Behavioral classification of data from collars containing motion sensors in grazing cattle

Data from electronic cattle monitoring collars were classified into 5 activities.Collars contained GPS and accelerometers.Mixed distributions were used to obtain threshold values for a decision tree.The 5 activities were classified with 85.5% and 90.5% precision in 2 trials.Grazing and ruminating were classified most accurately. Remote monitoring of animal behavior offers great potential to improve livestock management however technologies able to collect data at high frequency and accurate data classification methods are required. The objective of this study was to develop a methodology capable of performing unsupervised behavioral classification of electronic data collected at high frequency from collar-mounted motion and GPS sensors in grazing cattle. Two independent trials were conducted, one for developing the classification algorithm (4 groups of 11 steers) and a second for its evaluation (14 steers). Each steer was fitted with a collar containing GPS and a 3-axis accelerometer that collected data at 4 and 10Hz, respectively. Foraging, ruminating, traveling, resting and 'other active behaviors' (which included scratching against objects, head shaking, and grooming) were observed and recorded continuously at the nearest second in animals wearing collars. Collar data were aggregated to 10-s intervals through the mean (indicative of the position of the neck and travel speed) and standard deviation (SD; indicative of activity level) and then log-transformed for analysis. The histograms of travel speed showed 3 populations and observations revealed these populations represented stationary, slow and fast travel behaviors. The histograms of the accelerometer X-axis mean showed populations corresponding with behaviors of head down or head up. The histograms of the accelerometer X-axis SD showed 3 populations representing behaviors with high, medium and low activity levels. Mixture models were fitted to data from each animal in both trials to calculate threshold values corresponding to where behaviors transitioned between different states. These thresholds from the 3 sensor signatures were then used in a decision tree to classify all 10-s data where behaviors were unknown into 5 mutually exclusive behaviors. The algorithm correctly classified 85.5% and 90.5% of all data points in the development and evaluation datasets, respectively. Foraging showed the greatest sensitivity (93.7% and 98.4%) and specificity (94.6% and 99.4%) followed by ruminating (sensitivity 97% and 87%, and specificity 90% and 95%) for development and evaluation trials, respectively. Major advantages of mixture models include computational efficiency suitable for large data sets (e.g. >2million data lines), minimal requirement for training datasets, and estimation of threshold values for individual animals under unknown and varying environmental conditions. The technology and methodology allows for the automatic and real-time monitoring of behavior with high spatial and temporal resolution which could benefit livestock industries beyond the research domain for improved animal and ecological management.

[1]  Y Ueda,et al.  Technical note: the use of a physical activity monitor to estimate the eating time of cows in pasture. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[2]  Dean M. Anderson,et al.  Spatiotemporal Cattle Data—A Plea for Protocol Standardization , 2013 .

[3]  Carrick Detweiler,et al.  Characterising the Spatial and Temporal Activities of Free-Ranging Cows from GPS Data , 2012 .

[4]  T. H. Stobbs,et al.  Automatic measurement of grazing time by dairy cows on tropical grasses and legume pastures. , 1970 .

[5]  Peter I. Corke,et al.  Monitoring Animal Behaviour and Environmental Interactions Using Wireless Sensor Networks, GPS Collars and Satellite Remote Sensing , 2009, Sensors.

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

[7]  Jabier Ruiz-Mirazo,et al.  Automated Animal Control: Can Discontinuous Monitoring and Aversive Stimulation Modify Cattle Grazing Behavior? , 2011 .

[8]  Esmaeil S. Nadimi,et al.  Monitoring and classifying animal behavior using ZigBee-based mobile ad hoc wireless sensor networks and artificial neural networks , 2012 .

[9]  Tim Wark,et al.  Using high fix rate GPS data to determine the relationships between fix rate, prediction errors and patch selection , 2008 .

[10]  N. Heglund,et al.  Speed, stride frequency and energy cost per stride: how do they change with body size and gait? , 1988, The Journal of experimental biology.

[11]  J. M. Fryxell,et al.  Foraging theory upscaled: the behavioural ecology of herbivore movement , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[13]  M. Coffey,et al.  Changes in feeding behavior as possible indicators for the automatic monitoring of health disorders in dairy cows. , 2008, Journal of dairy science.

[14]  Esmaeil S. Nadimi,et al.  Observer Kalman filter identification and multiple-model adaptive estimation technique for classifying animal behaviour using wireless sensor networks , 2009 .

[15]  I Kyriazakis,et al.  The biologically relevant unit for the analysis of short-term feeding behavior of dairy cows. , 2000, Journal of dairy science.

[16]  Geoffrey J. McLachlan,et al.  Finite Mixture Models , 2019, Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application.

[17]  Tong Heng Lee,et al.  Unmanned Rotorcraft Systems , 2011 .

[18]  David J. Augustine,et al.  Assessing Herbivore Foraging Behavior with GPS Collars in a Semiarid Grassland , 2013, Sensors.

[19]  David Ganskopp,et al.  GPS Error in Studies Addressing Animal Movements and Activities , 2007 .

[20]  Peter I. Corke,et al.  Transforming Agriculture through Pervasive Wireless Sensor Networks , 2007, IEEE Pervasive Computing.

[21]  Eugene D. Ungar,et al.  Inference of Animal Activity From GPS Collar Data on Free-Ranging Cattle , 2005 .

[22]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Habitat–performance relationships: finding the right metric at a given spatial scale , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[23]  J. Altmann,et al.  Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. , 1974, Behaviour.