Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:05:42.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Automated monitoring of behavioural-based animal welfare indicators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

J Rushen ,
N Chapinal  and
AM de Passilé
J Rushen*
Affiliation:
Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, PO 1000, 6947 Highway 7, Agassiz, BC, Canada V0M 1A0
N Chapinal
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4
AM de Passilé
Affiliation:
Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, PO 1000, 6947 Highway 7, Agassiz, BC, Canada V0M 1A0
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

On-farm scoring of behavioural indicators of animal welfare is challenging but the increasing availability of low cost technology now makes automated monitoring of animal behaviour feasible. We discuss some of the issues with using automated methods to measure animal behaviour within the context of assessing animal welfare. Automated feeders (eg for dairy calves) can help measure the degree that animals are hungry and have potential to identify sick animals even in group housing. Such equipment is best used for longitudinal studies of individual animals rather than making comparisons between farms. Devices attached to animals (eg accelerometers or GPS devices) can help measure the activity levels of animals with a high degree of accuracy and can easily be transported between farms, making them best suited for welfare assessment at the group level. Automated image analysis has great potential to assess movement within groups of animals, but following individual animals can be difficult. The techniques have been validated against traditional methods (eg direct observation). The accuracy of measures taken automatically varies between methods but can be increased by combining measures. Technological developments have provided us with a variety of tools that can be used to monitor behaviour automatically, and these have great potential to improve our ability to monitor animal welfare indicators on-farm. However, it is important that methods be developed to measure a wider range of behaviour patterns. Animal welfare assessment schemes should not place undue emphasis on behavioural indicators solely on the basis that they can be monitored automatically.

Keywords

animal behaviouranimal welfareautomated monitoringbehavioural indicatorsfarm animalson-farm assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue 3: Selected papers from the 5th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , August 2012 , pp. 339 - 350
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Ahrendt, P, Gregersen, T and Karstoft, H 2011 Development of a real-time computer vision system for tracking loose-housed pigs. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 76: 169–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2011.01.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aydin, A, Cangar, O, Ozcan, SE, Bahr, C and Berckmans, D 2010 Application of a fully automatic analysis tool to assess the activity of broiler chickens with different gait scores. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 73: 194–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2010.05.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, A, Dinarés, M, Devant, M and Carré, X 2007 Associations between lameness and production, feeding and milking attendance of Holstein cows milked with an automatic milking system. Journal of Dairy Research 74: 40–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022029906002184CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bicalho, RC, Cheong, SH, Cramer, G and Guard, CL 2007 Association between a visual and an automated locomotion score in lactating Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3294–3300. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Veissier, I, Miele, M and Jones, B 2010 The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica A: Animal Sciences 60: 129–140Google Scholar
Borderas, TF, Fournier, A, Rushen, J and de Passillé, AM 2008 Effect of lameness on dairy cows’ visits to automatic milking systems. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 88: 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.4141/CJAS07014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borderas, TF, de Passillé, AM and Rushen, J 2009a Feeding behavior of calves fed small or large amounts of milk. Journal of Dairy Science 92: 2843–2852. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1886CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borderas, TF, Rushen, J, von Keyserlingk, MAG and de Passillé, AM 2009b Automated measurement of changes in feeding behavior of milk-fed calves associated with illness. Journal of Dairy Science 92: 4549–4554. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2109CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borges, G, Da Silva Miranda, KO, Gates, RS and Sales, GT 2010 Environmental conditions effects in noise emission by piglets in an intensive production farm. Proceedings of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting pp 5251–5257. 2010, Pittsburgh, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, A, Knowles, TG, Whittington, P, Matthews, L, Rogers, A and Bagshaw, CS 2007 Validation of broiler chicken gait scoring training in Thailand, Brazil and New Zealand. Animal Welfare 16: 177–17910.1017/S0962728600031274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceballos, A, Sanderson, D, Rushen, J and Weary, DM 2004 Improving stall design: Use of 3-d kinematics to measure space use by dairy cows when lying down. Journal of Dairy Science 87: 2042–2050. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)70022-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapinal, N, de Passillé, AM and Rushen, J 2009 Weight distribution and gait in dairy cattle are affected by milking and late pregnancy. Journal of Dairy Science 92: 581–588. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1533CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapinal, N, de Passillé, AM, Rushen, J and Wagner, S 2010 Automated methods for detecting lameness and measuring analgesia in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 2007–2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2803CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapinal, N, de Passillé, AM, Pastell, M, Hänninen, L, Munksgaard, L and Rushen, J 2011 Measurement of acceleration while walking as an automated method for gait assessment in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 2895–2901. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3882CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapinal, N, Veira, DM, Weary, DM and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2007 Technical note: Validation of a system for monitoring individual feeding and drinking behavior and intake in group-housed cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 5732–5736. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0331CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cornou, C 2009 Automation systems for farm animals: potential impacts on the human-animal relationship and on animal welfare. Anthrozoös 22: 213–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303709X457568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornou, C, Vinther, J and Kristensen, AR 2008 Automatic detection of oestrus and health disorders using data from electronic sow feeders. Livestock Science 118: 262–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2008.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornou, C, Lundbye-Christensen, S and Kristensen, AR 2011 Modelling and monitoring sows’ activity types in farrowing house using acceleration data. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 76: 316–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2011.02.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corr, SA, McCorquodale, C, McDonald, J, Gentle, M and McGovern, R 2007 A force plate study of avian gait. Journal of Biomechanics 40: 2037–2043. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbio-mech.2006.09.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, MS, Lee, H, Waitt, CD and Roberts, SJ 2009 Optical flow patterns in broiler chicken flocks as automated measures of behaviour and gait. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119: 203–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.04.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Eath, RB, Tolkamp, BJ, Kyriazakis, I and Lawrence, AB 2009 ‘Freedom from hunger’ and preventing obesity: the animal welfare implications of reducing food quantity or quality. Animal Behaviour 77: 275–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008/10.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Passillé, AM, Borderas, TF and Rushen, J 2011 Weaning age of calves fed a high milk allowance by automated feeders: Effects on feed, water, and energy intake, behavioral signs of hunger, and weight gains. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 1401–1408. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3441CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Passillé, AM, Jensen, MB, Chapinal, N and Rushen, J 2010 Technical note: use of accelerometers to describe gait patterns in dairy calves. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 3287–3293. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2758CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Paula Vieira, A, Guesdon, V, de Passillé, AM, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Weary, DM 2008 Behavioural indicators of hunger in dairy calves. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109: 180–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.03.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVries, TJ, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Weary, DM and Beauchemin, KA 2003a Measuring the feeding behavior of lactating dairy cows in early to peak lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 86: 3354–3361. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73938-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeVries, TJ, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Weary, DM and Beauchemin, KA 2003b Technical note: validation of a system for monitoring feeding behaviour of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86: 3571–3574. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73962-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, SA 2007 Experimental welfare assessment and on-farm application. Animal Welfare 16: 111–11510.1017/S0962728600031122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espejo, LA, Endres, MI and Salfer, JA 2006 Prevalence of lameness in high-producing Holstein cows housed in freestall barns in Minnesota. Journal of Dairy Science 89: 3052–3058. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72579-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Exadaktylos, V, Silva, M, Aerts, JM, Taylor, CJ and Berckmans, D 2008 Real-time recognition of sick pig cough sounds. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 63: 207–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2008.02.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrari, S, Piccinini, R, Silva, M, Exadaktylos, V, Berckmans, D and Guarino, M 2010 Cough sound description in relation to respiratory diseases in dairy calves. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 96: 276–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.06.013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flower, FC, Sanderson, DJ and Weary, DM 2005 Hoof pathologies influence kinematic measures of dairy cow gait. Journal of Dairy Science 88: 3166–3173. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73000-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flower, FC and Weary, DM 2009 Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3: 87–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731108003194CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gleiss, AC, Wilson, RP and Shepard, ELC 2011 Making overall dynamic body acceleration work: on the theory of acceleration as a proxy for energy expenditure. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2: 23–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00057.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
González, LA, Tolkamp, BJ, Coffey, MP, Ferret, A and Kyriazakis, I 2008 Changes in feeding behavior as possible indicators for the automatic monitoring of health disorders in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 1017–1028. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0530CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gygax, L, Neisen, G and Bollhalder, H 2007 Accuracy and validation of a radar-based automatic local position measurement system for tracking dairy cows in free-stall barns. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 56: 23–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2006.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hokkanen, AH, Hänninen, L, Tiusanen, J and Pastell, M 2011 Predicting sleep and lying time of calves with a support vector machine classifier using accelerometer data. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 134: 10–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2011.06.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huzzey, JM, Veira, DM, Weary, DM and Von Keyserlingk, MAG 2007 Prepartum behavior and dry matter intake identify dairy cows at risk for metritis. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3220–3233. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-807CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ito, K, Weary, DM and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2009 Lying behavior: Assessing within- and between-herd variation in free-stall-housed dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92: 4412–4420. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2235CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ito, K, von Keyserlingk, MAG, LeBlanc, SJ and Weary, DM 2010 Lying behavior as an indicator of lameness in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 3553–3560. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2951CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, MB and Holm, L 2003 The effect of milk flow rate and milk allowance on feeding related behaviour in dairy calves fed by computer controlled milk feeders. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 82: 87–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00054-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, MA, Weary, DM and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2011 Invited review: effects of milk ration on solid feed intake, weaning and performance in dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 1071–1081. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3733CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruse, S, Traulsen, I, Salau, J and Krieter, J 2011 A note on using wavelet analysis for disease detection in lactating sows. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 77: 105–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2011.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgerwood, DN, Winckler, C and Tucker, CB 2010 Evaluation of data loggers, sampling intervals, and editing techniques for measuring the lying behavior of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 5129–5139. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2945CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, HJ, Roberts, SJ, Drake, KA and Dawkins, MS 2011 Prediction of feather damage in laying hens using optical flows and Markov models. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 8: 489–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2010.0268CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leighty, KA, Soltis, J and Savage, A 2010 GPS assessment of the use of exhibit space and resources by African elephants (Loxodonta africana). Zoo Biology 29: 210–220Google ScholarPubMed
Lukas, JM, Reneau, JK and Linn, JG 2008 Water intake and dry matter intake changes as a feeding management tool and indicator of health and estrus status in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 3385–3394. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0926CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madsen, TN and Kristensen, AR 2005 A model for monitoring the condition of young pigs by their drinking behaviour. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 48: 138–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2005.02.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maertens, W, Vangeyte, J, Baert, J, Jantuan, A, Mertens, KC, De Campeneere, S, Pluk, A, Opsomer, G, Van Weyenberg, S and Van Nuffel, A 2011 Development of a real time cow gait tracking and analysing tool to assess lameness using a pressure sensitive walkway: The GAITWISE system. Biosystems Engineering 110: 29–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2011.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millman, ST 2007 Sickness behaviour and its relevance to animal welfare assessment at the group level. Animal Welfare 16: 123–12510.1017/S0962728600031146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreau, M, Siebert, S, Buerkert, A and Schlecht, E 2009 Use of a tri-axial accelerometer for automated recording and classification of goats’ grazing behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119: 158–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.04.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, LR, Pedersen, AR, Herskin, MS and Munksgaard, L 2010 Quantifying walking and standing behaviour of dairy cows using a moving average based on output from an accelerometer. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 127: 12–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.08.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouweltjes, W, van der Werf, JTN, Frankena, K and van Leeuwen, JL 2011 Effects of flooring and restricted freestall access on behavior and claw health of dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 705–715. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3208CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pastell, ME and Kujala, M 2007 A probabilistic neural network model for lameness detection. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 2283–2292. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-267CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pastell, ME, Hänninen, L, de Passillé, AM and Rushen, J 2010 Measures of weight distribution of dairy cows to detect lameness and the presence of hoof lesions. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 954–960. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2385CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Platz, S, Ahrens, F, Bendel, J, Meyer, HHD and Erhard, MH 2008 What happens with cow behavior when replacing concrete slatted floor by rubber coating: a case study. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 999–1004. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0584CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pluk, A, Bahr, C, Leroy, T, Poursaberi, A, Song, X, Vranken, E, Maertens, W, Van Nuffel, A and Berckmans, D 2010 Evaluation of step overlap as an automatic measure in dairy cow locomotion. Transactions of the ASABE 53: 1305–131210.13031/2013.32580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poursaberi, A, Bahr, C, Pluk, A, Van Nuffel, A and Berckmans, D 2010 Real-time automatic lameness detection based on back posture extraction in dairy cattle: Shape analysis of cow with image processing techniques. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 74: 110–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2010.07.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proudfoot, KL, Weary, DM and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2010 Behavior during transition differs for cows diagnosed with claw horn lesions in mid lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 3970–3978. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2767CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quimby, W 2000 Application of feeding behaviour to predict morbidity of newly received calves in a commercial feedlot. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 81: 315–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.4141/A00-098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajkondawar, PG, Liu, M, Dyer, RM, Neerchal, NK, Tasch, U, Lefcourt, AM, Erez, B and Varner, MA 2006 Comparison of models to identify lame cows based on gait and lesion scores, and limb movement variables. Journal of Dairy Science 89: 4267–4275. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72473-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ringgenberg, N, Bergeron, R and Devillers, N 2010 Validation of accelerometers to automatically record sow postures and stepping behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 128: 37–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.09.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, B, White, BJ, Renter, DG and Larson, RL 2009 Evaluation of three-dimensional accelerometers to monitor and classify behavior patterns in cattle. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 67: 80–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2009.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, Pombourcq, E and de Passillé, AM 2007 Validation of two measures of lameness in dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 106: 173–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, de Passillé, AM, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Weary, DM 2008 The Welfare of Cattle. Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6558-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandilands, V, Brocklehurst, S, Sparks, N, Baker, L, McGovern, R, Thorp, B and Pearson, D 2011 Assessing leg health in chickens using a force plate and gait scoring: how many birds is enough? Veterinary Record 168: 77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.c5978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, PC, Puppe, B and Manteuffel, G 2004 Automated recording of stress vocalisations as a tool to document impaired welfare in pigs. Animal Welfare 13: 105–11010.1017/S096272860002683XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shao, B and Xin, H 2008 A real-time computer vision assessment and control of thermal comfort for group-housed pigs. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 62: 15–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2007.09.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, JT, Rousing, T, Møller, SH, Bonde, M and Hegelund, L 2007 On-farm welfare assessment systems: What are the recording costs? Animal Welfare 16: 237–23910.1017/S0962728600031420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svensson, C and Jensen, MB 2007 Short communication: Identification of diseased calves by use of data from automatic milk feeders. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 994–997. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)71584-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanida, H, Koba, Y, Rushen, J and de Passillé, AM 2011 Use of three-dimensional acceleration sensing to assess dairy cow gait and the effects of hoof trimming. Animal Science Journal 82: 792–800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2011.00903.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trénel, P, Jensen, MB, Decker, EL and Skjøth, F 2009 Technical note: quantifying and characterizing behavior in dairy calves using the IceTag automatic recording device. Journal of Dairy Science 92: 3397–3401. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2040CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Nuffel, A, Sprenger, M, Tuyttens, FAM and Maertens, W 2009 Cow gait scores and kinematic gait data: can people see gait irregularities? Animal Welfare 18: 433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM, Huzzey, JM and Von Keyserlingk, MAG 2009 Board-invited Review: Using behavior to predict and identify ill health in animals. Journal of Animal Science 87: 770–777. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1297CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, AJF 2009 The Virtuous Bicycle: a delivery vehicle for improved farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 18: 141–14710.1017/S0962728600000282CrossRefGoogle Scholar