Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 10, 2025

A Step-by-Step Implementation of DeepBehavior, Deep Learning Toolbox for Automated Behavior Analysis
Published on: February 6, 2020
Programming and Setting Up the Object Detection Algorithm YOLO to Determine Feeding Activities of Beef Cattle: A
Pablo Guarnido-Lopez1, John-Fredy Ramirez-Agudelo2, Emmanuel Denimal1
1Institut Agro Dijon, 26 bd Docteur Petitjean, 21079 Dijon, France.
Monitoring cattle feeding behavior with YOLO object detection shows YOLOv10 slightly outperforms YOLOv8. Both algorithms achieve high accuracy, but YOLOv10 offers better performance for practical farm applications.
Area of Science:
- Animal Science
- Computer Vision
- Machine Learning
Background:
- Accurate monitoring of cattle feeding behavior is crucial for livestock management and welfare.
- Object detection algorithms offer a promising non-invasive method for behavior analysis.
- Previous studies have explored various computer vision techniques for animal behavior monitoring.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the performance of YOLOv8 and YOLOv10 object detection algorithms for identifying cattle feeding behaviors.
- To evaluate the effectiveness of these algorithms in a real-world farm setting.
- To determine the most suitable YOLO version for practical cattle behavior monitoring.
Main Methods:
- Videos of six Charolais bulls were recorded on a French farm.
- Three feeding behaviors (biting, chewing, visiting) were identified and labeled using Roboflow.
- Object detection performance was evaluated using YOLOv8 and YOLOv10, comparing precision, recall, and mAP scores.
Main Results:
- YOLOv10 demonstrated slightly higher precision, recall, mAP50, and mAP50-95 scores compared to YOLOv8.
- Both algorithms achieved an overall accuracy of approximately 90%.
- YOLOv8 trained faster and showed less overfitting, while YOLOv10 exhibited better consistency in predictions.
Conclusions:
- Both YOLOv8 and YOLOv10 are effective for detecting cattle feeding behaviors.
- YOLOv10 shows superior average performance, learning rate, and speed, making it more suitable for field applications.
- Further research could explore real-time implementation and larger datasets for enhanced accuracy.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Difference from Background: Limit of Detection
The LOD indicates the presence or absence...
Methods of Classification and Identification
Force Classification
Contact and non-contact forces are two of the most widely used categories of forces. As the name suggests, contact forces require physical contact between two objects to act upon each other. Examples of contact forces include frictional,...
Aggregates Classification
Petrographic classification groups aggregates based on common mineralogical characteristics. Some of the common mineral groups found in aggregates are...
Multiple Comparison Tests
It would be easy to compare two samples using a significance alpha level of 0.05. In other words, there is only one sample pair to be compared. However, it would be difficult to identify a significantly different sample if the number...
Extraction: Advanced Methods

