Display options
Cite
Van De Gucht T, Van Weyenberg S, Van Nuffel A, et al. Supporting the Development and Adoption of Automatic Lameness Detection Systems in Dairy Cattle: Effect of System Cost and Performance on Potential Market Shares. Animals (Basel). 2017;7(10)doi: 10.3390/ani7100077.
Van De Gucht, T., Van Weyenberg, S., Van Nuffel, A., Lauwers, L., Vangeyte, J., & Saeys, W. (2017). Supporting the Development and Adoption of Automatic Lameness Detection Systems in Dairy Cattle: Effect of System Cost and Performance on Potential Market Shares. Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 7(10), . https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7100077
Van De Gucht, Tim, et al. "Supporting the Development and Adoption of Automatic Lameness Detection Systems in Dairy Cattle: Effect of System Cost and Performance on Potential Market Shares." Animals : an open access journal from MDPI vol. 7,10 (2017). doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7100077
Van De Gucht T, Van Weyenberg S, Van Nuffel A, Lauwers L, Vangeyte J, Saeys W. Supporting the Development and Adoption of Automatic Lameness Detection Systems in Dairy Cattle: Effect of System Cost and Performance on Potential Market Shares. Animals (Basel). 2017 Oct 08;7(10). doi: 10.3390/ani7100077. PMID: 28991188; PMCID: PMC5664036.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Animals (Basel). 2017 Oct 08;7(10). doi: 10.3390/ani7100077.

Supporting the Development and Adoption of Automatic Lameness Detection Systems in Dairy Cattle: Effect of System Cost and Performance on Potential Market Shares.

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI

Tim Van De Gucht, Stephanie Van Weyenberg, Annelies Van Nuffel, Ludwig Lauwers, Jürgen Vangeyte, Wouter Saeys

Affiliations

  1. Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research-ILVO, Technology and Food Sciences Unit, Burg, van Gansberghelaan 115, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium. [email protected].
  2. KU Leuven Department of Biosystems, MeBioS, Kasteelpark Arenberg 30 Box 2456, 3001 Leuven, Belgium. [email protected].
  3. Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research-ILVO, Technology and Food Sciences Unit, Burg, van Gansberghelaan 115, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium. [email protected].
  4. Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research-ILVO, Technology and Food Sciences Unit, Burg, van Gansberghelaan 115, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium. [email protected].
  5. Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research-ILVO, Social Sciences Unit, Burg, van Gansberghelaan 115, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium. [email protected].
  6. Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Bio-Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Gent, Belgium. [email protected].
  7. Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research-ILVO, Technology and Food Sciences Unit, Burg, van Gansberghelaan 115, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium. [email protected].
  8. KU Leuven Department of Biosystems, MeBioS, Kasteelpark Arenberg 30 Box 2456, 3001 Leuven, Belgium. [email protected].

PMID: 28991188 PMCID: PMC5664036 DOI: 10.3390/ani7100077

Abstract

Most automatic lameness detection system prototypes have not yet been commercialized, and are hence not yet adopted in practice. Therefore, the objective of this study was to simulate the effect of detection performance (percentage missed lame cows and percentage false alarms) and system cost on the potential market share of three automatic lameness detection systems relative to visual detection: a system attached to the cow, a walkover system, and a camera system. Simulations were done using a utility model derived from survey responses obtained from dairy farmers in Flanders, Belgium. Overall, systems attached to the cow had the largest market potential, but were still not competitive with visual detection. Increasing the detection performance or lowering the system cost led to higher market shares for automatic systems at the expense of visual detection. The willingness to pay for extra performance was €2.57 per % less missed lame cows, €1.65 per % less false alerts, and €12.7 for lame leg indication, respectively. The presented results could be exploited by system designers to determine the effect of adjustments to the technology on a system's potential adoption rate.

Keywords: adoption rate; automatic lameness detection; discrete choice experiment; market share; willingness to adopt; willingness to pay

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. J Dairy Sci. 2001 Sep;84(9):1988-97 - PubMed
  2. Prev Vet Med. 2002 Jun 25;54(2):113-29 - PubMed
  3. J Dairy Sci. 2007 Jul;90(7):3294-300 - PubMed
  4. Res Vet Sci. 2010 Oct;89(2):311-7 - PubMed
  5. J Dairy Sci. 2010 Jun;93(6):2419-32 - PubMed
  6. J Dairy Sci. 2011 Jun;94(6):2895-901 - PubMed
  7. J Dairy Sci. 2012 May;95(5):2523-30 - PubMed
  8. Vet J. 2012 Sep;193(3):622-5 - PubMed
  9. J Dairy Sci. 2013 Apr;96(4):1928-1952 - PubMed
  10. Animal. 2015 Oct;9(10):1704-12 - PubMed
  11. PLoS One. 2016 May 17;11(5):e0155796 - PubMed
  12. J Dairy Sci. 2017 Jul;100(7):5746-5757 - PubMed
  13. J Dairy Sci. 2018 Jan;101(1):637-648 - PubMed
  14. Vet Rec. 1996 Jun 8;138(23):563-7 - PubMed

Publication Types