Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-pnlb5 Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-10-31T17:30:23.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A decision-tree model to detect post-calving diseases based on rumination, activity, milk yield, BW and voluntary visits to the milking robot

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2016

M. Steensels ,
A. Antler ,
C. Bahr ,
D. Berckmans ,
E. Maltz  and
I. Halachmi
M. Steensels
Affiliation:
Department of Biosystems, M3-BIORES: Measure, Model and Manage Bioresponses, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 30, Bus 2456, BE-3001 Heverlee, Belgium Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural Research Organization (ARO), The Volcani Center, PO Box 6, IL-50250 Bet Dagan, Israel
A. Antler
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural Research Organization (ARO), The Volcani Center, PO Box 6, IL-50250 Bet Dagan, Israel
C. Bahr
Affiliation:
Department of Biosystems, M3-BIORES: Measure, Model and Manage Bioresponses, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 30, Bus 2456, BE-3001 Heverlee, Belgium
D. Berckmans
Affiliation:
Department of Biosystems, M3-BIORES: Measure, Model and Manage Bioresponses, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 30, Bus 2456, BE-3001 Heverlee, Belgium
E. Maltz
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural Research Organization (ARO), The Volcani Center, PO Box 6, IL-50250 Bet Dagan, Israel
I. Halachmi*
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural Research Organization (ARO), The Volcani Center, PO Box 6, IL-50250 Bet Dagan, Israel
*
† E-mail: Halachmi@volcani.agri.gov.il
Get access

Abstract

Early detection of post-calving health problems is critical for dairy operations. Separating sick cows from the herd is important, especially in robotic-milking dairy farms, where searching for a sick cow can disturb the other cows’ routine. The objectives of this study were to develop and apply a behaviour- and performance-based health-detection model to post-calving cows in a robotic-milking dairy farm, with the aim of detecting sick cows based on available commercial sensors. The study was conducted in an Israeli robotic-milking dairy farm with 250 Israeli-Holstein cows. All cows were equipped with rumination- and neck-activity sensors. Milk yield, visits to the milking robot and BW were recorded in the milking robot. A decision-tree model was developed on a calibration data set (historical data of the 10 months before the study) and was validated on the new data set. The decision model generated a probability of being sick for each cow. The model was applied once a week just before the veterinarian performed the weekly routine post-calving health check. The veterinarian’s diagnosis served as a binary reference for the model (healthy–sick). The overall accuracy of the model was 78%, with a specificity of 87% and a sensitivity of 69%, suggesting its practical value.

Keywords

individual dairy cowshealthautomatic milking systembehaviour sensorprecision livestock farming

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 9 , September 2016 , pp. 1493 - 1500
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anonymous 2001. Matlab user guide 2001 edition. The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2008. Matlab statistics toolbox. The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Bar, D and Ezra, E 2005. Effects of common calving diseases on milk production in high yielding dairy cows. Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine 60, 106–111.Google Scholar
Chapinal, N, de Passille, AM and Rushen, J 2010. Correlated changes in behavioral indicators of lameness in dairy cows following hoof trimming. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 5758–5763.Google Scholar
Clark, CEF, Farina, SR, Garcia, SC, Islam, MR, Kerrisk, KL and Fulkerson, WJ 2016. A comparison of conventional and automatic milking system pasture utilisation and pre- and post-grazing pasture mass. Grass and Forage Science 71, 153–159.Google Scholar
Coleman, TF, Branch, MA and Grace, A 1999. Optimization toolbox – for use with Matlab®, user’s guide. The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Detilleux, J, Arendt, J, Lomba, F and Leroy, P 1999. Methods for estimating areas under receiver-operating characteristic curves: illustration with somatic-cell scores in subclinical intramammary infections. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 41, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeVries, TJ, Beauchemin, KA, Dohme, F and Schwartzkopf-Genswein, KS 2009. Repeated ruminal acidosis challenges in lactating dairy cows at high and low risk for developing acidosis: feeding, ruminating and lying behavior. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5067–5078.Google Scholar
Dubuc, J, Duffield, TF, Leslie, KE, Walton, JS and LeBlanc, SJ 2011. Effects of postpartum uterine diseases on milk production and culling in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 1339–1346.Google Scholar
Edwards, JL and Tozer, PR 2004. Using activity and milk yield as predictors of fresh cow disorders. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 524–531.Google Scholar
Fielding, AH and Bell, JF 1997. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environmental Conservation 24, 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fourichon, C, Seegers, H, Bareille, N and Beaudeau, F 1999. Effects of disease on milk production in the dairy cow: a review. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 41, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halachmi, I 2004. Designing the automatic milking farm in a hot climate. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 764–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halachmi, I 2009. Simulating the hierarchical order and cow queue length in an automatic milking system. Biosystems Engineering 102, 453–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halachmi, I, Adan, I, van der Wal, J, Hesterbeek, JAP and van Beek, P 2000a. The design of robotic dairy barns using closed queueing networks. European Journal of Operational Research 124, 437–446.Google Scholar
Halachmi, I, Ben Meir, Y, Miron, J and Maltz, E 2015a. Feeding behavior improves prediction of dairy cow voluntary feed intake but cannot serve as the sole indicator. Animal, first published online 21 September 2015, doi:10.1017/S1751731115001809.Google Scholar
Halachmi, I, Børsting, CF, Maltz, E, Edan, Y and Weisbjerg, MR 2011. Feed intake of Holstein, Danish Red, and Jersey cows in automatic milking systems. Livestock Science 138, 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halachmi, I, Edan, Y, Moallem, U and Maltz, E 2004a. Predicting feed intake of the individual dairy cow. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 2254–2267.Google Scholar
Halachmi, I, Metz, JHM, Maltz, E, Dijkhuizen, AA and Speelman, L 2000b. Designing the optimal robotic milking barn, part 1: quantifying facility usage. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 76, 37–49.Google Scholar
Halachmi, I, Maltz, E, Livshin, N, Antler, A, Ben-Ghedalia, D and Miron, J 2004b. Effects of replacing roughage by soy hulls on feeding behavior and milk production of dairy cows under hot weather conditions. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 2230–2238.Google Scholar
Halachmi, I, Schlageter Tello, A, Peña Fernández, A, van Hertem, T, Sibony, V, Weyl-Feinstein, S, Verbrugge, A, Bonneau, M and Neilson, R 2015b. 8.5. Discussion: rumen sensing, feed intake & precise feeding. In Precision livestock farming applications (ed. I Halachmi), pp. 319–322. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, SW, Norgaard, P, Pedersen, LJ, Jorgensen, RJ, Mellau, LSB and Enemark, JD 2003. The effect of subclinical hypocalcaemia induced by Na2EDTA on the feed intake and chewing activity of dairy cows. Veterinary Research Communications 27, 193–205.Google Scholar
Huzzey, JM, Veira, DM, Weary, DM and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2007. Prepartum behavior and dry matter intake identify dairy cows at risk for metritis. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3220–3233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ingvartsen, KL 2006. Feeding- and management-related diseases in the transition cow – physiological adaptations around calving and strategies to reduce feeding-related diseases. Animal Feed Science and Technology 126, 175–213.Google Scholar
Jacobs, JA and Siegford, JM 2012. Invited review: the impact of automatic milking systems on dairy cow management, behavior, health, and welfare. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 2227–2247.Google Scholar
Ketelaar de Lauwere, CC, Devir, S and Metz, JHM 1996. The influence of social hierarchy on the time budget of cows and their visits to an automatic milking system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49, 199–211.Google Scholar
Kolbach, R, Kerrisk, KL, Garcia, SC and Dhand, NK 2012. Attachment accuracy of a novel prototype robotic rotary and investigation of two management strategies for incomplete milked quarters. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 88, 120–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltz, E 1997. The body weight of the dairy cow. 3. Use for on-line management of individual cows. Livestock Production Science 48, 187–200.Google Scholar
Miron, J, Yosef, E, Nikbachat, M, Zenou, A, Maltz, E, Halachmi, I and Ben-Ghedalia, D 2004. Feeding behavior and performance of dairy cows fed pelleted nonroughage fiber byproducts. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1372–1379.Google Scholar
Mulligan, FJ and Doherty, ML 2008. Production diseases of the transition cow. Veterinary Journal 176, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NRC 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. NRC, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Opsomer, G, Grohn, YT, Hertl, J, Coryn, M, Deluyker, H and de Kruif, A 2000. Risk factors for post partum ovarian dysfunction in high producing dairy cows in Belgium: a field study. Theriogenology 53, 841–857.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rajala-Schultz, PJ, Grohn, YT and McCulloch, CE 1999. Effects of milk fever, ketosis, and lameness on milk yield in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 288–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SAS Institute 2006. User’s guide version 9.1: statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Schirmann, K, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Weary, DM, Veira, DM and Heuwieser, W 2009. Technical note: validation of a system for monitoring rumination in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 6052–6055.Google Scholar
Spahr, SL and Maltz, E 1997. Herd management for robot milking. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 17, 53–62.Google Scholar
Steensels, M, Bahr, C, Berckmans, D, Halachmi, I, Antler, A and Maltz, E 2012. Lying patterns of high producing healthy dairy cows after calving in commercial herds as affected by age, environmental conditions and production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 136, 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, SL, Smith, RF, Routly, JE, Jones, DN, Morris, MJ and Dobson, H 2008. Lameness, activity time-budgets, and estrus expression in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4552–4559.Google Scholar
Walsh, RB, Walton, JS, Kelton, DF, LeBlanc, SJ, Leslie, KE and Duffield, TF 2007. The effect of subclinical ketosis in early lactation on reproductive performance of postpartum dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2788–2796.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winter, A and Hillerton, JE 1995. Behaviour associated with feeding and milking of early lactation cows housed in an experimental automatic milking system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 46, 1–15.Google Scholar
Witten, IH and Frank, E 2005. Data mining; practical machine learning tools and techniques, 2nd edition. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, USA.Google Scholar