herds, provided the recorded data are properly managed.
Introduction
Heat detection is a significant component of profitability
in artificially bred dairy herds (Pecsok et al. 1994), but it
has become a major limiting factor of reproductive
performance in modern dairy cows (Lucy 2007). One
reason is the increase in herd size over the last decades,
tending to decrease the time per animal and per breeder
in most farms. Furthermore, the duration of oestrus in
high-producing dairy cows seems to become shorter and
shorter (Kerbrat and Disenhaus 2004; Lucy 2007). This
is particularly true in Holstein cows, in which oestrus
may last no more than 4–8 h between the first and the
last standing mount and an average of 11–14 h if all
signs of heat are taken into account (Van Eerdenburg
et al. 1996; Kerbrat and Disenhaus 2004; Roelofs et al.
2005a,b). In modern dairy cows, oestrous behavioural
signs are getting more and more discrete and up to 60%
of ovulations may be accompanied by no standing
mount (Van Eerdenburg et al. 1996; Kerbrat and
Disenhaus 2004; Roelofs et al. 2005a). Furthermore,
the frequent dispersion of calving dates (and thus
oestrous periods) all over the year, as well as the
housing in tie-stall barns, makes heat symptoms even
more difficult to detect (Firk et al. 2002; Sakaguchi
2011). These constraints have led to the widespread use
of fixed-timed AI after hormonal induction in the larger
farms in North and South America, with pregnancy
rates often lower than those with AI after oestrus
detection (Thatcher et al. 2006; Lucy 2007). Neverthe-
 2012 Blackwell Verlag GmbH
less, the wide use of hormones in healthy dairy cows
draws an increasing objection by breeders and consum-
ers, especially in Europe. As a result, attempts are being
made to develop new tools for oestrus detection that
allow a more automated management of reproduction.
The purpose of this paper is to review the automated
devices for heat detection that already exist or that are
under development for dairy cattle. These devices are
currently based on automated detection of either stand-
ing heat or increased activity, body temperature or on
automated in-line milk progesterone (P4) measurement.
Automated Detection of Standing Heat
The only behaviour specifically expressed during oestrus
is the standing heat: the cow in oestrus stands immobile
for a few seconds when being mounted by a herdmate.
When detection of oestrus is based only on the
observation of this specific behaviour, two or three
observation periods of 30 min per day detect no
more than 12–19% of cows in heat (Firk et al. 2002;
Roelofs et al. 2010). Instead of such intermittent obser-
vation, the standing heat may be detected by electronic
pressure sensitive devices fixed on the rump of cows
(Nebel et al. 2000). The HeatWatch system (Heat-
Watch II; CowChips, Manalapan, NJ, USA) consists
of a miniaturized radiowave transmitter linked to a
pressure sensor enclosed in a hard plastic case and
embedded in a nylon patch. The device is glued to the
hair caudal to the sacral region and is activated by the
weight of a mounting herdmate for a minimum of 2 s.
Each activation triggers a radiowave transmission (0.4-
km range), and the mounting data (cow ID, date of
mount, time and duration of the sensor activation) are
forwarded via a fixed radio antenna to a central
computer in which a software algorithm analyses the
mounting profile of each cow. The efficiency of oestrus
detection for electronic heatmount systems is usually
more than 85% with a high accuracy (87–100%;
Table 1) (Xu et al. 1998; At-Taras and Spahr 2001;
Saumande 2002; Cavalieri et al. 2003a,b). The rate of
detection with the HeatWatch system, however, may be
lower than desirable when used on commercial farms.
First, the housing and type of flooring have a dramatic
effect on mounting activity: cows in oestrus express more
mounting activity at pasture or in barns than in free-stalls
or cubicle-housing systems (De Silva et al. 1981; Britt
et al. 1986). Second, the time required to activate the
pressure sensor of HeatWatch is set at a minimum of 2 s
2 M Saint-Dizier and S Chastant-Maillard
Table 1. Efficiency, specificity and accuracy of oestrus detection by electronic heatmount detectors in dairy cows
Number of oestrusa (type of animals,
References housing and calving, if specified)
Xu et al. 1998 N = 121 (lactating Holstein and
Jersey cows calved seasonally)
At-Taras and N = 46 (lactating dairy
Spahr 2001 cows housed in free stall)
N = 53 SO (lactating dairy
cows housed in free stall)
Cavalieri et al. 2003a N = 43 SO (lactating dairy cows)
Cavalieri et al. 2003b N = 80 SO (non lactating
Holstein cows)
a
Non-synchronized oestrus otherwise specified by SO for synchronized oestrus.
b
Efficiency (or sensitivity or detection rate) = number of cows in oestrus detected ⁄ number of cows in oestrus · 100.
c
Specificity = number of cows in dioestrus not detected ⁄ number of cows in dioestrus · 100.
d
Accuracy (or positive predictive value) = number of correct oestrus detections ⁄ number of correct + false-positive oestrus detections · 100.
ND, non-determined.
to limit the number of false-positive detections. As a
result, the sensitivity of the system may be less than
expected, because up to 40% of mounts per oestrous
period may last <2 s. (Walker et al. 1996). Another limit
of the HeatWatch system is that the patch containing the
pressure sensor is sometimes difficult to keep attached to
the cow, especially during moulting. Xu et al. (1998)
reported failures to detect cows in oestrus as a result of
loss or displacement of monitors. The daily time and
labour required to check the presence and position of
monitors on animals should thus be taken in consider-
ation (Saumande 2000). Last, the HeatWatch system
calls for an initial investment of 6600 USD (4862 euros)
for 50 cows, comprising the base station, the software and
monitors.
Automated systems may also be designed as a
complement to fully mechanical heatmount detectors
fixed on the rump (such as Kamar Heatmount detec-
tors; Kamar products Inc., Zionsville, IN, USA) or tail
paint. Also, an automated camera-software system
mounted in the milking parlour has been developed
and patented by Massey University (New-Zealand
Patent 519743, IPC7, G01N33 ⁄ 74), which detects the
partial or total removal of paint from a strip fixed on the
sacro-coccygeal area of the cows (Alawneh et al. 2006;
Williamson et al. 2006). The detection of oestrus in
seasonal-calving dairy cows at pasture using this auto-
mated system resulted in greater sensitivity (85%),
specificity (99.6%) and positive predictive value (88%)
compared with visual observation and tail paint (78%,
98% and 51%, respectively) (Alawneh et al. 2006).
Automated heat detection could also take advantage
of the electronic identification of bovine animals by
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chip, available
(but not compulsory) to all breeders in Europe since
2010 (European Commission 2009). The use of the
RFID system was found to be successful for studies of
sex behaviour and automated detection of oestrus in
sheep (Bocquier et al. 2006; Maton et al. 2010). The
design developed and patented (French Patent, Agro.M,
INRA-PHASE, Bocquier F., WO ⁄ 2005 ⁄ 065574) is
rather simple: the RFID chip is fixed at the base of
the tail of the female (ewe), whereas the male (ram) is
equipped with an RFID detector fixed on its back and
an antenna fixed between its forelegs. At each standing
Efficiency
Type of tool (name) (%)b Specificityc Accuracy d
Heatmount detector with radiotelemetric 92 ND 100%
transmission (HeatWatch)
Heatmount detector with radiotelemetric 87 ND ND
transmission (HeatWatch) 72 ND ND
Heatmount detector with radiotelemetric 88 ND 100%
transmission (HeatWatch)
Heatmount detector with radiotelemetric 94 ND ND
transmission (HeatWatch)
mount accepted by the ewe, the RFID chip is read by
the detector so that the female ID, the date and time of
mounting are registered and transmitted by radiotelem-
etry to a computer (Bocquier et al. 2006; Maton et al.
2010). A similar system may be developed for cows but
it would require the use of a vasectomized bull or a bull
with a deviated penis. Furthermore, the RFID chip,
currently implanted in one of the two plastic ear-tags of
cows, would have to be placed in the caudal area to
assure the recording at the time of standing heat.
Monitoring of Activity
Another behavioural change occurring in the cow in
oestrus is the increase in activity (Roelofs et al. 2010).
Among oestrous behaviours, this sign is difficult to
detect without technical aids and thus has elicited the
design of most automated devices currently used in
dairy herds. Three types of devices are currently
available: (i) pedometers fixed on one of the legs, which
record the number of steps made by the cow per time
unit (e.g. AfiTag, S.A.E. Afikim, Kibbutz Afikim,
Israël; Crysta-Heat, Fullwood Ltd, Ellesmere Shrop-
shire, UK); (ii) activity-metres attached around the
neck, which record neck movements in all three dimen-
sions (e.g.: Alpro, DeLaval International AB, Tumba,
Sweden; Heat Box, Gènes Diffusion, Douai, France;
Heatime, Créavia, Rennes, France; HeatPhone,
Medria, Chateaugiron, France; MooMonitor,
DairyMaster Co., Kerry, Ireland); and (iii) activity-
metres attached to the leg that comprehensively assess
the activity of dairy cows by measuring the number of
steps and quantifying lying and standing behaviours
using the 3d-accelerometer technology (e.g. IceTag3D;
IceRobotics Ltd., Edinburgh, UK) (Jonsson et al. 2011).
Some of these devices can be attached to a leg or to the
neck as well (e.g. Nedap Lactivator; Nedap Agri,
Groenlo, the Netherlands; Rescounter II, GEA Farm
Technologies, Düsseldorf, Germany). The data on
activity are registered continuously and transmitted to
a receiver by radiotelemetry or infrared light at regular
time intervals (every 5 min for the HeatPhone or every
2 h for the Rescounter II) or at the entrance of the
milking parlour (Heatime; Créavia, France). From this
receiver, the data are automatically forwarded to a
 2012 Blackwell Verlag GmbH
Automated Oestrus Detection in Dairy Cattle 3

database in a central computer or to a cell phone via the
GSM network. The software supplied with each device
compares the activity of each animal with that of a
previous reference period (of a various number of days
depending on the algorithm) and, in some cases, with
the average activity of the herd. For instance, the
DairyPlan system from GEA Farm Technologies
triggers an alert for a cow in oestrus when the activity
recorded over three consecutive 2-h periods increases by
at least two standard deviations over the average
through the 10 preceding days (Hockey et al. 2010).
The relationships between increased activity, time of
ovulation and fertility have been investigated with the
help of those devices (Lopez-Gatius et al. 2005; Roelofs
et al. 2005b; Hockey et al. 2010). Ovulation takes place
on average 29–33 h after the onset of increased activity
and 17–19 h after the end of increased activity in
lactating Holstein cows (Roelofs et al. 2005b; Hockey
et al. 2010). The analysis of more than 5800 heat periods
followed by AI in high-producing dairy cows demon-
strated that the likelihood of pregnancy at 38–45 days
post-AI increased with enhanced physical activity, sug-
gesting a positive correlation between increased activity
during oestrus and fertility (Lopez-Gatius et al. 2005).
The efficiency of oestrus detection using pedometers
and activity-metres is generally in excess of 80% but
varies with the threshold set and the reference period of
previous activity that are used to define the increase in
activity, as well as with the time interval between two
successive recordings (De Mol et al. 1997; Nebel et al.
2000; At-Taras and Spahr 2001; Firk et al. 2002;
Cavalieri et al. 2003a; Roelofs et al. 2005b; Sakaguchi
et al. 2007; Galon 2010; Hockey et al. 2010; Lovendahl
and Chagunda 2010). The specificity of pedometers and
activity-metres is generally between 90% and 100% but
their accuracy may vary considerably depending on the
devices and on the algorithm used by the software
(Table 2) (De Mol et al. 1997; Firk et al. 2002; Cavalieri
et al. 2003a; Roelofs et al. 2005b; Sakaguchi et al. 2007;
Hockey et al. 2010; Lovendahl and Chagunda 2010).
Furthermore, the performance of pedometers for heat
detection may be affected by the environmental condi-
tions, as walking activity of dairy cows has been shown
to vary according to the type of housing and the herd
management system (Kiddy 1977; Lopez-Gatius et al.
2005; Yaniz et al. 2006). On pasture-based systems,
because cows are expected to move different distances
from one day to another because of pasture rotation, the
specificity of pedometers may be altered. However, no
clear difference in sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of
a neck activity-meter for oestrus detection could be
observed between two dairy herds differing markedly in
terms of animal environment and calving systems
(Hockey et al. 2010). So far, very few studies have
addressed the effects of environmental conditions on the
performance of cow activity-metres and more data are
needed. The use of pedometers or activity-metres calls
for an initial investment of approximately 5000–6000
euros for 50 cows. An additional cost for subscription to
the appropriate software is sometimes required.
Video Recording and Automated Image
Analysis
Secondary behaviours that are more intensively dis-
played by cows in oestrus are restlessness, mounting,
being mounted without standing, flehmen, sniffing
the vulva of another cow, resting with the chin on the
back of another cow, licking, rubbing and aggressive-
ness (Kerbrat and Disenhaus 2004; Roelofs et al. 2005a,
2010). When all behavioural traits of oestrus are taken
into account, the rate of detection may reach 74–90%
with three daily visual observation periods of 30 min or
more (Firk et al. 2002; Roelofs et al. 2010). However, in
most dairy farms, the workforce is limited and the
breeder cannot invest such amount of time into

Table 2. Efficiency, specificity and accuracy of oestrus detection by activity-metres attached to the leg or the neck in dairy cows

Activity-meter
References Number of oestrusa (type of animals and herds) attached to Efficiency (%)b Specificityc Accuracyd

De Mol et al. 1997 N = 537 (lactating dairy cows housed in free stall) Leg 81–91e 96–98%e ND
At-Taras and Spahr 2001 N = 46 (lactating dairy cows housed in free stall) Leg 83–87e ND ND
N = 53 SO (lactating dairy cows housed in free stall) Leg 79–91e ND ND
Cavalieri et al. 2003a N = 43 SO (lactating dairy cows) Leg 81 ND 88%
Roelofs et al. 2005b N = 63 (lactating Holstein cows housed in free stall) Leg 79–87e 97–100%e 65–94%e
Sakaguchi et al. 2007 N = 10 (Holstein heifers grazing on pasture) Neck 10–100f ND 20–100%f
N = 12 (Holstein heifers housed in open paddock) Leg 10–100f ND 24–100%f
N = 23 (Holstein heifers housed in tie stall) Neck 26–92f ND 37–100%f
Leg 75–100f ND 36–100%f
Neck 0–91f ND 0–50%f
Leg 13–96f ND 35–100%f
Lovendahl and N = 3674 (lactating Holstein, Jersey and Red Neck 56–84e 96–100%e ND
Chagunda 2010 Dane cows and heifers housed in free stall)
Hockey et al. 2010 N = 141 (lactating dairy, 80% Holstein, cows Neck 79–91e 90–98%e 40–73%e
housed in paddock and calved year-round) Neck 87–94e 90–98%e 41–76%e
N = 135 (lactating Holstein cows grazing
on pasture and calving seasonally)

a
Non-synchronized oestrus otherwise specified by SO for synchronized oestrus.
b
Efficiency (or sensitivity or detection rate) = number of cows in oestrus detected ⁄ number of cows in oestrus · 100.
c
Specificity = number of cows in dioestrus not detected ⁄ number of cows in dioestrus · 100.
d
Accuracy (or positive predictive value) = number of correct oestrus detections ⁄ number of correct + false-positive oestrus detections · 100.
e
Values vary depending on the threshold used in the algorithm to define an increase in activity as an oestrous period.
f
Values vary depending on the threshold and the reference period used in the algorithm to define an increase in activity as an oestrous period.

 2012 Blackwell Verlag GmbH

4 M Saint-Dizier and S Chastant-Maillard
oestrus detection. Nevertheless, new technologies may
simplify and shorten oestrus observation. All oestrous
behaviours, in addition to standing heat, can be video-
recorded for animals housed in free-stall or tie-stall
barns. A camera-software system recently designed in
France is based on the continuous recording of animals,
including at night using infrared cameras, but only video
scenes when animals are moving or interacting are being
examined (Hétreau 2008; Hétreau et al. 2010). The
camera-software generates icons every 1, 10 or 60 min,
depending on the detection threshold selected, and all
sequences in which animals are inactive or little active
are eliminated. Thus, only video sequences of interest
are being viewed in either normal or accelerated mode.
In an experimental herd of 80 lactating dairy cows
housed in free-stall barns and calved year-round, the
camera-software system alone made it possible to detect
81% of cows in oestrus (N = 168) confirmed by
frequent milk progesterone assays (Hétreau et al.
2010). The reading of the image data required approx-
imately 20 min for 24 h of recording in the first year of
the trial but could be reduced to 5 min per day in the
third year when the detection threshold was lowered,
without significantly affecting the detection efficiency. In
this trial, heat detection by video recording provided an
efficiency equivalent to that of direct visual observation
(81% and 82%, respectively), but the time required was
only 12.5–50% of that taken by classical visual detection
(Hétreau et al. 2010). Nevertheless, as with visual obser-
vation, video recording and analysis detect only heat
periods with obvious behavioural changes. Moreover,
because of the low resolution of images recorded by the
wide-angle cameras (initially developed for surveillance
of parking areas and airports), the reading of the ear-tag
number and thus, the identification of animals, may be
impossible. The only trial reported to date took place in a
herd with bi-colour breeds (Abondance, Montbéliarde
and Holstein), which certainly made identification easier
that it would be in cows with a single colour coat. The new
types of surveillance cameras provide a higher resolution
and make it possible to zoom within the image covering a
rather wide area, but the cost is of course higher. The
installation of a video surveillance system in a farm calls
for an investment approximately 4000 euros for two
cameras, the number of required cameras depending on
the area and design of the stall barns. A specific camera-
software system for heat detection in cattle is expected to
be marketed in France in the near future and, thus, can be
evaluated in a larger number of herds.
Monitoring of Body Temperature
Several automated systems of body temperature mea-
surement with radiotelemetric transmission are currently
marketed for calving detection and health monitoring in
cows. Some devices are ingested as a bolus and measure
the temperature in the reticulum (ex: Thermo-bolus;
Médria), whereas others are placed in the vagina (e.g.
Vel’Phone; Médria; Radco; Verdor NV, Oelegem,
Belgium). In cows, the body temperature declines
slightly approximately 2 days before oestrus and then
increases at the time of the LH peak (Firk et al. 2002;
Fisher et al. 2008). Fisher et al. (2008) measured the
vaginal temperature of 21 induced oestrus in 12 non-
lactating Holstein cows and recorded a mean tempera-
ture increase of 0.48C (ranging from 0.40 to 3.22C) at
the time of the LH peak. The same authors developed a
model based on vaginal temperature to estimate the time
of the LH surge. The LH peak could be predicted with a
6-h approximation in 76% (16 ⁄ 21) of cows in oestrus
monitored (Fisher et al. 2008). Because the interval
between the LH peak and ovulation amounts to 29 h on
average (Saumande and Humblot 2005), the prediction
of the LH peak with a 6-h approximation made it
possible to inseminate cows prior to ovulation. However,
these results require confirmation on a larger number of
cows. Clearly, a variation in outside temperature (which
was taken into account in the model described previ-
ously), disease-related hyperthermia and ⁄ or some
systemic or local inflammation may alter heat detection
based on body or milk temperature measurement (Firk
et al. 2002; Fisher et al. 2008) and thus increase the
number of false positives. Incorporating the last oestrus
data in the algorithm may diminish the number of false-
positive signals. Altogether, the automated thermome-
ters currently used for calving detection still require
validation for use in oestrus detection.
Automated Milk Progesterone Measurement
In the non-pregnant cow, from day 18 after ovulation, a
release of prostaglandin F2a by the endometrium leads
to the lysis of the corpus luteum and consequently to a
drop in the blood concentration of progesterone (P4)
preceding a new ovulation (Thatcher et al. 2003). This
drop in P4 concentration may also be observed in milk,
because the concentration in milk is closely correlated
with that in plasma (Roelofs et al. 2006). In milk, the P4
concentration declines to <5 ng ⁄ ml on average 80 h
before ovulation and <2 ng ⁄ ml on average 71 h prior to
ovulation but with large inter-individual variations
(standard deviation of 11 and 17 h, respectively,
n = 20) (Roelofs et al. 2006). Non-automated P4 mea-
surement in milk or blood for oestrus detection is not
currently used in dairy cattle because of various limita-
tions, among which the serial collection, labelling and
storage of samples and the relatively high cost of P4 assays.
A fully automated system of P4 assay in milk using
dry-stick technology has been marketed in Denmark
since 2009 and is becoming available in the rest of
Europe since the end of 2010 (Herd Navigator; Lattec
I ⁄ S, Hillerød, Denmark). The Herd Navigator (HN)
system can be combined with a DeLaval milking robot
or parlour and offers monitoring of reproduction,
mammary inflammation and metabolism by frequent
measurements in milk of P4, lactate dehydrogenase
(LDH), urea and b-hydroxybutyrate (BHB), respec-
tively (Asmussen 2010). For purposes of oestrous cycle
monitoring, the system collects several millilitres of
milk, measures P4 and provides a curve of P4 concen-
tration over the last few days. The system adjusts the
frequency of assays, depending on the post-calving
period and on the stage of the cycle, to an average of 6–7
progesterone assays per oestrous cycle. From the
smoothed P4 curve, the algorithm developed in the
HN system classifies the cows into three categories:
 2012 Blackwell Verlag GmbH
Automated Oestrus Detection in Dairy Cattle 5

post-partum anoestrus, oestrous cycling and potentially
pregnant (Friggens and Chagunda 2005; Friggens et al.
2008). For oestrous cycling cows, an alert is triggered by
the software as soon as the P4 value drops below
4 ng ⁄ ml (Friggens and Chagunda 2005). In case of an
oestrus alert, the algorithm also provides the probability
of success of a prospective AI (between 0% and 100%)
based on the duration of the previous luteal phase and
the kinetics of the decrease in P4 concentration (Friggens
et al. 2008; Asmussen 2010). When tested for purposes
of validation in an experimental herd, the in-line milk P4
measurements detected 99% of confirmed oestrus (for
which an AI resulted in a pregnancy; N = 121) and
93% of ratified oestrus (for which the P4 profile matched
that of confirmed oestrus, N = 679) with a specificity of
94% (Friggens et al. 2008). An average heat detection
rate of 95% was later confirmed in commercial herds in
Denmark (Asmussen 2010). However, the HN system
calls for a major initial investment of 40 000 euros for a
herd of 120 dairy cows and an additional average of 50
euros per cow-year for assay reagents. The break-even
price for implementation of an in-line milk P4 measure-
ment in a dairy herd of 120 dairy cows previously using
visual oestrus detection has been estimated to range
from 3 to 81 euros per cow-year depending on the earlier
reproductive performance and on the implementation
type (Ostergaard et al. 2005). Beyond heat detection, the
in-line milk P4 assay may generate a substantial
improvement in reproduction monitoring because it
allows the identification of cows with post-partum
anoestrus, those with few or no behavioural changes at
oestrus, with luteal cysts and persistent corpora lutea or
with early or late embryonic mortality after AI. The
additional assays provided by the HN system (urea,
BHB, LDH) make it also possible to identify metabolic
disorders or mastitis that may be responsible for poor
reproductive performance.
Conclusion
In conclusion, several types of automated heat detection
devices for dairy cattle were marketed over the last few
years, mostly heatmount detectors and activity-metres.
Other automated systems, such as camera-software and
body temperature measurement systems, still require
further testing in the field in dairy herds but may soon
become available. In the future, biosensors integrated
with in-line milking systems and combinations of several
systems will probably develop as potent tools for heat
detection, but also for global health monitoring in dairy
cows. Investment in these automation systems may
become a source of profit provided the recorded data are
properly analysed and managed by breeders and veter-
inarians.
Acknowledgements
Authors are grateful to Marc Chodkiewicz and Karine Reynaud for
reviewing the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
None of the authors have any conflict of interest to declare.
Author contributions
SCM and MSD have equally contributed to this review.

Cavalieri J, Flinker LR, Anderson GA, conductivity measurements. Theriogenol-

References
Alawneh JI, Williamson NB, Bailey D, 2006:
Comparison of a camera – software sys-
tem and typical farm management for
detecting oestrus in dairy cattle at pasture.
N Z Vet J 54, 73–77.
Asmussen T, 2010: Herd navigator or
‘‘How to benefit from frequent measure-
ments’’. Proc ICAR 37th Annual Meeting
- Riga, Latvia, 31 mai-4 juin 2010,
291–293.
At-Taras EE, Spahr SL, 2001: Detection and
characterization of estrus in dairy cattle
with an electronic heatmount detector
and an electronic activity tag. J Dairy
Sci 84, 792–798.
Bocquier F, Gaubert JL, Blanc F, Viudes G,
Maton C, Debus N, Teyssier J, 2006:
Utilisation de l’identification électronique
pour la détection automatisée du com-
portement sexuel chez les ovins : perspec-
tives pour la détection des chaleurs chez la
brebis. Rencontres Recherches Rumi-
nants 13, 155–158.
Britt JH, Scott RG, Armstrong JD, Whit-
acre MD, 1986: Determinants of estrous
behavior in lactating Holstein cows.
J Dairy Sci 69, 2195–2202.
Cavalieri J, Eagles V, Ryan M, Macmillan
KL, 2003a: Comparison of four methods
for detection of oestrus in dairy cows with
resynchronised oestrous cycles. Aust Vet J
81, 422–425.
Macmillan KL, 2003b: Characteristics of
oestrus measured using visual observation
and radiotelemetry. Anim Reprod Sci 76,
1–12.
De Mol RM, Kroeze GH, Achten JM,
Maatje K, Rossing W, 1997: Results of
a multivariate approach to automated
oestrus and mastitis detection. Livest
Prod Sci 48, 219–227.
De Silva AW, Anderson GW, Gwazdauskas
FC, McGilliard ML, Lineweaver JA,
1981: Interrelationships with estrous
behavior and conception in dairy cattle.
J Dairy Sci 64, 2409–2418.
European Commission, Directorate General
for Health and Consumers, Food Chain
Evaluation Consortium (FCEC), 2009:
Study on the introduction of electronic
identification (EID) as official method to
identify bovine animals within the Euro-
pean Union. Available: http://ec.euro-
pa.eu/food/animal/identification/bovine/
docs/EID_Bovine_Final_Report_en.pdf.
(accessed 23 June 2011).
Firk R, Stamer E, Junge W, Krieter J, 2002:
Automation of oestrus detection in dairy
cows: a review. Livest Prod Sci 75, 219–
232.
Fisher AD, Morton R, Dempsey JM, Hen-
shall JM, Hill JR, 2008: Evaluation of a
new approach for the estimation of the
time of the LH surge in dairy cows using
vaginal temperature and electrodeless
ogy 70, 1065–1074.
Friggens NC, Chagunda MG, 2005: Predic-
tion of the reproductive status of cattle on
the basis of milk progesterone measures:
model description. Theriogenology 64,
155–190.
Friggens NC, Bjerring M, Ridder C, Hojsg-
aard S, Larsen T, 2008: Improved detec-
tion of reproductive status in dairy cows
using milk progesterone measurements.
Reprod Domest Anim 43(Suppl. 2), 113–
121.
Galon N, 2010: The use of pedometry for
estrus detection in dairy cows in Israel.
J Reprod Dev 56(Suppl.), S48–S52.
Hétreau T, 2008: Vidéosurveillance des chal-
eurs assistée par ordinateur. Le Point
Vétérinaire 283, 75–78.
Hétreau T, Giroud O, Ponsart C, Gatien J,
Paccard P, Badinand F, Bruyère P, 2010:
Simplifier la détection des chaleurs des
vaches laitières grâce à la vidéosurveil-
lance : une étude dans les races Mont-
béliarde et Abondance. Renc Rech
Ruminants 17, 141–144.
Hockey C, Morton J, Norman S, McGowan
M, 2010: Evaluation of a neck mounted
2-hourly activity meter system for detect-
ing cows about to ovulate in two
paddock-based Australian dairy herds.
Reprod Domest Anim 45, e107–e117.
Jonsson R, Blanke M, Poulsen NK, Capo-
neti F, Hojsgaard S, 2011: Oestrus detec-

 2012 Blackwell Verlag GmbH

6 M Saint-Dizier and S Chastant-Maillard
tion in dairy cows from activity and lying
data using on-line individual models.
Comput Electron Agr 76, 6–13.
Kerbrat S, Disenhaus C, 2004: A proposi-
tion for an updated behavioural charac-
terisation of the oestrus period in dairy
cows. Appl Anim Behav Sci 87, 223–238.
Kiddy CA, 1977: Variation in physical
activity as an indication of estrus in dairy
cows. J Dairy Sci 60, 235–243.
Lopez-Gatius F, Santolaria P, Mundet I,
Yaniz JL, 2005: Walking activity at estrus
and subsequent fertility in dairy cows.
Theriogenology 63, 1419–1429.
Lovendahl P, Chagunda MG, 2010: On the
use of physical activity monitoring for
estrus detection in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci
93, 249–259.
Lucy MC, 2007: Fertility in high-producing
dairy cows: reasons for decline and correc-
tive strategies for sustainable improvement.
Soc Reprod Fertil Suppl 64, 237–254.
Maton C, Bocquier F, Debus N, Bodin L,
Teyssier J, 2010: Suivi automatisé des
chaleurs et différence de saisonnalité entre
brebis Texel et Mérinos dans un envi-
ronnement méditerranéen. Rencontres
Recherches Ruminants 17, 125–128.
Nebel RL, Dransfield MG, Jobst SM, Bame
JH, 2000: Automated electronic systems
for the detection of oestrus and timing of
AI in cattle. Anim Reprod Sci 60–61, 713–
723.
Ostergaard S, Friggens NC, Chagunda MG,
2005: Technical and economic effects of
an inline progesterone indicator in a dairy
herd estimated by stochastic simulation.
Theriogenology 64, 819–843.
Pecsok SR, McGilliard ML, Nebel RL,
1994: Conception rates. 1. Derivation
and estimates for effects of estrus detec-
tion on cow profitability. J Dairy Sci 77,
3008–3015.
Roelofs J, Van Eerdenburg FJ, Soede NM,
Kemp B, 2005a: Various behavioral signs
of estrus and their relationship with time
of ovulation in dairy cattle. Theriogenol-
ogy 63, 1366–1377.
Roelofs JB, van Eerdenburg FJ, Soede NM,
Kemp B, 2005b: Pedometer readings for
estrous detection and as predictor for time
of ovulation in dairy cattle. Theriogenol-
ogy 64, 1690–1703.
Roelofs JB, Van Eerdenburg FJ, Hazeleger
W, Soede NM, Kemp B, 2006: Relation-
ship between progesterone concentrations
in milk and blood and time of ovulation
in dairy cattle. Anim Reprod Sci 91, 337–
343.
Roelofs J, Lopez-Gatius F, Hunter RH, van
Eerdenburg FJ, Hanzen C, 2010: When is
a cow in estrus? Clinical and practical
aspects Theriogenology 74, 327–344.
Sakaguchi M, 2011: Practical aspects of the
fertility of dairy cattle. J Reprod Dev 57,
17–33.
Sakaguchi M, Fujiki R, Yabuuchi K, Ta-
kahashi Y, Aoki M, 2007: Reliability of
estrous detection in Holstein heifers using
a radiotelemetric pedometer located on
the neck or legs under different rearing
conditions. J Reprod Dev 53, 819–828.
Saumande J, 2000: La détection électronique
des chevauchements pour la détection des
vaches en chaleur: possibilités et limites.
Rev Méd Vét 151, 1011–1020.
Saumande J, 2002: Electronic detection of
oestrus in postpartum dairy cows:
efficiency and accuracy of the DEC
(showheat) system. Livest Prod Sci 77,
265–271.
Saumande J, Humblot P, 2005: The vari-
ability in the interval between estrus and
ovulation in cattle and its determinants.
Anim Reprod Sci 85, 171–182.
Thatcher WW, Guzeloglu A, Meikle A,
Kamimura S, Bilby T, Kowalski AA,
Badinga L, Pershing R, Bartolome J,
Santos JE, 2003: Regulation of embryo
survival in cattle. Reprod Suppl 61, 253–
266.
Thatcher WW, Bilby T, Bartolome J, Silves-
tre F, Staples CR, Santos JE, 2006:
Strategies for improving fertility in the
modern dairy cow. Theriogenology 65,
30–44.
Van Eerdenburg FJ, Loeffler HS, van Vliet
JH, 1996: Detection of oestrus in dairy
cows: a new approach to an old problem.
Vet Q 18, 52–54.
Walker WL, Nebel RL, McGilliard ML,
1996: Time of ovulation relative to
mounting activity in dairy cattle. J Dairy
Sci 79, 1555–1561.
Williamson NA, Alawneh J, Bailey D, Butler
K, 2006: Electronic heat detection. Pro-
ceeding of 2006 South Island Dairy Event.
Xu ZZ, McKnight DJ, Vishwanath R, Pitt
CJ, Burton LJ, 1998: Estrus detection
using radiotelemetry or visual observation
and tail painting for dairy cows on
pasture. J Dairy Sci 81, 2890–2896.
Yaniz JL, Santolaria P, Giribet A, Lopez-
Gatius F, 2006: Factors affecting walking
activity at estrus during postpartum per-
iod and subsequent fertility in dairy cows.
Theriogenology 66, 1943–1950.
Submitted: 7 Jul 2011; Accepted: 22 Nov 2011
Author’s address (for correspondence):
M Saint-Dizier, AgroParisTech, UFR Géné-
tique Elevage Reproduction, 16 rue Claude
Bernard, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France.
E-mail: stdizier@agroparistech.fr
 2012 Blackwell Verlag GmbH