The impact of the dairy cow’s position on eye and udder temperatures obtained with infra-red thermography within a walk-trough system

Infra-red thermography (IRT) has the potential to detect disease, injury, and stress in dairy cows. Using IRT as a routine early warning system for such issues on-farm requires highly frequent imaging, which typically needs automation. To this end, automated systems collecting data every time an individual passes through a specified area have been developed (walk-through systems). Within these, the animal's speed, exact path and posture affect its distance and angle from the camera. While such variation in positioning is known to impact recorded temperatures, the extent of this impact is rarely quantified. If the error due to suboptimal positioning is sufficient to obscure temperature changes associated with the condition to be detected, the reliability of an early warning system is greatly impaired. This study aimed to quantify the impact of positioning on IRT-derived temperatures. Multiple IRT images were obtained from 197 lactating Holstein-Frisians using a walk-trough system. We assessed specific body parts chosen for their practical relevance: the eye centre (used to detect stress or general ill-health) and udder and teat area (used to detect mastitis or teat stress). The location of the body part within the IRT image ("position category") was used as a measure for combined changes in distance and angle of incidence. Minimisation of each of these two factors results in a maximisation of recorded temperature but was expected to occur at different position categories. Position category affected the recorded temperature of all three body parts on both sides of the cow (P < 0.0001). Temperatures peaked in position categories where distance was not yet fully minimised, underlining the importance of the angle of incidence. In images taken from the left side, recorded eye temperature showed a 2.2 °C (± 0.17 SEM) difference between the position where it peaked and the position where it bottomed out. This difference was 2.0 (± 0.07) and 1.5 (± 0.08) °C for maximum udder temperature and maximum teat area temperature, respectively. On the right side, these differences were 2.2 (± 0.28), 1.1 (± 0.11) and 0.6 (± 0.14) °C. The differences in temperature due to dairy cow positioning could mask the onset of a health problem, as these result in an approximately equal temperature rise. This suggests that even though walk-through systems standardise positioning to some extent, further standardisation is required. Our findings are not only of direct importance for the further development of walk-trough systems but also provide an insight into the optimisation of positioning when imaging freely moving animals.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
animal
Published
2025-04-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2025.101523
Primary Topic
Effects of Environmental Stressors on Livestock
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The impact of the dairy cow’s position on eye and udder temperatures obtained with infra-red thermography within a walk-trough system

Stephanie Buijs, M.W. Little, Jennifer E. Weller
animal
Effects of Environmental Stressors on Livestock
article

The impact of the dairy cow’s position on eye and udder temperatures obtained with infra-red thermography within a walk-trough system

Stephanie Buijs, M.W. Little, Jennifer E. Weller
article en

Abstract

Infra-red thermography (IRT) has the potential to detect disease, injury, and stress in dairy cows. Using IRT as a routine early warning system for such issues on-farm requires highly frequent imaging, which typically needs automation. To this end, automated systems collecting data every time an individual passes through a specified area have been developed (walk-through systems). Within these, the animal's speed, exact path and posture affect its distance and angle from the camera. While such variation in positioning is known to impact recorded temperatures, the extent of this impact is rarely quantified. If the error due to suboptimal positioning is sufficient to obscure temperature changes associated with the condition to be detected, the reliability of an early warning system is greatly impaired. This study aimed to quantify the impact of positioning on IRT-derived temperatures. Multiple IRT images were obtained from 197 lactating Holstein-Frisians using a walk-trough system. We assessed specific body parts chosen for their practical relevance: the eye centre (used to detect stress or general ill-health) and udder and teat area (used to detect mastitis or teat stress). The location of the body part within the IRT image ("position category") was used as a measure for combined changes in distance and angle of incidence. Minimisation of each of these two factors results in a maximisation of recorded temperature but was expected to occur at different position categories. Position category affected the recorded temperature of all three body parts on both sides of the cow (P < 0.0001). Temperatures peaked in position categories where distance was not yet fully minimised, underlining the importance of the angle of incidence. In images taken from the left side, recorded eye temperature showed a 2.2 °C (± 0.17 SEM) difference between the position where it peaked and the position where it bottomed out. This difference was 2.0 (± 0.07) and 1.5 (± 0.08) °C for maximum udder temperature and maximum teat area temperature, respectively. On the right side, these differences were 2.2 (± 0.28), 1.1 (± 0.11) and 0.6 (± 0.14) °C. The differences in temperature due to dairy cow positioning could mask the onset of a health problem, as these result in an approximately equal temperature rise. This suggests that even though walk-through systems standardise positioning to some extent, further standardisation is required. Our findings are not only of direct importance for the further development of walk-trough systems but also provide an insight into the optimisation of positioning when imaging freely moving animals.

animalVol. 19(6)
Agri Food and Biosciences Institute (GB)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 92%
Effects of Environmental Stressors on Livestock
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.