Automated Monitoring of Panting for Feedlot Cattle: Sensor System Accuracy and Individual Variability

Heat stress causes significant economic losses by reducing the productivity and welfare of cattle whilst requiring a significant investment in resource for amelioration. Panting score (PS) is considered a robust indicator of cattle heat stress; however, individualised visual monitoring is impractical. Thermal index-based monitoring and mitigation decisions are applied at the herd level, but they have limited application for the individual animal. As such, an automated system to monitor the real-time animal response to heat stress is required for strategic mitigation. Our objectives were to validate an accelerometer-based ear tag sensor to monitor cattle panting and to determine individual variability in heat stress responses with reference to thermal indices. Two experiments were conducted: Experiment 1 validated the sensors, and Experiment 2 determined individual variability comparing sensor data against thermal indices. Ear tag sensors were fitted at feedlot entry to continuously monitor the behaviour of 100 steers of mixed breed in Experiment 1 and 200 steers and heifers of mixed breed in Experiment 2. Sensor-derived ‘heavy breathing’ was validated against visually observed PS. Sensor-derived behaviour bouts were analysed as ‘raw’, and single behaviour states were also converted to the preceding bout of ≥2 min, which was referred to as ‘fill’ data for the validation study. Our results demonstrate the sensors’ ability to accurately monitor panting in feedlot cattle. Sensor-recorded ‘heavy breathing’ duration per animal was highly correlated to observed panting duration for both raw (r = 0.89) and fill (r = 0.90) data; however, the concordance correlation co-efficient was lower for raw (0.45) as compared with fill (0.76). Predicted agreement for raw data were 75%, 45%, and 68% and predicted agreement for fill data were 65%, 54%, and 83% for PS0, PS1, and PS2, respectively. Sensitivity for raw data were 39%, 37%, and 45% and for fill data, they were 59%, 54% and 82% for all PS data, PS1 and PS2, respectively. Specificity and positive predictive values for both raw (77% and 79%, respectively) and fill (65% and 77%, respectively) data show the probability of reporting false positives by sensors to be low. Experiment 2 revealed that the duration of panting increased from 0800 to 1700 h alongside changes in thermal indices with significant differences between and within breed and coat colour categories of cattle, suggesting that grouping and allocating heat am