Since the 1980s, efforts have been made to develop sensors that measure a parameter from an individual cow. The development started with individual cow recognition and was followed by sensors that measure the electrical conductivity of milk and pedometers that measure activity. The aim of this review is to provide a structured overview of the published sensor systems for dairy health management. The development of sensor systems can be described by the following 4 levels: (I) techniques that measure something about the cow (e.g., activity); (II) interpretations that summarize changes in the sensor data (e.g., increase in activity) to produce information about the cow's status (e.g., estrus); (III) integration of information where sensor information is supplemented with other information (e.g., economic information) to produce advice (e.g., whether to inseminate a cow or not); and (IV) the farmer makes a decision or the sensor system makes the decision autonomously (e.g., the inseminator is called). This review has structured a total of 126 publications describing 139 sensor systems and compared them based on the 4 levels. The publications were published in the Thomson Reuters (formerly ISI) Web of Science database from January 2002 until June 2012 or in the proceedings of 3 conferences on precision (dairy) farming in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Most studies concerned the detection of mastitis (25%), fertility (33%), and locomotion problems (30%), with fewer studies (16%) related to the detection of metabolic problems. Many studies presented sensor systems at levels I and II, but none did so at levels III and IV. Most of the work for mastitis (92%) and fertility (75%) is done at level II. For locomotion (53%) and metabolism (69%), more than half of the work is done at level I. The performance of sensor systems varies based on the choice of gold standards, algorithms, and test sizes (number of farms and cows). Studies on sensor systems for mastitis and estrus have shown that sensor systems are brought to a higher level; however, the need to improve detection performance still exists. Studies on sensor systems for locomotion problems have shown that the search continues for the most appropriate indicators, sensor techniques, and gold standards. Studies on metabolic problems show that it is still unclear which indicator reflects best the metabolic problems that should be detected. No systems with integrated decision support models have been found.

When cows on dairy farms are milked with an automatic milking system or in high capacity milking parlors, clinical mastitis (CM) cannot be adequately detected without sensors. The objective of this paper is to describe the performance demands of sensor systems to detect CM and evaluats the current performance of these sensor systems. Several detection models based on different sensors were studied in the past. When evaluating these models, three factors are important: performance (in terms of sensitivity and specificity), the time window and the similarity of the study data with real farm data. A CM detection system should offer at least a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 99%. The time window should not be longer than 48 hours and study circumstances should be as similar to practical farm circumstances as possible. The study design should comprise more than one farm for data collection. Since 1992, 16 peer-reviewed papers have been published with a description and evaluation of CM detection models. There is a large variation in the use of sensors and algorithms. All this makes these results not very comparable. There is a also large difference in performance between the detection models and also a large variation in time windows used and little similarity between study data. Therefore, it is difficult to compare the overall performance of the different CM detection models. The sensitivity and specificity found in the different studies could, for a large part, be explained in differences in the used time window. None of the described studies satisfied the demands for CM detection models.

The technical performance of activity meters for automated detection of estrus in dairy farming has been studied, and such meters are already used in practice. However, information on the economic consequences of using activity meters is lacking. The current study analyzes the economic benefits of a sensor system for detection of estrus and appraises the feasibility of an investment in such a system. A stochastic dynamic simulation model was used to simulate reproductive performance of a dairy herd. The number of cow places in this herd was fixed at 130. The model started with 130 randomly drawn cows (in a Monte Carlo process) and simulated calvings and replacement of these cows in subsequent years. Default herd characteristics were a conception rate of 50%, an 8-wk dry-off period, and an average milk production level of 8,310 kg per cow per 305 d. Model inputs were derived from real farm data and expertise. For the analysis, visual detection by the farmer ("without" situation) was compared with automated detection with activity meters ("with" situation). For visual estrus detection, an estrus detection rate of 50% and a specificity of 100% were assumed. For automated estrus detection, an estrus detection rate of 80% and a specificity of 95% were assumed. The results of the cow simulation model were used to estimate the difference between the annual net cash flows in the "with" and "without" situations (marginal financial effect) and the internal rate of return (IRR) as profitability indicators. The use of activity meters led to improved estrus detection and, therefore, to a decrease in the average calving interval and subsequent increase in annual milk production. For visual estrus detection, the average calving interval was 419 d and average annual milk production was 1,032,278 kg. For activity meters, the average calving interval was 403 d and the average annual milk production was 1,043,398 kg. It was estimated that the initial investment in activity meters would cost €17,728 for a herd of 130 cows, with an additional cost of €90 per year for the replacement of malfunctioning activity meters. Changes in annual net cash flows arising from using an activity meter included extra revenues from increased milk production and number of calves sold, increased costs from more inseminations, calvings, and feed consumption, and reduced costs from fewer culled cows and less labor for estrus detection. These changes in cash flows were caused mainly by changes in the technical results of the simulated dairy herds, which arose from differences in the estrus detection rate and specificity between the "with" and "without" situations. The average marginal financial effect in the "with" and "without" situations was €2,827 for the baseline scenario, with an average IRR of 11%. The IRR is a measure of the return on invested capital. Investment in activity meters was generally profitable. The most influential assumptions on the profitability of this investment were the assumed culling rules and the increase in sensitivity of estru...

Under Dutch circumstances, most clinical mastitis (CM) cases of cows on dairy farms are treated with a standard intramammary antimicrobial treatment. Several antimicrobial treatments are available for CM, differing in antimicrobial compound, route of application, duration, and cost. Because cow factors (e.g., parity, stage of lactation, and somatic cell count history) and the causal pathogen influence the probability of cure, cow-specific treatment of CM is often recommended. The objective of this study was to determine if cow-specific treatment of CM is economically beneficial. Using a stochastic Monte Carlo simulation model, 20,000 CM cases were simulated. These CM cases were caused by Streptococcus uberis and Streptococcus dysgalactiae (40%), Staphylococcus aureus (30%), or Escherichia coli (30%). For each simulated CM case, the consequences of using different antimicrobial treatment regimens (standard 3-d intramammary, extended 5-d intramammary, combination 3-d intramammary+systemic, combination 3-d intramammary+systemic+1-d nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, and combination extended 5-d intramammary+systemic) were simulated simultaneously. Finally, total costs of the 5 antimicrobial treatment regimens were compared. Some inputs for the model were based on literature information and assumptions made by the authors were used if no information was available. Bacteriological cure for each individual cow depended on the antimicrobial treatment regimen, the causal pathogen, and the cow factors parity, stage of lactation, somatic cell count history, CM history, and whether the cow was systemically ill. Total costs for each case depended on treatment costs for the initial CM case (including costs for antibiotics, milk withdrawal, and labor), treatment costs for follow-up CM cases, costs for milk production losses, and costs for culling. Average total costs for CM using the 5 treatments were (US) $224, $247, $253, $260, and $275, respectively. Average probabilities of bacteriological cure for the 5 treatments were 0.53, 0.65, 0.65, 0.68, and 0.75, respectively. For all different simulated CM cases, the standard 3-d intramammary antimicrobial treatment had the lowest total costs. The benefits of lower costs for milk production losses and culling for cases treated with the intensive treatments did not outweigh the higher treatment costs. The stochastic model was developed using information from the literature and assumptions made by the authors. Using these information sources resulted in a difference in effectiveness of different antimicrobial treatments for CM. Based on our assumptions, cow-specific treatment of CM was not economically beneficial.

Many cow-specific risk factors for clinical mastitis (CM) are known. Other studies have analyzed these risk factors separately or only analyzed a limited number of risk factors simultaneously. The goal of this study was to determine the influence of cow factors on the incidence rate of CM (IRCM) with all cow factors in one multivariate model. Also, using a similar approach, the probability of whether a CM case is caused by grampositive or gram-negative pathogens was calculated. Data were used from 274 Dutch dairy herds that recorded CM over an 18-mo period. The final dataset contained information on 28,137 lactations of 22,860 cows of different parities. In total 5,363 CM cases were recorded, but only 2,525 CM cases could be classified as gram-positive or gram-negative. The cow factors parity, lactation stage, season of the year, information on SCC from monthly test-day records, and CM history were included in the logistic regression analysis. Separate analyses were performed for heifers and multiparous cows in both the first month of lactation and from the second month of lactation onward. For investigating whether CM was caused by gram-positive or gram-negative pathogens, quarter position was included in the logistic regression analysis as well. The IRCM differed considerably among cows, ranging between 0.0002 and 0.0074 per cow-day at risk for specific cows depending on cow factors. In particular, previous CM cases, SCC in the previous month, and mean SCC in the previous lactation increased the IRCM in the current month of lactation. Results indicate that it is difficult to distinguish between gram-positive and gram-negative CM cases based on cow factors alone.