Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

Quantifying the economic and animal welfare trade-offs of classification models in precision livestock farming for sub-optimal mobility management

Published: 01 April 2024 Publication History

Highlights

3-Class classification models have economic & animal welfare benefits.
Mobility score 2 must be classified as sub-optimal mobility for animal welfare reasons.
Large increases in economic gains were traded for small reductions in welfare gains.
A novel method was developed to study trade-offs in classification outcomes.
Simulation modelling is a valuable approach to test the implications of classifiers.

Abstract

Precision livestock farming (PLF) offers a sensor-based management approach to potentially mitigate the negative economic and animal welfare consequences of sub-optimal mobility (SOM). Human-based SOM classification is often done using more than two classes (i.e., mobility scores 1–5, where 1 = optimal and 5 = severely impaired mobility), while binary classification is ultimately used in sensor-based classification. Previous economic research shows that classifying SOM as a binary problem in sensor-based management has little to no economic value while non-binary SOM classification may be more economically beneficial. However, the animal welfare implications of a non-binary SOM classification approach are unknown. In this study, we assess whether economic and welfare gains can be achieved by using 3-class SOM classifiers (i.e., sensors) for sensor-based SOM management compared with the current no-sensor SOM management. With respect to mobility scores 1–5, three SOM classes (K 1 = non-SOM, K 2 = SOM, and K 3 = severe-SOM) along with two management scenarios, with four different classifiers each, were defined. Mobility scores 1–5 were grouped into one of three SOM classes depending on the classifier. In management scenario one, mobility scores 1 and 2, were grouped to K 1, while mobility score 3 was grouped to K 2 and mobility scores 4 and 5 to K 3. In management scenario two, mobility scores 2 and 3 were grouped to K 2. In both management scenarios, alerts for cows classified to SOM class K 2 were generated every 7 days based on an alert prioritisation criterion, while alerts for cows classified to SOM class K 3 were generated daily. Treatment options followed the generation of either weekly or daily alerts. For each of the eight classifiers (i.e., 4 classifiers per management scenario) 600 classification outcomes were defined. A bio-economic simulation model was used to simulate the economic and welfare effects of the various classifiers and classification outcomes respective of management scenarios. Comparisons were made with a no-classifier scenario. The simulated output data was first analysed using an exploratory approach. Second, a novel method accounting for the highly interactive classification outcomes was developed to quantify the trade-offs in classification outcomes and how they affected the economic and welfare gains. Among the tested classifiers, all showed economic and welfare gains on average. Classifiers with larger separations between non-SOM and SOM classes showed the highest economic gains. Including mobility score 2 into the SOM class K 2 showed meaningful welfare gains on average as opposed to when mobility score 2 was included in the non-SOM class K 1. Economic gains were more sensitive to trade-offs in classification outcomes compared to welfare gains. Larger increases in economic gains were often achieved at the cost of smaller reductions in welfare gains for changes in classification outcomes. This study provides valuable insights on designing appropriate 3-class SOM classifiers to be used in practice that could also be beneficial when designing classifiers for health disorders other than SOM. It also demonstrates the value in using simulation models to test classifiers by highlighting interesting classification outcomes that can be further validated in practice.

References

[1]
M. Alsaaod, M. Fadul, A. Steiner, Automatic lameness detection in cattle, Vet. J. 246 (2019) 35–44.
[2]
T. Banhazi, H. Lehr, H. Crabtree, P. Schofield, M. Tscharke, D. Berckmans, Precision livestock farming: An international review of scientific and commercial aspects, Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 5 (2012) 1–9.
[3]
D. Berckmans, General introduction to precision livestock farming, Anim. Front. 7 (2017) 6–11,.
[4]
R.C. Bicalho, S.H. Cheong, G. Cramer, C.L. Guard, Association Between a Visual and an Automated Locomotion Score in Lactating Holstein Cows, J. Dairy Sci. 90 (2007) 3294–3300,.
[5]
B. Bolker, Ecological models and data in R, 1st ed., Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2008.
[6]
B. Bolker, R, bbmle: Tools for General Maximum Likelihood Estimation, Development Core Team (2022).
[7]
K.A. Dolecheck, J.M. Bewley, Animal board invited review: Dairy cow lameness expenditures, losses and total cost, Animal 12 (2018) 1462–1474,.
[8]
K.N. Dominiak, A.R. Kristensen, Prioritizing alarms from sensor-based detection models in livestock production - A review on model performance and alarm reducing methods, Comput. Electron. Agric. 133 (2017) 46–67,.
[9]
E.A. Eckelkamp, J.M. Bewley, On-farm use of disease alerts generated by precision dairy technology, J. Dairy Sci. 103 (2020) 1566–1582,.
[10]
F. Edwardes, M. van der Voort, T. Halasa, M. Holzhauer, H. Hogeveen, Simulating the mechanics behind sub-optimal mobility and the associated economic losses in dairy production, Prev. Vet. Med. 199 (2022),.
[11]
F. Edwardes, M. van der Voort, H. Hogeveen, The economics of sensor-based management of dairy cow suboptimal mobility, J. Dairy Sci. 105 (2022) 9682–9701,.
[12]
F. Edwardes, M. van der Voort, T.B. Rodenburg, H. Hogeveen, A new approach and insights on modelling the impact of production diseases on dairy cow welfare, Animal 101056 (2023),.
[13]
P.A. Flach, ROC analysis, in: D. Phung, G.I. Webb, C. Sammut (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Science, Springer, US, New York, 2016,.
[14]
K. Frankena, J.G.C.J. Somers, W.G.P. Schouten, J.V. van Stek, J.H.M. Metz, E.N. Stassen, E.A.M. Graat, The effect of digital lesions and floor type on locomotion score in Dutch dairy cows, Prev. Vet. Med. 88 (2009) 150–157,.
[15]
S.M. Ghotoorlar, S.M. Ghamsari, I. Nowrouzian, S. Shiry Ghidary, Lameness scoring system for dairy cows using force plates and artificial intelligence, Vet. Rec. 170 (2012) 1–5,.
[16]
M. Groenevelt, D.C.J. Main, D. Tisdall, T.G. Knowles, N.J. Bell, Measuring the response to therapeutic foot trimming in dairy cows with fortnightly lameness scoring, Vet. J. 201 (2014) 283–288,.
[17]
H. Hansson, C.J. Lagerkvist, Decision Making for Animal Health and Welfare: Integrating Risk-Benefit Analysis with Prospect Theory, Risk Anal. 34 (2014) 1149–1159,.
[18]
H. Hansson, C.J. Lagerkvist, Identifying use and non-use values of animal welfare: Evidence from Swedish dairy agriculture, Food Policy 50 (2015) 35–42,.
[19]
X. He, E.C. Frey, The Validity of Three-Class Hotelling Trace (3-HT) in Describing Three-Class Task Performance: Comparison of Three-Class Volume Under ROC Surface (VUS) and 3-HT, IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 28 (2009) 185–193,.
[20]
Hennessy, D.A., Marsh, T.L., 2021. Economics of animal health and livestock disease, 1st ed, Handbook of Agricultural Economics. Elsevier B.V.
[21]
Läpple, D., Osawe, O.W., 2022. Concern for animals, other farmers, or oneself? Assessing farmers’ support for a policy to improve animal welfare. Am J Agric Econ 1–25.
[22]
Nakas, C.T., Alonzo, T.A., 2007. ROC graphs for assessing the ability of a diagnostic marker to detect three disease classes with an umbrella ordering. Biometrics 63, 603–609.
[23]
C.T. Nakas, C.T. Yiannoutsos, Ordered multiple-class ROC analysis with continuous measurements, Stat. Med. 23 (2004) 3437–3449,.
[24]
Nakas, C.T., 2014. Developments in ROC surface analysis and assessment of diagnostic markers in three-class classification problems. REVSTAT-Statistical Journal 12, 43–65.
[25]
D. Piette, T. Norton, V. Exadaktylos, D. Berckmans, Individualised automated lameness detection in dairy cows and the impact of historical window length on algorithm performance, Animal 14 (2020) 409–417,.
[26]
J.V. Psutka, J. Psutka, Sample size for maximum-likelihood estimates of Gaussian model depending on dimensionality of pattern space, Pattern Recogn. 91 (2019) 25–33,.
[27]
R Core Team, 2022. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.
[28]
Rojo-Gimeno, C., van der Voort, M., Niemi, J.K., Lauwers, L., Kristensen, A.R., Wauters, E., 2019. Assessment of the value of information of precision livestock farming: A conceptual framework. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences.
[29]
Rushton, J., 2009. The Economics of Animal Health and Production. CAB International, Oxfordshire.
[30]
Sahiner, B., Heang-Ping Chan, Hadjiiski, L.M., 2008. Performance Analysis of Three-Class Classifiers: Properties of a 3-D ROC Surface and the Normalized Volume Under the Surface for the Ideal Observer. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 27, 215–227.
[31]
A. Schlageter-Tello, E.A.M. Bokkers, P.W.G.G. Koerkamp, T. Van Hertem, S. Viazzi, C.E.B. Romanini, I. Halachmi, C. Bahr, D. Berckmans, K. Lokhorst, Manual and automatic locomotion scoring systems in dairy cows: a review, Prev. Vet. Med. 116 (2014) 12–25.
[32]
D.J. Sprecher, D.E. Hostetler, J.B. Kaneene, A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance, Theriogenology 47 (1997) 1179–1187,.
[33]
V.M. Thorup, L. Munksgaard, P.E. Robert, H.W. Erhard, P.T. Thomsen, N.C. Friggens, Lameness detection via leg-mounted accelerometers on dairy cows on four commercial farms, Animal 9 (2015) 1704–1712,.
[34]
T. Van De Gucht, W. Saeys, A. Van Nuffel, L. Pluym, K. Piccart, L. Lauwers, J. Vangeyte, S. van Weyenberg, Farmers’ preferences for automatic lameness-detection systems in dairy cattle, J. Dairy Sci. 100 (2017) 5746–5757,.
[35]
T. Van Hertem, S. Viazzi, M. Steensels, E. Maltz, A. Antler, V. Alchanatis, A. Schlageter-Tello, K. Lokhorst, E.C.B. Romanini, C. Bahr, D. Berckmans, I. Halachmi, Automatic lameness detection based on consecutive 3D-video recordings, Biosyst. Eng. 119 (2014) 108–116,.
[36]
T. Van Hertem, C. Bahr, A.S. Tello, S. Viazzi, M. Steensels, C.E.B. Romanini, C. Lokhorst, E. Maltz, I. Halachmi, D. Berckmans, Lameness detection in dairy cattle: single predictor v. multivariate analysis of image-based posture processing and behaviour and performance sensing, Animal 10 (2016) 1525–1532,.
[37]
Wathes, C., 2009. Precision livestock farming for animal health, welfare and production. In: Sustainable Animal Production: The Challenges and Potential Developments for Professional Farming. Tartu, pp. 411–420.
[38]
Welfare Quality®, Welfare Quality® Assessment protocol for cattle, Welfare Quality® Consortium. (2009).
[39]
H.R. Whay, J.K. Shearer, The Impact of Lameness on Welfare of the Dairy Cow, Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 33 (2017) 153–164,.

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture  Volume 219, Issue C
Apr 2024
1160 pages

Publisher

Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

Netherlands

Publication History

Published: 01 April 2024

Author Tags

  1. Sub-optimal mobility
  2. Lameness
  3. Classification
  4. Precision livestock farming
  5. Economic value
  6. Animal welfare value

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 0
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 17 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media