Sensitivity and specificity of a tail-activity measuring device for calving prediction in dairy cattle

Abstract

Efficient calving surveillance is essential for avoiding stillbirth due to unattended dystocia. Calving sensors can help detect the onset of parturition and thus ensure timely calving assistance if necessary. Tail-raising is an indicator of imminent calving. The objective of this study was to evaluate a tail-mounted inclinometer sensor (Moocall Ltd., Dublin, Ireland) and to monitor skin integrity after sensor attachment. Cows (n = 157) and heifers (n = 23) were enrolled at 275 d post insemination, and a sensor was attached to each cow's tail. Investigators checked for signs indicating the onset of stage II of parturition, verified the position of the sensor, and evaluated the skin integrity of the tail above and below the sensor hourly for 24 h/d. We used 5 different intervals (i.e., 1, 2, 4, 12, and 24 h until calving) to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Sensors continuously remained on the tail (i.e., within 3 cm of the initial attachment position) after initial attachment until the onset of calving in only 13.9% of animals (n = 25). Sensors were reattached until a calving event occurred (51.6%) or the animal was excluded for other reasons (34.4%). In 31 animals the sensor was removed because the tail was swollen or painful. Heifers were significantly less likely than cows to lose a sensor but more likely to experience tail swelling or pain. Depending on the interval preceding the onset of parturition, sensitivity varied from 19 to 75% and specificity from 63 to 96%.

Sensor and Video: Two Complementary Approaches for Evaluation of Dairy Cow Behavior after Calving Sensor Attachment

“…In contrast, the fixation of the CalveSense device with an adhesive and tape did not cause any swellings to the animals' tails. We thus reinforce that swelling of the tail due to calving sensor fixation is unacceptable (see [8,10]).…”

“…As also reported in Lind and Lindahl [10] and Voss [8], we point out that attaching a sensor with a ratchet (as is the case with the Moocall sensor) to an animal's tail is challenging, even after long-time practice. The two studies reported swellings to the tail in 17% [8] and 87% [10] of animals to which a Moocall sensor was attached, and frequent dropping off the tail. Both these problems were also experienced on the dairy research and demonstration farm.…”

“…Only one gentle pushing (cow 8; time slot t − 16 to t − 12) and one head butting (cow 5; time slot t + 8 to t + 12) were observed as agonistic social interactions. Compared to the pre-sensor time slots, less social interaction was observed in the post-sensor time slots in five cows (1,4,6,7,9) and more social interaction was observed in four cows (2,3,5,8). However, Wilcoxon testing did not indicate any significant mean differences between the respective compared pre-and post-sensor time slots (see Figure 3).…”

“…Parameters such as activity, temperature, or rumination are used for this purpose. The available literature shows that some sensors on the market have the potential to achieve satisfying results in the early detection of calving [5][6][7][8][9]. Studies on tail-attached sensors have reported sensitivities of up to 95% [5].…”

“…They visually analyzed walking, eating, lying down, standing, and tail movement one day before and on the day of calving sensor attachment, concluding that the Moocall sensor was well tolerated by the cows, as only eating behavior showed an increase after its attachment to the tail. Voss et al [8] conducted a study on the Moocall sensor, focusing on its fit on the tail and skin integrity after attachment. In their experiment, the Moocall sensor did not continuously remain on the tail in 86.1% of the animals, with reason being mainly categorized as 'fell off tail' or 'tail swollen or painful'.…”