2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.03.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of methods to quantify the number of bites in calves grazing winter oats with different sward heights

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The most recent devices are based on sensors, such as silicone-tube nosebands recording electrical resistance (Rutter et al, 1997), microphones for both intake (Delagarde et al, 1999;Galli et al, 2011;Nadin et al, 2012) and rumination (Reith and Hoy, 2012), mercury switches (Scheibe et al, 1998;Delagarde et al, 1999), and uniaxial, biaxial or tri-axial accelerometers (Scheibe et al, 1998;Nielsen, 2013;Umemura, 2013;Oudshoorn et al, 2013). The relative advantages of these devices depend on the number of variables recorded (including rumination time and bite frequency), their simplicity and robustness in use, specificity and accuracy of grazing-activity detection, method of transferring the data to a computer, degree of automation for data-processing, and financial cost and commercial availability.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The most recent devices are based on sensors, such as silicone-tube nosebands recording electrical resistance (Rutter et al, 1997), microphones for both intake (Delagarde et al, 1999;Galli et al, 2011;Nadin et al, 2012) and rumination (Reith and Hoy, 2012), mercury switches (Scheibe et al, 1998;Delagarde et al, 1999), and uniaxial, biaxial or tri-axial accelerometers (Scheibe et al, 1998;Nielsen, 2013;Umemura, 2013;Oudshoorn et al, 2013). The relative advantages of these devices depend on the number of variables recorded (including rumination time and bite frequency), their simplicity and robustness in use, specificity and accuracy of grazing-activity detection, method of transferring the data to a computer, degree of automation for data-processing, and financial cost and commercial availability.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cattle grazing behaviour requires individual monitoring of cattle based on three important parameters, including the location of the animal, analysing animal posture and the movement of the animal, especially movements such as walking and movement of the jaw (Herinaina et al, 2016; Nadin et al, 2012). Jaw movements define the grazing behaviour of the cattle, and there are three different classes of biosensors that can be used to identify such movements.…”
Section: Monitoring Jaw Movement Of Cattle To Know the Grazing Efficimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The installed software can distinguish between bites and chews (Rutter, 2000). Peaks are considered to be bites when they are a combination of a major long peak followed by a smaller sub-peak, or a non-symmetrical peak in the absence of the sub-peak (Nadin et al, 2012). The IGER Behaviour Recorder can also be used to estimate the feed intake with reasonable accuracy, using data on the number of chews and eating duration (using correlation coefficients) (Pahl et al, 2016).…”
Section: Mechanical Sensors (Pressure Sensors) Acoustic Sensors (Micmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The software installed on the computer board (Rutter, 2000) is able to classify jaw movements (bites or chews), identify jaw movement bouts and determine the behavior associated with each bout with defined thresholds based on the analysis of the peaks shape. Peaks are considered as bites when they are a combination of a major long peak followed by a smaller sub-peak or a non-symmetrical peak in the absence of the sub-peak (Nadin et al, 2012). Conversely, a chew contains only one peak of symmetrical shape (Champion et al, 1997).…”
Section: Pressure Sensorsmentioning
confidence: 99%