Rear shape in 3 dimensions summarized by principal component analysis is a good predictor of body condition score in Holstein dairy cows.

Body condition is an indirect estimation of the level of body reserves, and its variation reflects cumulative variation in energy balance. It interacts with reproductive and health performance, which are important to consider in dairy production but not easy to monitor. The commonly used body condition score (BCS) is time consuming, subjective, and not very sensitive. The aim was therefore to develop and validate a method assessing BCS with 3-dimensional (3D) surfaces of the cow's rear. A camera captured 3D shapes 2 m from the floor in a weigh station at the milking parlor exit. The BCS was scored by 3 experts on the same day as 3D imaging. Four anatomical landmarks had to be identified manually on each 3D surface to define a space centered on the cow's rear. A set of 57 3D surfaces from 56 Holstein dairy cows was selected to cover a large BCS range (from 0.5 to 4.75 on a 0 to 5 scale) to calibrate 3D surfaces on BCS. After performing a principal component analysis on this data set, multiple linear regression was fitted on the coordinates of these surfaces in the principal components' space to assess BCS. The validation was performed on 2 external data sets: one with cows used for calibration, but at a different lactation stage, and one with cows not used for calibration. Additionally, 6 cows were scanned once and their surfaces processed 8 times each for repeatability and then these cows were scanned 8 times each the same day for reproducibility. The selected model showed perfect calibration and a good but weaker validation (root mean square error=0.31 for the data set with cows used for calibration; 0.32 for the data set with cows not used for calibration). Assessing BCS with 3D surfaces was 3 times more repeatable (standard error=0.075 versus 0.210 for BCS) and 2.8 times more reproducible than manually scored BCS (standard error=0.103 versus 0.280 for BCS). The prediction error was similar for both validation data sets, indicating that the method is not less efficient for cows not used for calibration. The major part of reproducibility error incorporates repeatability error. An automation of the anatomical landmarks identification is required, first to allow broadband measures of body condition and second to improve repeatability and consequently reproducibility. Assessing BCS using 3D imaging coupled with principal component analysis appears to be a very promising means of improving precision and feasibility of this trait measurement.

[1]  I Halachmi,et al.  Cow body shape and automation of condition scoring. , 2008, Journal of dairy science.

[2]  R F Veerkamp,et al.  Genetic relationships among body condition score, body weight, milk yield, and fertility in dairy cows. , 2003, Journal of dairy science.

[3]  J. Hillers,et al.  Validation of indirect measures of body fat in lactating cows. , 1994, Journal of dairy science.

[4]  Dietmar Saupe,et al.  3D Shape Descriptor Based on 3D Fourier Transform , 2001 .

[5]  R Staufenbiel,et al.  Invited review: Methods to determine body fat reserves in the dairy cow with special regard to ultrasonographic measurement of backfat thickness. , 2006, Journal of dairy science.

[6]  R. Veerkamp,et al.  Genomic selection for feed efficiency in dairy cattle. , 2014, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[7]  Wolfgang Junge,et al.  Estimation of backfat thickness using extracted traits from an automatic 3D optical system in lactating Holstein-Friesian cows , 2014 .

[8]  I Halachmi,et al.  Development of an automatic cow body condition scoring using body shape signature and Fourier descriptors. , 2013, Journal of dairy science.

[9]  J D Ferguson,et al.  Body condition assessment using digital images. , 2006, Journal of dairy science.

[10]  A.J.M. Jansman,et al.  The application of digital imaging techniques in the in vivo estimation of the body composition of pigs: a review , 1999 .

[11]  E. Kristensen,et al.  Within- and across-person uniformity of body condition scoring in Danish Holstein cattle. , 2006, Journal of dairy science.

[12]  James W. Jones,et al.  Working with Dynamic Crop Models , 2014 .

[13]  J S Clay,et al.  Heritability and correlations among body condition score loss, body condition score, production and reproductive performance. , 2002, Journal of dairy science.

[14]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[15]  J M Bewley,et al.  Potential for estimation of body condition scores in dairy cattle from digital images. , 2008, Journal of dairy science.

[16]  J E Pryce,et al.  Genetics of body condition score in New Zealand dairy cows. , 2006, Journal of dairy science.

[17]  D. Berry,et al.  Periparturient climatic, animal, and management factors influencing the incidence of milk Fever in grazing systems. , 2006, Journal of dairy science.

[18]  P. Ruegg,et al.  Body condition scores of Holstein cows on Prince Edward Island, Canada: relationships with yield, reproductive performance, and disease. , 1995, Journal of dairy science.

[19]  G. C. Guarnera,et al.  Objective estimation of body condition score by modeling cow body shape from digital images. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[20]  Victor Alchanatis,et al.  Real-time underwater sorting of edible fish species , 2007 .

[21]  Zoran Popovic,et al.  The space of human body shapes: reconstruction and parameterization from range scans , 2003, ACM Trans. Graph..

[22]  Thomas B Farver,et al.  A Body Condition Scoring Chart for Holstein Dairy Cows , 1989 .

[23]  Ilan Halachmi,et al.  Automatic assessment of dairy cattle body condition score using thermal imaging , 2013 .

[24]  S. Terramoccia,et al.  Determination of live weight and body condition score in lactating Mediterranean buffalo by Visual Image Analysis , 2008 .

[25]  CurlessBrian,et al.  The space of human body shapes , 2003 .