2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.compag.2018.01.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Monitoring drinking behavior in bucket-fed dairy calves using an ear-attached tri-axial accelerometer: A pilot study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
10
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In this current study, the behaviour classification model for the neck-collar tri-axial accelerometer was more accurate than the ear-tag tri-axial accelerometer, with Cohen’s Kappa coefficient for the neck-collar deployment model being also superior to the ear-tag deployment. The substantial agreement between actual and model-predicted behaviour was higher in the present study than studies with dairy cows by Bikker et al [ 57 ] and dairy calves by Roland et al [ 16 ] who found 0.77 and 0.68 of Cohen’s kappa value for eating and drinking using an ear-attached accelerometer. The lower kappa coefficient for the ear-tag accelerometer compared to that for the neck-collar was affected by complex and repetitive ear movements.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 64%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In this current study, the behaviour classification model for the neck-collar tri-axial accelerometer was more accurate than the ear-tag tri-axial accelerometer, with Cohen’s Kappa coefficient for the neck-collar deployment model being also superior to the ear-tag deployment. The substantial agreement between actual and model-predicted behaviour was higher in the present study than studies with dairy cows by Bikker et al [ 57 ] and dairy calves by Roland et al [ 16 ] who found 0.77 and 0.68 of Cohen’s kappa value for eating and drinking using an ear-attached accelerometer. The lower kappa coefficient for the ear-tag accelerometer compared to that for the neck-collar was affected by complex and repetitive ear movements.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 64%
“…Recent investigations have reported that tri-axial accelerometers were capable of categorising oral and intake behaviours of ruminants such as suckling [ 12 ], ruminating, eating [ 13 ], grazing [ 14 ], chewing, biting [ 11 ], and drinking [ 15 ]. Apart from reducing observation time, the capability of accelerometers to discriminate feeding behaviours indicates the potential for developing algorithms to accurately predict feed intake [ 16 ]. Greenwood et al [ 17 ] formulated a simple algorithm to predict pasture intake by individual cattle using accelerometers and Williams et al [ 15 ] reported that accelerometers could be used to predict water intake of grazing cattle based on prediction of visiting frequency and duration per visit to the water trough.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, analysis of variance and regression are commonly used to evaluate ingestive behavior; however, understanding a time series data on a mean implies loss of information about behavior pattern belonging to a circadian cycle. Thus, another method has been proposed to assess feeding behavior on ruminants with observations taken sequentially during a 24-hour period composing a circadian pattern (Roland et al, 2018;Ruuska, Kajava, Mughal, Zehner, & Mononen, 2016). This approach using time series data have been used to understand the relationship between different types of activities, states and causes of ingestive behavior (Fischer, Dutilleul, Deswysen, Dèspres, & Lobato, 2000) and their relationship with animal performance.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our study, we used the Smartbow system (SB; Smartbow GmbH), which consists of an accelerometer (3-dimensional) and location (2-dimensional) sensor fixed in an ear tag. Previous studies have evaluated the capabilities of the system to detect rumination (Reiter et al, 2018), predict calving (Krieger et al, 2017), detect estrus (Schweinzer et al, 2019), and monitor drinking events in calves (Roland et al, 2018). Additional studies have evaluated the location feature by focusing on the system's distance (in meters) accuracy in a cow barn (Wolfger et al, 2017), for dairy cows on pasture (Byrne et al, 2019), and for pigs maintained in a gestation stall (Will et al, 2017).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%