ArticleJDS communications2024
Using an automated tail movement sensor device to predict calving time in dairy cows.
Article in JDS communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feature Extraction and Automatic Recognition Model Construction for Head Back Posture During the Parturition Process in Dairy Cows.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Methods of Observing the Signs of Approaching Calving in Cows-A Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an automated tail movement sensor device (Moocall; Bluebell, Dublin, Ireland) to predict time of calving in dairy cows. At a commercial dairy farm in southern Ontario, Moocall (MC) devices were attached with the device's strap, and an additional elastic wrap, to the tail of cows approximately 3 d before their expected calving date. The MC has 2 types of alarm, a high activity alarm in the previous hour (1HA), and a high activity alarm in the previous 2 h (2HA); these alarms were sent and registered to the MC software. The calving and close-up pens were video monitored to determine the exact time of the onset of stage II of calving (amniotic sac visible at the vulva) and the end of stage II of calving (total expulsion of the calf). A total of 49 cows were enrolled, but we excluded 13 animals from the analysis as they had 3 or more MC drops from the tail (n = 6), a swollen tail (n = 3), or the MC device was lost (n = 4); this left 36 cows. In total, the device dropped off 21 (42%) cows. The average number of alarms (1HA and 2HA) per cow before stage II of calving was 2.7 ± 2.3 (± standard error). The first alarm after fitting the device on the tail was used to determine the device's sensitivity and specificity. Depending on the interval before the onset of parturition (i.e., 2, 4, 8, 12 h) in which the alarm was triggered, sensitivity varied from 5% to 72% and specificity from 50% to 93%. The false positive rate varied between 6% and 50% depending on the interval from the alarm to the onset of parturition. The high false positive and device drop rates (despite the addition of the elastic wrap) may compromise the applicability of this sensor device in a commercial setting.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.