Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 297

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of data loggers, sampling intervals, and editing techniques for measuring the lying behavior of dairy cattle

Open access
Ledgerwood, D.N., Winckler, C., Tucker, C.B.·2010·Journal of Dairy Science

Abstract

Lying behavior in dairy cattle can provide insight into how cows interact with their environment. Although lying behavior is a useful indicator of cow comfort, it can be time consuming to measure. In response to these time constraints, using data loggers to automate behavioral recording has become increasingly common. We tested the accuracy of the Onset Pendant G data logger (Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, MA) for measuring lying behavior in dairy cattle (n=24 cows; 12 in each of 2 experiments). Cows wore the logger on the lateral (experiment 1) or medial (experiment 2) side of the hind leg above the metatarsophalangeal joint. Loggers recorded behavior at 4 sampling intervals (6, 30, 60, and 300 s) for at least 1.5 d. Data were smoothed using 3 editing methods to examine the effects of short, potentially erroneous readings. For this purpose, Microsoft Excel macros (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) converted readings (i.e., lying events bordered by standing or vice versa) occurring singly or in consecutive runs of ≤2 or ≤6. Behavior was simultaneously recorded with digital video equipment. The logger accurately measured lying and standing. For example, predictability, sensitivity, and specificity were >99% using 30-s sampling and the single-event filter compared with continuously scored video recordings. The 6- and 30-s sampling intervals were comparable for all aspects of lying behavior when short events were filtered from the data set. Estimates of lying time generated from the 300-s interval unfiltered regimen were positively related (R(2) ≥ 0.99) to estimates of lying time from video, but this sampling regimen overestimated the number of lying bouts. This is likely because short standing and lying bouts were missed (12 and 34% of lying and standing bouts were <300 s in experiment 1 and 2, respectively). In summary, the data logger accurately measured all aspects of lying behavior when the sampling interval was ≤30 s and when short readings of lying and standing were filtered from the data set.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3168/jds.2009-2945

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 297

Metadata

Authors
Ledgerwood, D. N., Winckler, C., & Tucker, C. B.
Venue
Journal of Dairy Science
Published
2010-11
Volume
93
Issue
11
Pages
5129-5139
ISSN
0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2070926505
Cited by
297
References
0
FWCI
25.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of data loggers, sampling intervals, and editing techniques for measuring the lying behavior of dairy cattle. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3168/jds.2009-2945
The paper
Ledgerwood, D. N., Winckler, C., & Tucker, C. B. (2010). Evaluation of data loggers, sampling intervals, and editing techniques for measuring the lying behavior of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2945

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.