Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T17:52:39.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validation of AfiTagII, a device for automatic measuring of lying behaviour in Holstein and Jersey cows on two different bedding materials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2018

J. C. Henriksen Open the ORCID record for J. C. Henriksen [Opens in a new window]  and
L. Munksgaard
J. C. Henriksen*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
L. Munksgaard
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: juliec.henriksen@anis.au.dk
Get access

Abstract

Lying behaviour is important for the welfare of the cow. Therefore, reliable electronic devices may improve the management of the cows, and the devices can be used as a tool in research. However, accelerometer-based devices measure acceleration, and an algorithm is therefore necessary for the calculation of lying behaviour. Thus, validation of such devices is imperative prior to use. The objective of this study was to validate the use of the AfiTagII device for measurements of the lying time and frequency of lying bouts of Danish Holstein (DH) and Danish Jersey (DJ) cows in a loose-house system on two different bedding materials. The validation included correlations and linear regression analyses of data collected by the AfiTagII compared with data collected both by direct observations and recordings from a previously validated device (IceQube). In total, 40 cows were observed directly with primiparous and multiparous DJ and DH cows, equally represented. Furthermore, 21 cows were monitored with both AfiTagII and IceQube devices, and data from both devices were collected simultaneously. The devices were attached to the hind leg of the cow. The estimates of the lying time from the AfiTagII device was highly correlated with the recordings from direct observations (r=0.98), and there was a linear relation between these with an intercept equal to 0 and a slope close to 1. The estimates of the lying time from the AfiTagII device was also highly correlated with the IceQube recordings (r=0.94). However, the intercept deviated from 0. The frequency of lying bouts recorded by the AfiTAgII compared to direct observations showed a positive predictive value of 0.96 for lactating cows on the slatted floor and of 0.85 for the dry cows on the deep bedding. The correlations between frequency of lying bouts recorded with the two devices were high (r=0.94), but the intercept deviated from 0. In conclusion, the AfiTagII has a high accuracy for the measurements of lying behaviour in both DH and DJ cows kept on different bedding materials.

Keywords

dairy cowlying timeaccelerometerslatted floordeep bedding
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , March 2019 , pp. 617 - 621
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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.)

References

Bewley, JM, Boyce, RE, Hockin, J, Munksgaard, L, Eicher, SD, Einstein, ME and Schutz, MM 2010. Influence of milk yield, stage of lactation, and body condition on dairy cattle lying behaviour measured using an automated activity monitoring sensor. Journal of Dairy Research 77, 1–6.Google Scholar
Borchers, MR, Chang, YM, Tsai, IC, Wadsworth, BA and Bewley, JM 2016. A validation of technologies monitoring dairy cow feeding, ruminating, and lying behaviors. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 1–9.Google Scholar
Campler, M, Munksgaard, L, Jensen, MB, Weary, DM and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2014. Flooring preferences of dairy cows at calving. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 892–896.Google Scholar
Ceballos, A, Sanderson, D, Rushen, J and Weary, DM 2004. Improving stall design: use of 3-D kinematics to measure space use by dairy cows when lying down. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 2042–2050.Google Scholar
Felton, CA, Colazo, MG, Ponce-Barajas, P, Bench, CJ and Ambrose, DJ 2012. Dairy cows continuously-housed in tie-stalls failed to manifest activity changes during estrus. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 92, 189–196.Google Scholar
Kok, A, van Knegsel, ATM, van Middelaar, CE, Hogeveen, H, Kemp, B and de Boer, IJM 2015. Technical note: validation of sensor-recorded lying bouts in lactating dairy cows using a 2-sensor approach. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 7911–7916.Google Scholar
Ledgerwood, DN, Winckler, C and Tucker, CB 2010. Evaluation of data loggers, sampling intervals, and editing techniques for measuring the lying behavior of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 5129–5139.Google Scholar
Littell, RC, Milliken, GA, Stroup, WW, Wolfinger, RD and Schabenberger, O 2006. SAS system for mixed models. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Mattachini, G, Riva, E, Bisaglia, C, Pompe, CAM and Provolo, G 2013. Methodology for quantifying the behavioral activity of dairy cows in freestall barns. Journal of Animal Science 91, 4899–4907.Google Scholar
Munksgaard, L, Jensen, MB, Pedersen, LJ, Hansen, SW and Matthews, L 2005. Quantifying behavioural priorities-effects of time constraints on behaviour of dairy cows, Bos taurus. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 3–14.Google Scholar
Norring, M, Manninen, E, de Passille, AM, Rushen, J, Munksgaard, L and Saloniemi, H 2008. Effects of sand and straw bedding on the lying behavior, cleanliness, and hoof and hock injuries of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 570–576.Google Scholar
Swartz, TH, McGilliard, ML and Petersson-Wolfe, CS 2016. Technical note: the use of an accelerometer for measuring step activity and lying behaviors in dairy calves. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 9109–9113.Google Scholar
Thorup, VM, Munksgaard, L, Robert, PE, Erhard, HW, Thomsen, PT and Friggens, NC 2015. Lameness detection via leg-mounted accelerometers on dairy cows on four commercial farms. Animal 9, 1704–1712.Google Scholar
Westin, R, Vaughan, A, de Passille, AM, DeVries, TJ, Pajor, EA, Pellerin, D, Siegford, JM, Vasseur, E and Rushen, J 2016. Lying times of lactating cows on dairy farms with automatic milking systems and the relation to lameness, leg lesions, and body condition score. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 551–561.Google Scholar