No abstract

No abstract

Abstract. Animal facilities are increasing in size, while the availability of skilled workers is decreasing, thus, making it difficult for the farm laborers to ensure the health and well-being of all animals under their care. Passive Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) systems have been successfully used in animal facilities and research has identified potential applications in behavior monitoring for automated illness detection. While RFID signals range in frequency from 9 kHz to 5.8 GHz, the three most common frequencies are Low Frequency (LF, 125 kHz or 134.2 kHz), High Frequency (HF, 13.56 MHz), and Ultra-High Frequency (UHF, 865-868 MHz or 902-928 MHz). The objective of this article is to compare and evaluate the application of these three different RFID systems within large research facilities for livestock and poultry in terms of hardware characteristics, system design, and data processing and usage. Differences in tag construction, availability and cost are evident, but also basic differences in reader and antenna function, such as physics of communication, speed of detection, and anti-collision procedures exist. The systems have significant differences in reading ranges and are known to have varying influence of materials, especially water and metal, on the performance of the systems. However, the data streams, as well as methods of data processing and the creation of events (e.g., visits to a feeder), are similar for all systems. The characteristics mentioned do not necessarily identify an ideal RFID technology but reveal positive and negative aspects of each system. The three different RFID systems have been successfully applied in livestock and poultry facilities. Current research is focused on the utilization of the RFID data in prediction and decision models for illness, animal welfare, and management actions. Keywords: Behavior, Cattle, Frequency ranges, Health and welfare, Poultry, Swine, Transponder.

Feeding behaviour can be used as an important indicator to support animal management. However, using feeding behaviour as a tool for dairy cow management an automatic sensor system is needed. Hence, the objective of this study was to setup, test and validate a ultra-high frequency (UHF) radio-frequency identification (RFID) system for measuring time dairy cows spent at the feed fence using two types of passive UHF ear tags. In a first experiment, the reading area of the system was evaluated in two antenna positions. Subsequently, the UHF RFID system was validated with video observations and compared to the measurements of chewing time of a noseband pressure sensor and of the time spent at the feed fence registered by a sensor system with real-time localisation. Differences in the reading area were detected between the two antenna positions and types of ear tag. The antenna position leading to less false positive registrations was chosen for the experiment with cows. The validation with video data showed a high average sensitivity (93.7 ± 5.6%, mean ± standard deviation), specificity (97.8 ± 1.1%), precision (93.8 ± 2.3%) and accuracy (96.9 ± 0.9%) of the UHF RFID system for measuring the time spent at the feed fence. The comparison with the noseband pressure sensor and the real-time localisation resulted in high correlations with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.95 and r = 0.93, respectively. However, substantial absolute differences between the three systems pointed out differences between direct and indirect measures of feeding behaviour in general and between the different sensors in particular. Thus, detailed considerations are necessary before interpreting automatically measured feeding data generally.

No abstract