Department of Large Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
Department of Environmental Science and Policy, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy.
J Dairy Sci. 2018 Jun;101(6):5449-5453. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13784. Epub 2018 Mar 15.
To validate the accuracy of 2 commercially available activity loggers in determining lying, standing, walking, and number of steps in dairy cows, 30 cows were fitted with the CowScout Leg (GEA Farm Technologies, Bönen, Germany) system and the IceTag (IceRobotics Ltd., Edinburgh, Scotland) system. The CowScout Leg logger reports standing and lying in 15-min periods, whereas the IceTag logger reports standing and lying every second. To make data comparable, the IceTag data were therefore also summarized over 15-min periods corresponding to the paired CowScout Leg sensor. These data from the 2 systems were then analyzed (more than 1,000 cow days in total). Video recordings of a total of 29.5 h were used for labeling the behaviors of the selected cows (n = 10) and these labels were used as a gold standard to determine the accuracy with which these 2 loggers can record behavioral states lying, standing, walking, and the behavioral event number of steps. A concordance correlation coefficient analysis showed that both the standing and lying durations obtained with the 2 systems were almost perfectly correlated with the video labeling (IceTag: ρ = 0.999 and 0.999, respectively; CowScout Leg: ρ = 0.995 and 0.996, respectively). However, both loggers performed poorly regarding number of steps (classified as an event; IceTag: ρ = 0.629; CowScout Leg: ρ = 0.678) and CowScout Leg did not detect walking (classified as a state) very accurately (ρ = 0.860). The IceTag system does not measure walking behavior. When comparing the 2 loggers, the correlation between them for standing and lying was substantial (ρ = 0.953 and ρ = 0.953, respectively). The number of steps poorly correlated between the 2 loggers (ρ = 0.593), which might be due to the CowScout Leg logger being attached to the front leg and the IceTag logger being attached to the hind leg. We conclude that both the IceTag and the CowScout Leg logger are able to record standing and lying almost perfectly, but the step counting by both loggers and the walking recording by the CowScout Leg logger are not very accurate.
为了验证 2 种市售活动记录仪在确定奶牛躺卧、站立、行走和步数方面的准确性，给 30 头奶牛佩戴了 CowScout Leg（GEA Farm Technologies，Bönen，德国）系统和 IceTag（IceRobotics Ltd.，爱丁堡，苏格兰）系统。CowScout Leg 记录仪以 15 分钟为周期报告站立和躺卧状态，而 IceTag 记录仪则每秒报告一次站立和躺卧状态。为了使数据具有可比性，因此也将 IceTag 数据汇总为与配对的 CowScout Leg 传感器相对应的 15 分钟周期。对这 2 个系统的数据（总共超过 1000 天奶牛数据）进行了分析。对总计 29.5 小时的视频记录进行了分析，用于对选定奶牛（n=10）的行为进行标记，这些标记被用作确定这 2 个记录仪记录躺卧、站立、行走和步数等行为状态准确性的金标准。一致性相关系数分析表明，这 2 个系统获得的站立和躺卧时长与视频标记几乎完全相关（IceTag：ρ=0.999 和 0.999；CowScout Leg：ρ=0.995 和 0.996）。然而，这 2 个记录仪在步数方面的表现都很差（被归类为事件；IceTag：ρ=0.629；CowScout Leg：ρ=0.678），并且 CowScout Leg 不能准确地检测行走（被归类为状态）（ρ=0.860）。IceTag 系统不测量行走行为。在比较这 2 个记录仪时，它们之间的站立和躺卧状态相关性很强（ρ=0.953 和 ρ=0.953）。这 2 个记录仪之间的步数相关性较差（ρ=0.593），这可能是由于 CowScout Leg 记录仪附在前腿上，而 IceTag 记录仪附在后腿上。我们得出的结论是，IceTag 和 CowScout Leg 记录仪都能够几乎完美地记录站立和躺卧状态，但这 2 个记录仪的计步功能以及 CowScout Leg 记录仪的行走记录功能都不是很准确。
