Original Articles Open access

Operational evaluation of an optical sensor for the automatic in-line estimation of total mixed ration fibre length and particle size in a mixing wagon

Authors

Published
4 March 2025
Section
Original Articles
DOI
10.4081/jae.2025.1730

Abstract

The optimal management of cattle nutrition promotes animal health and welfare, increases livestock farms’ productivity and competitiveness, and enhances environmental sustainability practices. Animal feeding operations play a crucial role as many factors can drive the theoretical ration formulated by nutritionists far from the one the animals ingest. Precision feeding technologies (e.g., NIR sensors on the milling cutter of the chopper-mixer wagon; computer vision systems installed in the mixing tank) may allow for accurate and real-time analysis of the chemical and physical properties of total mixed ration (TMR) ingredients, reducing errors during its preparation and distribution. This work compares the physical quality and the length of the fibre of the TMR resulting from the chopping-mixing process of a conventional mixing wagon, one machine-learning-assisted mixing wagon and an automatic feeding system under actual operating conditions. Between October 2021 and November 2022, TMR sampling occurred on four dairy farms and one fattening bulls farm in Northern Italy, specifically in the Brescia, Cremona, and Mantua districts. TMR samples underwent particle size analysis using the Penn State Particle Separator (PSPS) method and, once in the laboratory, moisture analysis and fibre length measurement. Concerning TMR particle size analysis, the PSPS method revealed that the machine learning-assisted mixing wagon provided TMR with physical features comparable to that from ordinarily run mixing wagons. At the same time, the automatic feeding system resulted in TMR with finer particle size, following the farmers’ choice not to use long-stemmed forages. Regarding fibre length, only the TMR resulting from the operator-based mixing wagon aligned with the targeted fibre length of 5 cm, while the AFS and the ML-assisted mixing resulted in higher fibre lengths. Overall, the use of computer vision (CV) systems is helpful for the consistency of the TMR and represents a valuable solution for animal farming, particularly when employing low- or inexperienced operators. Further studies are, however, needed to improve the training of the with elements that can replicate the operator experience.

Keywords

References

  1. Al-Kassab, M. 2022. The use of one sample t-test in the real data. J. Adv. Math. 21:134-138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24297/jam.v21i.9279
  2. Beauchemin, K.A., Yang, W Z., Rode, L.M. 2003. Effects of particle size of alfalfa-based dairy cow diets on chewing activity, ruminal fermentation, and milk production. J. Dairy Sci. 86:630–643. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73641-8
  3. Berckmans, D. 2017. General introduction to precision livestock farming. Anim. Front. 7:6-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2017.0102
  4. Buckmaster, D. 2009. Optimising performance of TMR mixers. Proceedings Try-State Dairy Nutrition Conf., pp. 105-117.
  5. Büscher, W., Twickler, P., Maack, C., Marquering, J., Müller, M. 2014. NIRS Sensor controlled total-mixed-ration for nutrient optimised feeding of dairy cattle. Proceedings 12th Int. Conf. on Precision Agriculture, Porto Alegre. available from: https://www.ispag.org/proceedings/?action=author_abstracts
  6. Bustillo, A., Reis, R., Machado, A.R., Pimenov, D.Yu. 2022. Improving the accuracy of machine-learning models with data from machine test repetitions. J. Intell. Manuf. 33:203-221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-020-01661-3
  7. Cherney, D.J.R., Digman, M., Cherney, J.H. 2021. Day-to-day variation in forage and mixed diets in commercial dairy farms in New York. Appl. Anim. Sci. 37:11-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2020-02105
  8. Da Borso, F., Chiumenti, A., Sigura, M., Pezzuolo, A. 2017. Influence of automatic feeding systems on design and management of dairy farms. J. Agric. Eng. 48:642. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/jae.2017.642
  9. Dormann, C.F. 2020. Calibration of probability predictions from machine-learning and statistical models. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 29:760-765. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13070
  10. González, L.A., Kyriazakis, I., Tedeschi, L.O. 2018. Review: Precision nutrition of ruminants: approaches, challenges and potential gains. Animal 12:s246-s261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731118002288
  11. Gonzalez, R.C., Woods, R.E. 2008. Digital image processing. Hoboken, Prentice Hall.
  12. Hastie, T.J., Pregibon, D. 1992. Generalised linear models. In: J.M. Chambers and T.J. Hastie (eds.), Statistical models in S. Chapter 6. Abingdon, Routledge.
  13. Havekes, C.D., Duffield, T.F., Carpenter, A.J., DeVries, T.J. 2020. Effects of molasses-based liquid feed supplementation to a high-straw dry cow diet on feed intake, health, and performance of dairy cows across the transition period. J. Dairy Sci. 103:5070-5089. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-18085
  14. Heinrichs, A.J., Buckmaster, D.R., Lammers, B.P. 1999. Processing, mixing, and particle size reduction of forages for dairy cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 77:180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/1999.771180x
  15. Heinrichs, J. 2013. The Penn State Particle Separator. Updated Dece 2022. Available from: https://extension.psu.edu/penn-state-particle-separator
  16. Holohan, C., Russell, T., Mulligan, F., Pierce, K., Lynch, M. 2021. A survey analysis of farmer practices and perceptions of zero-grazing on Irish dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 104:5665-5674. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19164
  17. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT). 2022. 7°Censimento generale dell’agricoltura: primi risultati Meno aziende agricole (ma più grandi) e nuove forme di gestione dei terreni. Available from: https://www.istat.it/it/files//2022/06/REPORT-CENSIAGRI_2021-def.pdf
  18. Keselman, H.J., Rogan, J.C. 1977. The Tukey multiple comparison test: 1953-1976. Psychol. Bull. 84:1050-1056. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.84.5.1050
  19. Kudrna, V. 2003. Effect of different feeding frequency employing total mixed ration (TMR) on dry matter intake and milk yield in dairy cows during the winter. Acta Vet. Brno 72:533-539. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2754/avb200372040533
  20. Leonardi, C., Armentano, L.E. 2003. Effect of quantity, quality, and length of alfalfa hay on selective consumption by dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 86:557-564. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73634-0
  21. Leonardi, C., Giannico, F., Armentano, L.E. (2005). Effect of water addition on selective consumption (sorting) of dry diets by dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 88:1043-1049. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72772-7
  22. Levene, H. 1960. Robust tests for equality of variances. In I. Olkin, S.G. Ghurye, W. Hoeffding, W. G. Madow, H.B. Mann (eds.), Contributions to probability and statistics: essays in honor of Harold Hotelling. St. Redwood City, Stanford University Press. pp. 278-292.
  23. Marchesini, G., Cortese, M., Ughelini, N., Ricci, R., Chinello, M., Contiero, B., Andrighetto, I. 2020. Effect of total mixed ration processing time on ration consistency and beef cattle performance during the early fattening period. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 262:114421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114421
  24. Massey, F.J. 1951. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 46:68-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1951.10500769
  25. McCoy, G.C., Thurmon, H.S., Olson, H.H., Reed, A. 1966. Complete feed rations for lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 49:1058-1063 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(66)88017-7
  26. Miller-Cushon, E.K., DeVries, T.J. 2009. Effect of dietary dry matter concentration on the sorting behavior of lactating dairy cows fed a total mixed ration. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3292-3298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1772
  27. Miller-Cushon, E.K., DeVries, T.J. 2017. Feed sorting in dairy cattle: Causes, consequences, and management. J. Dairy Sci. 100:4172-4183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11983
  28. Minitab Inc. 2010) Minitab 17 Statistical Software [computer program]. Available from: https://www.minitab.com
  29. Oetzel, G.R. 2020. Toolbox for troubleshooting dairy nutrition problems. AABP Conference Proc., pp. 118–121. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21423/aabppro20207982 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21423/aabppro20207982
  30. O’Kiely, P. 2014. Grass Silage, vol. 16.
  31. Patel, K.K., Kar, A., Jha, S.N., Khan, M.A. 2012. Machine vision system: a tool for quality inspection of food and agricultural products. J. Food Sci. Technol. 49:123-141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0321-4
  32. Rahkonen, J. 2017. New technology innovation: Dinamica Generale presents new computer vision technology “VISIOMIX.” Available from: http://www.juhanirahkonen.fi/wp/wp-content/uploads/NIR_VISIOMIX_EN-3.pdf
  33. Ross, A., Willson, V.L. 2017. One-sample t-test. In: Basic and Advanced Statistical Tests. Rotterdam, SensePublishers. pp. 9-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6351-086-8_2
  34. Sova, A.D., LeBlanc, S.J., McBride, B.W., DeVries, T.J. 2013. Associations between herd-level feeding management practices, feed sorting, and milk production in freestall dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 96:4759-4770. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-6679
  35. Sova, A.D., LeBlanc, S.J., McBride, B.W., DeVries, T.J. 2014. Accuracy and precision of total mixed rations fed on commercial dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 97:562-571. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-6951
  36. Suarez-Mena, F.X., Zanton, G.I., Heinrichs, A.J. 2013. Effect of forage particle length on rumen fermentation, sorting and chewing activity of late-lactation and non-lactating dairy cows. Animal 7:272-278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112001565
  37. Tangorra, F.M., Calcante, A. 2018. Energy consumption and technical-economic analysis of an automatic feeding system for dairy farms: Results from a field test. J. Agric. Eng. 49:869. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/jae.2018.869
  38. Van Dyck, L.E., Kwitt, R., Denzler, S.J., Gruber, W R. 2021. Comparing object recognition in humans and deep convolutional neural networks - an eye tracking study. Front. Neurosci. 15:750639. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.750639
  39. Wiley, V., Lucas, T. 2018. Computer vision and image processing: a paper review. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 2:22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29099/ijair.v2i1.42
  40. Yakubu, H.G., Kovacs, Z., Toth, T., Bazar, G. 2022. The recent advances of near-infrared spectroscopy in dairy production - a review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 62:810-831. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1829540

Metrics

Citations and online attention from Dimensions, Altmetric and PlumX.

PlumX Metrics

License

Copyright (c) 2025 the Author(s)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.