Veterinary Research Forum
Vet Res Forum

Comparison of artificial neural networks and multiple linear regression for ‎prediction of dairy cow locomotion score

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Mohammad Ali Norouzian 1
Hossein Bayatani 2
Mona Vakili Alavijeh 3

1 Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences, College of Abouraihan, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences, College of Abouraihan, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran‎

3 Department of Soft Computing, Faculty of Mathematical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.30466/vrf.2019.98275.2346
Abstract
In this study, artificial neural networks (ANNs) were employed to investigate the relationship between locomotion score and production traits. A total number of 123 dairy cows from a free-stall housing farm were used in this study. To compare the effectiveness of the ANNs for the prediction of locomotion score, the multiple linear regression (MLR) model was developed using the eight production traits, body condition score, parity, days in milk, daily milk yield, milk fat percent, milk protein percent, daily milk fat yield, and daily milk protein yield as input variables to predict the locomotion score. The ANN predictions gave a higher coefficient of determination (R2) values with lower mean squared error (MSE) than MLR. The R2 and MSE of the MLR model were 0.53 and 0.36, respectively. However, the ANN model for the same dataset produced much improved results with R2 = 0.80 ‏ and MSE = 0.16, respectively. Globally, the results of this study showed that the connectionist network model was a better tool to predict locomotion scores compared to the multiple linear regression.

Keywords

‎ Dairy cow
‎ Locomotion score
‎ Neural network
‎ Regression models
  1. Enting H, Kooij D, Dijkhuizen AA, et al. Economic losses due to clinical lameness in dairy cattle. Livest Prod Sci 1997; 49(3):259-267.
  2. Green LE, Hedges VJ, Schukken YH, et al. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2002; 85(9):2250-2256.
  3. Manson FJ, Leaver JD. The influence of concentrate amount on locomotion and clinical lameness in dairy cattle. Anim Prod 1988; 47:185-190.
  4. Sprecher DJ, Hostetler DE, Kaneene JB. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 1997; 47(6):1179-1187.
  5. Rajkondawar PG, Liu M, Dyer RM, et al. Comparison of models to identify lame cows based on gait and lesion scores, and limb movement variables. J Dairy Sci 2006; 89(11):4267-4275.
  6. O’Callaghan KA, Cripps PJ, Downham DY, et al. Subjective and objective assessment of pain and discomfort due to lameness in dairy cattle. Anim Welf 2003; 12(4):605-610.
  7. Winckler C, Willen S. The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agr Scand A-AN 2001; 51(sup030):103-107.
  8. Mokaram Ghotoorlar S, Ghamsari M, Nowrouzian I, et al. Lameness scoring system for dairy cows using force plates and artificial intelligence. Vet Rec 2012; 170(5): 126. doi:10.1136/vr.100429.
  9. Norouzian M, Vakili Alavijeh M. Comparison of artificial neural network and multiple regression analysis ‎for ‎prediction of fat tail weight of sheep. Iran J Appl Anim Sci 2016; 6(4): 895-900.‎
  10. Norouzian MA, Asadpour S. Prediction of feed abrasive value by artificial neural networks ‎and multiple linear regression. Neural Comput Appl 2011; 21:905-909.‎
  11. Fernández S, Olivas ES, Sánchez-Seiquer P, et al. Weekly milk prediction on dairy goats using neural networks. Neural Comput Appl 2007; 16(4):373-381.
  12. Moharrery A, Kargar A. Artificial Neural Network for prediction of plasma hormones, liver enzymes and performance in broilers. J Anim Feed Sci 2007; 16(20): 293-304.
  13. Ferguson JD, Galligan DT, Thomsen N. Principal descriptors of body condition score in Holstein cows. J Dairy Sci 1994; 77(9):2695-2703.
  14. Wells SJ, Trent AM, Marsh WE, et al. Prevalence and severity of lameness in lactating dairy cows in a sample of Minnesota and Wisconsin herds. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1993; 202(10):78-82.
  15. Cybenko G. Approximations by superpositions of a sigmoidal function. Math Control Signals Syst 1989; 2(3):303-314.
  16. Stevens RJ, O’Bric CJ, Carton OT. Estimating nutrient content of animal slurries using electrical conductivity. J Agric Sci 1995; 125(2):233-238.
  17. Moral R, Perez-Murcia MD, Perez-Espinosa A, et al. Estimation of nutrient values of pig slurries in Southeast Spain using easily determined properties. Waste Manag 2005; 25(7):719-725.
Veterinary Research Forum
Volume 12, Issue 1
Winter 2021
Pages 33-37

  • Receive Date 26 November 2018
  • Revise Date 27 April 2019
  • Accept Date 29 April 2019

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us