Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T18:50:52.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Detecting lameness in sows from ear tag-sampled acceleration data using wavelets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2017

C. Scheel ,
I. Traulsen ,
W. Auer ,
K. Müller ,
E. Stamer  and
J. Krieter
C. Scheel*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstr. 40, D-24098 Kiel, Germany
I. Traulsen
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstr. 40, D-24098 Kiel, Germany
W. Auer
Affiliation:
MKW Electronics, Jutogasse 3, 4675 Weibern, Austria
K. Müller
Affiliation:
Chamber of Agriculture Schleswig-Holstein, Gutshof 1, D-24327 Blekendorf, Germany
E. Stamer
Affiliation:
TiDa Tier und Daten GmbH, Brux, D-24259 Westensee, Germany
J. Krieter
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, Olshausenstr. 40, D-24098 Kiel, Germany
*
†E-mail: cscheel@tierzucht.uni-kiel.de
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this study was to develop an automated monitoring system to detect lameness in group-housed sows early and reliably on the basis of acceleration data sampled from ear tags. To this end, acceleration data from ear tags were acquired from an experimental system deployed at the Futterkamp Agriculture Research Farm from May 2012 until November 2013. The developed method performs a wavelet transform for each individual sow’s time series of total acceleration. Feature series are then computed by locally estimating the energy, variation and variance in a small moving window. These feature series are then further decomposed into uniform level sets. From these series of level sets, the highest and lowest levels are monitored for lameness detection. To that end, they are split into a past record to serve as reference data representing a sow’s expected behaviour. The deviations between the reference and the remaining detection part of current data, termed feature activated, were then utilised to possibly indicate a lameness condition. The method was applied to a sample of 14 sows, seven of which were diagnosed as lame by a veterinarian on the last day of the sampling period of 14 days each. A prediction part of 3 days was set. Feature activated were clearly separable for the lame and healthy group with means of 8.8 and 0.8, respectively. The day-wise means were 1.93, 9.47 and 15.16 for the lame group and 0.02, 1.13 and 1.44 for the healthy group. A threshold could be set to completely avoid false positives while successfully classifying six lame sows on at least one of the 2 last days. The accuracy values for this threshold were 0.57, 0.71 and 0.78 when restricting to data from the particular day. A threshold that maximised the accuracy achieved values of 0.57, 0.79 and 0.93. Thus, the method presented seems powerful enough to suggest that an individual classification from ear tag-sampled acceleration data into lame and healthy is feasible without previous knowledge of the health status, but has to be validated by using a larger data set.

Keywords

accelerationwaveletsowlamenessdetection
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 11 , November 2017 , pp. 2076 - 2083
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anil, SS, Anil, L, Dee, J, Baidoo, SK and Walker, RD 2007. Factors associated with claw lesions in gestating sows. Journal of Swine Health and Production 15, 78–83.Google Scholar
Chapinal, N, Ruiz de la Torre, JL, Cerisuelo, A, Gasa, J, Baucells, MD, Coma, J, Vidal, A and Manteca, X 2010. Evaluation of welfare and productivity in pregnant sows kept in stalls or in 2 different group housing systems. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 5, 82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornou, C and Lundbye-Christensen, S 2011. Classifying sows‘ activity types from acceleration patterns: an application of the multi-process Kalman filter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 111, 362–273.Google 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.Google Scholar
Grégoire, J, Bergeron, R, D’Allaire, S, Meunier-Salaün, MC and Devillers, N 2013. Assessment of lameness in sows using gait, footprints, postural behaviour and foot lesion analysis. Animal 7, 1163–1173.Google Scholar
Mallat, S 2008. A wavelet tour of signal processing. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Miekley, B, Traulsen, I and Krieter, J 2013. Mastitis detection in dairy cows: the application of support vector machines. Journal of Agricultural Science 151, 889–897.Google Scholar
Pastell, M, Tiusanen, J, Hakoväri, M and Hänninen, L 2009. A wireless accelerometer system with wavelet analysis for assessing lameness in cattle. Biosystems Engeneering 104, 545–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pluym, LM, Maes, D, Vangeyte, J, Mertens, K, Baert, J, van Weyenberg, S, Millet, S and van Nuffel, A 2013. Development of a system for automatic measurements of force and visual stance variables for objective lameness detection in sows: SowSIS. Biosystems Engineering 116, 64–74.Google Scholar
Robert, B, White, BJ, Renter, DG and Larson, RL 2009. Evaluation of three-dimensional accelerometers to monitor and classify behaviour patterns in cattle. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 77, 110–117.Google Scholar
Spoolder, HAM, Geudeke, MJ, Van der Peet-Schwering, CMC and Soede, NM 2009. Group housing of sows in early pregnancy: a review of success and risk factors. Livestock Science 125, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traulsen, I, Breitenberger, S, Auer, W, Stamer, E, Müller, K and Krieter, J 2016. Automatic detection of lameness in gestating group-housed sows using positioning and acceleration measurements. Animal 10, 970–977.Google Scholar