Comparing Standing Heat and Estrotect Heat Detection Patches

Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports, Sep 2018

A recent survey showed that 66% of producers surveyed used some amount of heat detection in their artificial insemination program, and 74% of producers that used heat detection aids had tried Estrotect (Rockway, Inc.; Spring Valley, WS) heat detection patches. The peel-and-stick application made Estrotect more popular than types that required adhesive application. The patches are designed so that when the animal is mounted the top surface layer is removed, much like scratching a lottery ticket. After several mounts the entire layer is removed, leaving a bright-colored surface behind. A new type of patch, Standing Heat (Standing Heat, LLC; Dannebrog, NE), was recently released and has a surface layer designed to rub off with the goal of reducing false positive readings due to inadvertent scratches such as from branches or tail switching. The objective of the current study was to compare the efficacy of two different heat detection patches.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&context=kaesrr

Comparing Standing Heat and Estrotect Heat Detection Patches

Comparing Standing Heat and Estrotect Heat Detection Patches 0 Kansas State University , USA Part of the Other Animal Sciences Commons Recommended Citation - S. K . Johnson Article 2 Follow this and additional works at: http://newprairiepress.org/kaesrr Part of the Other Animal Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Thi s report is brought to you for free and open access by New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. Copyright January 2016 Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. Contents of this publication may be freely reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved. Brand names appearing in this publication are for product identification purposes only. K-State Research and Extension is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Abstract A recent survey showed that 66% of producers surveyed used some amount of heat detection in their artificial insemination program, and 74% of producers that used heat detection aids had tried Estrotect (Rockway, Inc.; Spring Valley, WS) heat detection patches. The pe el-and-stick application made Estrotect more popular than types that required adhesive application. The p atches are designed so that when the animal is mounted the top surface layer is removed, much like scratching a lottery ticket. After several mounts the entire layer is removed, leaving a bright-colored surface behind. A new type of patch, Standing Heat (Standing Heat, LLC; Dannebrog, NE), was recently released and has a surface layer designed to rub off with the goal of reducing false positive readings due to inadvertent scratches such as from branches or tail switching. The o bjective of the current study was to compare the efficacy of two different heat detection patches. Creative Commons License Thi s work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Cover Page Footnote Article was published previously in Cattlemen's Day 2015. http://newprairiepress.org/kaesrr/vol1/iss1/15/ Thi s Research Report article is available in Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports: http://newprairiepress.org/ kaesrr/vol2/iss2/2 Volume 1 Issue 1 Cattlemen's Day 2015 Comparing Standing Heat and Estrotect Heat Detection Patches J. R . Jaeger Article 15 Follow this and additional works at: http://newprairiepress.org/kaesrr Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Animal Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Johnson, S. K. and Jaeger, J. R. (2015) "Comparing Standing Heat and Estrotect Heat Detection Patches," Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports: Vol. 1: Iss. 1. Thi s report is brought to you for free and open access by New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. Copyright 2015 Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. Contents of this publication may be freely reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved. Brand names appearing in this publication are for product identification purposes only. K-State Research and Extension is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Abstract A recent survey showed that 66% of producers surveyed used some amount of heat detection in their artificial insemination program, and 74% of producers that used heat detection aids had tried Estrotect (Rockway, Inc.; Spring Valley, WS) heat detection patches. The pe el-and-stick application made Estrotect more popular than types that required adhesive application. The p atches are designed so that when the animal is mounted the top surface layer is removed, much like scratching a lottery ticket. After several mounts the entire layer is removed, leaving a bright-colored surface behind. A new type of patch, Standing Heat (Standing Heat, LLC; Dannebrog, NE), was recently released and has a surface layer designed to rub off with the goal of reducing false positive readings due to inadvertent scratches such as from branches or tail switching. The o bjective of the current study was to compare the efficacy of two different heat detection patches. Cover Page Footnote Appreciation is expressed to Black Diamond Angus for cooperating in this study and to Estrotect, Inc. and Standing Heat, LLC for providing product. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports: http://newprairiepress.org/kaesrr/vol1/iss1/15 A K CATTLEMEN’S DAY 2015 Comparing Standing Heat and Estrotect Heat Detection Patches S.K. Johnson and J.R. Jaeger Introduction A recent survey showed that 66% of producers surveyed used some amount of heat detection in their artificial insemination program, and 74% of producers that used heat detection aids had tried Estrotect (Rockway, Inc.; Spring Valley, WS) heat detection patches. The peel-and-stick application made Estrotect more popular than types that required adhesive application. The patches are designed so that when the animal is mounted the top surface layer is removed, much like scratching a lottery ticket. After several mounts the entire layer is removed, leaving a bright-colored surface behind. A new type of patch, Standing Heat (Standing Heat, LLC; Dannebrog, NE), was recently released and has a surface layer designed to rub off with the goal of reducing false positive readings due to inadvertent scratches such as from branches or tail switching. The objective of the current study was to compare the efficacy of two different heat detection patches. Experimental Procedures Angus and Angus cross yearling heifers at two locations (n = 118 location 1; n = 87 location 2) had estrus synchronized for fixed-time artificial insemination. At the time prostaglandin was administered, each heifer received one Estrotect and one Standing Heat patch, alternating the patch with the forward placement on every other heifer. At the time of insemination, patches were scored as 0 = unchanged, 1 = color change on less than half of the surface, 2 = color change on more than half of the surface, and 3 = patch missing. Patches were applied according to manufacturer’s directions. At the time the patches were applied at location 1, weather conditions were relatively warm for April (mid 70s) with a high wind (20 to 30 mph). Heifers had winter hair coats, and the wind had dusted them with their ground hay-based diet. Heifers at location 2 had shed out by the time patches were applied in June, and weather was pleasant and dry. Pregnancy rate to artificial insemination was determined 35 to 97 days postinsemination. For purposes of analysis, Estrotect patch scores were used as the reference, to which the Standing Heat patches were compared. Results and Discussion At the time of artificial insemination, more (P < 0.01) Standing Heat devices were missing than Estrotect, 60 (29%) vs. 6 (3%), respectively. Retention of patches was greater (P < 0.01) for location 1 (74%) than for location 2 (60%). Extra time was spent applying patches at location 2 because of the loss noted at location 1. No inferences can be made about length of retention when estrus is not synchronized and patches must remain in place for a longer duration. When Standing Heat patches were missing, five heifers also were missing Estrotect patches, 48 patches scored 2, and 7 patches scored 1 (12%). Heifers were not observed for retention of patches between the prostaglandin injection and timed artificial insemination. Some of these patches may still have been in place had they been used in a typical heat detection setting. When Estrotect patches were missing, five heifers also were missing Standing Heat patches and one had a patch score of 2. Because all heifers that lost Estrotect patches (n = 6) conceived to artificial insemination, it is probable that estrous activity was responsible for the patch loss. Retention was not influenced by relative position on the heifer (which patch was in front and which behind). Data and test performance are shown in Table 1. Sensitivity (true positive, in heat) was 82%, and specificity (true negative, no sign of heat) was 71%. The two systems were compared using a Kappa coefficient, which is a statistical measure of relatedness between the two measurement systems. A Kappa score of 1 indicates perfect agreement, whereas scores less than 1 indicate less than perfect agreement between the measurement systems. In this study, the Kappa score was 0.68, indicating good agreement between the two systems. With 103 of 113 heifers showing positive signs of estrus, the positive predictive value (probability a heifer with a score of 2 or 3 was in heat) was 91% (95% confidence interval ranged from 84.3 to 95.7%). The negative predictive value (probability a heifer with no color change was not in heat) was 76.3% (confidence interval of 66.4 to 84.5%). Pregnancy rate by patch score for both devices is shown in Table 2. Pregnancy rate increased (P < 0.01) as the patch score increased from 0 to 3, indicating higher fixedtimed artificial insemination pregnancy rates in heifers that have shown heat prior to insemination. However, the 41% of heifers that were pregnant to artificial insemination despite having an unactivated patch is an indication of how well the synchronization systems did in synchronizing ovulation, rather than a reflection on the patches as heatdetection aids. Implications Length of retention of Estrotect patches was longer than Standing Heat patches under the conditions of this study. When missing patches are interpreted to indicate heifers had shown heat, agreement between the two systems was good. Test positive Test negative Sensitivity (95% CI)4 Specificity (95% CI) 4 Estrotect status In heat (score 2 or 3)3 82.4 (74.6-88.6) Not in heat (score 0 or 1)3 87.7 (78.5–93.9) 1 Standing Heat, LLC, Dannebrog, NE. 2 Rockway, Inc., Spring Valley, WS. 3 At the time of insemination, patches were scored as 0 = unchanged, 1 = color change on less than half of the surface, 2 = color change on more than half of the surface and 3 = patch missing. 4 95% confidence interval. Device Estrotect subtotals Standing Heat subtotals Total Patch score (number and percentage) Not in heat 0 10/26 (38) 1 31/54 (57) 12/28 (43) 38/65 (58) 41/80 (51) 50/93 (54) In heat 103 (true positive) 22 (false negative) 10 (false positive) 71 (true negative) 1 Standing Heat , LLC , Dannebrog, NE. 2 Rockway , Inc., Spring Valley , WS.


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&context=kaesrr

S. K. Johnson, J. R. Jaeger. Comparing Standing Heat and Estrotect Heat Detection Patches, Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports, 2016,