Effects of heat stress on the accuracy of an ear-tag accelerometer for monitoring rumination and eating behavior in dairy-beef cross cattle using an automated gold standard

ABSTRACT: Accelerometer-based technologies can be used for precision monitoring of feeding behaviors, but limited information is available regarding the effect of varying environmental conditions on sensor performance. The objective of this study was to determine if a commercially available ear-tag sensor (CM; CowManager SensOor, Agis Automatisering BV) could accurately quantify eating and rumination time under heat stress conditions. Data obtained from CM sensors was compared with data collected using an automated gold standard (RW; Rumiwatch System; Itin+Hoch). Automated measurements were obtained from 2 experiments in which cattle were exposed to heat stress conditions. In the principal study (experiment 1), 3,428 h of data were collected from 9 Holstein × Angus steers (470.9 ± 23.9 kg) subjected to either thermoneutral (TN; 21.0°C; 64.0% humidity; temperature-humidity index [THI] = 67; 12- and 12-h light and dark cycle; n = 1,714 h), or heat stress (HS) conditions (cyclical daily temperatures to mimic diurnal patterns; 0800–2000 h: 33.6°C, 40.0% relative humidity (RH), THI: 83.5; 2000–0800 h: 23.2°C, 70.0% RH; THI: 70.3; n = 1,714 h). Data (n = 719 h) from 6 Holstein × Angus steers (487.9 ± 9.1 kg) were obtained from a subsequent experiment (experiment 2) to confirm consistency of ear-tag accelerometer performance under elevated THI (HS conditions as described above). In experiment 1, CM was capable of quantifying rumination time with high accuracy under TN conditions (concordance correlation coefficient [CCC]: 0.75–0.81). Overall, agreement between CM and the automated gold standard declined 6% to 7% during HS, which was most apparent later in the day when cattle had been subjected to HS for multiple hours (moderate agreement; CCC: 0.68). Accuracy for rumination time was also only moderate for data collected during experiment 2 (CCC: 0.55–0.61). In contrast, CM reported total eating (eating with the head down + head up while masticating) time with moderate accuracy for TN (CCC: 0.53–0.54), only achieved negligible to low accuracy during HS (CCC: 0.39–0.44 [experiment 1] and 0.17–0.34 [experiment 2]). Sensor performance did improve when CM eating time was compared specifically to the time spent with the head down reported by RW; HS still negatively influenced sensor performance, however, with high agreement during TN (CCC: 0.72–0.73) but low to moderate agreement during HS (CCC: 0.65–0.69 [experiment 1] and 0.40–0.58 [experiment 2]). Results of this study suggest accuracy of ear-tag accelerometers may be impaired when cattle are subjected to heat stress.