What is the value of a health monitoring technology system? That’s the one million dollar question dairy farmers must weigh when determining if a given tool will be a good fit for their herd. The answer depends on how you use it and what your goals are, said Julio Giordano.
During a Cornell PRO-DAIRY webinar, the animal science professor described a study his team did that evaluated the impact of monitoring fresh cows with a neck sensor compared to visual observation. Cows received the same treatments whether they were visually sorted to the treatment pen or identified by the automatic monitor with a low health index score, daily rumination under 250 minutes, or production that fell at least 20%.
The only difference between the groups was how cows were selected for physical examination. Then, the research team calculated cash flow for each cow, considering income over feed cost (IOFC), health, replacement costs, and treatment costs.
There were more cows sorted for a physical examination in the monitor group (16) than the cows in the visual observation group (5). “You’re going to find more cows with health disorders,” Giordano said of the automated system. This led to more cows being treated and thus more in the hospital pen.
The upside, though, was that cows monitored with the neck collars made more milk in the first 21 days in milk (DIM) — roughly 3 pounds per cow per day. “The difference came from cows diagnosed with health disorders,” Giordano said. In other words, the healthy cows in both systems did not differ in production. This indicates that in this herd, there were cows that were subclinically sick and not being found by visual identification. However, they benefitted from treatment and closer care.
Of course, with more treatment comes more costs. Did the extra milk revenue pay those bills? This study said yes, Giordano explained.
Cows in the automated monitor group had a higher cash flow through 100 DIM. Of those cows that stayed in the herd, they also had a higher IOFC in the first 21 DIM. There were no differences between the groups in leaving the herd, but the cows with the monitors did incur a slightly higher cost than visual observation cows if they left the herd.
Is individual cow cash flow possible?
Giordano recognized that this was just one study with one group of cows, and it did not account for other ways automatic health monitors are used. Dairy farmers know there are a range of technologies that can be used to generate any number of data points on their animals.
Even with all of this information, there is not an easy way for farms to identify each cow’s cash flow value, which could be useful for making treatment, breeding, and culling decisions. Giordano also discussed a software program his group has been working on — called MyCow$ — to solve this problem.
Almost every decision a farmer makes has an economic implication, but “A lot of decisions today in 2024 are still made on group level information or averages, what research and other farms have generated, and extrapolation,” he described. Their tool aggregates data from wearable and nonwearable sensors, herd management software, and market prices to determine individual cow cash flow numbers in as close to real time as possible.
The tool will calculate cow revenue from milk production and market prices plus calf revenue. Expenses will include feed costs, replacement costs, and health and reproduction expenses. Giordano admitted that feed costs are the hardest to calculate because estimating each cow’s dry matter intake is difficult, but it can be approximated with body weight, stage of lactation, and fat corrected milk production.
While the tool is still in development now, it offers another picture of what is possible with individual cow data. Whether you are evaluating health treatments or cash flow, more information is what helps you make the best decision.
