22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Use of Extended Characteristics of Locomotion and Feeding Behavior for Automated Identification of Lame Dairy Cows

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study was carried out to detect differences in locomotion and feeding behavior in lame (group L; n = 41; gait score ≥ 2.5) and non-lame (group C; n = 12; gait score ≤ 2) multiparous Holstein cows in a cross-sectional study design. A model for automatic lameness detection was created, using data from accelerometers attached to the hind limbs and noseband sensors attached to the head. Each cow’s gait was videotaped and scored on a 5-point scale before and after a period of 3 consecutive days of behavioral data recording. The mean value of 3 independent experienced observers was taken as a definite gait score and considered to be the gold standard. For statistical analysis, data from the noseband sensor and one of two accelerometers per cow (randomly selected) of 2 out of 3 randomly selected days was used. For comparison between group L and group C, the T-test, the Aspin-Welch Test and the Wilcoxon Test were used. The sensitivity and specificity for lameness detection was determined with logistic regression and ROC-analysis. Group L compared to group C had significantly lower eating and ruminating time, fewer eating chews, ruminating chews and ruminating boluses, longer lying time and lying bout duration, lower standing time, fewer standing and walking bouts, fewer, slower and shorter strides and a lower walking speed. The model considering the number of standing bouts and walking speed was the best predictor of cows being lame with a sensitivity of 90.2% and specificity of 91.7%. Sensitivity and specificity of the lameness detection model were considered to be very high, even without the use of halter data. It was concluded that under the conditions of the study farm, accelerometer data were suitable for accurately distinguishing between lame and non-lame dairy cows, even in cases of slight lameness with a gait score of 2.5.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance.

          Lameness has contributed to reproductive inefficiency and increased the risk of culling in dairy cows. We developed a 5-point lameness scoring system that assessed gait and placed a novel emphasis on back posture. Our objective was to determine if this system predicted future reproductive performance and the risk of culling. The study was conducted at a commercial dairy farm with a history of declining reproductive efficiency and an increasing prevalence of lameness. A total of 66 primipara and pluripara calved, received an initial lameness score, and completed their 60-d voluntary waiting period. The overall prevalence of lameness (mean lameness score >2) was 65.2%. Scoring continued at 4-wk intervals and ceased with conception or culling. The percentage of cows confirmed pregnant and culled was 77.3 and 22.7, respectively. For each reproductive endpoint, a 2 x 2 table was constructed with lameness score >2 as the positive risk factor and either performance greater than the endpoint mean or being culled as the positive disease or condition. Positive and negative predictive values, relative risk, Chisquare statistic and regression analysis were used to evaluate the data. The positive predictive values for days to first service, days open, breeding herd days, services per pregnancy and being culled were 58, 68, 65, 39 and 35%, respectively. Similarly, the negative predictive values were 79, 96, 100, 96 and 100%, respectively. Except for one reproductive endpoint, the total number of services, all linear regressions were significant at P 2 predicted that a cow would have extended intervals from calving to first service and to conception, spend or be assigned to (explained herein) more total days in the breeding herd, require more services per pregnancy and be 8.4 times more likely to be culled. We believe that this lameness scoring system effectively identifies lame cows. Observation of the arched-back posture in a standing cow (> or =LS 3) should trigger corrective interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Invited review: sensors to support health management on dairy farms.

            Since the 1980s, efforts have been made to develop sensors that measure a parameter from an individual cow. The development started with individual cow recognition and was followed by sensors that measure the electrical conductivity of milk and pedometers that measure activity. The aim of this review is to provide a structured overview of the published sensor systems for dairy health management. The development of sensor systems can be described by the following 4 levels: (I) techniques that measure something about the cow (e.g., activity); (II) interpretations that summarize changes in the sensor data (e.g., increase in activity) to produce information about the cow's status (e.g., estrus); (III) integration of information where sensor information is supplemented with other information (e.g., economic information) to produce advice (e.g., whether to inseminate a cow or not); and (IV) the farmer makes a decision or the sensor system makes the decision autonomously (e.g., the inseminator is called). This review has structured a total of 126 publications describing 139 sensor systems and compared them based on the 4 levels. The publications were published in the Thomson Reuters (formerly ISI) Web of Science database from January 2002 until June 2012 or in the proceedings of 3 conferences on precision (dairy) farming in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Most studies concerned the detection of mastitis (25%), fertility (33%), and locomotion problems (30%), with fewer studies (16%) related to the detection of metabolic problems. Many studies presented sensor systems at levels I and II, but none did so at levels III and IV. Most of the work for mastitis (92%) and fertility (75%) is done at level II. For locomotion (53%) and metabolism (69%), more than half of the work is done at level I. The performance of sensor systems varies based on the choice of gold standards, algorithms, and test sizes (number of farms and cows). Studies on sensor systems for mastitis and estrus have shown that sensor systems are brought to a higher level; however, the need to improve detection performance still exists. Studies on sensor systems for locomotion problems have shown that the search continues for the most appropriate indicators, sensor techniques, and gold standards. Studies on metabolic problems show that it is still unclear which indicator reflects best the metabolic problems that should be detected. No systems with integrated decision support models have been found.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Compared to what? Finding controls for case-control studies.

              Use of control (comparison) groups is a powerful research tool. In case-control studies, controls estimate the frequency of an exposure in the population under study. Controls can be taken from known or unknown study populations. A known group consists of a defined population observed over a period, such as passengers on a cruise ship. When the study group is known, a sample of the population can be used as controls. If no population roster exists, then techniques such as random-digit dialling can be used. Sometimes, however, the study group is unknown, for example, motor-vehicle crash victims brought to an emergency department, who may come from far away. In this situation, hospital controls, neighbourhood controls, and friend, associate, or relative controls can be used. In general, one well-selected control group is better than two or more. When the number of cases is small, the ratio of controls to cases can be raised to improve the ability to find important differences. Although no ideal control group exists, readers need to think carefully about how representative the controls are. Poor choice of controls can lead to both wrong results and possible medical harm.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                17 May 2016
                2016
                : 11
                : 5
                : e0155796
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Clinic for Ruminants, Vetsuisse-Faculty, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland
                [2 ]Clinic for Ruminants and Swine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
                [3 ]Veterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse-Faculty, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland
                University of British Columbia, CANADA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: GB MA A Starke HM A Steiner. Performed the experiments: GB. Analyzed the data: GB GS PK. Wrote the paper: GB MA PK A Steiner.

                ‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work.

                Article
                PONE-D-16-09354
                10.1371/journal.pone.0155796
                4871330
                27187073
                104ad423-b4e2-4f09-bd36-ca9cdb987770
                © 2016 Beer et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 4 March 2016
                : 4 May 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 5, Pages: 18
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001808, Kommission für Technologie und Innovation;
                Award ID: 15234.2
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Fondation Sur-la-Croix
                Award Recipient :
                This work was supported by Komission für Technologie und Innovation grant number 15234.2, https://www.kti.admin.ch/kti/de/home.html, and Fondation Sur-La-Croix, http://www.fondation-sur-la-croix.ch/. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Biomechanics
                Biological Locomotion
                Walking
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Physiology
                Biological Locomotion
                Walking
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Physiology
                Biological Locomotion
                Walking
                Engineering and Technology
                Electronics
                Accelerometers
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Physiology
                Physiological Processes
                Eating
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Physiology
                Physiological Processes
                Eating
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Biomechanics
                Biological Locomotion
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Physiology
                Biological Locomotion
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Physiology
                Biological Locomotion
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Plant Science
                Plant Anatomy
                Flowers
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Anatomy
                Body Fluids
                Milk
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Anatomy
                Body Fluids
                Milk
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Physiology
                Body Fluids
                Milk
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Physiology
                Body Fluids
                Milk
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Imaging Techniques
                Video Recording
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Dermatology
                Dermatologic Pathology
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article