Eating and rumination activity in 10 cows over 10 days

Braun, Ueli; Zürcher, Simeon Joel; Hässig, Michael

doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2015.05.001

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Feeding behavior in lame cows varied considerably more compared with the feeding behavior of non-lame cows, but interestingly, lameness did not affect the rumination behaviors to the same extent. Overall, rumination behavior varied less between individuals than feeding behavior, in agreement with a recent study ( 25 ). Among the behavioral characteristics, rumination time and feeding rate were the most stable aspects within cows.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Lameness Affects Cow Feeding But Not Rumination Behavior as Characterized from Sensor Data

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using automatic sensor data, this is the first study to characterize individual cow feeding and rumination behavior simultaneously as affected by lameness. A group of mixed-parity, lactating Holstein cows were loose-housed with free access to 24 cubicles and 12 automatic feed stations. Cows were milked three times/day. Fresh feed was delivered once daily. During 24 days with effectively 22 days of data, 13,908 feed station visits and 7,697 rumination events obtained from neck-mounted accelerometers on 16 cows were analyzed. During the same period, cows were locomotion scored on four occasions and categorized as lame (n = 9) or not lame (n = 7) throughout the study. Rumination time, number of rumination events, feeding time, feeding frequency, feeding rate, feed intake, and milk yield were calculated per day, and coefficients of variation were used to estimate variation between and within cows. Based on daily sums, using each characteristic as response, the effects of lameness and stage of lactation were tested in a mixed model. With rumination time as response, each of the four feeding characteristics, milk yield, and lameness were tested in a second mixed model. On a visit basis, effects of feeding duration, lameness, and milk yield on feed intake were tested in a third mixed model. Overall, intra-individual variation was <15% and inter-individual variation was up to 50%. Lameness introduced more inter-individual variation in feeding characteristics (26–50%) compared to non-lame cows (17–29%). Lameness decreased daily feeding time and daily feeding frequency, but increased daily feeding rate. Interestingly, lameness did not affect daily rumination behaviors, fresh matter intake, or milk yield. On a visit basis, a high feeding rate was associated with a higher feed intake, a relationship that was exacerbated in the lame cows. In conclusion, cows can be characterized in particular by their feeding behavior, and lame cows differ from their non-lame pen-mates in terms of fewer feed station visits, faster eating, less time spent feeding, and more variable feeding behavior. Further, daily rumination time was slightly negatively associated with feeding rate, a relationship which calls for more research to quantify rumination efficiency relative to feeding rate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Lameness Affects Cow Feeding But Not Rumination Behavior as Characterized from Sensor Data

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The recordings were obtained as described (Nydegger et al, 2011;Braun et al, 2013Braun et al, , 2014Braun et al, , 2015aBraun et al, , 2015b) using a pressure sensor integrated into the noseband of a horse halter (MSR Electronics, Seuzach, Switzerland). The sensor recorded pressure changes in an oil-filled tube; opening of the mouth caused bending of the tube and an increase in pressure within it.…”

Section: Monitoring Technique Of Eating and Rumination Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our first study on eating and rumination in cows evaluated the pressure sensor technique itself (Trösch, 2013;Braun et al, 2013). Subsequent studies included examination of rumination and eating behaviour in cows in the peripartum period (Tschoner, 2013;Braun et al, 2014), establishment of reference intervals for eating and rumination variables in Brown Swiss, Swiss Fleckvieh and Holstein Friesian cows (Zürcher, 2014;Braun et al, 2015a) and determination of the reliability of pressure sensor measurements by calculating variation coefficients of different variables in ten cows over a ten-day period (Zürcher, 2014;Braun et al, 2015b). The results of those studies provide a baseline for the assessment of eating and rumination in cows with various diseases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eating and rumination behaviour in cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis

Braun

Tschoner

Hässig

et al. 2017

SAT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eating and rumination behaviour in 22 cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis was recorded after the start of treatment. Based on the results of clinical, ultrasonographic and radiographic examinations, the cows were divided into two groups: Group A consisted of 12 cows without an intramural or perforating foreign body and group B had 10 cows with an intramural or perforating foreign body. Cows of group A received amoxicillin, flunixin meglumine and a NaCl-glucose infusion, and cows of group B received the same treatment accompanied by foreign body removal via ruminotomy. All cows were fitted with a horse halter equipped with a pressure sensor integrated into the noseband, and eating and rumination activities were recorded continuously for 7 days. Additional 24-hour-recording periods occurred on days 14 and 30. Results obtained previously from 300 healthy cows were used for comparison. Median daily eating time in group A was 168 minutes (reference interval 211 to 319 min) on day 1 and increased to within the reference interval by day 3. Eating time on day 14 was 290 minutes and significantly longer than on day 1. Eating time was 294 minutes on day 30. Eating time in group B was comparable, and the patterns of normalisation for the number of chewing cycles related to eating, rumination time, the number of regurgitated cuds per day and the number of chewing cycles per cud were similar to that of group A: all variables were significantly reduced on day 1 and normalised within 3 to 5 days. The findings showed that eating and rumination are reduced in cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis and that successful treatment results in rapid normalisation. Monitoring eating and rumination behaviour using a pressure sensor integrated into a halter allows objective clinical assessment of cows recovering from traumatic reticuloperitonitis. SummaryEating and rumination behaviour in 22 cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis was recorded after the start of treatment. Based on the results of clinical, ultrasonographic and radiographic examinations, the cows were divided into two groups: Group A consisted of 12 cows without an intramural or perforating foreign body and group B had 10 cows with an intramural or perforating foreign body. Cows of group A received amoxicillin, flunixin meglumine and a NaCl-glucose infusion, and cows of group B received the same treatment accompanied by foreign body removal via ruminotomy. All cows were fitted with a horse halter equipped with a pressure sensor integrated into the noseband, and eating and rumination activities were recorded continuously for 7 days. Additional 24-hour-recording periods occurred on days 14 and 30. Results obtained previously from 300 healthy cows were used for comparison. Median daily eating time in group A was 168 minutes (reference interval 211 to 319 min) on day 1 and increased to within the reference interval by day 3. Eating time on day 14 was 290 minutes and significantly longer than on day 1. Eating time was 294 minutes on day 30. Eating time in group...

show abstract

“…Several traditional methods such as direct observation of the cows, either live or from video recording, have been used to assess behaviours in dairy farms (Müller and Schrader, 2003). However, due to the time constraints and lack of labour force, especially in large sized farms, progress has been made in monitoring cows with electronic and biosensor devices (Benaissa et al, 2016a(Benaissa et al, , 2016bBraun et al, 2015;Chapinal et al, 2011;Dutta et al, 2015;Maselyne et al, 2017;Piccione et al, 2011;Van Nuffel et al, 2015). In particular, wearable accelerometers have been widely tested to automatically assess cow behaviours (Martiskainen et al, 2009;Müller and Schrader, 2003;Robert et al, 2009;Vázquez Diosdado et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the use of on-cow accelerometers for the classification of behaviours in dairy barns

Benaissa

Tuyttens

David

et al. 2019

Research in Veterinary Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analysing behaviours can provide insight into the health and overall well-being of dairy cows. Automatic monitoring systems using e.g., accelerometers are becoming increasingly important to accurately quantify cows' behaviours as the herd size increases. The aim of this study is to automatically classify cows' behaviours by comparing leg- and neck-mounted accelerometers, and to study the effect of the sampling rate and the number of accelerometer axes logged on the classification performances. Lying, standing, and feeding behaviours of 16 different lactating dairy cows were logged for 6h with 3D-accelerometers. The behaviours were simultaneously recorded using visual observation and video recordings as a reference. Different features were extracted from the raw data and machine learning algorithms were used for the classification. The classification models using combined data of the neck- and the leg-mounted accelerometers have classified the three behaviours with high precision (80-99%) and sensitivity (87-99%). For the leg-mounted accelerometer, lying behaviour was classified with high precision (99%) and sensitivity (98%). Feeding was classified more accurately by the neck-mounted versus the leg-mounted accelerometer (precision 92% versus 80%; sensitivity 97% versus 88%). Standing was the most difficult behaviour to classify when only one accelerometer was used. In addition, the classification performances were not highly influenced when only X, X and Z, or Z and Y axes were used for the classification instead of three axes, especially for the neck-mounted accelerometer. Moreover, the accuracy of the models decreased with about 20% when the sampling rate was decreased from 1Hz to 0.05Hz.

show abstract

Eating and rumination activity in 10 cows over 10 days

Cited by 15 publications

References 15 publications

Lameness Affects Cow Feeding But Not Rumination Behavior as Characterized from Sensor Data

Lameness Affects Cow Feeding But Not Rumination Behavior as Characterized from Sensor Data

Eating and rumination behaviour in cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis

On the use of on-cow accelerometers for the classification of behaviours in dairy barns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About