Original papers
Use of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology to record grazing beef cattle water point use

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.11.025Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is a suitable tool to study beef cattle water point use.

  • Cattle visit times to water points were similar between grazing sites.

  • Cloud cover influenced cattle visit times to water points.

  • Time intervals between cattle visits to water points differed between grazing sites.

  • THI and cloud cover influenced time intervals between cattle visits to water points.

Abstract

Current recommendations for the provision of water points for grazing beef cattle in northern Australia are based on effective grazing distribution rather than cattle water point use. Scientific examination of cattle watering behaviour under varying conditions of climate, pasture and water availability (i.e. distances between water points) is required to inform water infrastructure development recommendations and maximise cattle productivity. This study assessed the potential of Radio Frequency IDentification (RFID) reader data from remote weighing technology to examine cattle visit times and time intervals between cattle visits to water points. Data from three cattle stations in northern Australia was used. Daily weather data (temperature, humidity, wind speed, cloud cover, solar exposure and rainfall) were obtained from official weather stations located at or near each experiment site. Linear mixed-effects models were used to detect variation in cattle behaviour within and between stations. The RFID reader data showed that most cattle visits to water points occurred during daylight hours (between 06:00 and 19:00 h) and within 48 h of a previous visit. The time of day that cattle visited water points did not differ between stations (P > 0.05) but varied according to month (P = 0.001), period of day (P < 0.001), time since last visit (P = 0.013) and cloud cover (P = 0.043). Time intervals between cattle visits to water points differed considerably between stations (P < 0.002) and appeared to reflect seasonal conditions and water availability at each station. Time intervals between visits to water points also varied according to month (P < 0.001), period of day (P < 0.001), temperature-humidity index (P = 0.035) and cloud cover (P = 0.029). The results of the study show that RFID reader data is able to detect behavioural differences according to climate and water availability and is a suitable tool to study cattle water point use. Cattle water point use data could be used to aid mustering and trapping cattle, identify animals that fail to visit a water point, better understand pasture conditions, predict the amount and consistency of weight data collected from remote weighing technology, improve decision making by graziers and inform recommendations for the optimal number and distribution of water points.

Introduction

In northern Australia artificial water points (e.g. dams or bores) often provide the only source of drinking water to grazing beef cattle (Freer et al., 2007). Cattle have a high rate of water turnover and regular access to drinking water is essential (Yeates and Schmidt, 1974, Lardner et al., 2013). A minimum of one water point per 30 km2, with a maximum spacing of 6 km between water points, is currently recommended (James et al., 1999, Thrash and Derry, 1999, Meat & Livestock Australia, 2013, Hunt et al., 2014). The current recommendation considers cattle grazing distance from water points, grazing impact around water points and evenness of grazing. It does not consider water point use by cattle (e.g. regularity of visits) or water availability (e.g. distances between water points) effects on cattle production, reproduction and survival.

Most graziers have some practical knowledge of how cattle use water points in their own operations (Morrish, 1984). However, knowing how many water points to install and how far apart they should be to meet cattle water needs is difficult to determine. Few studies have attempted to understand grazing beef cattle watering behaviour. Thus, basic facts about how much water cattle consume and how often cattle drink under varying conditions of climate, pasture and water availability are not well understood by graziers or scientists (Williams et al., 2017). In northern Australia only three studies have documented grazing beef cattle watering behaviour. Schmidt (1969) undertook a detailed study of walking, watering and grazing behaviour of a Shorthorn breeding herd on the Barkly Tableland, Northern Territory, during the 1966 and 1967 dry seasons. A team of CSIRO scientists observed the watering behaviour of British breed cattle on three stations located around Alice Springs, Northern Territory from late 1969 to early 1973 (Low et al., 1978, Low et al., 1981). Morrish (1984) recorded long term observations of mixed Braford cattle on a property located near Windorah, Queensland. Only a small number of studies from other parts of the world contribute more information on grazing beef cattle watering behaviour (Rollinson et al., 1955, Wilson, 1961, Lampkin and Quarterman, 1962, Rouda et al., 1994, Coimbra et al., 2010, Lardner et al., 2013).

In a recent review, Williams et al. (2017) showed that cattle drinking frequency influences the quantity of water cattle consume and can affect other performance attributes. The review reported that dairy cows with ad libitum access to water drank 12–13% more than cows with restricted access to water (once or twice daily) and had higher milk yields and milk fat. Beef cattle with access to water once daily drank 15–25% more than cattle with access to water once every second or third day and had higher feed intakes. The review also highlights that water intake and grazing beef cattle performance has not been studied in response to voluntary drinking regimes. Scientific examination of beef cattle watering behaviour under normal grazing conditions, which involves complex interactions between animals, management and their environment, is essential to inform water point distribution recommendations for graziers and maximise cattle productivity.

Remote weighing technology, which is linked to automatic Radio Frequency IDentification (ig) recording, could be exploited to study grazing cattle water point use. Remote weighing of grazing cattle was first introduced in the 1960s to negate disadvantages of conventional weighing practices such as stress and costs associated with mustering and drafting (Martin et al., 1967). The technology is strategically installed at the entrance of an enclosed water point to entice cattle to walk through the system (Martin et al., 1967). Each time an animal accesses water its RFID equipped ear tag is scanned as it walks past an RFID reader and the date and time is recorded. The animal’s weight is also measured as it walks over an electronic weighing platform (Charmley et al., 2006, Brown et al., 2014). Remote weighing technology has primarily been used to monitor beef cattle live weight and weight gain (Anderson et al., 1980, González et al., 2014b, Hegarty, 2015, Menzies et al., 2017). However, the RFID recording component can also be used to autonomously collect behavioural data as an alternative to traditional time-consuming and expensive observation methods. In a recent study, Menzies et al. (2018) successfully used RFID data from remote weighing technology to determine calf maternal parentage. The number of times a cow and her calf walked through remote weighing technology within a predefined time period correctly identified over 90% of maternal cow-calf pairs. Because remote weighing technology is installed at water points, the RFID recording component essentially registers the date and time of cattle visits to water points and could be used to study water point use by grazing cattle.

The aim of the study was to assess whether RFID reader data from remote weighing technology could be used to examine cattle water point use. The hypothesis was that the technology would be able to detect behavioural differences according to climate and water availability and thus, be a practical tool to study cattle water point use.

Section snippets

Experimental design

The study was conducted as a retrospective analysis of RFID data from three separate experiments that had installed remote weighing technology to monitor cattle live weight. The experiments were conducted between 2011 and 2016 at three cattle stations in northern Australia (Fig. 1). Each station was located in a different grazing region and represented varying climates and water availability conditions. The first experiment was conducted at the Brunchilly outstation of Helen Springs Station,

Results

A summary of the RFID reader data is shown in Table 2. The final dataset for Brunchilly No. 19 bore comprised of 131 days and 18,239 records. Equipment failure occurred during four days (3% of the study period), between 3 and 6 January 2012, due to a hardware fault. Two-thirds of the dataset (38, 661 records) had an erroneous RFID (e.g. excluded cattle). Less than 5% of the dataset was within 30 min of a previous record (2573 records). The data from Stud bore comprised of 2152 records.

Discussion

Beef industry interest in using remote weighing technology to monitor cattle live weight and weight gain is growing. With this growing interest there is an associated opportunity to automatically record cattle behaviour at water points using the technology’s RFID recording component. This study demonstrates the use of RFID reader data to examine cattle water point use. The study was conducted as a retrospective analysis of RFID reader data collated from three previous experiments. The

Conflict of interest

None.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported under the Commonwealth Government’s Research Training Program, Australia/Research Training Scheme and a Supporting Women in Agriculture scholarship. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Australian Government. The experiment from which the data were obtained for “Brunchilly” was funded by Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA), Australia and the Australian Government. We thank them and the Northern Territory Department of Primary Industry and

References (53)

  • Australian Bureau of Meteorology, 2010. Climate Data Online, Australian Government, Canberra. URL:...
  • D.W. Bailey et al.

    Mechanisms that result in large herbivore grazing distribution patterns

    J. Range Manage.

    (1996)
  • D.W. Bailey et al.

    Use of GPS tracking collars and accelerometers for rangeland livestock production research

    Transl. Anim. Sci.

    (2018)
  • D. Bates et al.

    Package ‘lme4’

    R Package Version

    (2016)
  • D. Brown et al.

    Repeatability and frequency of in-paddock sheep walk-over weights: implications for individual animal management

    Anim. Prod. Sci.

    (2014)
  • Campbell, I.L., Munford, R.E., 1959. The water consumption of dairy cows at pasture in New Zealand. In: Proceedings of...
  • M. Castle et al.

    423. Some observations on the behaviour of dairy cattle with particular reference to grazing

    J. Dairy Res.

    (1950)
  • E. Charmley et al.

    Development of a remote method for the recording of cattle weights under field conditions

    Austral. J. Exp. Agric.

    (2006)
  • CQUniversity, 2018. Walk-over-Weighing in the beef industry: Practical guide. URL:...
  • Geoscience Australia, 2010. Compute Sunrise, Sunset & Twilight Times, Commonwealth of Australia, ACT. URL:...
  • L. González et al.

    Wireless sensor networks to study, monitor and manage cattle in grazing systems

    Anim. Prod. Sci.

    (2014)
  • L. González et al.

    Modelling methane emissions from remotely collected liveweight data and faecal near-infrared spectroscopy in beef cattle

    Anim. Prod. Sci.

    (2014)
  • E. Hegarty

    Using Walk Over Weighing and Remote Camera Monitoring to Identify Key Management Triggers and Reduce Costs

    (2015)
  • C.H. Herbel et al.

    Activities of Hereford and Santa Gertrudis cattle on a southern New Mexico range

    J. Range Manage.

    (1966)
  • L. Hunt et al.

    Principles and guidelines for managing cattle grazing in the grazing lands of northern Australia: stocking rates, pasture resting, prescribed fire, paddock size and water points–a review

    Rangeland J.

    (2014)
  • Cited by (23)

    • A lightweight deep learning model for cattle face recognition

      2022, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
    • INVITED REVIEW: Water consumption, and drinking behavior of beef cattle, and effects of water quality

      2021, Applied Animal Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      Most of the night was spent resting until sunrise. In many grazing situations, as demonstrated by Williams et al. (2019), cattle frequently spend several hours and perhaps 2 or more days between drinking episodes. Williams et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis of the effects of drinking frequency on performance of cattle.

    • Tracking and sensor-based detection of livestock water system failure: A case study simulation

      2021, Rangeland Ecology and Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      Movement intensity levels monitored during simulated water delivery failure were higher than during normal watering events. Since cattle normally water at midday (Gregorini 2012; Williams et al. 2019), a change in activity at midday may be helpful in detecting water availability issues. The use of near-real-time and real-time accelerometer systems such as HerdDogg (Ashland, OR, https://www.herddogg.com/) and Moonitor (Israel, https://www.moonitorcows.com/) could be helpful in determining water system failures earlier than managers and caretakers might normally observe.

    • A sensor-based solution to monitor grazing cattle drinking behaviour and water intake

      2020, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
      Citation Excerpt :

      A challenge with using fixed panel readers in a grazing environment is maintaining continuous operation (Ruiz-Garcia and Lunadei, 2011; Williams et al., 2019). Equipment failure due to malfunctioning system components was demonstrated in this study and other common causes of RFID failure include lost connections between the panel reader and data logger, power loss, lose or damaged communication cables and a full data logger memory (CQUniversity, 2018; Williams et al., 2019). Wireless data transmission (telemetry) and regular monitoring (hourly or daily) of the data from RFID panel readers in remote applications is recommended to ensure systems are operational and to enable prompt fault detection (CQUniversity, 2018; Williams et al., 2019).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text