Abstract #M42
Section: ADSA Production PhD Poster Competition (Graduate)
Session: ADSA Graduate Student (PhD) Production Poster Competition
Format: Poster
Day/Time: Monday 7:30 AM–9:30 AM
Location: Exhibit Hall B
Session: ADSA Graduate Student (PhD) Production Poster Competition
Format: Poster
Day/Time: Monday 7:30 AM–9:30 AM
Location: Exhibit Hall B
# M42
Producer perception of precision dairy monitoring technology health alerts.
E. Eckelkamp*1, J. Bewley1, 1University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Key Words: precision dairy technology, producer assessment, health monitoring
Producer perception of precision dairy monitoring technology health alerts.
E. Eckelkamp*1, J. Bewley1, 1University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
The objective of this study was to assess how producers categorized alerts from a daily generated alert list designed to identify sick or injured animals. Data from 4 commercial farms in Kentucky were collected from October 2015 to 2016. Each cow was equipped with a CowWatch leg tag (Alta Genetics Inc., Watertown, WI) measuring steps (steps/d) and lying time (h/d), and a neck tag measuring eating time (h/d). Dairy producers evaluated a technology-generated daily herd health report where alerts were generated based on a cow level threshold of ≥30% decrease in steps, lying time, or eating time compared with each cow’s 10-d moving average. Producers evaluated alerts within overall categories: alert accepted to be true and cow checked (A), alert accepted to be true and cow not checked (B), and alert not accepted to be true (C). A total of 25,027 cow alerts occurred, with producers evaluating 15,644 cow alerts (62%). The FREQ procedure of SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) with a Chi-squared analysis was used to assess category distribution. Overall, more alerts were categorized as A (5,129) and B (8,424) compared with C (2,091; P < 0.01). Producer categorization by farm (Table 1) indicated most of evaluated alerts were accepted to be true (75 to 99%, total A and B). However, 27 to 88% of alerts were categorized as B, indicating although behavior changes were real, the producer did not check the cow. Reasons for not checking cows included: changes from normal not enough for producer to worry, no time for producers to check alerts, changes in ambient temperature, and hoof trimming or veterinary checks. The frequency of A and B alerts indicated that producers believed the behaviors changes identified were real. The frequency of cows in category B indicated alert generation should be refined to identify only sick or injured cows.
Table 1.
Item | No. (% of total) | |||
Farm 1 | Farm 2 | Farm 3 | Farm 4 | |
Category A | 105 (2%) | 429 (7%) | 1,599 (28%) | 2,996 (44%) |
Category B | 2,802 (42%) | 2,708 (45%) | 1,778 (32%) | 1,136 (17%) |
Category C | 292 (4%) | 609 (10%) | 1,151 (20%) | 39 (1%) |
Missing | 3,427 (52%) | 2,282 (38%) | 1,100 (20%) | 2,574 (38%) |
Key Words: precision dairy technology, producer assessment, health monitoring