Evaluation of eating and rumination behaviour in cows using a noseband pressure sensor

Abstract

BackgroundAn automated technique for recording eating and rumination behaviour was evaluated in ten lactating Brown Swiss cows by comparing data obtained from a pressure sensor with data obtained via direct observation over a 24-hour period. The recording device involved a pressure sensor integrated in the noseband of a halter. The analysed variables included number and duration of individual rumination, eating and resting phases, total daily length of these phases and number of cuds chewed per day.ResultsEating and rumination phases were readily differentiated based on characteristic pressure profiles. Chewing movements during rumination were regular and generated regular waveforms with uniform amplitudes, whereas eating generated irregular waveforms with variable amplitudes. There was complete or almost complete agreement and no significant differences between data obtained via direct observation and pressure sensor technique. Both methods yielded an average of 16 daily eating phases with a mean duration of 28.3 minutes. Total time spent eating was 445.0 minutes for direct observation and 445.4 minutes for the pressure sensor technique. Both techniques recorded an average of 13.3 rumination phases with a mean duration of 30.3 (direct observation) and of 30.2 (pressure sensor) minutes. Total time spent ruminating per day, number of cuds per day and chewing cycles per cud were 389.3 and 388.3 minutes, 410.1 and 410.0 and 60.0 and 60.3 for direct observation and pressure sensor technique, respectively. There was a significant difference between the two methods with respect to mean number of chewing cycles per day (24′669, direct observation vs. 24′751, pressure sensor, P < 0.05, paired t-test). There were strong correlations between the two recording methods with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.98 to 1.00.ConclusionsThe results confirmed that measurements of eating and rumination variables obtained via the pressure sensor technique are in excellent agreement with data obtained via direct observation.

Eating and rumination activity in 10 cows over 10 days

“…In a first study, ten 25 cows were fitted with a recording halter for 24 hours, and the recordings were compared with 26 those obtained by direct visual observation (Braun et al, 2013). There was complete or almost 27 complete agreement between data obtained via direct observation and pressure sensor technique, 28 and phases of eating and rumination were easily distinguished in the automated recordings.…”

“…1, 2) (Braun et al, 2013;Zürcher, 2014). 42 The coefficient of variation (CV), defined as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean and 43 expressed as a percentage, was calculated for all variables.…”

Eating and rumination behaviour in cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis

“…Eating and rumination variables of cattle have been studied by nutritionists and veterinarians for several decades (Gürtler, 1974;Hill, 1976;Dulphy et al, 1980;Welch and Hooper, 1988;Beauchemin, 1991) and recently were investigated in relation to various clinical conditions (Braun et al, 2013(Braun et al, , 2014(Braun et al, , 2015a. There are different methods for automated recording of eating and rumination (Schirmann et al, 2009;Nydegger et al, 2011); a technique that we have used extensively at our clinic involves a pressure sensor that is integrated into the noseband of a halter and records changes in pressure caused by movement of the jaw (Nydegger et al, 2011).…”

Evaluation of eating and rumination behaviour using a noseband pressure sensor in cows after right-flank laparotomy for correction of left displaced abomasum

“…In addition they received 2 kg corn pellets and 2 kg protein concentrate. The recording of eating and rumination was performed using pressure sensor technique as described (Braun et al, 2013) for five days immediately after surgery. For each cow, the following variables were determined from the uploaded data: Total daily eating and rumination times; number of regurgitated cuds per day; number of chewing cycles per cud.…”