The commercially available collar device MooMonitor+ was evaluated with regards to accuracy and application potential for measuring grazing behavior. These automated measurements are crucial as cows feed intake behavior at pasture is an important parameter of animal performance, health and welfare as well as being an indicator of feed availability. Compared to laborious and time-consuming visual observation, the continuous and automated measurement of grazing behavior may support and improve the grazing management of dairy cows on pasture. Therefore, there were two experiments as well as a literature analysis conducted to evaluate the MooMonitor+ under grazing conditions. The first experiment compared the automated measurement of the sensor against visual observation. In a second experiment, the MooMonitor+ was compared to a noseband sensor (RumiWatch), which also allows continuous measurement of grazing behavior. The first experiment on n=12 cows revealed that the automated sensor MooMonitor+ and visual observation were highly correlated as indicated by the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (r s )=0.94 and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC)=0.97 for grazing time. An r s -value of 0.97 and CCC=0.98 was observed for rumination time. In a second experiment with n=12 cows over 24-h periods, a high correlation between the MooMonitor+ and the RumiWatch was observed for grazing time as indicated by an r s -value of 0.91 and a CCC-value of 0.97. Similarly, a high correlation was observed for rumination time with an r s -value of 0.96 and a CCC-value of 0.99. While a higher level of agreement between the MooMonitor+ and both visual observation and RumiWatch was observed for rumination time compared to grazing time, the overall results showed a high level of accuracy of the collar device in measuring grazing and rumination times. Therefore, the collar device can be applied to monitor cow behavior at pasture on farms. With regards to the application potential of the collar device, it may not only be used on commercial farms but can also be applied to research questions when a data resolution of 15 min is sufficient. Thus, at farm level, the farmer can get an accurate and continuous measurement of grazing behavior of each individual cow and may then use those data for decision-making to optimize the animal management.

Sensor technologies that measure grazing and ruminating behaviour as well as physical activities of individual cows are intended to be included in precision pasture management. One of the advantages of sensor data is they can be analysed to support farmers in many decision-making processes. This article thus considers the performance of a set of RumiWatchSystem recorded variables in the prediction of insufficient herbage allowance for spring calving dairy cows. Several commonly used models in machine learning (ML) were applied to the binary classification problem, i.e., sufficient or insufficient herbage allowance, and the predictive performance was compared based on the classification evaluation metrics. Most of the ML models and generalised linear model (GLM) performed similarly in leave-out-one-animal (LOOA) approach to validation studies. However, cross validation (CV) studies, where a portion of features in the test and training data resulted from the same cows, revealed that support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF) and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) performed relatively better than other candidate models. In general, these ML models attained 88% AUC (area under receiver operating characteristic curve) and around 80% sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, precision and F-score. This study further identified that number of rumination chews per day and grazing bites per minute were the most important predictors and examined the marginal effects of the variables on model prediction towards a decision support system.

Accelerometer-based mobility scoring has focused on cow behaviors such as lying and walking. Accuracy levels as high as 91% have been previously reported. However, there has been limited replication of results. Here, measures previously identified as indicative of mobility, such as lying bouts and walking time, were examined. On a research farm and a commercial farm, 63 grazing cows’ behavior was monitored in four trials (16, 16, 16, and 15 cows) using leg-worn accelerometers. Seventeen good mobility (score 0), 23 imperfect mobility (score 1), and 22 mildly impaired mobility (score 2) cows were monitored. Only modest associations with activity, standing, and lying events were found. Thus, behavior monitoring appears to be insufficient to discern mildly and moderately impaired mobility of grazing cows.