Comparison of Low- and High-Cost Infrared Thermal Imaging Devices for the Detection of Lameness in Dairy Cattle

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Lameness has high economic and welfare cost to the U.K. dairy industry; accurate and early detection of lameness minimises this cost. Thermal imaging devices can be used as a method of detecting lameness; however, these devices are typically high-cost and fragile, limiting their usefulness in a farm setting. This study looked at the effectiveness of low-cost thermal imaging devices when used as lameness detection aids, by comparing one to a research-specification thermal imaging device. Thermal images were taken of cattle feet, and each cow was assessed for lameness. Both devices tested were able to determine whether the cattle were lame; however, the research-specification device performed marginally better at this function. This minimal difference in effectiveness between these devices suggests that low-cost thermal imaging devices could be used as a lameness detection aid; increased use of these devices by farmers may increase lameness detection rates and benefit animal welfare. ABSTRACT: Lameness has a high economic cost to the U.K. dairy industry; accurate and early detection of lameness minimises this cost. Infrared thermal imaging (IRT) devices have shown promising results for use as a lameness detection aid in cattle when used in research settings; these devices are typically high-cost, limiting their adoption. This study analysed the effectiveness of low-cost IRT devices (LCDs) as lameness detection aids, by comparing both maximum environmentally adjusted temperature values and hindfeet temperature difference collected by an LCD to the mobility score of the cow; this test was repeated for data collected by a research-specification device. Data collection occurred during routine milking of 83 cattle; each cow’s mobility was scored afterwards. Significant differences were found between lame and sound cows with the LCD, upon analysis of both methods. There was no significant difference between the data captured by differing devices. The maximum sensitivity and specificity values for the LCD were calculated as 66.95 and 64.53, respectively, compared with 70.34 and 70.94, respectively, for the research-specification device; optimum threshold values for these were equivalent for both devices, suggesting IRT lameness identification is not device-dependent. It was concluded that a minimal difference in effectiveness between tested devices suggests that LCDs could be used as a lameness detection aid; consequently, there is potential for widespread adoption as on-farm detection aids.