Evaluation of an activity and rumination monitor in dairy cattle grazing two types of forages
Juan Molfino A B , Cameron E. F. Clark A , Kendra L. Kerrisk A and Sergio C. García AA Dairy Science Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email: juan.molfino@sydney.edu.au
Animal Production Science 57(7) 1557-1562 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN16514
Submitted: 28 July 2016 Accepted: 15 February 2017 Published: 24 March 2017
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of a newer version of an activity- and rumination-monitoring system by comparison against direct visual observations, for the following three different types of behaviour: grazing, resting (described as lying or standing idle) and ruminating for cows grazing either annual ryegrass or chicory-based swards. Eight non-lactating Holstein–Friesian cows were fitted with the sensor tags, and grazed on annual ryegrass pasture for a target consumption of 10 kg DM ryegrass/cow.day for 7 days. The experiment was then repeated with cattle offered a similar allowance of chicory. Observations were conducted by two trained observers in two observation periods each day, to capture the above described behaviours. In each period, electronic behavioural measurements were recorded continuously by the sensors, while visual observations were also continuous (during observation periods), and the two datasets were matched. On average, each cow was visually observed for 87.2 min/day. For each behavioural state (at 1-min intervals, n = 6963), probability of agreement, sensitivity, specificity and positive predicted value were determined for grazing as 98%, 98.3%, 97.3% and 98.9% respectively, for resting as 80%, 77.5%, 99.1% and 92.9% and for ruminating as 87%, 86.9%, 98.4% and 90.68%. Concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and Pearson correlations (r) were used to investigate the relationships between visual observations and data generated from the tags. Different behaviours were analysed separately. Significant correlations were found for the three behaviours (grazing: CCC = 0.99, r = 0.99; resting: CCC = 0.95, r = 0.97; ruminating: CCC = 0.80, r = 0.80), with no differences detected between the two forages. We conclude that, under the conditions of the present study, the activity- and rumination-monitoring system tag measured grazing, resting and ruminating behaviours with high accuracy on the basis of comparison to visual observations.
Additional keywords: behaviour, pasture, precision dairy, sensor.
References
Ambriz-Vilchis V, Jessop N, Fawcett R, Shaw D, Macrae A (2015a) Comparison of rumination activity measured using rumination collars against direct visual observations and analysis of video recordings of dairy cows in commercial farm environments. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 1750–1758.| Comparison of rumination activity measured using rumination collars against direct visual observations and analysis of video recordings of dairy cows in commercial farm environments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC2MXhsVGgsbc%3D&md5=e8fca248ee4c89df6786aae8a1df37fbCAS |
Ambriz-Vilchis V, Jessop NS, Fawcett RH, Shaw DJ, Macrae AI (2015b) Comparison of rumination activity measured using rumination collars against direct visual observations and analysis of video recordings of dairy cows in commercial farm environments. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 1750–1758.
| Comparison of rumination activity measured using rumination collars against direct visual observations and analysis of video recordings of dairy cows in commercial farm environments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC2MXhsVGgsbc%3D&md5=e8fca248ee4c89df6786aae8a1df37fbCAS |
Beauchemin K, Zelin S, Genner D, Buchanan-Smith J (1989) An automatic system for quantification of eating and ruminating activities of dairy cattle housed in stalls. Journal of Dairy Science 72, 2746–2759.
| An automatic system for quantification of eating and ruminating activities of dairy cattle housed in stalls.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bikker J, van Laar H, Rump P, Doorenbos J, Van Meurs K, Griffioen G, Dijkstra J (2014) Technical note: evaluation of an ear-attached movement sensor to record cow feeding behavior and activity. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 2974–2979.
| Technical note: evaluation of an ear-attached movement sensor to record cow feeding behavior and activity.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC2cXktlWktr8%3D&md5=fd275ee84126f9b79e80956f80abdf85CAS |
Borchers MR, Chang YM, Tsai IC, Wadsworth BA, Bewley JM (2016) A validation of technologies monitoring dairy cow feeding, ruminating, and lying behaviors. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 7458–7466.
| A validation of technologies monitoring dairy cow feeding, ruminating, and lying behaviors.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC28XhtFyhsL%2FN&md5=de4e3ef6c7d27d1fa2a2c70c8270933bCAS |
Burfeind O, Schirmann K, von Keyserlingk MA, Veira DM, Weary DM, Heuwieser W (2011) Evaluation of a system for monitoring rumination in heifers and calves. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 426–430.
| Evaluation of a system for monitoring rumination in heifers and calves.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3MXjslCnu7s%3D&md5=1703192c511db4c4ec21e5f93aafa3aeCAS |
Clark C, Lyons N, Millapan L, Talukder S, Cronin G, Kerrisk K, Garcia S (2015) Rumination and activity levels as predictors of calving for dairy cows. Animal 9, 691–695.
| Rumination and activity levels as predictors of calving for dairy cows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC2MzmslCnsQ%3D%3D&md5=2d155883f6f762e9f4291daf4f6f0935CAS |
Delagarde R, Lamberton P (2015) Daily grazing time of dairy cows is recorded accurately using the Lifecorder Plus device. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 165, 25–32.
| Daily grazing time of dairy cows is recorded accurately using the Lifecorder Plus device.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Delagarde R, Caudal J-P, Peyraud J-L (1999) Development of an automatic bitemeter for grazing cattle. Annales de Zootechnie 48, 329–339.
| Development of an automatic bitemeter for grazing cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Elischer MF, Arceo ME, Karcher EL, Siegford JM (2013) Validating the accuracy of activity and rumination monitor data from dairy cows housed in a pasture-based automatic milking system. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 6412–6422.
| Validating the accuracy of activity and rumination monitor data from dairy cows housed in a pasture-based automatic milking system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3sXht12iurvL&md5=d2f98d4e50c0196a822354fcb5637200CAS |
Hills JL, Wales WJ, Dunshea FR, Garcia SC, Roche JR (2015) Invited review: an evaluation of the likely effects of individualized feeding of concentrate supplements to pasture-based dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 1363–1401.
| Invited review: an evaluation of the likely effects of individualized feeding of concentrate supplements to pasture-based dairy cows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC2MXnslyhtg%3D%3D&md5=43099e0679335245d595eb1af1fd2c4fCAS |
Kononoff PJ, Lehman HA, Heinrichs AJ (2002) Technical note: a comparison of methods used to measure eating and ruminating activity in confined dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1801–1803.
| Technical note: a comparison of methods used to measure eating and ruminating activity in confined dairy cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD38XlvV2qsLo%3D&md5=7a5638332ab331ed7a3a277de2fef5eaCAS |
Lin K (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45, 255–268.
| A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaL1M3kslKrtg%3D%3D&md5=04bedbea808101387e53a30e2d054f69CAS |
Martin P, Bateson PPG, Bateson P (1993) ‘Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)
Mattachini G, Antler A, Riva E, Arbel A, Provolo G (2013) Automated measurement of lying behavior for monitoring the comfort and welfare of lactating dairy cows. Livestock Science 158, 145–150.
| Automated measurement of lying behavior for monitoring the comfort and welfare of lactating dairy cows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nielsen (2013) Automatic registration of grazing behaviour in dairy cows using 3D activity loggers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 148, 179–184.
| Automatic registration of grazing behaviour in dairy cows using 3D activity loggers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Phillips C (2002) The welfare of dairy cows. In ‘Cattle behaviour and welfare’. 2nd edn. (Ed. C Phillips) pp. 19–20. (Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK)
Rutter SM, Champion RA, Penning PD (1997) An automatic system to record foraging behaviour in free-ranging ruminants. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54, 185–195.
| An automatic system to record foraging behaviour in free-ranging ruminants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schirmann K, von Keyserlingk MA, Weary DM, Veira DM, Heuwieser W (2009) Technical note: validation of a system for monitoring rumination in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 6052–6055.
| Technical note: validation of a system for monitoring rumination in dairy cows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXhsFWitr7I&md5=c1e94adbc5565165c9b812dec811f5ddCAS |
Sollenberger L, Burns J (2001) Canopy characteristics, ingestive behaviour and herbage intake in cultivated tropical grasslands. In ‘International grassland congress. 19’. pp. 321–327. (Fealq: Piracicaba, Brazil)
Walker WL, Nebel RL, McGilliard ML (1996) Time of ovulation relative to mounting activity in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 79, 1555–1561.
| Time of ovulation relative to mounting activity in dairy cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaK28Xmt1KmsbY%3D&md5=35887063b2217aee507acb51e2c39c02CAS |
Weary DM, Huzzey JM, von Keyserlingk MAG (2009) Board-invited review: using behavior to predict and identify ill health in animals1. Journal of Animal Science 87, 770–777.
| Board-invited review: using behavior to predict and identify ill health in animals1.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXisFGnsLk%3D&md5=cd17757bd6b47b8c1c969d8b6cd6217fCAS |
