using sensor information to detect lame cows

23
Can sensors detect lame cows? Claudia Kamphuis, Neil Chesterton, Jennie Burke, Jenny Jago [email protected]

Upload: claudia-kamphuis

Post on 12-Apr-2017

1.290 views

Category:

Science


5 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Can sensors detect lame cows?

Claudia Kamphuis, Neil Chesterton, Jennie Burke, Jenny Jago

[email protected]

Page 2: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Key points• The challenge of lameness detection

• No direct measure of lameness

• Can existing sensors detect lame cows?

Page 3: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Lameness in the dairy industry• Impacts on welfare, productivity, profitability

– ~$28,000 per year on average NZ farm

• Visual detection is common practice– Challenging for large herds– NZ farmers fail to identify ~75% of lame cows (Fabian, 2012;

Whay et al., 2002)

Lame?

€16,500

Page 4: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Use these sensor data to aid / replace visual detection?

Many sensors available on-farm

Pedometers and EID for activity

and milking order

Weigh scales measuring live-weight

Milk meters measuring

yield aspects

Page 5: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Data • 5 Waikato farms

• 4,900 cows

• 1.5 million milkings

• Sensor data every milking

– transferred automatically each evening to DairyNZ

Page 6: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Lameness events

• Trained Farmers

• Farmer observations– Cow identification– Date– Affected limb– Lameness score– Lameness type

1

2

3

4

5

Page 7: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Lameness events after 1.5 years• 466 lame cows (lameness score ≥2)

Score Type Total

Foot rot Solar damage

White line

Other

2 23 17 24 10 74

3 49 33 43 30 145 (46%)

≥4 28 24 24 8 84

Missing 6 3 3 3 15

Total 106(33%)

77 91 41 318

Page 8: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

-14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0

Day

Methods

Matching farm, date

1 lame cow 10 non-lame cows

Day of observation

Lame, n = 318

Non-Lame, n = 3,180

A

ctiv

ity

High

Low

Page 9: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

-14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0320

340

360

380

Day

Change in activity

● Lame (n = 318); ○ Non-lame (n = 3180)

Day of observation

Activity (steps / hour)

Patterns through time were different (P<0.05)

Page 10: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

● Lame (n = 318); ○ Non-lame (n = 3180)

Changes in other parameters

-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 045.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

Day

Milking order

-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 08.48.68.89.09.29.49.69.8

10.0

Day

Milk yield (kg)

-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0470

475

480

485

490

495

500

Day

Weight (kg)

Patterns through time were different (P<0.05) for all sensors

Page 11: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Changes in milking order - Type

-14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 045

50

55

60

65

Solar damage Non-Lame cows

Day

Day of observation

Milking order (%)

Page 12: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Changes in milking order - Type

-14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 045

50

55

60

65Other Solar damageWhite line Non-Lame cows

Day

Day of observation

Milking order (%)

Page 13: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Changes in milking order - Type

-14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 045

50

55

60

65Foot rot OtherSolar damage White line Non-Lame cows

Day

Day of observation

Patterns through time were different (P<0.05) for milking order and milk yield (2min and total)

Milking order (%)

Page 14: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Changes in activity – Score 2

-14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0300

320

340

360

380

Non-lame

Score 2

Day

Day of observation

Activity (steps / hour)

Page 15: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Changes in activity – Score 3

-14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0300

320

340

360

380

Non-lameScore 2Score 3

Day

Activity (steps / hour)

Day of observation

Page 16: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Changes in activity - Scores

-14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0300

320

340

360

380

Non-lameScore 2Score 3Score ≥4

Day

Activity (steps / hour)

Day of observation

Patterns through time were different (P<0.05) for all except for milk yield (P = 0.15)

Page 17: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Difference in activity La

me

Non-

...

Lam

e

Non-

...

Lam

e

Non-

...

Lam

e

Non-

lam

e

Lam

e

Non-

...

-250

-150

-50

50Farm 1 Farm 2 Farm 3 Farm 4 Farm 5

Difference in Activity between Day -1 and Day -4

Page 18: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Difference in activityLa

me

Non

-Lam

e

Lam

e

Non

-Lam

e

Lam

e

Non

-Lam

e

Lam

e

Non

-lam

e

Lam

e

Non

-Lam

e

-600

-300

0

300

600Farm 1 Farm 2 Farm 3 Farm 4 Farm 5

Difference in Activity between Day -1 and Day -4

No simple threshold to detect lameness

Page 19: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Yes - Sensors can identify changes in behaviour and physiology

ButNo obvious thresholds to separate lame and

non-lame cows

Conclusion

Page 20: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Future researchWhat data are most predictive?

Combining data?

What technique to model noisy data?

Page 21: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Acknowledgements• Jennie Burke, Jenny Jago and Neil Chesterton

• Barbara Dow, DairyNZ

• Participating farmers

• Primary Growth Partnership and DairyNZ Inc.

Page 22: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Data Mining• LogitBoost

– Regression Trees– Boosting

• uni- and multivariable

• Performance measures– AUC– SN at fixed SP

Page 23: Using sensor information to detect lame cows

Predictors of Lameness• Live-weight, Activity and Milking order

– AUC = 0.6 – 0.65

• Combined– AUC = 0.75– Significantly better – Consistent across farms