This study investigated the effects of sensor systems on Dutch dairy farms in terms of milk production, udder health, reproduction, and economics. Data was collected from 512 farms with and without sensors from 2003-2013. Farms with automatic milking systems (AMS) or cow management systems (CMS) that used sensors for mastitis and estrus detection were compared with farms without sensors. The results showed lower somatic cell counts on CMS farms after sensor investment, but higher counts on AMS farms. Sensor use did not improve reproduction performance. Capital costs increased for AMS farms after investment, but no effects on labor costs were observed. In conclusion, sensor investment was associated with improved udder health on CMS farms but not other measured outcomes.

1. Effect of sensor systems on production,
udder health, reproduction and economics on
Dutch dairy farms
Wilma Steeneveld, Hans Vernooij and Henk Hogeveen

2. Sensors on dairy farms
 Theory: Improve oestrus and disease detection
● Effect in practise on health and reproduction?
 Reasons for investing were reducing labour and easing
management (Steeneveld and Hogeveen, 2015)
● Effect in practise on labour costs and economic
performance of the farm?

3. Objectives of the research
 Investigate effect of sensors on
● Milk production
● Udder health (somatic cell count)
● Reproduction (days to first service)
 Investigate impact of investment in sensors on costs and
revenues on the farm

4. Available data
512 Dutch farms completed questionnaire about sensor
use in 2013 (31% response rate)
● 414 farms with data on production, udder health
and reproduction of the years 2003-2013
● 152 with sensors, 262 without sensors
● 217 farms with accounting data of the years 2008-
2013
● 54 with sensors on AMS
● 36 with sensors on CMS
● 127 without sensors
Steeneveld et al., 2015, J. Dairy Sci.
Steeneveld & Hogeveen, 2015, J. Dairy Sci

5. Sensor systems in use (%; n=152)
103 AMS farms 49 CMS farms
Electrical conductivity sensor 98 41
Colour sensor 62 2
Somatic cell count sensor 15 0
Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) sensor 2 2
Activity meters or pedometers for dairy cows 46 94
Progesterone sensor 1 2
Milk temperature sensor 50 6
Weighing platform 31 6
Fat and protein sensor 22 0
Rumination activity sensor 11 20
Temperature sensor 6 18
Beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) sensor 2 2
Urea sensor 1 2
Other sensor systems 4 8
Activity meters or pedometers for young stock 13 35

6. The herds
No sensor AMS
Before After
CMS
Before After
No. of cows 85 83 102 106 141
Growth in
herd size (%)
3.4 2.8 4.5 4.2 7.1

7. Analyses on milk, udder health and reproduction
 Milk
● Dependent: average yearly production per cow
● Independent: year, % growth in herd size, sensors in use (0/1)
 Udder health
● Dependent: average somatic cell count
● Independent: year, % growth in herd size, sensors in use for
mastitis detection (0/1)
 Reproduction
● Dependent: average days to first service
● Independent: year, % growth in herd size, sensors in use for
oestrus detection (0/1)

8. Effects on milk production
8000
8100
8200
8300
8400
8500
8600
8700
8800
No sensor system AMS farms before
investment
AMS farms after
investment
CMS farms before
investment
CMS farms after
investment
Milkproduction(kg/cow/year)

9. Effects on udder health
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
No sensor system AMS farms before
investment
AMS farms after
investment
CMS farms before
investment
CMS farms after
investment
Somaticcellcount(*1,000cells/ml)

10. Effects on reproduction
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
No sensor system AMS farms before
investment
AMS farms after
investment
CMS farms before
investment
CMS farms after
investment
Daystofirstservice

11. Accounting data
Capital costs
• Fuel
• Expenses on buildings
• Depreciation on buildings
• Expenses on machinery
• Depreciation on machinery
Variable costs
• Roughage
• Concentrates
• Substitutes for concentrates
• Milk powder
• Minerals
• Fertilizer
• Pesticides
• Breeding
• Health care
• Energy and water
• Manure removal
• Miscellaneous
Labour costs
• Contract work
• Paid labour
• Own labour
Revenues
• Milk
• Livestock
• Other farm activities
• Miscellaneous
FTE * 52 weeks *
40 hours a week *
hourly rate

12. Economic results (€/100 kg milk)
No sensor AMS
Before After
CMS
Before After
Capital costs 11.28 10.49a 15.08b 11.97c 12.34c
Labour costs
12.38 11.69a 11.30a 11.30c 10.43c
Variable costs 18.55 17.89a 18.69a 17.39c 18.25c
Revenues
46.28 43.93a 46.38b 45.77c 47.18c
Profit 4.07 3.86a 1.31b 5.11c 6.16c

13. Discussion
 Decreased milk production on CMS farms
● Probably due to another major
change at the farm
 Higher SCC on AMS farms, and lower SCC on CMS farms
after investment
 No effect on labour costs
● FTE not a good measure

14. Conclusions
 Lower SCC after investment in mastitis detection sensors
on CMS farms
● Higher SCC on AMS farms
 Having oestrus detection sensors did not improve
reproduction performance
 Capital costs increased after investment on AMS farms
 No effect on labour costs observed

15. Thank you for your attention
I wish you a great conference
@henkhogeveen
animal-health-management.blogspot.com
www.slideshare.net/henkhogeveen
Thank you for your attention
Welcome in Leeuwarden 2016