Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Theriogenology 74 (2010) 327344

www.theriojournal.com
Review

When is a cow in estrus? Clinical and practical aspects

J. Roelofsa,b,*, F. Lpez-Gatiusc, R.H.F. Hunterd, F.J.C.M. van Eerdenburge,
Ch. Hanzenf
a
Adaptation Physiology Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
b
Animal Husbandry and Animal Health, HAS Den Bosch, The Netherlands
c
Department of Animal Production, University of Lleida, Spain
d
Institute of Reproductive Medicine, Hannover Veterinary University, Germany
e
Department of Farm Animal Health, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
f
Department of Ruminants Theriogenology, University of Lige, Belgium
Received 1 October 2009; received in revised form 12 February 2010; accepted 12 February 2010

Abstract
Good detection of estrus is critically important in dairy husbandry. Incorrect detection of estrus is related to loss of profit due to
extended calving intervals, milk loss, veterinary costs, etc. Detection of estrus remains a major problem despites enormous progress in
the knowledge of reproductive physiology of the cow and in development of estrus detection aids. To achieve good estrus detection,
many factors have to be taken into account. On one hand a cow has to express estrus and on the other hand the farmer has to detect it.
Combined action of several hormones causes physiological changes that lead to ovulation and an environment in the uterus that allows
sperm to fertilize the egg. Besides these internal actions, a number of external changes can be observed. When using visual observations,
time of the day and time spend on observation have a great impact on detection rates. Many devices are available to aid in estrus
detection, such as pedometers, mount devices, temperature, and hormone measurements.
Expression of estrus can be influenced by many factors. Heritability, number of days postpartum, lactation number, milk production,
and health are known to influence estrus expression. Environmental factors like nutrition, season, housing, herd size, etc. also play a role
in estrus expression. To evaluate estrus detection, record keeping is very important; a number of formulas can be used to assess detection
efficiency. Besides the farmer, the veterinarian and inseminator can play an important role in estrus confirmation and good insemination
strategy. In the end, the time of ovulation and the age of the egg at sperm penetration is critical for conception. Therefore, emphasis in
research needs to be on the timing of insemination relative to ovulation, and thus on the detection of ovulation.
2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Dairy cattle; Estrus; Physiology; Detection; Efficiency

Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 328

2. Underlying physiology ................................................................................................................ 329
3. Behavioral changes .................................................................................................................... 330
4. Why is it important to detect estrus? ............................................................................................... 330
5. Factors of influence of estrus detection ............................................................................................ 331

* Corresponding author: Tel.: 31 73 6923893; fax: 31 73 6923699.

E-mail address: j.roelofs@hasdb.nl.

0093-691X/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.02.016
328 J. Roelofs et al. / Theriogenology 74 (2010) 327344

5.1. Cow factors ..................................................................................................................... 331

5.1.1. Heritability ........................................................................................................... 331
5.1.2. Postpartum ........................................................................................................... 332
5.1.3. Number of lactation ................................................................................................ 332
5.1.4. Milk production ..................................................................................................... 332
5.1.5. Lameness ............................................................................................................. 332
5.1.6. Hormonal treatments ............................................................................................... 333
5.2. Environmental factors ......................................................................................................... 333
5.2.1. Bull .................................................................................................................... 333
5.2.2. Nutrition .............................................................................................................. 333
5.2.3. Season ................................................................................................................ 333
5.2.4. Circadian variation .................................................................................................. 334
5.2.5. Housing ............................................................................................................... 334
5.2.6. The herd size ........................................................................................................ 334
6. Detection of estrus ..................................................................................................................... 334
6.1. Detection of estrus by the farmer ........................................................................................... 334
6.1.1. Visual detection ..................................................................................................... 335
6.1.2. Estrus detection aids ................................................................................................ 335
6.2. The inseminator and estrus confirmation .................................................................................. 336
7. Estrus detection rates at herd level .................................................................................................. 337
7.1. Evaluation of heat detection accuracy ..................................................................................... 337
7.2. Evaluation of heat detection efficiency (HDE) ........................................................................... 337
8. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 338
References ............................................................................................................................... 339

1. Introduction cattle, man is no match for a bull at detecting estrus in

the cow even in the XXI century. Enormous progress in
In mammals, estrus is a behavioral symptom and the knowledge of the reproductive physiology of the
strategy to ensure that the female is mated close to the cow and in development of estrus detection aids during
time of ovulation. Estrus is an external and visible sign the last decades have not been sufficient for practice.
of ovulation, an internal and invisible event. The word Detection of estrus remains a major problem and its
estrus is derived from observations by Ancient people incorrect detection has been related to an annual cost
in herds of cattle, but not precisely related to mating. It greater than US$ 300 million by the USA dairy industry
comes from the Greek word oo (oistros), meaning [3]. Estrus signs in pregnant cows make the situation
a gatfly, member of the Family Oestridae, whose buzz- even more difficult. Pregnant cows will sometimes
ing during summer caused cows to become hyperac- even show standing behavior when mounted [4]. More
tive, usually showing frenzied behavior [1]. It is natural than 40% of cows were inseminated at a time of high
that the Greek would use the word oistros to describe
the behavior of a cow in heat. Such interest in estrus
behavior was not new. We can observe a cow in estrus
as perhaps the first representation of a reproductive
event more than 10,000 yr ago, in Teyjat (Dordogne,
France). An aurochs bull (Bos primigenius) is sniffing
the vulva with a clear representation of movement for
mounting (Fig. 1). Of course, Paleolithic cave paintings
and engravings show that knowledge of bovine behav-
ior was not rudimentary for prehistoric people; rather, it
just reflected the first human abstraction following sev-
eral hundred thousand years of social relationships be-
Fig. 1. Wild aurochs bull sniffing the vulva of a cow. Illustration from
tween man and animals, as a prelude to the domestica- the Magdalenian engraving in the Grotte the la Mairie, Teyjat,
tion process and especially intense in the case of cattle Dordogne, France. Circa 10000 B.C. Note sniffing has been expanded
[2]. Despite this long time of contact between man and and over-drawn on the original composition.
 J. Roelofs et al. / Theriogenology 74 (2010) 327344
milk progesterone levels [5]. In a more recent study [6],
about 19% of the inseminations were performed in
pregnant cows. In the Netherlands, 4% of the calves
born are from an insemination before the last one,
0.16% is from 2 inseminations before the last one [4].
Progress in synchronizing estrus has not substantially
improved the reproductive performance of dairy cows,
although some protocols do allow fixed time insemina-
tion [7]. Furthermore, milk production per cow is in-
creasing year after year and the metabolic clearance of
steroid hormones related to high milk production [8]
probably reduces behavioral manifestation of estrus.
However, as reported by Van Eerdenburg [9], there is
no correlation between estrus expression and milk
yield; yet high milk production can be correlated with
high fertility [10]. The influence of seasonal and acute
heat stress on steroid production by dominant follicles
may, moreover, have dramatic consequences in warm
countries [11]. Finally, the most accurate external sign of
estrus, standing to be mounted, was only registered around
60% of estrus periods in recent studies [12,13]. This paper
deals with views on estrus signs in order to propose a set
of criteria to improve the efficiency and accuracy of
estrus detection in the dairy herd. Automatic identifi-
cation of a cow in estrus and factors affecting estrus
behavior are reviewed. Confirmation of estrus at insem-
ination is also suggested as a critical step.
2. Underlying physiology
The phenomenon of estrus occurs due to a specific
influence of ovarian steroid hormones on behavioral
centers in the mammalian brain. As a Graafian follicle
matures under the stimulation of pituitary gonadotro-
phic hormones during the last three or four days of an
estrus cycle, it synthesizes and secretes increasing
quantities of estradiol. In due course, the concentration
of estradiol circulating in the systemic blood reaches an
arbitrary levela thresholdwhich triggers two closely-
linked events due to positive feedback on particular
areas of the brain. First, the threshold concentration of
estradiol causes the behavioral response, already dis-
cussed, termed estrus. A second and closely-linked in-
fluence of estradiol positive feedback is to trigger a
surge of release of pituitary gonadotrophic hormones,
especially LH. This results in a peak of gonadotrophins,
detectable in the peripheral circulation that prompts the
process of ovulation at a related time, commonly some
20 30 h later in western breeds of cows. LH can be
demonstrated to bind to tissues of a pre-ovulatory fol-
licle, thereby causing a cascade of processes that ter-
329
minates in release of an oocyte into the oviduct at
ovulation.
It is useful to appreciate that because it is the ma-
turity of a Graafian follicle that regulates the amount of
estradiol synthesized, so it is the maturity of the follicle
that regulates its own time of ovulation and coincident
maturation of the oocyte, due to the positive feedback
of estradiol triggering the surge of gonadotropin release
[14].
As a classical gonadal steroid hormone, estradiol is
also exerting influences on the genital tract, rendering it
edematous, tonic, and highly secretory, especially in
the cervical glands, leading to a characteristic outpour-
ing of mucus. In species in which semen is deposited
into the anterior vagina at the time of mating, such as
ruminants, rabbits, cats, and primates, including Man,
the cervix and its complement of mucus play a critical
role in reproduction. Vaginal/cervical fluid is the first
physiological medium that sperm cells encounter in the
female genital tract and must overcome on their journey
to the site of fertilization. Macromolecular glycopro-
teins, also known as mucins, constitute a three-dimen-
sional filamentous network throughout the mucus se-
cretion mass which determines the physical properties
of the mucus [15]. Cervical mucus becomes more plen-
tiful, watery, translucent, less viscous and easier to
traverse by spermatozoa in the follicular phase of the
ovarian cycle. By contrast, in the luteal phase of the
cycle this mucus becomes scanty and viscous and,
consequently, unfavorable to sperm penetration [15].
Vaginal/cervical fluid dramatically reduces its mechan-
ical barrier effect during the course of estrus so that at
the middle of estrus (8 12 h after first manifestation of
estrus) it is mechanically less hostile for the movement
of sperm [16,17].
Changes in temperature in the ovarian structures at
estrus have been evaluated [18,19], whereas changes in
temperature in deeper portions of the genital tract ur-
gently require specific study using modern technology.
They may not reflect temperatures as measured in the
vagina or rectum, and may be prompting diverse mo-
lecular changes in epithelial tissues of the genital tract
and in developing embryos [20].
Accumulation of white blood cells in sub-epithelial
layers of the congested uterine mucosa is also a feature
of impending estrus, and again is regulated primarily by
ovarian steroid hormones. Such white cells, especially
polymorphonuclear leucocytes, are mobilized into the
uterine lumen of estrus animals where they actively
phagocytose dead or dying sperm cells, bacteria, and
cellular debris. In the absence of pathological condi-
330 J. Roelofs et al. / Theriogenology 74 (2010) 327344
tions, white cells are not normally infiltrated into the
lumen of the oviducts in estrus animals. This difference
between uterus and oviduct is important because the
caudal (distal) isthmus of the bovine oviduct acts as a
functional sperm storage site or reservoir for at least
24 30 h after mating at the onset of estrus [2123].
Despite the above classical description, a new theory
has been proposed by one of the authors highlighting
the role of GnRH in the regulation of estrus behavior
[9]. Probably, estradiol is not the only hormonal factor
regulating estrus signs. In spontaneously cycling cows,
estradiol is sometimes elevated for a day before the
onset of estrus behavior [24] and the alpha type recep-
tors for estradiol in the hypothalamus disappear com-
pletely during estrus [25]. Therefore, GnRH is also
proposed as a key factor in the regulation of estrus
behavior.
3. Behavioral changes
As already mentioned, a cows behavior changes
due to hormonal changes preceding ovulation. The
most pronounced sign of estrus is standing immobile
when being mounted. Although it is difficult to com-
pare studies because of many different estrus detection
strategies, it is clear that many cows do not display
standing heat at all during estrus [12,26,27]. In dairy
cattle, the range of standing mounts is between 3140
and 3225, respectively, in cows [28] and heifers [29].
Standing heat is not the only behavioral sign cows
display during estrus. The so called secondary signs of
estrus, or, as Esslemont et al. [30] referred to it, a
period of intensified behavior (PIB), are important to
detect cows in estrus [12,27,31]. Many authors have
classified estrus behavior according to different defini-
tions. Beach [32] introduced the terms sexual attractiv-
ity, proceptivity, and receptivity. He stated that attrac-
tivity refers to the females stimulus value in evoking
sexual responses by the male, proceptivity refers to
various reactions by the female toward the male in
establishing or maintaining sexual interaction, and re-
ceptivity refers to the female responses necessary for
the success of the male to mate her. Although these
definitions all involve the male and are not solely based
on behavior, they are useful in observing estrus in dairy
cows even when the bull is replaced by artificial insem-
ination. Behaviors that are displayed more (intense)
during estrus compared to non-estrus are restlessness,
sniffing the vulva of another cow, flehmen, resting with
the chin on the back of another cow, (disorientated)
mounting and being mounted but not standing [27], but
also licking, rubbing, and aggressive behavior like head
butting [33]. The above mentioned changes in behavior
can be observed by the herdsman. Another behavioral
change during estrus, which is more difficult to detect
without technical aids but which is pronounced in many
estrus cows, is the increase in activity as seen in an
increase in the number of steps taken by a cow during
estrus [e.g., 34 36]. Another change that is found in
some cases during estrus which is not really related to
behavior is a decrease in milk production. In a study by
Schofield et al. [37], milk yield was significantly re-
duced on the day of estrus in a proportion of cows. This
was manifested as a reduction in milk yield at the first
milking after the onset of estrus followed by a com-
pensatory increase at the subsequent milking. On the
other hand, Rajamahendran et al. [38] did not find a
significant drop in milk production associated with es-
trus.
4. Why is it important to detect estrus?
Management of reproduction is an important eco-
nomic component in the success of a dairy enterprise.
The calving interval is primarily a function of the num-
ber of days from calving to the initiation of the next
pregnancy (days open) and the fixed effect of preg-
nancy length. The days open depend on the days from
calving to the first insemination or mating (WP: waiting
period) and on the length of reproduction period (RP)
i.e., on the number of days between the first and the last
insemination followed or not by a pregnancy.
Impact of WP on calving interval is rather high
because a 1 d reduction in WP decreased calving in-
terval by 0.86 d [39].
Pregnancy or conception rate depend on fertilization
rate and on the quality of the embryo. These two last
parameters are influenced by the estrus detection rate.
The influence of the timing of artificial insemination
(AI) relative to the stage of estrus was investigated long
ago. Early studies [40,41] were based on very frequent
(4 12 times per day) estrus detection of cows and
inseminations done on standing heat, not secondary
signs. These studies indicated that maximum pregnancy
rates were obtained from midestrus until a few hours
after the end of standing behavior. The a.m.p.m. rule
was developed as a guide for farmers. Cows first seen
in standing heat in the morning (a.m.) would be insem-
inated in the afternoon (p.m.) and those observed stand-
ing in the evening would be bred the next morning.
Other reports emphasized the importance of inseminat-
ing heifers or cows 12 to 18 h after the detection of
 J. Roelofs et al. / Theriogenology 74 (2010) 327344
estrus to obtain optimal pregnancy or conception rates
[12,42 45]. On the contrary, two studies with twice
daily heat checks, using several thousands (44,707) of
fresh or frozen semen, did not observe any differences
in non return rates for cows that received AI at the same
a.m. or during the p.m. following a.m. detection [46], or
for cows inseminated once daily compared to the
a.m.p.m. guideline [47]. Collectively, these results
emphasized the importance of adapting the timing of
insemination to farm conditions. If the management
permits precise determination of when a heat began, the
a.m. p.m. system should be used. If the pregnancy
rate is unsatisfactory or heat is not routinely detected,
cows should be inseminated soon after they are first
detected in standing heat. If the beginning of estrus is
more precisely detected using an electronic estrus de-
tection system, it would be better to inseminate within
4 12 h of observation of estrus [48]. In the same
context, it seems that the pedometer is a promising tool
for prediction of ovulation and so can contribute to
improving fertilization rate by better timing of insem-
ination. It was found that highest pregnancy or concep-
tion rates were obtained when insemination was per-
formed between 517 h after increase of activity
[49,50].
Insemination time can influence fertilization rate and
embryo quality through the numbers of accessory
sperm [45]. Accessory sperm are sperm trapped in the
zona pellucida. Their numbers represent the number
and quality of sperm competing for fertilization of the
ovulated ovum. On average, nearly 10 sperm cells per
embryo were necessary to reach the maximum quality
of embryo [51]. This number is clearly favored by
breeding later rather than earlier. Fertilization rate is
correlated with the increasing accessory sperm number.
Early insemination resulted in lower fertilization rates
but good embryo quality, whereas late insemination (24
h after the onset of estrus) reduced embryo quality but
the fertilization rate was good [45]. Assessing ovulation
by ultrasonography and recovering 122 ova/embryos in
80 lactating Holstein-Friesian cows, Roelofs et al. [52]
also showed that fertilization rates were significantly
higher when insemination was performed 36 12 h be-
fore ovulation than after ovulation. Moreover, cows
inseminated 24 12 h before ovulation, which corre-
sponds with insemination 0 12 h after first detection of
standing heat, yielded highest percentages of viable and
good embryos compared to cows inseminated after
ovulation. Thus, the intermediate time of approxi-
mately 12 h (6 16 h) after the onset of estrus was
331
optimal when using a precise method for determining
estrus onset [48,50,53].
Among the numerous different factors associated
with variation in the sex ratio of mammals, time of
insemination and therefore estrus detection rate could
have an influence. In many species, early insemination
or mating appears to favor female offspring whereas
late mating appears to favor male offspring (for review
see [54]). Most of the earlier studies based on infre-
quent observations of estrus do not find any differences
in the sex ratio [46,55]. The opposite observation has
been reported as well. Using an Ovatec probe to mon-
itor changes in electrical resistance of vaginal secre-
tions in beef cows, Wehner et al. [56] observed that
early inseminations (estimated as 20 h before ovula-
tion) resulted in 93% heifer calves while late insemi-
nations (estimated to be 10 h before ovulation) resulted
in 92% of bull calves. Martinez [57] showed, from data
obtained on 716 cows inseminated at different times
8 44 h from the visual detection of estrus, that the
percentage of calved females (73.1%) is significantly
higher for early inseminations (8 18 h), and it de-
creases 1.9% per hour from the onset of estrus. Delayed
AI (30 h) produced a significant deviation of the sex
ratio towards the males (72.1%); nevertheless, fertility
(percentage of successful pregnancies) diminishes sig-
nificantly, from 66.2% (8 18 h) to 45.4% (30 h).
Conversely, another study, using the Heat watch elec-
tronic estrus detection system, to compare influence of
early (0 8 h or 8 10h), middle (8 16 h), or late
(20 25 h or 16 24 h) insemination time on sex ratio
was unable to detect any effect of this parameter [54].
A more recent study using pedometers, frequent visual
observations of heat signs, and ultrasonographic detec-
tion of ovulation, did not find any difference in sex ratio
when inseminations were performed early (from 36
20h before ovulation), intermediate (from 20 8h be-
fore ovulation), or late (from 8h before to 12h after
ovulation, [58]).
5. Factors of influence of estrus detection
5.1. Cow factors
5.1.1. Heritability
The degree of estrus expression has a low heritabil-
ity (0.21) and varies individually between cows and
even for the same cow from one estrus period to an-
other [59,60]. Differences between genetic lines and
breeds have been reported [61]. For example, the du-
ration of sexual receptivity and estrus intensity (mounts
per hour) are higher for Bos taurus than for Bos indicus
332 J. Roelofs et al. / Theriogenology 74 (2010) 327344
cows, whereas, in general, dark-colored breeds show
more intense estrus behavior than cows with white or
red hair coloration [62]. Some further cow-related fac-
tors that influence estrus behavior include postpartum
anestrus, age (lactation number), milk production, and
the number of cows in estrus at the same time [63].
5.1.2. Postpartum
Silent estrus (or more correctly: silent ovulation), is
common at the first postpartum ovulation in lactating
dairy cows. The physiologic mechanisms related to the
postpartum ovulation without estrus signs have not
been resolved. Probably, high concentrations of estro-
gens during late gestation and parturition determine a
refractory effect to the estrogens present at the first
postpartum ovulation. However, progesterone released
from the corpus luteum formed after the silent ovula-
tion seems to favor estrus expression during the next
ovulatory cycle [64]. Postpartum return to regular cy-
clicity is critical for efficient reproduction. Subsequent
reproductive performance may be influenced by the
characteristics of normal estrus cycles during the post-
partum period, the number of estruses [65,66], early
ovulation [67], and follicular dynamics [68]. Moreover,
a delayed return to regular cyclicity [66,69], and an
increased incidence of abnormal ovarian cycles during
the postpartum period [70] have been reported to ad-
versely affect the reproductive efficiency of high-pro-
ducing dairy cows.
5.1.3. Number of lactation
By quantifying behavioral signs of estrus using a
score system [12,27] and walking activity at estrus
[66,71,72], higher behavioral scores and activity values
were registered in primiparous cows, compared to mul-
tiparous cows. For example, each additional lactation
number was associated with a 21.4% decrease in walk-
ing activity at estrus [72]. In contrast, the number of
standing-to-be-mounted events at estrus, a main indi-
cator that a cow is in estrus, increases with parity
[62,63]. The lack of a relationship between standing-
to-be-mounted and pedometer readings was demon-
strated by van Vliet and van Eerdenburg [63]. The
explanation for this could be related to the fact that
the walking activity increase can occur 16 h before the
onset of estrus [73], a period in which cows are often
observed as mounters [62]. Consequently, a direct re-
lationship between mounting other cows and increased
pedometer readings has, in fact, been described [63],
reinforcing the idea that secondary signs such as
mounting-other-cows decrease with parity alongside
increased standing-still, the primary and most reliable
sign of estrus [72].
5.1.4. Milk production
Although there is no correlation between estrus ex-
pression and milk yield [9], the metabolic clearance of
steroid hormones related to high milk production [8]
probably reduces behavioral manifestation of estrus. In
effect, in a study on 267 lactating dairy cows, Lopez et
al. [74] reported that higher milk producers ( 39.5
kg/day) had a lower serum estradiol concentration on
the day of estrus, and duration of estrus was greatly
reduced compared with lower producers ( 39.5 kg/
day). In the same sense, in a study on 5,883 estrus
events [72], each 1 kg increase in milk yield was
associated with a 1.6% decrease in walking activity at
estrus. Walking, however, is not the same as behavioral
estrus score. Some behaviors are correlated with walk-
ing activity, but others are not [63]. Cows that produce
more milk may have a deeper NEB and a deeper NEB
will increase the NEFA level, which is correlated with
lower walking activity [75].
5.1.5. Lameness
The effect of lameness on ovarian postpartum activ-
ity is contradictory. For some, clinical lameness post-
pones by up to 18 d the beginning of ovarian cyclicity
and by 24 d the onset to estrus compared to non-lame
cows [76,77]. Such effects have been observed in cases
of subclinical lameness [78]. Lameness has also been
associated with a higher risk of ovarian cysts due to a
delay or inhibition of the LH surge [79 83]. Such
effect seems to be increased by the presence of a high
somatic cell counts (SCC) [83]. Recently, it has been
shown that in lame cows the dominant follicle grew at
the same rate to the same maximum diameter and
ovulated at the same time as in healthy animals [83].
Lameness is classically associated with a reduction
of estrus intensity in dairy cows [31,84]. This reduced
estrus expression may be caused by physical limitations
of the lameness itself inducing a reduced frequency of
primary and secondary estrus behaviors. It is, therefore
interesting to note that subclinical claw disorders have
no influence on the intensity of estrus expression [85].
Some differences between lame and normal cows have
been recently determined. Lame cows spent more time
lying and less time standing and walking during estrus.
They have a lower BCS and a lower bite rate while
grazing [31]. Using a weighted scoring system to quan-
tify estrus behavior, it has been determined that lame-
ness can induce an overall reduction of approximately
37% in estrus intensity [86]. In lame cows, factors
 J. Roelofs et al. / Theriogenology 74 (2010) 327344
involved in the reduction of first postpartum estrus
behavior more than in incidence of estrus are not yet
well understood. Several possibilities have been pro-
posed [78].
Lameness could reduce estrus intensity by reducing
progesterone concentrations (see below) before estrus
without affecting estradiol or cortisol milk profiles [78].
The lower progesterone concentrations observed in
chronically stressed lame cows could result from an
alteration of pulsatile patterns of luteinizing hormone
(LH) as shown by injection of adrenocorticotrophic
hormone (ACTH) [79].
Lame cows sniff other cows less [78]. The purpose
of sniffing is to detect chemical signals or pheromones
between estrus herd mates. So they increase self attrac-
tion but also induce sexual behaviors in others [87].
Receiving less positive feedback motivation from other
cows, severely lame cows express a less intense estrus
[78]. Conversely, standing likely less long, a lame cow
is also less pheromonally attractive for other cows [78].
5.1.6. Hormonal treatments
The importance of progesterone priming in the effi-
ciency of estrus expression has been observed after use
of synchronization programs [88,89]. Progesterone in-
creases the number of hypothalamic estradiol receptors
during the luteal phase and, consequently, the sensitiv-
ity to estradiol [90]. This can result in a positive effect
on expression of specific estrus signs (mounts, chin
resting, and sniffing) compared to only estradiol treat-
ment in ovariectomized cows [89].
Usually, no differences in duration of estrus have
been observed between estrus induced by PGF2alpha
and estrus occurring spontaneously [12,91]. Neverthe-
less, some authors observed a decrease of the accuracy
of estrus detection after use of prostaglandins [92].
According to some publications, duration of natural
estrus seems to be longer than estrus induced by pros-
taglandins (15,3 vs. 13,3 h [93]; 21,7 vs. 19,8h [94]).
Estrus seems to be more often detected after use of
progestagenes than after use of prostaglandins [95].
Some studies have shown that use of bST can induce a
reduction of estrus behavior [96 98].
5.2. Environmental factors
5.2.1. Bull
The presence of a male can positively affect expres-
sion of estrus in sows [99] or onset of estrus in sheep
and goats [100]. Number and duration of interactions
with a fenceline-housed bull are higher during than
between estrus. The reasons (olfactory, visual . . .) are
not very well known. The relative increase in number
333
of steps recorded by a pedometer is greater and estrus
detection improved. In absence of tactile stimulation by
a bull, expression of estrus is not modified [26]. Oth-
erwise, the presence of a bull in the herd can inhibit
cow-cow mounting [101] or has no effect on the dura-
tion of estrus [102]. The presence of an estrus cow, a
nymphomaniac cow, or a teaser bull increases the prob-
ability of observing a mount [4,103]. Such effects of the
presence of a bull have been observed after synch-
ronization of animals with prostaglandins [104,105].
Mounting activity of teaser bulls seems to depend on
cows [101]. Estrus would be shortened if the cow were
naturally mated or artificially inseminated [106,107].
The interval between calving and the onset of estrus
behavior can be shortened by the presence of a bull
[108,109].
5.2.2. Nutrition
Poor nutrition or the loss of body reserves (negative
energy balance) can negatively affect estrus expression
[62,110,111]. Dietary phosphorus treatment (adequate
or in excess) did not have a significant effect on dura-
tion or intensity of estrus [112,113]. A recent study
shows that the odds of estrus being detected by slight
signs instead of standing heat was multiplied by 7.8 for
a group of multiparous Holstein cows fed a high diet
(allowing high milk yield while limiting body condition
loss) in winter indoor and at grazing compared to a low
diet (aiming at limiting milk yield while mobilizing
adipose tissue reserves). The major factor to explain the
less intense estrus behavior in the high diet group was
the milk yield which was higher in the high diet group
[13].
5.2.3. Season
Most of the studies report a seasonal effect on estrus
behavior [72,114 122]. Conversely, some authors found
that increased temperature did not influence the dura-
tion of estrus in dairy cows [91]. Such differences can
be due to the maximal considered temperature i.e., 24,4
C in the study of Walker [91], 34,6 C in the study of
White [122] and 33,9 C in the study of Pennington
[119]. An extended period of high temperature shortens
the duration of estrus and reduces the intensity of be-
havior [123,124]. Conversely, beef cows were mounted
more frequently during estrus in winter and duration of
estrus was longer during summer with longer intervals
between mounts [122]. Heavy rain, strong wind,
or high humidity reduce or suppress estrus behavior
[101,125,126].
334 J. Roelofs et al. / Theriogenology 74 (2010) 327344
5.2.4. Circadian variation
Some studies suggest no variation in estrus during
the day [28,30,127129]. According to others studies,
estrus behavior seems to be more frequent during the
evening or nocturnal period [104,130,131] or early
morning and daylight hours [63,121,125,132]. Some
observed variations can be related to usual management
activities like feeding, cleaning, or milking [133].
5.2.5. Housing
According to King et al. [134], approximately half
of the estrus periods in lactating cows were not detected
by casual observation under tie stall barn conditions
compared with cows observed continuously and housed
under free stall barn conditions. Barn-housed cattle
exhibited more mounts per hour during estrus than
cattle housed on pasture [128] mainly because cows on
pasture spend more time grazing than animals confined
in barns [135]. On the other hand, Cutullic et al. [13]
found no effect of pasture access on the intensity of
estrus behavior (estrus detected by slight signs versus
standing heat). The substrate of the floor on which
cattle are housed affects estrus behavior. Mounting
activity is less frequent on slatted floors than in straw
yards [136], slippery surfaces [119], or dirty floors
[137]. Duration of estrus and number of mounts are
longer (13.8 vs. 9.4 h) and greater (7 vs. 3.2 times) on
dirt than concrete surfaces [138]. Covering a concrete
slatted floor with perforated rubber mats improved the
ability of cows to express normal behavior of estrus
[139].
5.2.6. The herd size
When the herd is larger, the number of social inter-
actions between the animals will be greater. Most of the
time (60%), mounting activity is initiated by heavier
cows [140]. Dominant cows may inhibit the mounting
activity of subdominant cows [126]. Other authors have
not found any correlation between dominance, rank,
and the frequency of given or received mounts [141].
The possibility to form sexually active groups (SAG) is
higher when the size of the herd is increased. The
degree of estrus expression and, therefore, the possibil-
ity to detect an estrus can be dramatically favored by
the number of cows in estrus at the same time
[9,12,13,63,125,142]. The simultaneous presence of
other animals in estrus allows the cow the opportunity
to share estrus behavior so that estrus expression may
also be result of sexual stimulation by other animals in
estrus [12]. More animals in estrus were detected, with
increasing numbers of animals simultaneously in estrus
[36] and, by analyzing activity increases for 995 es-
truses, each additional cow in estrus at the same time
was associated with a 6.1% increase in walking activity
[66]. So the number of mounting activities is multiplied
by 5 if the number of cows in heat at the same time is
multiplied by 4 or more (49.8 vs. 11.2) [125].
6. Detection of estrus
The ability to detect a cow in estrus mainly depends
on the experience of the farmer and the time invested in
estrus detection. It is important that the farmer can
recognize and interpret several behaviors that indicate a
cow is in estrus. Timing of observation on the day, time
spent on estrus detection, and frequency have a large
effect on estrus detection rates [e.g., 12,143]. Besides
visual observation of estrus, many devices can aid in
improving estrus detection. Of course, record keeping
of animals in estrus in a structured and organized way
is also very important.
6.1. Detection of estrus by the farmer
Different methods can be used to detect estrus. Their
comparison can be made using different parameters
[144]. During an estrus period, normal estrus behavior
can be correctly detected and considered as truly pos-
itive (a). If such estrus has not been detected, it will be
considered as a false negative (c). During diestrus,
estrus behavior is usually not detected and such behav-
ior can be considered as a true negative (d). Otherwise,
the diagnostic can be considered as a false positive (b).
Estrus Diestrus
Diagnostic (a) (b)
Diagnostic (c) (d)
The sensitivity (efficiency, detection rate, diagnosis rate) of estrus
detection is (a/(ac))*100
The specificity of estrus detection is (d/bd))*100
The error rate is (b/ab))*100
The positive predictive value (accuracy) is (a/(ab))*100
The negative predicting value is (d/(cd))*100
Many researchers have studied one or more of the
above mentioned variables to evaluate different estrus
detection aids [e.g., 36,73,145149]. When comparing
these variables between studies, it is important to know
what was used as golden standard, because this can
influence the results. True or false positives can be
determined by repeated ultrasonography for ovulation
[150] or progesterone measurement around detection of
estrus [27,145,146]. True and false negatives can be
determined by progesterone measurements throughout
the estrus cycle [27,146] or in comparison with other
estrus indicators [36,151,152].
 J. Roelofs et al. / Theriogenology 74 (2010) 327344
6.1.1. Visual detection
Many studies have investigated estrus detection by
visual observation [e.g., 12,63,130,153]. Most studies
have focused on the most pronounced sign of estrus;
standing heat. Estrus detection efficiency by visual ob-
servation of standing heat mentioned in different stud-
ies vary a lot from 90% [130] to less than 50%
[52,63,154].
It becomes clear that signs other than standing heat
are important to detect cows in estrus. An estrus scoring
system was developed in which points were assigned to
different behaviors (standing heat, being mounted but
not standing, (disorientated) mounting, resting with the
chin on the rump of another cow, sniffing the vulva of
another cow, and restlessness) [27]. With this scoring
system, a cow can be detected in heat without showing
standing heat. Studies that have observed other signs
besides standing heat report quite a high percentage of
estrus periods without standing heat (37% [13], 63%
[27], 42% [12]). Not only the behaviors that are ob-
served, but also the time of day, frequency, and dura-
tion of observation have an effect on estrus detection.
Roelofs et al. [12] found that only 19% of the cows
were detected in heat when observations were done
twice a day for 30 min on standing heat alone. This
percentage increased to 30% when observations were
performed 3 times per day for half an hour. When,
besides standing heat, mounting another cow was taken
into account, heat detection was 61% when performed
3 times per day for half an hour. When all the behaviors
mentioned above were included 3 times per day for 30
min, heat detection increased to 90%. Van Eerdenburg
et al. [27] found a detection rate of 12% with three
observations of 30 min daily only observing standing
heat and of 74% when all the behaviors where included.
Cavestany et al. [143] studied estrus detection rates
with observations of standing heat on different times of
the day and of different duration in a pasture based
system. Highest detection rates (94%) were found when
observations were performed two times per day for 60
min during quiet times (at dawn and dusk), 76% detec-
tion rate was found with 30 min observations at the
same time. When observations were performed around
milking twice a day for 30 min, detection rates de-
creased more than 30 41%.
It is clear that estrus detection rates vary with the
method of visual observation that is used. Therefore, it
is possible to compare estrus detection rates between
different studies only when timing, duration, and fre-
quency of visual observations, as well as which behav-
iors are included, are described in detail.
335
6.1.2. Estrus detection aids
Many reviews are available about estrus detection
and estrus detection aids [3,133,144,155158]. From
this extensive information, it is clear that many aids are
on the market to help the farmer to detect the cows in
estrus correctly. These aids vary from activity meters,
mount detection devices, cameras, temperature mea-
surements, impedance or conductivity measurements,
hormone analyses, and so on. Between studies, differ-
ent detection rates of different aids are mentioned.
Detection rates of pedometers vary between studies
but are often above 80% [144,157]. Some studies report
detection rates of 100% [37,73]. Detection rates are
affected by the threshold that is used to define an
increase in activity as an estrus period and the time
period that is used to store the number of steps [36].
Accuracy has been reported to be as low as 49% [159]
and over 90% [36,37]. Also, cow and environmental
factors can affect efficiency of activity meters to detect
estrus (see section 5).
Another aid in estrus detection is mount detection
devices. These devices are attached to the sacrum of the
cow and indicate whether a cow has been mounted or
not. A non electronic variant of mount detection is the
use of tailpaint. Detection rates vary among studies
from under 50% [148,160], to up to 80% [146,161], and
over 85% [145,151]. Again, the efficiency of the de-
vices is affected by the threshold that is set for identi-
fying estrus and the way the device is attached to the
animal. Obviously, such devices would not work prop-
erly when brushes are present in the stable. Also, cow
and environmental factors affect estrus detection effi-
ciency (see section 5).
Body temperature changes during the estrus cycle
[144]. A rise in temperature can be detected around the
LH-surge during estrus [38]. This may be caused by a
higher level of activity during estrus, but the mecha-
nism behind the temperature change is not clear. Using
milk temperature measurement, 50% and 84% of the
estrus cows were detected in two studies [162,163].
However a very high percentage of false positive alerts
was found [162]. Redden et al. [164] detected 81% of
the estrus cows by measuring vaginal temperature, with
14% false positives.
Several studies have shown that vaginal mucus con-
ductivity (or resistance) changes during estrus [158].
Fisher et al. [165] developed an electrodeless conduc-
tivity measuring device, but they concluded that there
was too much variation and noise in the conductivity
results and that it was not suitable for detection of
estrus. This agrees with the findings of other studies
336 J. Roelofs et al. / Theriogenology 74 (2010) 327344
that found undesirably high rates of false positives and
false negatives [166,167].
A combination of several estrus detection aids might
give the best results in terms of estrus detection effi-
ciency. Peralta et al. [148] used three times daily visual
observations, a mount detection device, and an activity
transponder. On its own, visual observation yielded the
highest detection (49.3%), followed by the mount
detection device (48%), and the activity transponder
(37.3%). The combination of the three systems in-
creased the detection rate to 80.2%. Another study
combined visual observations by the herdsman with
either a hormone-treated steer or tailpaint. Observations
by the herdsman alone gave a detection rate of 77%,
which was the same as for the combination of visual
observations and tailpaint. The detection rate increased
to 89% when the visual observations were combined
with the hormone-treated steers. Using a combination
of different traits as activity, milk temperature, milk
yield, and conductivity gave detection rates between 67
and 94% in different studies [144].
6.2. The inseminator and estrus confirmation
Inseminating the cow is the final, but by no means
least important, act in the process of estrus detection.
The efficiency of cow insemination depends, among
other factors, on the ability of the inseminator to deliver
the semen to the appropriate site in the reproductive
tract at the appropriate stage of estrus. Extensive train-
ing of inseminators has been one of the most significant
contributions to the successful commercial application
of AI in dairy cattle breeding [168]. Unfortunately,
there has been a tendency to adopt routine insemination
techniques and to ignore inseminator-related factors
that influence fertility. Although professional insemina-
tors palpate the reproductive tract of numerous cows every
day, most are not trained to examine the uterus and ova-
ries and, therefore, to confirm estrus. This poses a serious
practical limitation to the success of estrus detection pro-
cedures and AI. In a recent study on 10,965 AI includ-
ing 13 technicians [169], a dramatic significant differ-
ence among inseminators was registered, the likelihood
of pregnancy decreased by a factor of 0.25 when a cow
was inseminated by the worst inseminator compared to
the best one. As has been noted above, a high rate of AI
is performed in cows that are not ready for service or
are pregnant. The situation is further worsened by the
fact that the insemination of pregnant cows can cause
embryonic mortality or abortion [170]. The incidence
of estrus during pregnancy has been reported exten-
sively [4,6,171]. Pregnant cows stood willingly to be
mounted by another cow or bull at all stages of preg-
nancy [172].
Manual [173] or ultrasonographic [150] rectal ex-
amination of the bovine reproductive tract allows cor-
rect diagnosis of estrus when the animal is ready for
service. Repeated rectal ultrasound during estrus does
not alter behavioral estrus or peri-ovulatory hormone
profiles and can be a useful tool for assessing time of
ovulation [150]. The physical properties of the uterus
[174] and vaginal fluid [16,175] during estrus may also
be used as a reference for estrus. A cow can be classi-
fied as ready for service when the corpus luteum is
manually or by ultrasound estimated to be either less
than 10 mm or non-detectable, the largest follicle
shows a lack of fluctuation and has an estimated diam-
eter of 1225 mm, the uterus is highly turgid and
contractile to the touch, and vaginal discharges are
copious, fluid, and transparent [173]. Vaginal fluid can
easily be obtained at the time of insemination by gentle
suction from the cranial vagina using a plastic insemi-
nating sheath and a 50-ml syringe and examined for
transparency, fluidity, and blood or pus contents [16].
In a study of estrus confirmation by palpation per
rectum performed on 6084 normal repeat dairy cows
following their first AI [173], the 150-day non return
rate for rejected cows with a corpus luteum greater than
15 mm in diameter was 87%. All cows selected had
normal intervals between first insemination and estrus
(18 26 d). In the same study, cows were considered to
be in estrus but insemination was incorrectly timed
when the cow had no significant follicular structure.
The authors suggested that these latter cows were early
ovulators or estrus detection had been undertaken late
in estrus. The 150 d non return rate for cows estimated
to be ready for service was 44%, compared to 27% for
cows in which estrus and insemination were incorrectly
timed. The data of a subsequent, larger study [6] con-
firm the benefit of examining the reproductive tract per
rectum at the time of insemination to inseminate cows
in estrus only. In Israel, inseminators are trained to
check the tone and symmetry of the uterus by rectal
palpation and to examine vaginal fluid. In Israel, it is
common practice to evaluate several factors indicative
of estrus before insemination to avoid the insemination
of pregnant cows, of cows that are not at the appropri-
ate stage of the estrus cycle, or of those with purulent
discharge. During the period of the referred study [6],
the total number of cows rejected for re-insemination
was 55,390 (about 16% of the total cows submitted for
re-insemination), with a 95% accuracy of rejection of
44% of pregnant cows. Main reasons for rejection were
 J. Roelofs et al. / Theriogenology 74 (2010) 327344
the condition of the vaginal fluid and the tone of the
uterus.
Over the last decade, some studies have reported an
increase of infertility worldwide [176 178]. Both di-
minished efficiency of AI and failure to detect estrus
correctly should warrant the re-evaluation of insemina-
tor training in order to confirm estrus [3,179]. Exami-
nation of vaginal fluid and uterine palpation prior to
insemination have been shown to improve pregnancy
rates, reduce abortions, and reduce the unnecessary use
of semen, all of which contribute to the improved
reproductive performance and consequent profitability
of dairy herds. Further research using ultrasonography
should be undertaken to find predictors for time of
ovulation [150].
7. Estrus detection rates at herd level
The evaluation of estrus detection is an important
step to interpret reproduction performance at the herd
level. Complete and accurate records including all
heats, services, birth, and calving dates are necessary. It
is also necessary to distinguish between the accuracy and
the efficiency of heat detection. Estrus detection is inac-
curate when cattle are inseminated but are not really in
estrus. Estrus detection is inefficient when the number of
unobserved or missed heats increases [180 195].
7.1. Evaluation of heat detection accuracy
Evaluation of heat detection accuracy is important be-
cause, according to different studies, it appears that
530% of inseminated animals are not really in heat
[5,6,184,185,196]. Conversely, it must be noted that 6%
of pregnant cows will be detected in estrus [153,197].
Milk or blood progesterone analysis is a useful tool
to evaluate accuracy of heat detection in the following
situations: the cow was observed in heat but was pre-
viously diagnosed pregnant; standing heat was ob-
served but the estrus interval was abnormally short or
long; the cow was detected in heat based solely on
secondary signs. To make the evaluation worthwhile,
1520 cows should be sampled on the day of insemi-
nation. If more than 5% of the samples have high
progesterone, the heat detection error rate is too high.
As proved by different studies [6,173,175], system-
atic palpation and vaginoscopy at AI could be used to
confirm estrus and indirectly reinforce its detection
accuracy by the farmer.
The analysis of the distribution of intervals between
estrus and/or inseminations dates is another method to
suspect a lack of accuracy in estrus detection. Herds
337
dealing with heat detection errors present different
characteristics related to the distribution of intervals
between estrus dates: estrus intervals between 317 d
exceed 10 15%; estrus intervals between 18 24 d are
lower than 60 70%; estrus intervals between 2535 d
or 2538 d exceed, respectively, 10 15% or 10%;
estrus intervals between 36 48 d or 39 45 d exceed,
respectively, 510 or 10%; estrus intervals longer than
45 or 48 d exceed 5%.
As well as in herds dealing with estrus detection
problems, cows inseminated one day and again within
three days exceed 5%; several cows checked pregnant
to a service earlier than the last one recorded, 4% of the
cows in the Netherlands calve normally three to six
weeks before the expected calving date [4].
7.2. Evaluation of heat detection efficiency (HDE)
Different general indices have been proposed to ap-
proximate the heat detection efficiency. Their use de-
pends on the available data on the farm. Moreover, they
can be used with data observed before or after the
waiting period (pre and post service HDE).
The Woods index is obtained by multiplying by 100
the ratio between the normal cycle length (21 d) and
average estrus interval between consecutive services or
heats observed for all heifers or cows or for specific
group of cows (primiparous vs. multiparous cows).
Only cows known to be cycling and with at least two
recorded estrus or AI events are considered in this
calculation. Normally, this ratio will be higher than 75
[191], i.e., that average interval between estruses will
be less than 29 d. One problem with this method is the
high rate of prostaglandin used. Moreover, the method
can underestimate the efficiency of estrus detection in
case of pathologies like ovarian cysts or pyometra
[198].
It is also possible to calculate the ratio of 18 24 d
and 36 48 d estrus intervals. Normally the ratio will be
higher than 4:1 [186] or 6:1 [195].
It is also possible to suspect a problem when the
percentage of cows observed not pregnant by a late
pregnancy diagnosis method is lower than 80 90%
according to the stage of pregnancy diagnosis (42 vs.
63 d) and so the frequency of herd visits [183,188].
More specific expected values of percentages of preg-
nant cows have been proposed according to the stage of
pregnancy diagnosis, pregnancy rate, and estrus detec-
tion rate [198].
Calculation of the percentage of cows seen in estrus
by 50 to 60 d postpartum and mean days in milk at first
estrus is also possible if the farmer has an accurate and
338 J. Roelofs et al. / Theriogenology 74 (2010) 327344
regular system of notation. Moreover, different factors
can also interfere with such a method of evaluation
[195]. A good alternative method is to calculate the
percentage of cows not seen in estrus during the first
21 d after the waiting period calculated in the herd.
To evaluate HDE before the first service, i.e., during
the waiting period (WP), it is necessary again to en-
courage the farmer to record all estruses observed. This
index can contribute to identification of an anestrus
problem in the herd. One method of preservice HDE
calculation could be the following [188]: Preservice
HDE (21/[WP observed Voluntary WP] 11))*100.
Calculating the percentage of cows seen in estrus be-
fore the waiting period decided by the farmer (usually
60 d) is an alternate method. The herds confronted with
heat detection efficiency problems observed and re-
corded very few heats before the first service. Nor-
mally, 85% of cows are detected in estrus by 60 d
postpartum. Moreover, in herds confronted with estrus
detection efficiency, WP length exceeds 80 d when the
voluntary waiting period (VWP) decided by the farmer
is 60 d [199].
Postservice HDE can indicate a lack of attention to
breeding cows. Different methods of calculation have
been proposed according to the available data. All those
methods concern the breeding or reproduction period,
i.e., the period between the waiting period or the vol-
untary waiting period (VWP) adopted by the farmer
and the beginning of pregnancy or the last insemina-
tion. If the VWP is used, 10 d are usually added to the
value of the VWP. The last insemination date will,
preferably, be used in small herds to optimize the avail-
able data.
Barr [200] has proposed calculating the days lost
due to missed estruses using the following formula:
(DO WP) [(services/pregnancy 1) 21]. If the
VWP is used, it is necessary to add 10 d to the VWP,
assuming that the first breedable estrus would be de-
tected on average 10 d after the end of VWP [200].
Bailey [188] evaluated the post service HDE using
the following formula: ((Services per pregnancy 1)/
(DO WP)/21))*100. The difference between days
open (DO) and WP divided by 21 represents the po-
tential number of estruses. The number of services per
pregnancy minus 1 (the service that the cow became
pregnant) represents the number of estrus cycles really
used. For example if the number of services per preg-
nancy is 1.8; DO 150 d and WP observed 80 d, post
service HDE will be 24%. Excellent, good, and poor
HDE rates are respectively higher than 80%, 70%, and
below 60%. An HDE rate below 50% indicates a very
strong need of improvement [188].
Grusenmeyer [201] calculated the breeding interval
(BI) as follows: (DOWP)/(n AI 1) or as follows:
(DO [VWP 10])/(n AI 1). If the conception date
is not known, DO can be replaced by the interval
between the last insemination done and calving. The
average BI obtained is compared to some proposed
values. If averaged BI is 23, 26, 30, 35, 41, 50, or 60 d,
the % of observed estruses are, respectively, 90, 80, 70,
60, 50, 40, and 30 [201].
If all events of estrus or services are available,
OConnor [199] has proposed using the following for-
mula ((n of estrus or services)/(n cows n of days in
the observation period)/21)*100. This method assumes
all cows are cycling. Moreover, this formula is rather
difficult to use in small herds due to the limited number
of observations.
The American Association of Bovine Practitioners
has proposed evaluating the heat detection efficiency by
calculating the percentage of possible estruses detected
during a period of time (monthly or yearly according to
the size of the herd) using the following formula:
(a/(b/21))*100 in which (a) is the number of breedings
or estruses observed in the period of observation and
(b) the number of estrus cycle days in the period for
eligible cows. A specific method for selection of eligi-
ble cows has been proposed [182].
8. Conclusion
It is clear that a good detection of estrus is critically
important. However, this is easier said than done. Some
herds have no problems at all with fertility while others
struggle with their insemination number, calving inter-
val, and other parameters, which might be caused by
inefficient estrus detection. To know whether or not this
problem exists on a farm, record keeping is of the
utmost importance. When calving dates, cow identifi-
cation, and estrus dates are recorded, pre- and post-
service heat detection efficiencies can be detected. To-
gether with the veterinarian, these parameters can be
evaluated to see if there is room for improvement.
Many factors, environmental, managerial, and cow-
related, play a role in estrus expression/detection. It is
good to be aware of all those factors that cannot be
influenced easily (housing, parity, milk production,
herd size, season, climate) and try to change the factors
that can be influenced (number of observations, length
of observation, time of day, record keeping) to improve
estrus detection efficiency. One has to be aware of all
 J. Roelofs et al. / Theriogenology 74 (2010) 327344
behavioral signs (and not only standing heat and
mounting) that might indicate that a cow is in estrus and
also keep records of these behaviors. Estrus detection
aids can help to improve estrus detection. Many devices
are on the market, and each farmer has to decide which
works the best in his situation. When a cow is insem-
inated, the farmer, veterinarian, or inseminator should
check the uterus and ovaries carefully to make sure the
decision to inseminate is correct. In practice it is more
easy to decrease the number of false positive estrus
attentions (by palpation, progesterone measurements,
record keeping) than it is to decrease the number of
false negative estrus attentions (cows that show no or
very limited estrus signs). In all cases, the strategy is
the same: pinpoint the problem, decide on a strategy for
improvement, and be patient. It will take some time to
see changes for the better in fertility parameters such as
calving interval and insemination number.
In research, it is important to be able to compare all
studies concerning estrus in order to be consistent.
While everybody more or less agrees on what estrus
is, there are many ways to measure estrus, not only
with different devices, but also with different visual
observations such as different behavioral signs, time of
day, length, and number of observations. And again, in
both practice and research, it is easier to study false
positive attentions than it is to study and quantify false
negative estrus attentions in different settings.
References
[1] Short RV. Oestrus and menstrual cycles. In: C.R. Austin, R.V.
Short, editors. Reproduction in mammals 3: hormonal control
of reproduction. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
1984;11552.
[2] Zeuner FE. The history of the domestication of cattle. In: A.E.
Mourant, F.E. Zeuner, editors. Man and cattle. Royal Anthro-
pological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland: London. 1963;
9 19.
[3] Senger PL. The estrus detection problem: new concepts, tech-
nologies, and possibilities. J Dairy Sci 1994;77:274553.
[4] Dijkhuizen TJ, van Eerdenburg FJCM. Behavioural signs of
oestrus during pregnancy in lactating dairy cows. Vet Quart
1997;119:194 6.
[5] Nebel RL, Whittier WD, Casell BG, Britt JH. Comparison of
on-farm and laboratory milk progesterone assays for identify-
ing errors in detection of estrus and diagnosis of pregnancy. J
Dairy Sci 1987;70:1471 6.
[6] Sturman H, Oltenacu EAB, Foote RH. Importance of insemi-
nating only cows in estrus. Theriogenology 2000;53:1657 67.
[7] Yniz JL, Murugavel K, Lpez-Gatius F. Recent develop-
ments in oestrus synchronization of postpartum dairy cows
with and without ovarian disorders. Reprod Domest Anim
2004;39:86 93.
[8] Sangsritavong S, Combs DK, Sartoru R, Armentano LE, Wilt-
bank MC. High feed intake increases liver blood flow and
339
metabolism of progesterone and estradiol-17 in dairy cattle. J
Dairy Sci 2002;85:2831 42.
[9] Van Eerdenburg FJCM. Possible causes for the diminished
expression of estrus behaviour. Vet Quart 2008;30(Suppl. 1):
79 100.
[10] Lpez-Gatius F, Garcia-Ispierto I, Santolaria P, Yniz J,
Nogareda C, Lpez-Bjar M. Screening for high fertility in high-
producing dairy cows. Theriogenology 2006;65:1678 89.
[11] Wolfenson D, Lew BJ, Thatcher WW, Graber Y, Meidan R.
Seasonal and acute heat stress effects on steroid production by
dominant follicles in cows. Anim Reprod Sci 1997;47:9 19.
[12] Roelofs JB, van Eerdenburg FJCM, Soede NM, Kemp B.
Various behavioral signs of estrus and their relationship with
time of ovulation in dairy cattle. Theriogenology 2005;63:
1366 77.
[13] Cutullic E, Delaby L, Causeur D, Michel G, Disenhaus C.
Hierarchy of factors affecting behavioural signs used for oes-
trus detection of Holstein and Normande dairy cows in a
seasonal calving system. Anim Reprod Sci 2009;113:2237.
[14] Hunter RHF. Physiology of the Graafian follicle and ovulation.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 2003.
[15] Rutllant J, Lpez-Bjar M, Lpez-Gatius F. Ultrastructural and
rheological properties of bovine vaginal fluid and its relation to
sperm motility and fertilisation: A review. Reprod Domest
Anim 2005;40:79 96.
[16] Lpez-Gatius F, Rutllant J, Labrnia J, Ibarz A, Lpez-Bjar
M, Santolaria P. Rheological behavior of the vaginal fluid of
dairy cows at estrus. Theriogenology 1996;46:57 63.
[17] Rutllant J, Lpez-Bjar M, Santolaria P, Yniz J, Lpez-Gatius
F. Rheological and ultrastructural properties of bovine vaginal
fluid obtained at oestrus. J Anatomy 2002;201:53 60.
[18] Greve T, Grndahl C, Schmidt M, Hunter RHF, Avery B.
Bovine preovulatory temperature: implications for in vitro
production of embryos. Arch Tierzuch Dummerstorf 1996;39
(special issue):714.
[19] Hunter RHF, Einer-Jensen N, Greve T. Presence and signifi-
cance of temperature gradients among different ovarian tis-
sues. Microscop Res Tech 2006;69:5017.
[20] Hunter RHF. Temperature gradients in female reproductive
tissues and their potential significance. Anim Reprod 2009;6:
715.
[21] Hunter RHF, Wilmut I. The rate of functional sperm transport
into the oviducts of mated cows. Anim Reprod Sci 1982;5:
16773.
[22] Hunter RHF, Wilmut I. Sperm transport in the cow: periovu-
latory redistribution of viable cells within the oviduct. Reprod
Nutr Develop 1984;24:597 608.
[23] Wilmut I, Hunter RHF. Sperm transport into the oviducts of
heifers mated early in oestrus. Reprod Nutr Develop 1984;24:
461 8.
[24] Lyimo ZC, Nielen M, Ouweltjes W, Kruip TAM, van Eerden-
burg FJCM. Relationship among estradiol, cortisol and inten-
sity of estrus behavior in dairy cattle. Theriogenology 2000;
53:178395.
[25] Van Eerdenburg FJCM, Daemen AJJM, van der Beek EM,
Leewen FW. Changes in estrogen- receptor immunoreactiv-
ity during the estrus cycle in lactating dairy cattle. Brain Res
2000;880:219 23.
[26] Roelofs JB, Soede NM, Voskamp-Harkema W, Kemp B. The
effect of fenceline bull exposure on expression of oestrus in
dairy cows. Anim Reprod Sci 2008;108:226 35.
340 J. Roelofs et al. / Theriogenology 74 (2010) 327344
[27] Van Eerdenburg FJCM, Loeffler HSH, van Vliet JH. Detection
of oestrus in dairy cows: a new approach to an old problem.
Vet Quart 1996;18:52 4.
[28] Esslemont RJ, Bryant MJ. Oestrus behaviour in a herd of dairy
cows. Vet Rec 1976;99:4725.
[29] Coe BL, Allrich RD. Relationship between endogenous estra-
diol 17-b and estrus behaviour in heifers. J Anim Sci 1989;
67:1546 9.
[30] Esslemont RJ, Glencross RG, Bryant MJ, Pope GS. A quan-
titative study of preovulatory behaviour in cattle (British Frie-
sian heifers). Appl Anim Ethol 1980;6:117.
[31] Walker SL, Smith RF, Routly JE, Jones DN, Morris MJ,
Dobson H. Lameness, activity time-budgets and estrus expres-
sion in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 2008b;91:45529.
[32] Beach FA. Sexual attractivity, proceptivity, and receptivity in
female mammals. Horm Behav 1976;7:10538.
[33] Kerbrat S, Disenhaus C. A proposition for an updated behav-
ioural characterisation of the oestrus period in dairy cows.
Appl Anim Behav Sci 2004;87:22338.
[34] Farris EJ. Activity of dairy cows during estrus. J Am Vet Med
Ass 1954;125:11720.
[35] Koelsch RK, Aneshansley DJ, Butler WR. Analysis of activity
measurement for accurate oestrus detection in dairy cattle. J
Agric Engng Res 1994;42:688 92.
[36] Roelofs JB, Van Eerdenburg FJCM, Soede NM, Kemp B.
Pedometer readings for estrus detection and as predictor for
time of ovulation in dairy cattle. Theriogenology 2005;64:
1690 703.
[37] Schofield SA, Phillips CJC, Owens AR. Variation in the milk
production, activity rate and electrical impedance of cervical
mucus over the oestrus period of dairy cows. Anim Reprod Sci
1991;24:231 48.
[38] Rajamahendran R, Robinson J, Desbottes S, Walton JS. Tem-
poral relationships among estrus, body temperature, milk
yield, progesterone and luteinizing hormone levels, and ovu-
lation in dairy cows. Theriogenology 1989;31:1173 82.
[39] Williamson NB, Quinton FW, Anderson GA. The effect of
variations in the interval between calving and first service on
the reproductive performance of normal dairy cows. Aust Vet
J 1980;56:477 80.
[40] Trimberger GW. Conception rate in dairy cattle by insemina-
tion at various intervals before and after ovulation. J Dairy Sci
1944;27:656 60.
[41] Trimberger GW, Davis HP. Breeding efficiency in dairy cattle
bred at various stages of estrus by artificial insemination. J
Dairy Sci 1943;7579.
[42] Gwasdauskas FC, Whitter WD, Vinson WE, Pearson RE.
Evaluation of reproductive efficiency of dairy cattle with em-
phasis on timing of breeding. J Dairy Sci 1986;69:290 7.
[43] Gwasdauskas FC, Lineweaver JA, Vinson WE. Rates of con-
ception by artificial insemination of dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci
1981;64,358 62.
[44] Rankin RL, Smith WR, Shanks RD, Lodge JR. Timing of
insemination in dairy heifers. J Dairy Sci 1992;75:2840 5.
[45] Dalton JC, Nadir S, Bame JH, Noftsinger M, Nebel RL,
Saacke RG. Effect of time of insemination on number of
accessory sperm, fertilization rate and embryo quality in non-
lactating dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 2001;84:2413 8.
[46] Foote RH. Time of AI and fertility in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci
1978;62:355 8.
[47] Nebel RL, Walker ML, Mc Gilliard ML, Allen CH, Heckman
GS. Timing of insemination of dairy cows: fixed time once
daily versus morning and afternoon. J Dairy Sci 1994;77:
318591.
[48] Dransfield MGB, Nebel RL, Pearson RE, Warnick LD. Timing
of insemination for dairy cows identified in estrus by a radio-
telemetric estrus detection system. J Dairy Sci 1998;81:
1874 82.
[49] Maatje K, Loeffler SH, Engel B. Predicting optimal time of
insemination in cows that show visual signs of estrus by
estimating onset of estrus with pedometers. J Dairy Sci 1997;
80:1098 105.
[50] Roelofs JB. Prediction of ovulation and optimal insemination
interval. Vet Quart, 2008;30(suppl. 1):58 77.
[51] Saacke RG. Insemination factors related to timed AI in cattle.
Theriogenology 2008;70:479 84.
[52] Roelofs JB, Graat EAM, Mullaart E, Soede NM, Voskamp-
Harkema W, Kemp B. Effect of time of insemination relative
to ovulation on fertilization rates and embryo characteristics in
spontaneous dairy cattle. Theriogenology 2006;66:2173 81.
[53] Saacke RG, Dalton JC, Nadir S, Nebel RL, Bame JH. Rela-
tionships of seminal traits and insemination time to fertiliza-
tion rate and embryo quality. Anim Reprod Sci 2000;60 61:
66377.
[54] Rorie RW. Effect of timing of artificial insemination on sex
ratio. Theriogenology 1999;52:1273 80.
[55] Ballinger HJ. The effect of inseminations carried out early or
late in oestrus on the sex ratio of claves born. Vet Rec 1970;
86:631.
[56] Wehner GR, Wood C, Teague A, Barker D, Hubert H. Effi-
ciency of the Ovatec unit for estrus detection and calf sex
control in beef cows. Anim Reprod 1997;46:2734.
[57] Martinez F, Kaabi M, Martinez-Pastor F, Alvarez M, Anel E,
Boixo JC, de Paz P, Anel L. Effect of the interval between
estrus onset and artificial insemination on sex ratio and fertility
in cattle : a field study. Theriogenology 2004;62:1264 70.
[58] Roelofs JB, Bouwman EB, Pedersen HG, Rasmussen ZR,
Soede NM, Thomsen PD, Kemp B. Effect of time of artificial
insemination on embryo sex ratio in dairy cattle. Anim Reprod
Sci 2006;93:366 71.
[59] Rottensten K, Touchberry RW. Observations on the degree of
expression of estrus in cattle. J Dairy Sci 1957;40:1457 65.
[60] Roxstrm A, Strandberg E, Berglund B, Emanuelson U, Phil-
ipsson J. Genetic and environmental correlations among fe-
male fertility traits, and between the ability to show oestrus
and milk production in dairy cattle. Acta Agric Scand SA
2001;51:1929.
[61] Heres L, Dieleman SJ, van Eerdenburg FJCM. Validation of a
new method of visual oestrus detection on the farm. Vet Quart
2000;22:50 5.
[62] Orihuela A. Some factors affecting the behavioural manifes-
tation of oestrus in cattle. A Review. Appl Anim Behav Sci
2000;70:116.
[63] Van Vliet JH, van Eerdenburg FJCM. Sexual activities and
oestrus detection in lactating Holstein cows. Appl Anim Behav
Sci 1996;50:57 69.
[64] Allrich RD. Endocrine and neural control of estrus in dairy
cows. J Dairy Sci 1994;77:2738 44.
[65] Thatcher WW, Wilcox CJ. Postpartum estrus as an indicator of
reproductive status of the dairy cow. J Dairy Sci 1973;56:
608 10.
[66] Yniz JL, Santolaria P, Giribet A, Lpez-Gatius F. Factors
affecting walking activity at estrus during postpartum period
 J. Roelofs et al. / Theriogenology 74 (2010) 327344
and subsequent fertility in dairy cows. Theriogenology 2006;
66:194350.
[67] Smith MCA, Wallace JM. Influence of early post partum
ovulation on the re-establishment of pregnancy in multiparous
and primiparous dairy cattle. Reprod Fertil Dev 1998;10:
20716.
[68] Sakaguchi M, Sasamoto Y, Suzuki T, Takahshi Y, Yamada Y.
Postpartum ovarian follicular dynamics and estrus activity in
lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2004;87:2114 21.
[69] Opsomer G, Grohn YT, Hertl J, Coryn M, Deluyker H, de
Kruiff A. Risk factors for postpartum ovarian dysfunction in
high producing dairy cows in Belgium: a field study. Theriog-
enology 2000;53:84157.
[70] Shrestha HK, Nakao T, Suzuki T, Higaki T, Akita M. Effects
of abnormal ovarian cycles during pre-service period postpar-
tum on subsequent reproductive performance of high-produc-
ing Holstein cows. Theriogenology 2004;61:1559 71.
[71] Kiddy CA. Variation in physical activity as an indication of
estrus in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 1977;60:235 43.
[72] Lpez-Gatius F, Santolaria P, Mundet I, Yniz JL. Walking
activity at estrus and subsequent fertility in dairy cows. The-
riogenology 2005;63:1419 29.
[73] Arney DR, Kitwood SE, Phillips CJC. The increase in activity
during oestrus in dairy cows. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1994;40:
211 8.
[74] Lopez H, Satter LD, Wiltbank MC. Relationship between level
of milk production and estrus behaviour of lactating dairy
cows. Anim Reprod Sci 2004a;81:209 23.
[75] Adewuyi AA, Roelofs JB, Gruys E, Toussaint MJM, Van
Eerdenburg FJCM. Relationship of plasma nonesterified fatty
acids and walking activity in postpartum dairy cows. J Dairy
Sci 2006;89:29779.
[76] Garbarino EJ, Hernandez JA, Shearer JK, Risco CA, Thatcher
WW. Effect of lameness on ovarian activity in postpartum
Holstein cows. J Dairy Sci 2004;87:412331.
[77] Petersson KJ, Strandberg E, Gustafsson H, Berglund B. Envi-
ronmental effects on progesterone profile measures of dairy
cow fertility. Anim Reprod Sci 2006;91:20114.
[78] Walker SL, Smith RF, Jones DN, Routly JE, Dobson H.
Chronic stress, hormone profiles and estrus intensity in dairy
cattle. Horm Behav 2008a;53:493501.
[79] Dobson H, Ribadu AY, Noble KM, Tebble JE, Ward WR.
Ultrasonography and hormone profiles of adrenocorticotrophic
hormone (ACTH)-induced persistent ovarian follicles (cysts)
in cattle. J Reprod Fert 2000;120:40510.
[80] Hamilton SA, Garverick HA, Keisler DH, Xu ZZ, Loos K,
Youngquist RS, Salfen BE. Characterization of ovarian follic-
ular cysts and associated endocrine profiles in dairy cows. Biol
Reprod 1995;53:890 8.
[81] Melendez P, Bartolome J, Archbald LF, Donovan A. The
association between lameness, ovarian cysts and fertility in
lactating dairy cows. Theriogenology 2003;59:92737.
[82] Nanda AS, Dobson H, Ward WR. Relationship between an
increase in plasma cortisol during transport-induce stress and
failure of oestradiol to induce a luteinizing hormone surge in
dairy cows. Res Vet Sci 1990;49:25 8.
[83] Morris MJ, Walker SL, Jones DN, Routly JE, Smith RF,
Dobson H. Influence of somatic cell count, body conditionb
and lameness on follicular growth and obvulation in dairy
cows. Theriogenology 2009;7:801 6.
[84] Collick DW, Ward WR, Dobson H. Associations between
types of lameness and fertility. Vet Rec 1989;125:103 6.
341
[85] Gomez, F, de Boer H. Relationship between mild lameness
and expression of oestrus in dairy cattle. Vet Rec 2003;152:
403 404.
[86] Walker SL, Smith RF, Jones DN, Routly JE, Morris MJ,
Dobson H. The effect of a chronic stressor, lameness, on
detailed sexual behaviour and hormonal profiles in milk and
plasma of dairy cattle. Reprod Domest Anim 2008.
[87] Izard MK. Pheromones and reproduction in domestic animals.
In J.G. Vanderbergh, editor. Pheromones and reproduction in
mammals. Academic Press, New York, 1983.
[88] Stevenson JS, Mee MO, Stewart RE. Conception rates and
calving intervals after prostaglandin F2 alpha or prebreeding
progesterone in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 1989;72:208 18.
[89] Vailes LD, Washburn SP, Britt JH. Effects of various steroid
milieus or physiological states on sexual behaviour of Holstein
cows. J Anim Sci 1992;70:2094 113.
[90] Blache D, Batailler M, Fabre-Nys C. Oestrogen receptors in
the preopticohypothalamci continuum : immuinohistochemical
study of the distribution and cell density during estrus cycle in
the ovariectomized ewe. J Neuroendocrinol 1994;6:329 39.
[91] Walker WL, Nebel RL, Mc Gilliard ML. Time of ovulation
relative to mounting activity in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 1996;
79:1555 61.
[92] Slenning BD, Farver TB. Oestrus detection efficiency and the
effects of using prostaglandin F2A in a commercial dairy herd.
Prev Vet Med 1990;8:269 82.
[93] Vaca LA, Galina CS, Fernandez-Baca S, Escobar FJ, Ramirez
B. Oestrus cycles, oestrus and ovulation of the Zebu in the
Mexican tropics. Vet Rec 1985;117:434 7.
[94] Jaume CM, Leal JA, Deresz F, Bruzhi JH, Carvalho MR,
Villasand JC, Megale F. Duration of oestrus and time of
ovulation in crossbred Friesian x Zebu heifers with or without
synchronisation of oestrus. In 9th International Congress of
Animal Reproduction and A.I., Madrid, Spain. 1980;3:37.
[95] Lokhande SM, Patil VH, Manajan OL, Phadnis UP, Humblot
P, Thibier M. Fertility of synchronized estrus in crossbred
(Bos taurusxBos indicus) heifers. Theriogenology 1983;20:
397 406.
[96] Kirby CJ, Smith M, Keisler DH, Lucy MC. Follicular function
in lactating dairy cows treated with sustained- release bovine
somatotropin. J Dairy Sci 1997a;80:273 85.
[97] Kirby CJ, Wilson SJ, Lucy MC. Response of dairy cows
treated with bovine somatotropin to a luteolytic dose of pros-
taglandin F2a. J Dairy Sci 1997b;80:286 94.
[98] Morbeck DE, Britt JH, McDaniel BT. Relationships among
milk yield, metabolism, and reproductive performance of pri-
miparous Holstein cows treated with somatotropin. J Dairy Sci
1991;74:2153 64.
[99] Langendijk P, Soede NM, Bouwman EG, Kemp B. Respon-
siveness to boar stimuli and change in vulvar reddening in
relation to ovulation in weaned sows. J Anim Sci 2000;78:
3019 26.
[100] Rekwot PI, Ogwu D, Oyedipe E, Sekoni VO. The role of
pheromones and biostimulation in animal reproduction. Anim
Reprod Sci 2001;65:15770.
[101] Kilgour R, Skarsholt BH, Smith JF, Bremner KJ, Morrison
MCL. Observations on the behaviour and factors influencing
the sexually active group in cattle. Proc NZ Soc Anim Prod
1977;37:128 35.
[102] Landaeta-Hernandez AJ, Melendez P, Bartolome J, Rae DO,
Archabald LF. Effect of biostimulation on the expression of
342 J. Roelofs et al. / Theriogenology 74 (2010) 327344
estrus in postpartum Angus cows. Theriogenology 2006;66:
710 6.
[103] Holtz W, Meinhardt H. Determination of estrus in cattle.
Reprod Domest Anim 1993;28:315 41.
[104] Orihuela A, Galina CS, Escobar J, Riquelme E. Oestrus be-
haviour following prostgalandi F2a injection in Zebu cattle
under continuous observation. Theriogenology 1983;19:795
809.
[105] Landivar C, Galina CS, Duchateau A, Navarro-Fierro R. Fer-
tility trial in Zebu cattle after a natural or controlled oestrus
with prostaglandinF2a comparing natural mating with artificial
insemination. Theriogenology 1985;23:4217.
[106] De Alba J, Villa-Corta E, Ulloa G. Influence of natural service
on lenght of oestrus in the cow. Anim Prod 1961;3:32730.
[107] Price EO. Sexual behaviour of large domestic farm animals: an
overview. J Anim Sci 1985;61(suppl. 3):6274.
[108] Fraser AF. Sexual behaviour. In: Farm animal behaviour, 2nd
edition. MacMillan, New York 1980;204 11.
[109] Zalesky DD, Day ML, Garcia-Winder M, Imakawa K, Kittok
RJ, DOcchio MJ, Kinder JE. Influence of exposure to bulls on
resumption of oestrus cycles following parturition in beef
cows. J Anim Sci 1984;59:11359.
[110] Lucy MC. Mechanisms linking nutrition and reproduction in
postpartum cows. Reprod 2003;Suppl 61:41527.
[111] Ferguson JD. Nutrition and reproduction in dairy herds. Vet
Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2005;21:325 47.
[112] Hurley WL, Edignton LA, Olds D, Hemken RW. Oestrus
behaviour and endocrine status of dairy heifers with varied
intakes of phosphorus. J Dairy Sci 1982;65:1979 86.
[113] Lopez H, Wu Z, Satter LD, Wiltbank MC. Effect of dietary
phosphorus concentration on estrus behaviour of lactating
dairy cows. Theriogenology 2004b;61:437 45.
[114] Thibault C, Courot M, Martinet L, Mauleon P, Du Mesnil Du
Buisson F, Ortavant R, Pelletier J, Signoret P. Regulation of
breeding season and oestrus cycles by light and external stim-
uli in some animals. J Anim Sci 1966;25(Suppl1):119.
[115] Hauser ER. Seasonal effects on female reproduction in the
bovine (Bos Taurus). Theriogenology 1984;21:150 69.
[116] Wolfenson D, Flamenbaum I, Berman A. Hyperthermia and
body energy store effects on estrus behaviour, conception rate
and corpus luteum function in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 1988;
71:3497504.
[117] Gupta SC, Mishra RR. Oestrus behaviour of Brown Swiss
(Sahixal cattle). Indian J Anim Sci 1980;50:1035 8.
[118] Zakari AY, Molokwu ECI, Osori DIK. Effect of season on the
oestrus cycle of cows (Bos indicus) indigenous to northern
Nigeria. Vet Rec 1981;109:2135.
[119] Pennington JA, Albright JL, Diekman MA. Sexual activity of
Holstein cows : seasonal effects. J Dairy Sci 1985;68:302330.
[120] Galina CS, Arthur GH. Review of cattle reproduction in the
tropics. Part 4. Oestrus cycles. Anim Breed Abstr 1990;58:
697707.
[121] Gwasdauskas FC, Nebel RL, Sprecher DJ. Effectiveness of
rump-mounted devices and androgenised females for detection
of oestrus in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 1990;73:296570.
[122] White FJ, Wettemann RP, Looper ML, Prado TM, Morgan
GL. Seasonnal effects on estrus behaviour and time of ovula-
tion in nonlactating beef cows. J Anim Sci 2002;80:305359.
[123] Gangwar PC, Branton C, Evans DL. Reproductive and phys-
iological response of Holstein heifers to controlled and natural
climatic conditions. J Dairy Sci 1965;48:2227.
[124] Arthur GH, Rahim ATA. Temporal features of oestrus in Saudi
Arabian imported cattle. In: 10th International Congress on
Animal Reproduction and A.I., Urbana, Illinois, USA, 1984;
3:304.
[125] Hurnik JF, King GJ, Robertson HA. Estrus and related behav-
iour in postpartum Holstein cows. Appl Anim Ethol 1975;2:
55 68.
[126] Allrich RD. Oestrus behaviour and detection in cattle. Vet Clin
North Am 1993;9:249 62.
[127] Xu ZZ, McKnight DJ, Vishwanath R, Pitt CJ, Burton LJ.
Estrus detection using radiotelemetry or visual observation and
tail painting for dairy cows on pasture. J Dairy Sci 1998;81:
2890 6.
[128] De Silva AWMV, Anderson GW, Gwasdauskas FC, McGilliard
ML, Lineweaver JA. Interrelationships with oestrus behaviour
and conception in cattle. J Dairy Sci 1981;64:2409 18.
[129] Alexander TJ, Senger PL, Rosenberger JL, Hagen DR. The
influence of the stage of the oestrus cycle and novel cows upon
mounting activity of dairy cattle. J Anim Sci 1984;59:1430 9.
[130] Hall JG, Branton C, Stone EJ. Oestrus, oestrus cycle, ovulation
time, time of service and fertility of dairy cattle in Louisiana.
J Dairy Sci 1959;42:1086 94.
[131] Mattoni M, Mukasa-Mugerwa G, Cecchini G, Sobani S. The
reproductive performance of East African (Bos indicus) Zebu
cattle in Ethiopia. 1. Oestrus cycle length, duration, behaviour
and ovulation time. Theriogenology 1988;30:96171.
[132] Amyot E, Hurnik JF. Diurnal patterns of oestrus behaviour of
dairy cows housed in a free stall. Can J Anim Sci 1987;67:
60514.
[133] Nebel RL, Dransfield MG, Jobst SM, Bamee JH. Automated
electronic systems for detection of oestrus and timing of AI in
cattle. Anim Reprod Sci 2000;60 61:71323.
[134] King GJ, Hurnik JF, Robertson HA. Ovarian function and
estrus activity in dairy cows during early lactation. J Dairy Sci
1976;42:688 92.
[135] Phillips CJ, Leaver JD. The effect of forage supplementation
on the behaviour of grazing dairy cows. Appl Anim Behav Sci
1986;16:233 47.
[136] Beneke B, Landewig J, Andreae U, Smidt D. Aktuelle arbeiten
zor artgemassen Tierhaltung. In: Proceedings of the 15th In-
ternational Conference Agewandte Ethologie Bei Nutstieren,
Freiburg 1983:32 45.
[137] Rodtian P, King G, Subrod S, Pongpiachan P. Oestrus behav-
iour of Holstein cows during cooler and hotter tropical sea-
sons. Anim Reprod Sci 1996;45:4758.
[138] Vailes LD, Britt JH. Influence of footing surface on mounting
and other sexual behaviors of estrual Holstein cows. J Anim
Sci 1990;68:2333 6.
[139] Platz S, Ahrens F, Bendel J, Meyer HHD, Ehrard MH. What
happens with cow behavior when replacing concrete slatted
floor by rubber coating : a case study. J Dairy Sci 2008;91:
999 1004.
[140] Orihuela A, Galina CS, Duchateau A. Behavioural patterns of
Zebu bulls toward cows previously synchronized with PGF2a.
Appl Anim Behav Sci 1988;21:26776.
[141] Morrel JM, Noakes DE, Zintzaras E, Dresser DW. Apparent
decline in fertility in heifers after repeated oestrus synchroni-
sation with cloprostenol. Vet Rec 1991;128:404 7.
[142] Helmer SD, Britt JH. Mounting behavior as affected by stage
of estrus cycle in Holstein heifers. J Dairy Sci 1985;68:
1290 6.
 J. Roelofs et al. / Theriogenology 74 (2010) 327344
[143] Cavestany D, Fernandez M, Perez M, Tort G, Sanchez A,
Siena R. Oetrus behavior in heifers and lactating dairy cows
under a pasture-based production system. Vet Quart 2008;
30(suppl. 1):10 34.
[144] Firk R, Stamer E, Junge W, Krieter J. Automation of oestrus
detection in dairy cows: a review. Livest Prod Sci 2002;75:
219 32.
[145] Cavalieri J, Flinker LR, Anderson GA, Macmillan KL. Char-
acteristics of oestrus measured using visual observation and
radiotelemetry. Anim Reprod Sci 2003;76:112.
[146] Fulkerson WJ, Sawyer GJ, Crothers I. The accuracy of several
aids in detecting oestrus in dairy cattle. Appl Anim Ethol
1983;10:199 208.
[147] Maatje K, de Mol RM, Rossing W. Cow status monitoring
(health and oestrus) using detection sensors. Comput Elect
Agric 1997;16:24554.
[148] Peralta OA, Peason RE, Nebel RE. Comparison of three estrus
detection Systems during summer in a large commercial dairy
herd. Anim Reprod Sci 2005;87:59 72.
[149] Sawyer GJ, Russell-Brown ID, Silcock JK. A comparison of
three methods of oestrus detection in commercial dairy herds
verified by serum progesterone analysis. Anim Reprod Sci
1986;10:110.
[150] Roelofs JB, Bouwman EG, Dieleman SJ, Van Eerdenburg
FJCM, Kaal-Lansbergen LMTE, Soede NM, Kemp B. Influ-
ence of repeated rectal ultrasound examinations on hormone
profiles and behaviour around oestrus and ovulation in dairy
cattle. Theriogenology 2004;62:133752.
[151] At-Taras EE, Spahr SL. Detection and characterization of
estrus in dairy cattle with an electronic heatmountt detector
and an electronic activity tag. J Dairy Sci 2001;84:792 8.
[152] Brehme U, Stollberg U, Holz R, Schleusener T. ALT pedom-
eter-New sensor-aided measurement system for improvement
in oestrus detection. Comput Elect Agric 2008;62:73 80.
[153] Williamson NB, Morris RS, Blood DC, Cannon CM. A study
of oestrus behaviour and oestrus detection methods in a large
commercial dairy herd. The relative efficiency of methods of
oestrus detection. Vet Rec 1972;91:50 57.
[154] Van Eerdenburg FJCM, Karthaus D, Taverne MAM, Merics I,
Szenci O. The relationship between estrus behavioral score
and time of ovulation in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 2002;85:
1150 6.
[155] Diskin MG, Sreenan JM. Expression and detection of oestrus
in cattle. Reprod Nutr Dev 2000;40:48191.
[156] Foote RH. Estrus detection and estrus detection aids. J Dairy
Sci 1974;58:248 56.
[157] Lehrer AR, Lewis GS, Aizinbud E. Oestrus detection in cattle:
recent developments. Anim Reprod Sci 1992;28:355 61.
[158] Rorie RW, Bilby TR, Lester TD. Application of electronic
estrus detection technologies to reproductive management of
cattle. Theriogenology 2002;57:137 48.
[159] Pulvermachr RJ, Wiersma F. Effectiveness of an automated
estrus detection system for dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 1991;
74(suppl. 1):193(abstract).
[160] Saumande J. Electronic detection of oestrus in postpartum
dairy cows: efficiency and accuracy of the DEC (showheat)
system. Livest Prod Sci 2002;77:26571.
[161] Shipka MP. A note on silent ovulation identified by using
radiotelemetry for estrus detection. Appl Anim Behav Sci
2000;66:1539.
343
[162] McArthur AJ, Easdon MP, Gregson K. Milk temperature and
detection of oestrus in dairy cattle. J Agric Engng Res 1992;
51:29 46.
[163] Maatje K, Rossing W. Detecting oestrus by measuring milk
temperatures of dairy cows during milking. Livest Prod Sci
1976;3:859.
[164] Redden KD, Kennedy AD, Ingalls JR, Gilson TL. Detection of
estrus by radiotelemetric monitoring of vaginal and ear skin
temperature and pedometer measurements of activity. J Dairy
Sci 1993;76:71321.
[165] Fisher AD, Morton R, Dempsey JMA, Henshall JM, Hill J.
Evaluation of a new approach for the estimation of the time of
the LH surge in dairy cows using vaginal temperature and
electrodeless conductivity measurements. Theriogenology
2008;70:106574.
[166] Elving L, Pieterse MC, Vernooy AM. Preliminary study of a
device for measuring electrical resistance of the vagina, as a
mean of detecting oestrus in cows. Tijdschr Diergeneesk 1983;
108:859.
[167] Lehrer AR, Lewis GS, McMillan WH, Aizinbud E. Bio-im-
pendance monitoring of genital tissues of cows as an aid in
cattle reproductive management- a review. Proc NZ Soc Anim
Prod 1995;55;2213.
[168] Foote RHF. Review: Dairy cattle reproductive physiology re-
search and management-past progress and future prospects. J
Dairy Sci 1996;79:980 90.
[169] Garca-Ispierto I, Lpez-Gatius F, Santolaria P, Yniz JL,
Nogareda C, Lpez-Bjar M. Factors affecting the fertility of
high producing dairy herds in northeastern Spain. Theriogenol-
ogy 2007;67:632 8.
[170] Vandemark NL, Salisbury GW, Boley LE. Pregnancy inter-
ruption and breeding techniques in the artificial insemination
of cows. J Dairy Sci 1952;35:219 23.
[171] Donald HP. Heat during pregnancy in dairy cows. Vet Rec
1943;55:297 8.
[172] Thomas I, Dobson H. Oestrus during pregnancy in the cow.
Vet Rec 1989;124:38790.
[173] Lpez-Gatius F, Camn-Urgel J. Confirmation of estrus rates
by palpation per rectum of genital organs in normal repeat
dairy cows. J Vet Med A 1991;38:553 6.
[174] Bonafos LD, Kot K, Ginther OJ. Physical characteristics of the
uterus during the bovine estrus cycle and early pregnancy.
Theriogenology 1995;43:71321.
[175] Hassig M, Walser M, Eggenberger E. Evaluation of clinical
signs in suboestrus cows. Vet Rec 2006;158:864 5.
[176] Beam SW, Butler WR. Effects of energy balance on follicular
development and first ovulation in postpartum dairy cows. J
Reprod Fertil 1999;54(Suppl):41124.
[177] Royal MD, Darwash AO, Flint APF, Webb R, Woolliams JA,
Lamming GE. Declining fertility in dairy cattle: changes in
traditional and endocrine parameters of fertility. Anim Sci
2000;70:487501.
[178] Lpez-Gatius F. Is fertility declining in dairy cattle? A retro-
spective study in northeastern Spain. Theriogenology 2003;60:
89 99.
[179] Lpez-Gatius F. Site of semen deposition in cattle: a review.
Theriogenology 2000;53:140714.
[180] Etherington WG, Fetrow J, Seguin BE, Marsh WE, Weaver
LD, Rawson CL. Dairy herd reproductive health management:
evaluating dairy herd reproductive performance. Part 1. Com-
pend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1991a;13:1353 60.
344 J. Roelofs et al. / Theriogenology 74 (2010) 327344
[181] Etherington WG, Fetrow J, Seguin BE, Marsh WE, Weaver
LD, Rawson CL. Dairy herd reproductive health management:
evaluating dairy herd reproductive performance Part 2. Com-
pend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1991b;13:1491503.
[182] Fetrow J, Mcclary D, Harman R, Butcher K, Weaver L, Studer
E, Ehrlich J, Etherington W, Guterbock W, Klingborg D,
Reneau J, Williamson N. Calculating selected reproductive
indices: recommendations of the American Association of Bo-
vine Practitioners. J Dairy Sci 1990;73:78 90.
[183] OConnor ML. Heat detection and timing of insemination for
cattle. Publication S282. The Pennsylvania State University,
1993. p 118.
[184] Cavestany D, Foote RH. The use of milk progesterone and
electronic vaginal probes as aids in large dairy herd reproduc-
tive management. Cornell Vet 1985;75:44153.
[185] Reimers TJ, Smith RD, Newman SK. Management factors
affecting reproductive performance of dairy cows in the North-
eastern United States. J Dairy Sci 1985;68:96372.
[186] Klingborg DJ. Normal reproductive parameters in large Cali-
fornia style dairies. Vet Clin North Americ Food Anim Pract
1987;3:48399.
[187] Weaver LD. Evaluation of reproductive performance in
dairy herds. Compend Contin Educat Pract Vet 1986;8:
S247S253.
[188] Bailey TL, Dascano J, Murphy J. Analyzing reproductive
records to improve dairy herd production. Vet Med 1999,94:
269 76.
[189] Weaver LD, Goodger WJ. Design and economic evaluation of
dairy reproductive health programs for large dairy herds. Part
1. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1987;9:F297F309.
[190] Weaver LD, Goodger WJ. Design and economic evaluation of
dairy reproductive health programs for large dairy herds. Part
2. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1987;9:F355F368.
[191] Wood PDP. A note on detection of oestrus in cattle bred by
artificial insemination and the measurement of embryonic
mortality. Anim Prod 1976;22:275 8.
[192] Williamson N. Calculating selected reproductive indices: rec-
ommendations of the American Association of Bovine Practi-
tioners. J Dairy Sci 1990;73:78 90.
[193] Radostits OM, Blood DC. Dairy cattle General approach to
a program. In Herd Health, WB Saunders Company 1985;
48 65.
[194] MAFF Dairy herd fertility 1984, ADAS, Reference book 259.
[195] Heersche G, Nebel R. Measuring efficiency and accuracy of
detection of estrus. J Dairy Sci 1994;77:2754 61.
[196] Appleyard WT, Cook B. The detection of oestrus in dairy
cattle. Vet Rec 1976;99:253 6.
[197] Erb RE, Morrisson RA. Estrus after conception in a herd of
Holstein-Friesian cattle. J Dairy Sci 1958;41:2679.
[198] Chigerwe M, Tyler JW, Middleton JR, Tessman RK, Steevens
BJ. An alternative method to assess efficiency of estrus detec-
tion in dairy herds. JAVMA 2005;226:1050 2.
[199] OConnor ML, Senger PL. Estrus detection. In: Youngquist
RS ed. Current therapy in large animal theriognology. Phil-
adelphia: WB Saunders C 1997;276 84.
[200] Barr HL. Influence of estrus detection on days open in dairy
herds. J Dairy Sci 1974;58:246 7.
[201] Grusenmeyer D, Hillers J, Williams G. Evaluating reproduc-
tive status using DHI records. Western Reg Dairy Manag.
Manula, Fact Sheet 604. The Western Reg Dairy Pibl Comm,
Forst Collins, CO. 1990.