Technical note: Evaluation of a system for monitoring individual feeding behavior and activity in beef cattle
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Behavioral observations are important to detect illness in beef cattle. However, traditional observation techniques are time and labor intensive and may be subjective. The objective was to validate a system for monitoring individual feeding behavior and activity in beef cattle (Fedometer [FEDO]; ENGS, Rosh Pina, Israel). Sixteen steers (initial BW ± SD = 326 ± 46 kg) were fitted with data loggers (FEDO) on their left front leg and housed in a pen with a feedbunk equipped with an antenna emitting an electromagnetic field that reached 30 ± 2 cm in front of the feedbunk. Feedbunk attendance (duration of visit and frequency of meals) measured by FEDO was compared with live observations (27 observational periods lasting between 72 and 240 min; mean 126 min). Lying time and frequency of lying bouts were compared with previously validated accelerometers fitted to the hind leg (10 steers equipped for 10 to 12 d; HOBO Pendant G Acceleration Data Logger [HOBO]; Onset Computer Corporation, Pocasset, MA). Step counts were compared with video recordings (15 observations for 6-min intervals in 6 steers). Concordance correlation coefficients (CCC), accounting for repeated measures, and limits of agreement were computed. Comparison between FEDO and observed time at the feedbunk yielded a CCC of 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-0.99). All 68 meal events observed were recorded by FEDO. However, FEDO recorded 4 meal events during the 27 observational periods that were not observed. Lying time measured by HOBO and FEDO were highly correlated (CCC = 0.98; 95% CI 0.97-0.99). However, frequency of lying bouts measured by FEDO was only moderately correlated to HOBO (CCC = 0.71; 95% CI 0.63-0.77); FEDO underestimating the number of lying bouts (on average, 0.4 fewer bouts per 6 h). Step count by FEDO was moderately correlated to video observations (CCC = 0.75; 95% CI 0.49-0.89); FEDO overestimating the number of steps (on average, 5 more steps per 6 min). In conclusion, the FEDO system accurately measured duration of feedbunk attendance, frequency of meals, and lying time. However, it overestimated the number of steps and underestimated the frequency of lying bouts.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».