From farm data analytics to decisions: digital monitoring tools in modern cattle operations

Introduction

Cattle farming faces growing pressure from multiple directions: rising labor costs, increasing societal and regulatory expectations regarding animal welfare, environmental accountability, and the need to remain economically competitive. In this context, precision livestock farming (PLF) emerges as a strategic approach that relies on continuous or high-frequency monitoring of animals and their environment combined with automated data analysis to support management decisions.

While farms are now able to collect unprecedented amounts of data, many still struggle to convert these signals into timely and reliable actions. Farm data analytics focuses on integration, interpretation, and decision relevance, rather than data availability alone. 

This article reviews the main digital monitoring tools used (or ready to use) in cattle systems and examines how sensor data are translated into decision support for farm management. Emphasis is placed on data pipelines, analytics methodologies, and practical decision workflows, as well as current limitations and future directions for precision livestock farming (PLF).

Prefer to listen to this article? Click the play button below and enjoy our podcast!

What digital monitoring tools are used in modern cattle systems? 

Digital monitoring tools in cattle operations can be grouped according to the type of signal measured and the point of deployment.

Wearable sensors, such as collars, leg bands, or ear tags, are among the most widely adopted technologies. They typically measure activity, rest patterns, rumination proxies, and sometimes body temperature. These systems enable individual-level monitoring and are commonly used for heat detection, health alerts, and behavior analysis. However, their performance depends on correct calibration, stable attachment, and battery life.

Indigestible sensors, often in the form of rumen boluses, provide internal measurements such as rumen temperature and activity proxies. These are particularly useful for early detection of health disorders but involve higher costs and limited recoverability.

Vision-based systems, including RGB and depth cameras, are increasingly used to assess body condition score, lameness, feeding behavior, and animal presence. These systems offer non-invasive monitoring at group level but require robust algorithms to handle occlusion, lighting variability, and barn-specific layouts.

Milking system sensors, especially in automated milking systems (AMS), generate high-frequency data on milk yield, flow, conductivity, and milking behavior. When integrated with animal and feeding data, they are powerful inputs for health and production monitoring.

Environmental and infrastructure sensors measure barn environmental conditions (such as temperature and humidity), water intake, or pasture boundaries (e.g., virtual fencing), providing contextual information essential for interpreting animal-level data.

How is raw sensor data transformed into decision-ready farm data?

Transforming sensor outputs into decision-ready information requires a structured data pipeline. First, data acquisition must balance sampling frequency with energy consumption and relevance. Many systems perform on-device preprocessing, transmitting summarized features rather than raw signals.

Second, connectivity technologies (e.g. cellular, Wi-Fi) must be chosen according to farm topology and reliability requirements. Buffering and fault tolerance are essential in remote or pasture-based systems.

Third, data integration is critical. Sensor data must be linked to consistent animal identifiers and combined with contextual information such as parity, days in milk, diet, and treatment history. Lack of interoperability remains a major bottleneck.

Fourth, data quality management is required to address missing values, sensor drift, hardware changes, and seasonal effects. Without transparent quality control, analytics outputs risk losing farmer trust.

Finally, data storage and governance determine long-term usability, ownership, and compliance, particularly when multiple vendors and advisory services are involved.

How does the analytics layer transform indicators into predictions? 

Analytics in cattle monitoring systems can be viewed through Gartner’s Analytics Ascendancy Model (often referred to as the stages of data analysis) illustrating how systems progress from reporting to action-oriented intelligence:

Adapted from Gartner Analytics Ascendancy Model

• Descriptive level (what happened?): dashboards summarize indicators such as activity time budgets, rumination minutes, or milk yield trends. These provide situational awareness but limited decision guidance.
• Diagnostic analytics (why did it happen?): combine multiple indicators and contextual rules to explain deviations, for example linking reduced rumination and activity with stage of lactation or recent diet changes.
• Predictive analytics (what will happen?): use statistical models or machine learning to anticipate events such as oestrus, mastitis, lameness, or calving. Model robustness, validation across farms, and transparency are essential to avoid overconfidence.
• At the highest level, prescriptive analytics (how to make it happen?): aim to recommend concrete actions (e.g., check a specific cow, adjust grouping, initiate treatment), often with an associated confidence score. This stage represents the closest link between analytics and on-farm decisions.

How is farm data analytics used in daily decision-making on cattle farms? 

Effective decision support systems should integrate analytics into daily workflows. For example, in an animal health management use case, alerts generate prioritized checklists, which trigger physical inspection, treatment recording, and feedback into the system, closing the data–decision loop.

In reproduction and feeding management, activity and production indicators support insemination timing or dynamic grouping decisions. The economic cost of false positives and false negatives must be explicitly considered to avoid alert fatigue and inefficient labor use.

Human activity remains central: digital tools must align with farm routines, skills, and time constraints to deliver real value. This means that farmers, and technicians need to have the competences to deal with technology and take full advantage of it. There is little value in having the latest technological improvements if they are not used correctly or to their full potential.

Despite their potential, digital monitoring tools face several barriers. Technical challenges include sensor accuracy, data drift, and limited transferability of models between farms. Economic returns depend strongly on herd size, baseline performance, and labor costs. Moreover, standardized metrics for evaluating welfare, economic impact, and decision quality are still evolving. Knowledge transfer and training of farmers and technicians can also be limiting factors.

Key Takeaway

Farm data analytics will be essential for aligning productivity, welfare, and sustainability in future cattle systems. As EU livestock systems transition toward higher welfare and sustainability standards, digital monitoring tools will play an increasingly central role. Future progress will depend on data integration, interoperable platforms, and decision-centric system design. Ultimately, PLF technologies will deliver their full value not by collecting more data, but by enabling better, welfare-aligned decisions that are transparent, auditable, and economically viable.

References

• Niloofar, P., et al. (2021). Data-driven decision support in livestock farming for improved animal health, welfare and greenhouse gas emissions: Overview and challenges. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. Volume 190, 106406, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106406
• Jiang B, Tang W, Cui L, Deng X. Precision Livestock Farming Research: A Global Scientometric Review. Animals (Basel). 2023 Jun 24;13(13): 2096. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13132096
• Vladimirov, F. & Khakimov, A. & Yurochka, S. & Pavkin, D. & Bazaev, S.. (2025). The effectiveness of boluses and collars with accelerometers in monitoring the motor activity of dairy cows. Agrarian science. 129-135. 10.32634/0869-8155-2025-397-08-129-135.
• Liu, N., Qi, J., An, X., & Wang, Y. (2023). A Review on Information Technologies Applicable to Precision Dairy Farming: Focus on Behavior, Health Monitoring, and the Precise Feeding of Dairy Cows. Agriculture, 13(10), 1858. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13101858
• Bernabucci, G., Evangelista, C., Girotti, P., Viola, P., Spina, R., Ronchi, B., … Primi, R. (2025). Precision livestock farming: an overview on the application in extensive systems. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 24(1), 859–884. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2025.2480821
• ICAR. (2022). Section 2 – Guidelines for dairy cattle milk recording. International Committee for Animal Recording. https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/02-Overview.pdf