Applying additive logistic regression to data derived from sensors monitoring behavioral and physiological characteristics of dairy cows to detect lameness.

The hypothesis was that sensors currently available on farm that monitor behavioral and physiological characteristics have potential for the detection of lameness in dairy cows. This was tested by applying additive logistic regression to variables derived from sensor data. Data were collected between November 2010 and June 2012 on 5 commercial pasture-based dairy farms. Sensor data from weigh scales (liveweight), pedometers (activity), and milk meters (milking order, unadjusted and adjusted milk yield in the first 2 min of milking, total milk yield, and milking duration) were collected at every milking from 4,904 cows. Lameness events were recorded by farmers who were trained in detecting lameness before the study commenced. A total of 318 lameness events affecting 292 cows were available for statistical analyses. For each lameness event, the lame cow's sensor data for a time period of 14 d before observation date were randomly matched by farm and date to 10 healthy cows (i.e., cows that were not lame and had no other health event recorded for the matched time period). Sensor data relating to the 14-d time periods were used for developing univariable (using one source of sensor data) and multivariable (using multiple sources of sensor data) models. Model development involved the use of additive logistic regression by applying the LogitBoost algorithm with a regression tree as base learner. The model's output was a probability estimate for lameness, given the sensor data collected during the 14-d time period. Models were validated using leave-one-farm-out cross-validation and, as a result of this validation, each cow in the data set (318 lame and 3,180 nonlame cows) received a probability estimate for lameness. Based on the area under the curve (AUC), results indicated that univariable models had low predictive potential, with the highest AUC values found for liveweight (AUC=0.66), activity (AUC=0.60), and milking order (AUC=0.65). Combining these 3 sensors improved AUC to 0.74. Detection performance of this combined model varied between farms but it consistently and significantly outperformed univariable models across farms at a fixed specificity of 80%. Still, detection performance was not high enough to be implemented in practice on large, pasture-based dairy farms. Future research may improve performance by developing variables based on sensor data of liveweight, activity, and milking order, but that better describe changes in sensor data patterns when cows go lame.

[1]  H. Whay,et al.  Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. , 1997, Veterinary journal.

[2]  Yoav Freund,et al.  Experiments with a New Boosting Algorithm , 1996, ICML.

[3]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  The WEKA data mining software: an update , 2009, SKDD.

[4]  J. Jago,et al.  Large rotary dairies achieve high cow throughput but are not more labour efficient than medium-sized rotaries , 2013 .

[5]  Bas Kemp,et al.  Pedometer readings for estrous detection and as predictor for time of ovulation in dairy cattle. , 2005, Theriogenology.

[6]  M Kujala,et al.  A probabilistic neural network model for lameness detection. , 2007, Journal of dairy science.

[7]  Joachim Krieter,et al.  Principal component analysis for the early detection of mastitis and lameness in dairy cows. , 2013, The Journal of dairy research.

[8]  Y. Freund,et al.  Discussion of the Paper \additive Logistic Regression: a Statistical View of Boosting" By , 2000 .

[9]  J A Swets,et al.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. , 1988, Science.

[10]  Mehryar Mohri,et al.  Confidence Intervals for the Area Under the ROC Curve , 2004, NIPS.

[11]  L. Green,et al.  The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. , 2002, Journal of dairy science.

[12]  Henk Hogeveen,et al.  Performance evaluation of systems for automated monitoring of udder health: analytical issues and guidelines , 2008 .

[13]  C. Hockey,et al.  Evaluation of a neck mounted 2-hourly activity meter system for detecting cows about to ovulate in two paddock-based Australian dairy herds. , 2009, Reproduction in domestic animals = Zuchthygiene.

[14]  P. H. Robinson,et al.  Impact of lameness on behavior and productivity of lactating Holstein cows , 2003 .

[15]  D. Sprecher,et al.  A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. , 1997, Theriogenology.

[16]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[17]  R. Bicalho,et al.  Association between a visual and an automated locomotion score in lactating Holstein cows. , 2007, Journal of dairy science.

[18]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  Induction of Decision Trees , 1986, Machine Learning.

[19]  Methods for estimating areas under receiver-operating characteristic curves: illustration with somatic-cell scores in subclinical intramammary infections. , 1999, Preventive veterinary medicine.

[20]  M. Stevenson,et al.  Automatic recording of daily walkover liveweight of dairy cattle at pasture in the first 100 days in milk. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[21]  J. Jago,et al.  Cows becoming clinically lame differ in changes in behaviour and physiology compared to cows that do not become clinically lame , 2013 .

[22]  Herman Mollenhorst,et al.  Sensors and Clinical Mastitis—The Quest for the Perfect Alert , 2010, Italian National Conference on Sensors.

[23]  R. Morris,et al.  A case study of lameness in three dairy herds. , 1991, New Zealand veterinary journal.

[24]  H Hogeveen,et al.  Detection of clinical mastitis with sensor data from automatic milking systems is improved by using decision-tree induction. , 2010, Journal of dairy science.

[25]  J. Routly,et al.  Lameness, activity time-budgets, and estrus expression in dairy cattle. , 2008, Journal of dairy science.