Farmers' preferences for automatic lameness-detection systems in dairy cattle.

As lameness is a major health problem in dairy herds, a lot of attention goes to the development of automated lameness-detection systems. Few systems have made it to the market, as most are currently still in development. To get these systems ready for practice, developers need to define which system characteristics are important for the farmers as end users. In this study, farmers' preferences for the different characteristics of proposed lameness-detection systems were investigated. In addition, the influence of sociodemographic and farm characteristics on farmers' preferences was assessed. The third aim was to find out if preferences change after the farmer receives extra information on lameness and its consequences. Therefore, a discrete choice experiment was designed with 3 alternative lameness-detection systems: a system attached to the cow, a walkover system, and a camera system. Each system was defined by 4 characteristics: the percentage missed lame cows, the percentage false alarms, the system cost, and the ability to indicate which leg is lame. The choice experiment was embedded in an online survey. After answering general questions and choosing their preferred option in 4 choice sets, extra information on lameness was provided. Consecutively, farmers were shown a second block of 4 choice sets. Results from 135 responses showed that farmers' preferences were influenced by the 4 system characteristics. The importance a farmer attaches to lameness, the interval between calving and first insemination, and the presence of an estrus-detection system contributed significantly to the value a farmer attaches to lameness-detection systems. Farmers who already use an estrus detection system were more willing to use automatic detection systems instead of visual lameness detection. Similarly, farmers who achieve shorter intervals between calving and first insemination and farmers who find lameness highly important had a higher tendency to choose for automatic lameness detection. A sensor attached to the cow was preferred, followed by a walkover system and a camera system. In general, visual lameness detection was preferred over automatic detection systems, but this preference changed after informing farmers about the consequences of lameness. To conclude, the system cost and performance were important features, but dairy farmers should be sensitized on the consequences of lameness and its effect on farm profitability.

[1]  C J Rutten,et al.  Invited review: sensors to support health management on dairy farms. , 2013, Journal of dairy science.

[2]  Claudia Bahr,et al.  Lameness Detection in Dairy Cows: Part 2. Use of Sensors to Automatically Register Changes in Locomotion or Behavior , 2015, Animals : an open access journal from MDPI.

[3]  F. Carlsson,et al.  Swedish Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare and Biotech: A Choice Experiment , 2006 .

[4]  Henk Hogeveen,et al.  Costs of mastitis: facts and perception , 2008, Journal of Dairy Research.

[5]  A. Lawrence,et al.  Lameness prevalence and risk factors in organic and non-organic dairy herds in the United Kingdom. , 2009, Veterinary journal.

[6]  C. A. van der Weerdt,et al.  Focusing on behaviour to ensure adoption of Big Data information services in Precision Lifestock Farming , 2016 .

[7]  Markus Lips,et al.  What are the preferences of Dairy Farmers regarding their Work? A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Eastern Part of Switzerland , 2008 .

[8]  Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders,et al.  From user-centered to participatory design approaches , 2002 .

[9]  J. Bewley,et al.  An assessment of producer precision dairy farming technology use, prepurchase considerations, and usefulness. , 2015, Journal of dairy science.

[10]  R. Huirne,et al.  Preferences of cost factors for mastitis management among Dutch dairy farmers using adaptive conjoint analysis. , 2009, Preventive veterinary medicine.

[11]  D C J Main,et al.  Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 1. Understanding barriers to lameness control on dairy farms. , 2010, Research in veterinary science.

[12]  R. Bicalho,et al.  Association between a visual and an automated locomotion score in lactating Holstein cows. , 2007, Journal of dairy science.

[13]  P. H. Robinson,et al.  Impact of lameness on behavior and productivity of lactating Holstein cows , 2003 .

[14]  R. Huirne,et al.  Economic losses due to clinical lameness in dairy cattle , 1997 .

[15]  I. Veissier,et al.  The major welfare problems of dairy cows in French commercial farms: an epidemiological approach , 2014 .

[16]  L. Thurstone A law of comparative judgment. , 1994 .

[17]  M. Endres,et al.  Prevalence of lameness in high-producing holstein cows housed in freestall barns in Minnesota. , 2006, Journal of dairy science.

[18]  M A Stevenson,et al.  Interval between detection of lameness by locomotion scoring and treatment for lameness: a survival analysis. , 2012, Veterinary journal.

[19]  T. Knowles,et al.  The development, implementation and testing of a lameness control programme based on HACCP principles and designed for heifers on dairy farms. , 2009, Veterinary journal.

[20]  Bart Sonck,et al.  Variables of gait inconsistency outperform basic gait variables in detecting mildly lame cows , 2015 .

[21]  L. O’Grady,et al.  Foot lesions in lame cows on 10 dairy farms in Ireland , 2015, Irish Veterinary Journal.

[22]  Henk Hogeveen,et al.  Dairy farmers' attitudes and intentions towards improving dairy cow foot health , 2013 .

[23]  J. Rushen,et al.  Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in freestall barns. , 2015, Journal of dairy science.

[24]  D. McFadden,et al.  MIXED MNL MODELS FOR DISCRETE RESPONSE , 2000 .

[25]  A. Khanal,et al.  Adoption of technology, management practices, and production systems in US milk production. , 2010, Journal of dairy science.

[26]  V. Manyong,et al.  Using a discrete choice experiment to elicit the demand for a nutritious food: willingness-to-pay for orange maize in rural Zambia. , 2012, Journal of health economics.

[27]  K. Baerenklau Toward an Understanding of Technology Adoption: Risk, Learning, and Neighborhood Effects , 2005, Land Economics.

[28]  N. Bell,et al.  Evaluating an intervention to reduce lameness in dairy cattle. , 2012, Journal of dairy science.

[29]  H. Whay,et al.  The prevalence of lameness on New Zealand dairy farms: a comparison of farmer estimate and locomotion scoring. , 2014, Veterinary journal.

[30]  H Hogeveen,et al.  Mastitis alert preferences of farmers milking with automatic milking systems. , 2012, Journal of dairy science.

[31]  S. Archer,et al.  Association between milk yield and serial locomotion score assessments in UK dairy cows. , 2010, Journal of dairy science.

[32]  R. Robinson,et al.  Prevalence and severity of lameness in lactating dairy cows in a sample of Minnesota and Wisconsin herds. , 1993, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[33]  J. Routly,et al.  Influence of lameness on follicular growth, ovulation, reproductive hormone concentrations and estrus behavior in dairy cows , 2011, Theriogenology.

[34]  D. McFadden The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research , 1986 .

[35]  M. Pérez-Cabal,et al.  Clinical lameness and risk factors in a Spanish Holstein population , 2014 .

[36]  J. Louviere,et al.  Discrete Choice Experiments Are Not Conjoint Analysis , 2010 .

[37]  Jeffrey M. Bewley,et al.  Precision Dairy Farming: Advanced Analysis Solutions for Future Profitability , 2010 .

[38]  Ephraim Maltz,et al.  Automatic lameness detection based on consecutive 3D-video recordings , 2014 .

[39]  H Hogeveen,et al.  Assessing economic consequences of foot disorders in dairy cattle using a dynamic stochastic simulation model. , 2010, Journal of dairy science.

[40]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis , 2015 .

[41]  L. Green,et al.  The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. , 2002, Journal of dairy science.