Smart Agricultural Technology 3 (2023) 100071

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Smart Agricultural Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atech

Acoustic sensors for detecting cow behaviour

P.R. Shorten
AgResearch Limited, Ruakura Research Centre, Private Bag 3123, Hamilton, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Acoustic technologies provide a non-invasive method to generate information about the health, welfare, and
Cow environmental impact of livestock. This study demonstrated that rear leg attached acoustic sensors can be used
Acoustic to differentiate between seven different acoustic classes, with six based on cow behaviours (Grazing, Breathing,
Machine learning
Walking, Lying Down, Dung, Vocalization, Other) that were obtained from more than 150 cows under grazing
Neural network
conditions. The overall accuracy of the ensemble classification model was 96.2% based on a total of 700 acoustic
Behaviour
Livestock recordings. The performance of the models for the duration, frequency (number of events per 10 seconds), or
period (average time between events) of the six animal behaviours had an average coefficient of determination
of R2 = 0.93. The model for respiration rate (Breathing class) while sleeping (R2 = 0.99) provides an alterna-
tive to more invasive differential pressure and thermistor-based methods. The model performance for bite rate
(R2 = 0.91) was consistent with results obtained previously with collar and forehead attached microphones. There
was ten-fold variation in the duration of dung events and the model for the duration of dung events (R2 = 0.96)
allows for estimation of the total amount of dung deposited per day. The acoustic technology also provides
(R2 = 0.91) an alternative to accelerometer-based methods for stepping frequency. Lying down events were char-
acterised by scratching sounds generated by the microphone rubbing against the pasture that provided good
prediction of duration of the time to lie down (R2 = 0.86). Models for vocalization duration (R2 = 0.92) and clas-
sification of the vocalization class (sensitivity 0.99; precision 0.95) demonstrate the feasibility of acoustic-based
determination of vocalization traits, which provide information on the welfare and state of the animal.

1. Introduction Acoustic-based prediction of animal traits requires 1) proximal

Acoustic technologies provide a non-invasive method to generate
information about the health, welfare, and environmental impact of
livestock [11, 18], which can be used for farm management, regula-
tory purposes, and evidence to consumers on the livestock-based prod-
ucts they consume. Acoustic sensors have been developed to predict
cow rumination time [16, 24], oestrus [4, 25], intake [3, 7–9], uri-
nation time and duration [29, 30], proximity to their calf [20], emo-
tional state [10], coughing [34], identity [10], social isolation (Green
et al., 2018), hunger [15] and detection of lameness [35, 36]. Acous-
tic information has also been used to determine cow feed anticipation
[14], respiratory diseases [27], rate of respiration [5, 6], and painful
husbandry procedures [32]. Acoustic methods have also been utilized
for gait analysis [13] and identification of individual steps in humans
[28] and cows [35]. Bioacoustics also provides the opportunity to mea-
sure traits such as cow lying behaviour [26] and dung production [17],
which are normally measured with inertial measurement units (IMU)
and labour-intensive metabolism stalls respectively. Acoustic methods
therefore have the potential to be deployed on-farm to measure a wide
range of animal behaviours.
recordings of the trait from cow-attached (which allows continuous cow
monitoring) or milking shed located (which requires a single sensor per
herd) sensors; 2) acoustic sensor data of sufficient quality; 3) expert
labelling of the animal trait (which may need to be cross-referenced
with other observations such as video recordings); 4) development of
calibration algorithms to predict the traits; and 5) model validation in
independent studies. A multitude of algorithms have been utilized for
acoustic prediction of animal traits, including machine learning, neural
networks and deep learning algorithms that interrogate the spectral and
time features of the acoustic signals [21, 22], although the performance
of the algorithm cannot exceed the performance of the data labelling
by the expert assessor(s). However, there is no universal best algorithm
for acoustic-based prediction of animal traits, although the development
of long short-term memory (LSTM) networks and convolutional neural
networks (CNN) [21, 22] may provide for improved classification and
prediction of animal behaviour.
The primary hypothesis of this study was that algorithms can dif-
ferentiate between seven different acoustic classes (Grazing, Breathing,
Walking, Lying Down, Dung, Vocalization, Other) obtained from cow
rear leg attached acoustic sensors that measure on-farm cow behaviour.

E-mail address: paul.shorten@agresearch.co.nz

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2022.100071
Received 2 March 2022; Received in revised form 11 May 2022; Accepted 16 May 2022
2772-3755/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
P.R. Shorten
Nomenclature
BiLSTM Bidirectional long short-term memory network
CNN Convolutional Neural Network
F acoustic frequency (Hz)
F1 The F1 statistic
FN False negative
FP False positive
IMU Inertial measurement unit
LSTM long short-term memory networks
ML machine learning
MV Majority vote
N Nitrogen
RMSE Root mean squared error
R2 Coefficient of determination
TN True negative
TP True positive
The secondary hypothesis was that algorithms can predict either the du-
ration (Vocalization, Dung, Lying Down), frequency (Grazing, Walking),
or period (Breathing) of the animal behaviour trait.
2. Methods
2.1. Study site and animals
An existing acoustic dataset obtained from rear leg attached record-
ings from more than 150 dairy cows at multiple locations and times
of year was utilized in this study [29, 30]. The OlympusTM WS-853
digital voice recorder (Tokyo, Japan) was used for acoustic recording.
The sensor was attached to a lightweight board and wired for operation
with two AAA batteries and two AA batteries. The sensor was placed in
a custom-made housing with dimensions 111.5 mm × 55 mm × 18 mm
that had a VELCROTM strap to wrap around the leg and back onto itself.
The sensor was placed on the rear leg and positioned near the hock as
illustrated in Shorten & Welten [29, 30]. Sensors were placed on cows
for 2 -5 days at the AgResearch Ruakura Research farm and the AgRe-
search Tokanui Research farm located in the Waikato, New Zealand as
detailed in Shorten & Welten [29, 30]. Dairy cows were managed ac-
cording to usual New Zealand farm management procedures. The cows
had free access to drinking water and grazed perennial ryegrass/white
clover pasture. All animals were observed for abnormal health and be-
haviour during the studies. All animal manipulations were approved by
the AgResearch Ruakura Animal Ethics Committee.
2.2. Acoustic dataset
A total of 700 representative acoustic signals of 10 second dura-
tion were obtained for each of seven classes (Dung, Vocalization, Ly-
ing Down, Walking, Grazing, Breathing and Other), with 100 signals
per class. All walking events had at least 2 steps in the 10 second in-
terval. Dung events were obtained from a variety of seasons, which im-
pacts dung moisture content and consequently the type of dung sound
generated on the soil surface. A variety of cow vocalizations (Vocal-
ization) were acquired from a range of cows. Lying down events were
characterised by scratching sounds generated by the microphone rub-
bing against the pasture. Video recordings of animals lying down were
utilized in combination with the acoustic recordings to confirm that ly-
ing down events (Lying Down) were correctly classified by the acous-
tic assessor from the acoustic recordings [29]. Grazing events were ob-
tained over a range of bite frequencies (6 - 22 bites per 10 s interval).
Breathing events were largely obtained over the period when cows were
sleeping/resting from midnight to 5 a.m., when the acoustic microphone
was more proximal to the head of the cow. Background (Other) events
2
Smart Agricultural Technology 3 (2023) 100071
were selected to obtain a diverse dataset and included a multitude of
farm environmental sounds including birds (magpies, plovers), insects
(cicadas), wind, rain, thunder, road vehicles (cars, trucks), farm machin-
ery (tractors, motorbikes), airplanes, gates, scratching and other animal
and environmental sounds. Background events did not contain acoustic
recordings of the six primary animal behaviours in this study. Urina-
tion events were excluded from this study as they have previously been
more extensively studied in a 100-fold larger model calibration dataset
(6122 urination events and 11413 background events) and validated
in multiple independent datasets (12541 urination events and 14484
background events) with a model precision of 0.98 (the small number
of false positive on-paddock urination events tended to be classified as
dung events, lying down, or vehicle noise) in validation studies [31].
2.3. Acoustic labelling
Each 10 second acoustic event was classified as one of seven classes
(Dung, Vocalization, Lying Down, Walking, Grazing, Breathing and
Other) based on auditory assessment of the acoustic signal by a single ex-
pert. The acoustic samples for the six animal behaviour traits were also
scored for either the duration (Vocalization, Dung, Lying Down), fre-
quency (Grazing, Walking), or period (Breathing) of the trait. Duration
traits were scored based on labelling the time of the first and last occur-
rence of the behaviour in the 10 s interval (e.g., some cows generated a
sequence of separate vocalizations in the 10 s interval and for simplicity
the duration was based on the start of the first vocalization and the end
of the last vocalization). The time of each step was identified for the
Walking trait, and the time of each bite was identified for the Grazing
trait (the duration of the acoustic signal associated with each step/bite
was short relative to the time between steps/bites). Times less than 0.5 s
from the time of a step were denoted as stepping regions and times less
than 0.1 s from the time of a bite were denoted as biting regions. The
start and end time of each breath was labelled for the breathing trait
to determine breathing regions. Each breath was also identified as an
exhalation or an inhalation. No time labels occurred in the first or last
0.1 s of the 10 s interval.
2.4. Augmented dataset
An augmented dataset of 35700 signals was generated from the 700
labelled acoustic signals. For each acoustic signal, a further 50 signals
were generated by signal stretch, pitch, volume, noise, and time-shift
operations (10 signals per operation). Signals were stretched by up to
25%, pitch was modified by up to 25%, volume was modified by up to
50%, absolute and relative noise levels were added to signals with am-
plitude of 5% and 10% respectively, and time-shifts of up to 0.1 seconds
were used.
2.5. Spectral analysis
All signals were acquired at a sampling rate of 44,100 Hz. A power
spectrogram representation of each 10 s acoustic signal was generated
[29, 30]. A total of 256 discrete sampling points were used to calcu-
late the discrete Fourier transform, 100 samples were used per overlap
between adjoining segments, and a Kaiser window length of 512 with
a shape factor of 20 was utilized. Each power spectrum (p) was then
converted to dB (10 × log10 (p)). Spectrograms of size 128 × 1070 were
generated (128 frequencies at a time-step of 0.0093 s) for each 10 s
acoustic signal.
2.6. Classification models
Five individual Convolution Neural Net (CNN) model architectures
were constructed (Models 1-5), which were then used to create an en-
semble classifier (AV5). The input layer for each model was a 128 × 1070
P.R. Shorten
Fig. 1. Representative spectrograms for the seven different acoustic classes (A) Grazing, B) Breathing, C) Walking, D) Lying Down, E) Dung, F) Vocalization, and G)
Other).
spectrogram matrix. The five model architectures are listed in the Sup-
plementary Material. The dataset was split into calibration (54% of
data), validation (13% of data), and test (33% of data) sets. The cali-
bration dataset was used for model training and the validation dataset
was used to decide when to terminate the training process. CNN training
was conducted utilizing the stochastic gradient descent method with a
mini-batch size of 128 signals, initial learning rate of 0.00003, momen-
tum 0.95, a validation frequency of once per epoch, and a validation
patience of 4 epochs was used to terminate model training to avoid over-
fitting.
2.7. Regression models
The CNN architecture of Model 4 (with the removal of the softmax
layer and the replacement of the classification layer by a regression
layer) was used for the duration of Dung, Vocalization, Lying Down
traits. Training was conducted as per the classification models.
A bidirectional sequence-to-sequence long short-term memory net-
work (BiLSTM) was used for the Walking, Breathing and Grazing traits.
The BiLSTM architecture was: a sequence input layer (of dimension 128
with z-score normalization); BiLSTM layer (BiLSTM with 200 hidden
units); dropout layer (20% dropout); BiLSTM layer (BiLSTM with 100
hidden units); dropout layer (20% dropout); BiLSTM layer (BiLSTM with
50 hidden units); dropout layer (20% dropout); fully connected layer (2
classes); softmax layer; classification layer.
3
Smart Agricultural Technology 3 (2023) 100071
The BiLSTM was first used to determine the Walking, Breathing and
Grazing regions (times close to a step, bite, or breath). For the Walk-
ing trait, the biLSTM model was followed by a machine learning (ML)
model to predict the number of steps in the 10 s interval, which was then
subsequently rounded to the nearest natural number. The ML model was
based on an ensemble model of Gaussian Process Regression (GPR), Sup-
port Vector Machine Regression (SVMR), Partial Least Squares Regres-
sion (PLSR), and Random Forest (RF) models [29, 30]. For the Breathing
trait the BiLSTM model was followed by erosion and dilation operations
(each with a neighbourhood of 0.28 s), labelling of the connected com-
ponents, and calculation of the average time between the start of each
predicted breath. For the Grazing trait the BiLSTM model was followed
by erosion and dilation operations (each with a neighbourhood of 0.09
s), labelling of the connected components, and calculation of the number
of steps.
2.8. Analysis
The accuracy of classification was calculated for each classification
model for the calibration (54% of data), validation (13% of data), and
test (33% of data) augmented datasets. Each dataset contained an equal
number of samples from each of the seven behaviour classes. Confusion
matrix representations of the comparison between observed and AV5
model predicted classification of acoustic events were calculated for the
augmented dataset split into calibration, validation, and test datasets.
The number of correctly classified observations were calculated for each
P.R. Shorten
Fig. 1. Continued
predicted class as percentages of the number of observations in the pre-
dicted class. The number of correctly classified observations were also
calculated for each true class as percentages of the number of observa-
tions of the true class.
Linear regression models were fit to the relationships between the
model predicted and measured duration, frequency (number of events
per 10 seconds), or period (average time between events) of the six be-
haviours. Performance statistics of the models (R2 and RMSE) were cal-
culated for the duration, frequency, or period of the six behaviours for
the initial dataset and the augmented dataset (split into calibration, val-
idation, and test datasets). The slope, intercept, and bias for the linear
relationships between the predicted and measured duration, frequency,
or period of the six behaviours was calculated for the test dataset. All
calculations were conducted in MATLAB (The MathWorks).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Acoustic data
A total of 700 acoustic samples of 10 second duration were labelled
in the original dataset (100 samples for each of the 7 classes), and 35700
acoustic samples of 10 second duration were available in the augmented
dataset (an extra 50 samples per original sample). Representative spec-
trograms for the seven different acoustic classes (Grazing, Breathing,
Walking, Lying Down, Dung, Vocalization, Other) are depicted in Fig. 1.
The different acoustic classes can be readily differentiated by the charac-
teristic features of the spectrograms. Grazing events were characterised
4
Smart Agricultural Technology 3 (2023) 100071
by somewhat periodic short duration low intensity bites, whereby the
pitch increases over the duration of the bite. Breathing events were char-
acterised by periodic long duration low intensity breaths, whereby the
duration of inhalation and exhalation were potentially different. Walk-
ing events were characterised by somewhat periodic very high intensity
steps with very low frequency. Lying down events were characterised by
somewhat random scratching sounds generated by the microphone rub-
bing against grass. Dung events were characterized by somewhat regular
pulses in sound generated by the dung flow hitting the ground, although
the time between pulses in sound was highly variable depending on the
moisture content of the dung. Vocalization events were characterized
by a sustained interval of resonant sound of a fixed pitch over a short
timescale (with multiple overtones), whereby the pitch and volume of
the signal could readily change over the interval. Other events included
a multitude of farm environmental sounds including birds, insects, wind,
rain, thunder, road vehicles, farm machinery, gates, animal scratching
and other animal and environmental sounds.
3.2. Classification models
Models were trained using the calibration augmented dataset, the
validation augmented dataset was used to determine when to cease
training, and the test augmented dataset was used to evaluate the model
performance in an independent dataset. The overall accuracy of the five
individual classification models and the ensemble (AV5) model for the
calibration, validation and test augmented datasets are listed in Table 1.
Model performance was very similar between the five individual mod-
P.R. Shorten
Table 1
Comparison of the accuracy of classification of acoustic events for the
six classification models for the augmented dataset (35700 samples
(5100 samples per behaviour class) split into calibration (19278 sam-
ples), validation (4641 samples) and test (11781 samples) datasets).
Models 1-5 were used to construct the ensemble classifier (AV5).
Model Calibration Accuracy Validation Accuracy Test Accuracy
1 98.7% 90.0% 94.6%
2 97.4% 89.1% 93.0%
3 95.3% 91.3% 94.1%
4 100% 94.1% 95.4%
5 96.9% 92.8% 93.7%
AV5 99.9% 92.6% 96.2%
els, with accuracies of 93% - 95% in the test augmented dataset. The
overall accuracy of the AV5 ensemble classification model was 99.9%,
92.6%, and 96.2% for the calibration, validation, and test augmented
datasets, respectively (Table 1). The performance of the AV5 ensemble
model was better than each individual classification model in the test
augmented dataset as expected.
Confusion matrix representations of the comparison between ob-
served and AV5 predicted classification of acoustic events for the aug-
mented dataset (35700 samples) split into calibration (19278 samples),
validation (4641 samples) and test (11781 samples) datasets are shown
in Table 2. Classification errors were typically less than 5% although
around 11% of Lying Down events were falsely predicted to be Dung
events in the test augmented dataset. Similarly, falsely predicted Dung
events were typically Lying Down events. Falsely predicted Other events
were typically Vocalization events and falsely predicted Grazing events
were typically Walking events. This highlights that prediction errors
were relatively low in the augmented test dataset, some classes were
more difficult to differentiate (e.g., Dung and Lying Down classes), and
the model classification errors tended to be grouped in more closely
related classes. The good classification performance for the Other cat-
egory, which includes a diverse range of other farm environmental
sounds, can be interpreted in terms of the classification performance of
the other categories (Grazing, Breathing, Walking, Lying Down, Dung,
Vocalization) and the process of elimination.
The classification accuracy for the 7 classes in the test dataset
(96.2%) is consistent with the classification accuracy of 91% using a
hidden Markov model for 210 acoustic vocalization signals (cow vo-
calization; calf vocalization; coughing; oestrus; milking delayed; noisy
inhaling; hunger) collected in an independent test dataset [15].
3.3. Regression models
The acoustic samples for the six animal behaviour traits were scored
for either the duration (Vocalization, Dung, Lying Down), frequency
(Grazing, Walking), or period (Breathing) of the trait. There was ap-
proximately five-fold variation in each trait (Fig. 2). Models for each
trait were trained using the calibration augmented dataset, the valida-
tion augmented dataset was used to determine when to cease training,
and the test augmented dataset was used to evaluate the model perfor-
mance in an independent dataset.
The performance of the models for the duration, frequency, or period
of the six behaviours are depicted in Fig. 2 for the calibration, validation,
and test augmented datasets (a total of 5100 samples per behaviour).
The coefficient of determination ranged from R2 = 0.81 (Lying Down)
to R2 = 0.98 (Breathing), with an average of R2 = 0.91 for the six differ-
ent traits in the augmented test dataset (Table 3). The model residuals
(predicted – measured) were approximately normally distributed and
exhibited low heteroscedasticity (the error variance was relatively con-
stant over the range of predicted values).
The performance of the models for the duration, frequency, or period
of the six behaviours are depicted in Fig. 3 for the calibration, valida-
5
Smart Agricultural Technology 3 (2023) 100071
tion, and test datasets (a total of 100 samples per behaviour). The coeffi-
cient of determination ranged from R2 = 0.86 (Lying Down) to R2 = 0.99
(Breathing), with an average of R2 = 0.93 for the six different traits in
the test dataset (Table 4). The slope, intercept, and bias for the linear
relationships between the predicted and measured duration, frequency,
or period of the six behaviours are listed in Table 5 for the test dataset
(33 samples). The slope and intercept were close to unity and zero re-
spectively for the Walking, Breathing and Grazing traits. However, there
was a slight underprediction bias for the Dung, Vocalization and Lying
down traits, which all had slopes of 1.15 - 1.3 that were significantly
greater than unity, but an intercept not significantly different to zero.
The performance of the model for respiration rate while sleeping in
the test dataset (R2 = 0.99) is consistent with that obtained by manual-
based labelling of halter audio recordings of respiration in heifers
(R2 = 0.92) grazing pasture at 0800 h, 1000 h, 1200 h and 1500 h [5].
The acoustic method provides an alternative to 1) differential pressure-
based methods (R2 = 0.85 for dozing; R2 = 0.96 for lying; and R2 = 0.99
for standing) that require a silicon tube to be inserted 10 cm into the
nostril of the cow [33] and thermistor-based sensors (R2 = 0.95) that
require a thermistor to be near the nostril [19]. The acoustic-based av-
erage respiration rate was 21 full breaths (inhalation and exhalation)
per minute in this study, which is consistent with previous studfies for
cows that were not under heat stress [19, 33].
The performance of the model for bite rate in the test dataset
(R2 = 0.91) is consistent with that obtained by Delagarde et al., [7] who
used a collar attached microphone (R2 = 0.95). Forehead attached mi-
crophones have also been used to predict bite rate and dry matter in-
take (R2 = 0.88) over a range of forage types [8, 9]. Acoustic sensors
therefore have the potential to be combined with pasture nitrogen (N)
measurements and animal metabolic models to estimate the N content
of individual urination events [30] relative to the total N intake of in-
dividual cows. Acoustic sensors also have the potential to identify the
feed composition of the diet consumed by individual animals based on
forage-dependent bite sounds [8], although further trials are required.
The duration of dung events provides information about the quantity
of dung deposited during each event. The frequency (number per day)
and duration of dung events could also potentially provide information
about the total amount of dung deposited per day and the distribution
in the size of dung events. The ten-fold variation in the duration of dung
events in this study is consistent with the 10-fold variability in dung pat
area [12]. The size of the dung event is also a factor in the temperature,
rate of ammonia emission [23], and rate of decomposition of dung [1].
Dung moisture content is also an important factor that impacts on the
rate of decomposition of dung [37].
The acoustic method provides an alternative to pedometer and
accelerometer-based methods for calculation of stepping frequency, dis-
tance travelled and detection of lameness. Acoustic sensors can also
potentially provide information about surface walking type (pasture,
laneway, and concrete), which could be combined with travelling dis-
tance, farm maps, environmental sounds (such as road noise) and
changes in pasture cover from satellite images to provide approximate
information on the location of animals on the farm without the use of
GPS technologies. Stepping events (or the lack of events) are also as-
sociated with other cow behaviours such as urination, lying down and
oestrus.
Cows that graze pasture typically spend 10 – 12 hours per day lying
down [26] and lying behaviour is normally measured with inertial mea-
surement units (IMU). Lying down events were characterised by some-
what random scratching sounds generated by the microphone rubbing
against the pasture and acoustic recordings provided good prediction
of duration of the time to lie down (R2 = 0.86). This information com-
bined with times not walking could provide predictions of time spent
lying. Lying time is also reduced for wet and muddy surfaces [26] and
there is potential to use the acoustic technology to determine the lying
surface type (pasture, concrete, wood chip) and moisture content (wet,
dry).
P.R. Shorten Smart Agricultural Technology 3 (2023) 100071

Table 2
Confusion matrix representations of the comparison between observed and AV5 predicted classification of acoustic events for the augmented
dataset (35700 samples (5100 per behaviour class) split into A) calibration (19278 samples), B) validation (4641 samples) and C) test (11781
samples) datasets).

Confusion Matrix for Calibration Data

TrueBreathing 14.30% 100.00%

ClassDung 14.30% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Grazing 14.30% 100.00%
Lying Down 0.00% I 14.2% I 0.10% 99.40% 0.60%
Other I 14.3% I 100.00%
Vocalization 0.00% 14.30% 99.90% 0.10%
Walking 14.30% 100.00%
100.00% 100.00% 99.90% 100.00% 99.90% 99.40% 100.00%
0.10% 0.10% 0.60%
Breathing Dung Grazing Lying Down Other Predicted Vocalization Class Walking
Confusion Matrix for Validation Data
TrueBreathing 14.20% 0.00% 0.00% 99.60% 0.40%
ClassDung 14.30% 100.00%
Grazing 1.00% 13.20% 0.10% 92.50% 7.50%
Lying Down 2.70% 11.50% 0.10% 80.20% 19.80%
Other 0.10% 10.90% 3.30% 76.40% 23.60%
Vocalization 0.00% 0.00% 14.20% 99.60% 0.40%
Walking 14.30% 100.00%
93.40% 84.00% 99.80% 99.10% 99.80% 80.50% 99.60%
6.60% 16.00% 0.20% 0.90% 0.20% 19.50% 0.40%
Breathing Dung Grazing Lying Down Other Predicted Vocalization Class Walking
Confusion Matrix for Test Data
TrueBreathing 14.20% 0.10% 99.20% 0.80%
ClassDung 13.80% 0.50% 96.70% 3.30%
Grazing 13.60% 0.70% 95.40% 4.60%
Lying Down 1.60% 12.60% 0.10% 88.20% 11.80%
Other 0.10% 0.00% 13.50% 0.60% 94.50% 5.50%
Vocalization 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 14.20% 99.60% 0.40%
Walking 14.30% 100.00%
100.00% 88.80% 99.80% 95.50% 99.90% 95.10% 95.60%
11.20% 0.20% 4.50% 0.10% 4.90% 4.40%
Breathing Dung Grazing Lying Down Other Predicted Vocalization Class Walking

Table 3
Performance statistics of the models for the duration, frequency, or period of the six behaviours for the cal-
ibration, validation, and test augmented datasets (5100 samples per behaviour split into calibration (2754
samples), validation (663 samples) and test (1683 samples) datasets).1

(N=5100) Calibration R2 Calibration RMSE Validation R2 Validation RMSE Test R2 Test RMSE

Walking 0.998 0.07 0.94 0.36 0.92 0.42

Lying Down 0.94 0.48 0.67 0.89 0.86 0.69
Breathing 0.986 0.06 0.99 0.03 0.98 0.06
Grazing 0.884 0.90 0.92 1.08 0.81 1.3
Vocalization 0.98 0.34 0.35 0.60 0.92 0.58
Dung 0.99 0.18 0.96 0.40 0.96 0.54
1
RMSE units denote the duration (s) of the behaviour (Dung, Vocalization, Lying Down), the frequency
(number per 10 s) of the behaviour (Walking, Grazing), or the average time (s) between the behaviour (Breath-
ing).

Table 4
Performance statistics of the models for the duration, frequency, or period of the six behaviours for the cali-
bration, validation, and test datasets (100 samples per behaviour split into calibration (54 samples), validation
(13 samples) and test (33 samples) datasets).1

(N=100) Calibration R2 Calibration RMSE Validation R2 Validation RMSE Test R2 Test RMSE

Walking 1.0 0.0 0.96 0.29 0.92 0.42

Lying Down 0.94 0.48 0.67 0.89 0.86 0.69
Breathing 0.994 0.04 0.99 0.01 0.99 0.03
Grazing 0.985 0.30 0.94 0.30 0.91 0.90
Vocalization 0.98 0.34 0.35 0.60 0.92 0.58
Dung 0.99 0.18 0.96 0.40 0.96 0.54
1
RMSE units denote the duration (s) of the behaviour (Dung, Vocalization, Lying Down), the frequency
(number per 10 s) of the behaviour (Walking, Grazing), or the average time (s) between the behaviour (Breath-
ing).

6
P.R. Shorten Smart Agricultural Technology 3 (2023) 100071

Fig. 2. Performance of the models for the duration (seconds), frequency (number of events per 10 seconds), or period (average time between events) of the six
behaviours (A) Dung, B) Vocalization, C) Lying Down, D) Walking, E) Breathing, and F) Grazing) for the calibration, validation, and test datasets (5100 samples per
behaviour split into calibration (2754 samples; blue square symbol), validation (663 samples; red plus symbol) and test (1683 samples; black cross symbol) datasets).
A small amount of noise (with a standard deviation of 0.1 bites per 10 s) was added to predictions for the Grazing trait to improve the visualisation of the distribution
in the model predictions. Lines denote the regression.

7
P.R. Shorten Smart Agricultural Technology 3 (2023) 100071

Fig. 3. Performance of the models for the duration, frequency (number of events per 10 seconds), or period of the six behaviours (A) Dung, B) Vocalization, C) Lying
Down, D) Walking, E) Breathing, and F) Grazing) for the calibration, validation, and test datasets (100 samples per behaviour split into calibration (54 samples; blue
square symbol), validation (13 samples; red plus symbol) and test (33 samples; black cross symbol) datasets). A small amount of noise (with a standard deviation of
0.1 bites per 10 s) was added to predictions for the Grazing trait to improve the visualisation of the distribution in model predictions.

8
P.R. Shorten
Table 5
Slope, intercept, and bias for the linear relationships be-
tween the predicted and measured duration, frequency,
or period of the six behaviours for the test dataset (33
samples).1
(N=100) Test Slope Test Intercept Test Bias
Walking 1.01 ± 0.05 0.12 ± 0.24 -0.12
Lying Down 1.20 ± 0.09 0.68 ± 0.32 -1.39
Breathing 1.01 ± 0.01 -0.03 ± 0.02 0.01
Grazing 1.03 ± 0.06 -0.46 ± 0.74 0.12
Vocalization 1.30 ± 0.07 0.11 ± 0.16 -0.64
Dung 1.15 ± 0.04 -0.47 ± 0.23 -0.27
1
Units for the intercept and bias (predicted – mea-
sured) are the duration (s) of the behaviour (Dung, Vo-
calization, Lying Down), the frequency (number per 10
s) of the behaviour (Walking, Grazing), or the average
time (s) between the behaviour (Breathing).
The vocalization of cows provides information on the welfare and
state of the animal ([14, 15]; Green et al., 2018), although the vocal-
ization patterns are complex and are influenced by animal, herd, age,
and other factors. Some information is encoded in the duration (s), fre-
quency (Hz) and rate (number per unit time) of vocalization [2]. Models
for vocalization duration (R2 = 0.92), and classification of the vocaliza-
tion class (sensitivity of 0.99 and precision of 0.95 in the test dataset)
demonstrate the feasibility of acoustic-based determination of vocaliza-
tion traits. Further studies are required to investigate the role of animal
environment on animal vocalization, which could contribute to on-farm
based assessment of animal health and welfare.
4. Conclusions
This study demonstrated that rear leg attached acoustic sensors can
be used to differentiate between seven different acoustic classes (Graz-
ing, Breathing, Walking, Lying Down, Dung, Vocalization, Other) ob-
tained from cows under grazing conditions. The overall accuracy of
the ensemble classification model was 96.2% for the test augmented
dataset. The performance of the models for the duration, frequency, or
period of the six animal behaviours (Grazing, Breathing, Walking, Ly-
ing Down, Dung, Vocalization) had coefficients of determination that
were R2 = 0.91 (bite rate), R2 = 0.99 (Breathing), R2 = 0.91 (stepping
frequency), R2 = 0.86 (duration of the time to lie down), R2 = 0.96 (du-
ration of dung events), and R2 = 0.92 (vocalization duration), with an
average of R2 = 0.93 for the six different behaviour traits in the test
dataset. Further studies are required to refine these acoustic models and
investigate the role of animal environment on animal behaviour, which
could contribute to on-farm based non-invasive assessment of animal
health and welfare.
Funding
This work was funded by AgResearch, New Zealand.
Declaration of Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.atech.2022.100071.
9
Smart Agricultural Technology 3 (2023) 100071
References
[1] S. Aarons, C. O’Connor, H. Hosseini, C Gourley, Dung pads increase pasture pro-
duction, soil nutrients and microbial biomass carbon in grazed dairy systems, Nutr.
Cycling Agroecosyst. 84 (2009) 81–92.
[2] E.F. Briefer, Vocal expression of emotions in mammals: mechanisms of production
and evidence, J. Zool. 288 (2012) 1–20.
[3] J.O. Chelotti, S.R. Vanrell, D.H. Milone, S.A. Utsumi, J.R. Galli, H.L. Rufiner,
L.L. Giovanini, A real-time algorithm for acoustic monitoring of ingestive behavior
of grazing cattle, Comput. Electron. Agric. 127 (2016) 64–75.
[4] Y. Chung, J. Lee, S. Oh, D. Park, H.H. Chang, S. Kim, Automatic detection of
cow’s Oestrus in audio surveillance system, Asian-Austr. J. Animal Sci. 26 (2013)
1030–1037.
[5] G.A. de Carvalho, A.K.D. Salman, P.G. da Cruz, E.C. de Souza, F.R.F. da Silva,
E. Schmitt, Technical note: an acoustic method for assessing the respiration rate
of free-grazing dairy cattle, Livestock Sci. 241 (2020) 104270.
[6] M.P. de la Torre, E.F. Briefer, T. Reader, A.G. McElligott, Acoustic analysis of cattle
(Bos taurus) mother–offspring contact calls from a source–filter theory perspective,
Appl. Animal Behav. Sci. 163 (2015) 58–68.
[7] R. Delagarde, J.-P. Caudal, J.-L. Peyraud, Development of an automatic bitemeter
for grazing cattle, Annales de Zootechnie 48 (1999) 329–339.
[8] J.R. Galli, C.A. Cangiano, M.A. Pece, M.J. Larripa, D.H. Milone, S.A. Utsumi,
E.A. Laca, Monitoring and assessment of ingestive chewing sounds for prediction
of herbage intake rate in grazing cattle, Animal 12 (2018) 973–982.
[9] J.R. Galli, C.A. Cangiano, M.W. Demment, E.A. Laca, Acoustic monitoring of chewing
and intake of fresh and dry forages in steers, Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 128 (2006)
14–30.
[10] A. Green, C. Clark, L. Favaro, S. Lomax, D. Reby, Vocal individuality of Hol-
stein-Friesian cattle is maintained across putatively positive and negative farming
contexts, Nature Sci. Reports 9 (2019) 18468.
[11] A. Green, I.N. Johnston, C. Clark, Invited review: the evolution of cattle bioacoustics
and application for advanced dairy systems, Animal 12 (2020) 1250–1259.
[12] M. Hirata, S. Ogura, M. Furuse, Fine-scale spatial distribution of herbage mass,
herbage consumption and fecal deposition by cattle in a pasture under intensive
rotational grazing, Ecol. Res. 26 (2011) 289–299.
[13] J. Huang, F. Di Troia, M. Stamp, Acoustic gait analysis using support vector ma-
chines, in: ICISSP 2018 - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Infor-
mation Systems Security and Privacy, 2018, pp. 545–552.
[14] Y. Ikeda, Y. Ishii, Recognition of two psychological conditions of a single cow by her
voice, Comput. Electron. Agric. 62 (2008) 67–72.
[15] G. Jahns, Call recognition to identify cow conditions—A call-recogniser translating
calls to text, Comput. Electron. Agric. 62 (2008) 54–58.
[16] L. Kovács, F.L. Kézér, F. Ruff, O. Szenci, Rumination time and reticuloruminal tem-
perature as possible predictors of dystocia in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 100 (2017)
1568–1579.
[17] S.F. Ledgard, B. Welten, K. Betteridge, Salt as a mitigation option for decreas-
ing nitrogen leaching losses from grazed pastures, J. Sci. Food. Agric. 95 (2015)
3033–3040.
[18] M.P. Mcloughlin, R. Stewart, A.G. McElligott, Automated bioacoustics: methods in
ecology and conservation and their potential for animal welfare monitoring, J. R.
Soc. Interface. 16 (2019) 20190225.
[19] H.F.M. Milan, A.S.C. Maia, K.G. Gebremedhin, Technical note: device for measuring
respiration rate of cattle under field conditions, J. Anim. Sci. 94 (2016) 5434–5438.
[20] M. Padilla de la Torre, E.F. Briefer, T. Reader, A.G. McElligott, Acoustic analysis of
cattle (Bos taurus) mother–offspring contact calls from a source–filter theory per-
spective, Appl. Animal Behav. Sci. 163 (2015) 58–68.
[21] D. Palaz, M. Magimai-Doss, R. Collobert, End-to-end acoustic modeling using con-
volutional neural networks for HMM-based automatic speech recognition, Speech
Commun. 108 (2019) 15–32.
[22] H. Purwins, B. Li, T. Virtanen, J. Schlüter, S. Chang, T. Sainath, Deep learn-
ing for audio signal processing, J. Selected Topics Signal Process. 13 (2019)
206–219.
[23] M.R. Redding, R. Lewis, P.R. Shorten, Simultaneous measurements of ammonia
volatilisation and deposition at a beef feedlot, Animal Prod. Sci. 59 (2019) 160–168.
[24] S. Reith, S. Hoy, Relationship between daily rumination time and estrus of dairy
cows, J. Dairy Sci. 95 (2013) 6416–6420.
[25] V. Röttgen, P.C. Schön, F. Becker, A. Tuchscherer, C. Wrenzycki, S. Düpjan, B. Puppe,
Automatic recording of individual oestrus vocalisation in group-housed dairy cattle:
development of a cattle call monitor, Animal 14 (2020) 198–205.
[26] K.E.V.M.Cave Schütz, N.R. Cox, F.J. Huddart, C.B. Tucker, Effects of 3 surface
types on dairy cattle behavior, preference, and hygiene, J. Dairy Sci. 102 (2019)
1530–1541.
[27] P.R. Scott, Clinical presentation, auscultation recordings, ultrasonographic findings
and treatment response of 12 adult cattle with chronic suppurative pneumonia: case
study, Ir. Vet. J. 66 (2013) 43.
[28] B. She, Framework of footstep detection in in-door environment, in: Proceedings of
International Congress on Acoustics, Kyoto, Japan, 2004, pp. 715–718. pages.
[29] P.R. Shorten, B.G. Welten, Assessment of a non-invasive acoustic sensor for detecting
cattle urination events, Biosyst. Eng. 207 (2021) 177–187.
[30] P.R. Shorten, B.G. Welten, An acoustic sensor technology to detect urine excretion,
Biosyst. Eng. 214 (2022) 90–106.
[31] P.R. Shorten, B.G. Welten, Acoustic sensor determination of repeatable cow urina-
tions traits in winter and spring, Comput. Electron. Agric. 196 (2022) 106846.
[32] G. Stilwell, M.S. Lima, D.M. Broom, Comparing plasma cortisol and behaviour of
calves dehorned with caustic paste after non-steroidal-antiinflammatory analgesia,
Livestock Sci. 119 (2008) 63–69.
P.R. Shorten
[33] S. Strutzke, D. Fiske, G. Hoffmann, C. Ammon, W. Heuwiser, T. Amon, Technical
note: Development of a noninvasive respiration rate sensor for cattle, J. Dairy Sci.
102 (2019) 690–695.
[34] J. Vandermeulen, C. Bahr, D. Johnston, B. Earley, E. Tullo, I. Fontana, M. Guarino,
V. Exadaktylos, D. Berckmans, Early recognition of bovine respiratory disease in
calves using automated continuous monitoring of cough sounds, Comput. Electron.
Agric. 129 (2016) 15–26.
10
Smart Agricultural Technology 3 (2023) 100071
[35] N. Volkmann, B. Kulig, N. Kemper, Using the footfall sound of dairy cows for detect-
ing claw lesions, Animals 9 (2019) 78.
[36] N. Volkmann, B. Kulig, S. Hoppe, J. Stracke, O. Hensel, N. Kemper, On-farm detec-
tion of claw lesions in dairy cows based on acoustic analyses and machine learning,
J. Dairy Sci. 104 (2021) 5921–5931.
[37] S. Yoshitake, H. Soutome, H. Koizumi, Deposition and decomposition of cattle dung
and its impact on soil properties and plant growth in a cool-temperate pasture, Ecol.
Res. 29 (2014) 673–684.