Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:48:36.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cow gait scores and kinematic gait data: can people see gait irregularities?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

A Van Nuffel*
Affiliation:
Burgemeesters Van Gansberghelaan 115 bus 1, B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium Agricultural Engineering, Technology and Food Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Merelbeke, Belgium
M Sprenger
Affiliation:
Animal Husbandry and Welfare, Animal Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Melle, Belgium
FAM Tuyttens
Affiliation:
Animal Husbandry and Welfare, Animal Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Melle, Belgium
W Maertens
Affiliation:
Agricultural Engineering, Technology and Food Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Merelbeke, Belgium
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: annelies.vannuffel@ilvo.vlaanderen.be

Abstract

Increasing lameness problems associated with intensified dairy cattle production has lead to the development of several techniques to automatically detect these problems. Comparisons of these new measuring techniques of cow locomotion with the conventional subjective observer scoring are scarce. In order to better understand human observers’ gait scoring, cows walking on a pressure-sensitive mat were evaluated for kinematic gait variables and a visual assessment of gait was also made via video recording. Forty of these videos were used for subjective gait scoring on a 3-point scale, and the observers were also asked to report any observed abnormalities (lameness indicators) that had influenced their scoring. Relationships between reported lameness indicators and subjective gait scores, between subjective gait scores and measured kinematic variables of cow locomotion and between reported lameness indicators and measured kinematic variables of cow locomotion were investigated. In general, observers based their gait score on reported indicators such as ‘tenderness’, ‘arched back’, ‘irregular gait’ and ‘increased abduction’. All of these four reported lameness indicators were correlated with measured kinematic ‘variables of asymmetry’, ‘stance time’ or both, suggesting that human observers are capable of detecting changes within these lameness indicators as measured by the pressure-sensitive mat. ‘Increased abduction’ appeared harder to detect and was reported more frequently by observers already experienced with gait scoring. Also, the measured kinematic variables of ‘stance time’ and ‘measures of asymmetry between left and right limbs’ as measured by the pressure-sensitive mat, show potential in predicting the gait score given. These reported lameness indicators and measured kinematic variables —mutually correlated and both related to the gait scores — were considered promising for subjective gait scoring in general.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Flower, FC, Sanderson, DJ and Weary, DM 2005 Hoof pathologies influence kinematic measures of dairy cow gait. Journal of Dairy Science 88: 31663173CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maertens, W, Baert, J, Vangeyte, J, Vranken, E, Berckmans, D and Sonck, B 2007 Acquisition techniques for dairy cow gait analysis. Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming. 3-6 June 2007, Skiathos, GreeceGoogle Scholar
Maertens, W, Opsomer, G, Van Dongen, S, Song, X, De Campeneere, S, Bahr, C, Van Nuffel, A, Baert, J, Vangeyte, J, Berckmans, D and Sonck, B 2008 Measurement of cow locomotion on a large pressure sensitive walkway. Proceedings of the 15th Symposium and 7th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants. 9-13 June 2008, Kuopio, FinlandGoogle Scholar
Manson, FJ and Leaver, JD 1988 The influence of concentrate amount on locomotion and clinical lameness in dairy cattle. Animal Production 47: 185190Google Scholar
O’Callaghan, KAO, Cripps, PJ, Downham, DY and Murray, RD 2003 Subjective and objective assessment of pain and discomfort due to lameness in dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 12: 605610Google Scholar
Pastell, M, Aisla, AM, Hautala, M, Poikalainen, V, Praks, J, Veermae, I and Ahokas, J 2006 Contactless measurement of cow behaviour in a milking robot. Behavior Research Methods 38: 479483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, GB 1989 Changes in limb loading with lameness for a number of Friesian cattle. British Veterinary Journal 145: 2838CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sprecher, DJ, Hostetler, DE and Kaneene, JB 1997 A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47: 11791187CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tasch, U and Rajkondawar, PG 2004 The development of a SoftSeparator for a lameness diagnostic system. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 44: 239245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telezhenko, E and Bergsten, C 2005 Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93: 183197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, Sprenger, M, Van Nuffel, A, Maertens, W and Van Dongen, S 2009 Reliability of categorical versus continuous scoring of welfare indicators: lameness in cows as a case study. Animal Welfare 18: 399405Google Scholar
Van der Tol, PPJ, Metz, JHM, Noordhuizen-Stassen, EN, Back, W, Braam, CR and Weijs, WA 2005 Frictional forces for unrestrained locomotion in dairy cattle. American Dairy Science Association 88: 615624CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westhoff, C and Troje, NF 2007 Kinematic cues for person identification from biological motion. Perception & Psychophysics 69: 241253Google ScholarPubMed
Winckler, C and Willen, S 2001 The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica: Section A, Animal Science 30: 103107CrossRefGoogle Scholar