ABSTRACT Increased cow productivity in the last few decades has depressed fertility and reproductive efficiency. Optimum uterus health and accurate true estrus detection have thus been greatly elusive on farm. The objective was to quantify cow cervix morphology during proestrus (PE), standing estrus (SE), diestrus (DE) and metestrus (ME) phases of the oestrus cycle using a novel biofarm technology. The cervical tissue was videotaped with an apparatus in 4 Holstein cows (50 days in milk, 31 kg milk yield, 670 kg BW) on multiple estrus and non-estrus phases (per treatment day n = 8). The videotaping apparatus had 45 cm length and 2.7 cm diameter, with internal electrical settings, external polyvinyl cover, front lights, and terminal wires for computer connection. The recordings were processed in a laptop computer installed with an image processing software. Cervix’s central positioning, motility, mucosal secretions, and clarity in the captured images were scored each on a 5-scale basis. The score of 1 represented highly central, very stable, highly mucosal, and discrete cervices. The score of 5 described entirely non-central, unstable, non-mucosal, and inseparable cervices. Results verified that cervix was significantly (P < 0.01) more discrete, more mucosal, more central, and more stable on standing estrus days than on non-estrus days. A significant differential order (P < 0.01) was found for SE > PE > DE > ME for an increased cervix distinctness (1.00, 1.20, 3.10, 3.62), central placement (1.13, 1.50, 3.73, 4.15), stability (decreased motility) (1.00, 1.50, 2.58, 4.33), and mucosal secretions (1.00, 1.50, 3.88, 4.13), respectively. Rectal temperature (RT) was similar among ME, DE, PE and SE phases, respectively (38.66, 38.33, 38.58, and 38.83。C ± 0.22). Regression analysis showed minor relations between RT and cervix morphology changes. Findings verify the on-farm feasibility of the novel technology as a cost-effective management tool (e.g., $US200 - 500 for the monitoring apparatus and computer software) to quantify cow cervix morphology. The novel biofarm technology holds promises for cohort uses with farm individuals visually detecting estrus. Future research on further quantification of the reproductive tract physiology and health is required.
Cite this paper
nullNikkhah, A. (2011) A novel biofarm technology to monitor and quantify oestrus cervix morphology in dairy cows. Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology, 2, 424-428. doi: 10.4236/abb.2011.26062.
 Moore, K. and Thatcher, W.W. (2006) Major advances associated with reproduction in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 89, 1254-1266.
 Studer, E. (1998) A veterinary perspective of on-farm evaluation of nutrition and reproduction. Journal of Dairy Science, 81, 872-876.
 Norman, H.D., Wright, J.R., Hubbard, S.M., Miller, R.H. and Hutchison, J.L. (2009) Reproductive status of Holstein and Jersey cows in the United States. Journal of Dairy Science, 92, 3517-3528.
 Stransberg, E. and Oltenacu, P.L. (1989) Economic consequences of different calving intervals. Acta Agriculture Scandinavica, 39, 407-420.
 Jordan, E.R. (2003) Effects of heat stress on reproduction. Journal of Dairy Science, 86, 104-E114.
 Lima, F.S., De Vries, A., Risco, C.A., Santos, J.E.P. and Thatcher, W.E. (2010) Economic comparison of natural service and timed artificial insemination breeding programs in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 93, 4404- 4413. doi:10.3168/jds.2009-2789
 Senger, P.L. (1994) The estrus detection problem: new concepts, technologies, and possibilities. Journal of Dairy Science, 77, 2745-2753.
 Redden, K.D., Kennedy, A.D., Ingalls, J.R. and Gilson, T.L. (1993) Detection of estrus by radiotelemetric monitoring of vaginal and ear skin temperature and pedometer measurements of activity. Journal of Dairy Science, 76, 713-721. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(93)77394-4
 Barr, H.L. (1975) Influence of estrus detection on days open in dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science, 58, 246-247. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(75)84554-1
 Holmann, F.J., Shumway, C.R., Blake, R.W., Schwart, R.B. and Sudweeks, E.M. (1984) Economic value of days open for Holstein cows of alternative milk yields with varying calving intervals. Journal of Dairy Science, 67, 636-643. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(84)81349-1
 Xu, Z.Z., McKnight, D.J., Vishwanath, R., Pitt, C.J. and Burton, L.J. (1998) Estrus detection using radiotelemetry or visual observation and tail painting for dairy cows on pasture. Journal of Dairy Science, 81, 2890-2896.
 Lovendahl, P. and Chagunda, M.G.G. (2010) On the use of physical activity monitoring for estrus detection in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 93, 249-259.
 Lane, A.J. P. and Wathes, D.C. (1998) An electronic nose to detect changes in perineal odors associated with estrus in the cow. Journal of Dairy Science, 81, 2145-2150.
 Moore, A.S. and Spahr, S.L. (1991) Activity monitoring and an enzyme immunoassay for milk progesterone to aid in the detection of estrus. Journal of Dairy Science, 74, 3857-3862. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78578-0
 Nikkhah, A., Karimzadeh, S.M. and Amanloo, H. (2010) Designing, manufacturing and validating a cervix-monitoring technology for optimum estrus detection and reproduction. Iranian Society of Animal Science Proceedings, Pardis, Karaj.
 Iranian Council of Animal Care. (1995) Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals, vol. 1. Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan.
 SAS User’s Guide. (2003) Version 9.1. Edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary.
 De Vries, A. (2006) Economic value of pregnancy in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 89, 3876-3885.
 Olynk, N.J. and Wolf, C.A. (2008) Economic analysis of reproductive management strategies on US commercial dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science, 91, 4082-4091.
 Williams, W.F., Yver, D.R. and Gross, T.S. (1981) Comparison of estrus detection techniques in dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science, 64, 1738-1741.