Evaluation of data loggers, sampling intervals, and editing techniques for measuring the lying behavior of dairy cattle.

Lying behavior in dairy cattle can provide insight into how cows interact with their environment. Although lying behavior is a useful indicator of cow comfort, it can be time consuming to measure. In response to these time constraints, using data loggers to automate behavioral recording has become increasingly common. We tested the accuracy of the Onset Pendant G data logger (Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, MA) for measuring lying behavior in dairy cattle (n=24 cows; 12 in each of 2 experiments). Cows wore the logger on the lateral (experiment 1) or medial (experiment 2) side of the hind leg above the metatarsophalangeal joint. Loggers recorded behavior at 4 sampling intervals (6, 30, 60, and 300 s) for at least 1.5 d. Data were smoothed using 3 editing methods to examine the effects of short, potentially erroneous readings. For this purpose, Microsoft Excel macros (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) converted readings (i.e., lying events bordered by standing or vice versa) occurring singly or in consecutive runs of ≤2 or ≤6. Behavior was simultaneously recorded with digital video equipment. The logger accurately measured lying and standing. For example, predictability, sensitivity, and specificity were >99% using 30-s sampling and the single-event filter compared with continuously scored video recordings. The 6- and 30-s sampling intervals were comparable for all aspects of lying behavior when short events were filtered from the data set. Estimates of lying time generated from the 300-s interval unfiltered regimen were positively related (R(2) ≥ 0.99) to estimates of lying time from video, but this sampling regimen overestimated the number of lying bouts. This is likely because short standing and lying bouts were missed (12 and 34% of lying and standing bouts were <300 s in experiment 1 and 2, respectively). In summary, the data logger accurately measured all aspects of lying behavior when the sampling interval was ≤30 s and when short readings of lying and standing were filtered from the data set.

[1]  D. Weary,et al.  Laterality of lying behaviour in dairy cattle , 2009 .

[2]  D. Weary,et al.  Bedding on geotextile mattresses: how much is needed to improve cow comfort? , 2004, Journal of Dairy Science.

[3]  Lars Schrader,et al.  A new method to measure behavioural activity levels in dairy cows , 2003 .

[4]  D. Weary,et al.  Free-stall dimensions: effects on preference and stall usage. , 2004, Journal of dairy science.

[5]  D T Galligan,et al.  Principal descriptors of body condition score in Holstein cows. , 1994, Journal of dairy science.

[6]  Matthew J. Darr,et al.  Application note: Embedded sensor technology for real time determination of animal lying time , 2009 .

[7]  C. Krohn,et al.  Behaviour of dairy cows kept in extensive (loose housing/pasture) or intensive (tie stall) environments II. Lying and lying-down behaviour , 1993 .

[8]  Paul S. Martin,et al.  Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide , 1986 .

[9]  L. Istasse,et al.  A Note on Resting Behaviour of Cows Before and After Calving in Two Different Housing Systems , 1989 .

[10]  S. M. Rutter,et al.  An automatic system to monitor lying, standing and walking behaviour of grazing animals , 1997 .

[11]  F. Skjøth,et al.  Technical note: Quantifying and characterizing behavior in dairy calves using the IceTag automatic recording device. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[12]  L. Boyle,et al.  A brief note on the validation of a system for recording lying behaviour in dairy cows , 2008 .

[13]  J. Jago,et al.  Validation of a technology for objectively measuring behaviour in dairy cows and its application for oestrous detection , 2007 .

[14]  David G Renter,et al.  Evaluation of two-dimensional accelerometers to monitor behavior of beef calves after castration. , 2008, American journal of veterinary research.

[15]  J. L. Walters,et al.  FACTORS AFFECTING LYING BEHAVIOR AND STALL UTILIZATION OF DAIRY CATTLE , 1980 .

[16]  M. Kolehmainen,et al.  Cow behaviour pattern recognition using a three-dimensional accelerometer and support vector machines , 2009 .

[17]  Kensuke Kawamura,et al.  Development of an automatic classification system for eating, ruminating and resting behavior of cattle using an accelerometer , 2008 .

[18]  S. Wilson,et al.  Behavioral sampling techniques for feedlot cattle. , 2001, Journal of animal science.

[19]  D M Weary,et al.  Lying behavior: assessing within- and between-herd variation in free-stall-housed dairy cows. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[20]  Daniel M. Weary,et al.  Designing Better Environments for Dairy Cattle to Rest , 2004 .

[21]  J Rushen,et al.  Assessing cow comfort: effects of two floor types and two tie stall designs on the behaviour of lactating dairy cows. , 2001, Applied animal behaviour science.

[22]  David G. Renter,et al.  Evaluation of three-dimensional accelerometers to monitor and classify behavior patterns in cattle , 2009 .

[23]  D. Weary,et al.  Using gait score, walking speed, and lying behavior to detect hoof lesions in dairy cows. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[24]  N. Cook,et al.  Effect of free stall surface on daily activity patterns in dairy cows with relevance to lameness prevalence. , 2004, Journal of dairy science.

[25]  K. Svennersten-Sjaunja,et al.  A brief note about cow lying behaviour—Do cows choose left and right lying side equally? , 2008 .

[26]  Klaus Manfred Scheibe,et al.  Application testing of a new three-dimensional acceleration measuring system with wireless data transfer (WAS) for behavior analysis , 2006, Behavior research methods.

[27]  J. A. Fregonesi,et al.  Effects of bedding quality on lying behavior of dairy cows. , 2007, Journal of dairy science.

[28]  J. L. Albright,et al.  Effect of particle size of forage and rumen cannulation upon chewing activity and laterality in dairy cows. , 1990, Journal of dairy science.