Effect of sensor systems on production, health, reproduction and economic results of Dutch dairy farms

Effect of sensor systems on production, udder health, reproduction and economics on

Dutch dairy farms

Wilma Steeneveld, Hans Vernooij and Henk Hogeveen

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?

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

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

Sensor systems in use (%; n=152)103 AMS farms 49 CMS farms

Electrical conductivity sensor 98 41Colour sensor 62 2Somatic cell count sensor 15 0Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) sensor 2 2

Activity meters or pedometers for dairy cows 46 94

Progesterone sensor 1 2Milk temperature sensor 50 6Weighing platform 31 6Fat and protein sensor 22 0Rumination activity sensor 11 20Temperature sensor 6 18Beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) sensor 2 2Urea sensor 1 2Other sensor systems 4 8Activity meters or pedometers for young stock 13 35

The herds

No sensor AMSBefore After

CMSBefore After

No. of cows  85 83 102 106 141

Growth in herd size (%) 

3.4 2.8 4.5 4.2 7.1

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)

Effects on milk production

No sens

or sys

tem

AMS f

arms b

efore

invest

ment

AMS f

arms a

fter in

vestm

ent

CMS f

arms b

efore

invest

ment

CMS f

arms a

fter in

vestm

ent

8000

8100

8200

8300

8400

8500

8600

8700

8800

Milk

pro

duct

ion

(kg/

cow

/yea

r)

Effects on udder health

No sensor system AMS farms before investment

AMS farms after investment

CMS farms before investment

CMS farms after investment

190

195

200

205

210

215

220

225

230

Som

atic

cel

l cou

nt (

*1,0

00 c

ells

/ml)

Effects on reproduction

No sensor system AMS farms before investment

AMS farms after investment

CMS farms before investment

CMS farms after investment

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

Day

s to

firs

t se

rvic

e

Accounting dataCapital 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

Economic results (€/100 kg milk)  

No sensor AMSBefore After

CMSBefore 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

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

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

Thank you for your attentionI wish you a great conference

@henkhogeveen

animal-health-management.blogspot.com

www.slideshare.net/henkhogeveen

Thank you for your attention

Welcome in Leeuwarden 2016