Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:19:01.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental and cow-related factors affect cow locomotion and can cause misclassification in lameness detection systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2015

A. Van Nuffel ,
T. Van De Gucht ,
W. Saeys ,
B. Sonck ,
G. Opsomer ,
J. Vangeyte ,
K. C. Mertens ,
B. De Ketelaere  and
S. Van Weyenberg
A. Van Nuffel*
Affiliation:
Technology and Food Science Unit – Precision Livestock Farming, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Burg. van Gansberghelaan 115 bus 1, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
T. Van De Gucht
Affiliation:
Technology and Food Science Unit – Precision Livestock Farming, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Burg. van Gansberghelaan 115 bus 1, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
W. Saeys
Affiliation:
Department of Biosystems, Division Mechatronics, Biostatistics and Sensors (MeBioS), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 30 bus 2456, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium
B. Sonck
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
G. Opsomer
Affiliation:
Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
J. Vangeyte
Affiliation:
Technology and Food Science Unit – Precision Livestock Farming, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Burg. van Gansberghelaan 115 bus 1, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
K. C. Mertens
Affiliation:
Technology and Food Science Unit – Precision Livestock Farming, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Burg. van Gansberghelaan 115 bus 1, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
B. De Ketelaere
Affiliation:
Department of Biosystems, Division Mechatronics, Biostatistics and Sensors (MeBioS), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 30 bus 2456, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium
S. Van Weyenberg
Affiliation:
Technology and Food Science Unit – Precision Livestock Farming, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Burg. van Gansberghelaan 115 bus 1, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
*
† E-mail: annelies.vannuffel@ilvo.vlaanderen.be
Get access

Abstract

To tackle the high prevalence of lameness, techniques to monitor cow locomotion are being developed in order to detect changes in cows’ locomotion due to lameness. Obviously, in such lameness detection systems, alerts should only respond to locomotion changes that are related to lameness. However, other environmental or cow factors can contribute to locomotion changes not related to lameness and hence, might cause false alerts. In this study the effects of wet surfaces, dark environment, age, production level, lactation and gestation stage on cow locomotion were investigated. Data was collected at Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research research farm (Melle, Belgium) during a 5-month period. The gait variables of 30 non-lame and healthy Holstein cows were automatically measured every day. In dark environments and on wet walking surfaces cows took shorter, more asymmetrical strides with less step overlap. In general, older cows had a more asymmetrical gait and they walked slower with more abduction. Lactation stage or gestation stage also showed significant association with asymmetrical and shorter gait and less step overlap probably due to the heavy calf in the uterus. Next, two lameness detection algorithms were developed to investigate the added value of environmental and cow data into detection models. One algorithm solely used locomotion variables and a second algorithm used the same locomotion variables and additional environmental and cow data. In the latter algorithm only age and lactation stage together with the locomotion variables were withheld during model building. When comparing the sensitivity for the detection of non-lame cows, sensitivity increased by 10% when the cow data was added in the algorithm (sensitivity was 70% and 80% for the first and second algorithm, respectively). Hence, the number of false alerts for lame cows that were actually non-lame, decreased. This pilot study shows that using knowledge on influencing factors on cow locomotion will help in reducing the number of false alerts for lameness detection systems under development. However, further research is necessary in order to better understand these and many other possible influencing factors (e.g. trimming, conformation) of non-lame and hence ‘normal’ locomotion in cows.

Keywords

dairy cattlelameness detectionlocomotionfalse alertsgait variables
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 9 , September 2016 , pp. 1533 - 1541
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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.)

Footnotes

a

These two authors contributed equally to this work.

References

Aoki, Y, Kamo, M, Kawamoto, H, Zhang, JG and Yamada, A 2006. Changes in walking parameters of milking cows after hoof trimming. Animal Science Journal 77, 103–109.Google Scholar
Bicalho, RC, Warnick, LD and Guard, CL 2008. Strategies to analyze milk losses caused by diseases with potential incidence throughout the lactation: a lameness example. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 2653–2661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blackie, N, Bleach, E, Amory, J and Scaife, J 2011. Impact of lameness on gait characteristics and lying behaviour of zero grazed dairy cattle in early lactation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 129, 67–73.Google Scholar
Boelling, D and Pollot, GE 1998. Locomotion, lameness, hoof and leg traits in cattle: I. Phenotypic influences and relationships. Livestock Production Science 54, 193–203.Google Scholar
Carvalho, V, Bucklin, R, Shearer, J, Naas, I, Neto, M, Souza, S and Massafera, V 2007. Dairy cattle linear and angular kinematics during the stance phase. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Ejournal IX, 1–10.Google Scholar
Chapinal, N, de Passille, AM, Pastell, M, Hanninen, L, Munksgaard, L and Rushen, J 2011. Measurement of acceleration while walking as an automated method for gait assessment in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 2895–2901.Google Scholar
Chapinal, N, de Passille, AM and Rushen, J 2009. Weight distribution and gait in dairy cattle are affected by milking and late pregnancy. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 581–588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Dyer, RM, Neerchal, NK, Tasch, U, Wu, Y, Dyer, P and Rajkondawar, PG 2007. Objective determination of claw pain and its relationship to limb locomotion score in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 4592–4602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzpatrick, CE, Chapinal, N, Petersson-Wolfe, CS, DeVries, TJ, Kelton, DF, Duffield, TF and Leslie, KE 2013. The effect of meloxicam on pain sensitivity, rumination time, and clinical signs in dairy cows with endotoxin-induced clinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 2847–2856.Google Scholar
Flower, FC, Sanderson, DJ and Weary, DM 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2084–2089.Google Scholar
Foote, WD, Tyler, WJ and Casida, LE 1959. Effect of some genetic and maternal environmental variations on birth weight and gestation length in Holstein cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 42, 305–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gharagozlou, F, Vojgani, M, Akbarinejad, V, Niasari-Naslaji, A, Hemmati, M and Youssefi, R 2013. Parallel distribution of sexes within left and right uterine horns in Holstein dairy cows: evidence that the effect of side of pregnancy on sex ratio could be breed-specific in cattle. Animal Reproduction Science 142, 101–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giraldo, AM, Hylan, D, Bondioli, KR and Godke, RA 2010. Distribution of sexes within the left and right uterine horns of cattle. Theriogenology 73, 496–500.Google Scholar
Gleeson, DE, O’Brien, B, Boyle, L and Earley, B 2007. Effect of milking frequency and nutritional level on aspects of the health and welfare of dairy cows. Animal 1, 125–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenough, PR, MacCallum, FJ and Weaver, AD 1981. Lameness in Cattle, 2nd edition (edited by AD Weaver). Wright’s Scientechnioa, John Wright & Sons Ltd, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
Leslie, KE and Petersson-Wolfe, CS 2012. Assessment and management of pain in dairy cows with clinical mastitis. The Veterinary Clinics of North America. Food Animal Practice 28, 289–305.Google Scholar
Linzell, JL 1965. Measurements of udder volume in live goats as an index of mammary growth and function. Journal of Dairy Science 49, 307–311.Google Scholar
Maertens, W, Vangeyte, J, Baert, J, Jantuan, A, Mertens, KC, De Campeneere, S, Pluk, A, Opsomer, G, Van Weyenberg, S and Van Nuffel, A 2011. Development of a real time cow gait tracking and analysing tool to assess lameness using a pressure sensitive walkway: the GAITWISE system. Biosystems Engineering 110, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manske, T, Hultgren, J and Bergsten, C 2002. Prevalence and interrelationships of hoof lesions and lameness in Swedish dairy cows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 54, 247–263.Google Scholar
Martin, P and Nelson, RC 1986. The effect of carried loads on the walking patterns of men and women. Ergonomics 29, 1191–1202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milne, MH, Nolan, AM, Cripps, PJ and Fitzpatrick, JL 2003. Assessment and alleviation of pain in dairy cattle with clinical mastitis. Cattle Practice 11, 289–293.Google Scholar
Morrow, DA, Roberts, SJ and McEntee, K 1968. Latent effects of pregnancy on postpartum ovarian activity in dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Science 27, 1408–1411.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, K, Gleeson, D, O’Brien, B and Boyle, L 2010. Effect of milking frequency and nutritional level on hoof health, locomotion score and lying behavior of dairy cows. Livestock Science 127, 248–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Driscoll, K, Gleeson, D, O’Brien, B and Boyle, L 2011. Does omission of a regular milking event affect cow comfort? Livestock Science 138, 132–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascoe, DD, Pascoe, DE, Wang, YT, Shim, DM and Kim, CK 1997. Influence of carrying book bags on gait cycle and posture of youths. Ergonomics 40, 631–641.Google Scholar
Pastell, ME and Kujala, M 2007. A probabilistic neural network model for lameness detection. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2283–2292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, CJC and Morris, ID 2000. The locomotion of dairy cows on concrete floors that are dry, wet, or covered with slurry of excreta. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1767–1772.Google Scholar
Phillips, CJC and Morris, ID 2001. The locomotion of dairy cows on floor surfaces with different frictional properties. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 623–628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, CJC, Morris, ID, Lomas, CA and Lockwood, SJ 2000. The locomotion of dairy cows in passegeways with different light intensities. Animal Welfare 9, 421–431.Google Scholar
Rushen, J and de Passille, AM 2006. Effects of roughness and compressibility of flooring on cow locomotion. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2965–2972.Google Scholar
Telezhenko, E 2009. Measurement of spatial gait parameters from footprints of dairy cows. Animal 3, 1746–1753.Google Scholar
Telezhenko, E and Bergsten, C 2005. Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93, 183–197.Google Scholar
Tucker, CB, Dalley, DE, Burke, J-LK and Clark, DA 2004. Milking cows once daily influences behavior and udder firmness at peak and mid lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 1692–1703.Google Scholar
van Der Tol, PPJ, Metz, JHM, Noordhuizen-Stassen, EN, Back, W, Braam, CR and Weijs, WA 2005. Frictional forces required for unrestrained locomotion in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 615–624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Dorp, TE, Boettcher, P and Schaeffer, LR 2004. Genetics of locomotion. Livestock Production Science 90, 247–253.Google Scholar
Van Hertem, T, Viazzi, S, Steensels, M, Maltz, E, Antler, A, Alchanatis, V, Schlageter-Tello, A, Lokhorst, C, Romanini, CEB, Bahr, C, Berckmans, D and Halachmi, I 2014. Automatic lameness detection based on consecutive 3D-video recordings. Biosystems Engineering 119, 108–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Nuffel, A, Sprenger, M, Tuyttens, FAM and Maertens, W 2009. Cow gait scores and kinematic gait data: can people see gait irregularities? Animal Welfare 18, 433–439.Google Scholar
Van Nuffel, A, Vangeyte, J, Mertens, KC, Pluym, L, De Campeneere, S, Saeys, W, Opsomer, G and Van Weyenberg, S 2013. Exploration of measurement variation of gait variables for early lameness detection in cattle using the GAITWISE. Livestock Science 156, 88–95.Google Scholar
Van Nuffel, A, Zwertvaegher, I, Van Weyenberg, S, Pastell, M, Thorup, VM, Bahr, C, Sonck, B and Saeys, W 2015. Review on lameness detection in dairy cows: part 2. Use of sensors to automatically register changes in locomotion or behavior. Animals 5, 861–885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, WR 1999. Lameness in dairy cattle – an overview. Cattle Practice 7, 333–340.Google Scholar
Wickler, SJ, Hoyt, DF, Cogger, EA and Hall, KM 2001. Effect of load on preferred speed and cost of transport. Journal of Applied Physiology 90, 1548–1551.Google Scholar