# data[].attributes.body
Identify the way forward – mapping how to increase the usefulness of PLF technologies based on the identified challenges, opportunities and goal conflicts related to PLF and the different dimensions of sustainability within the dairy sector

VIWA - Animal Welfare pillar (Niclas / Lena & Gaby)

Digi - social (Gaby/Lena), economic pillar (Haseeb) Environment??? - do we need to make a case or fill this gap?

# data[].attributes.body
VIWA - WORKFLOW / CHECKLIST OF THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTPUT FOR END USERS ANIMAL FOCUS (cow)

for technical companies to address when finding or tuning technical solutions with

DIGI - MAP / RANKING OF SOLUTIONS BEST SUITED FOR FARMERS IN SWEDEN (FOCUS)

Based on the survey, modelling, and interviews, indicate what tools they use more and why they find them useful.

# data[].attributes.headline
GUIDING QUESTIONS: Animal - Environment - Famers tensions with PLF solutions red flags and ways forward?

# data[].attributes.subject
GUIDING QUESTIONS: Animal - Environment - Famers tensions with PLF solutions red flags and ways forward?

# data[].attributes.body
Presentations and menti-guided discussions could be framed around these topics:

1) Relevance of data (animal-based measures) to achieve enhanced animal protection and welfare

2) Inaccurate predictions and decisions due to poor external validation

3) Technical failures, harmful effects of exposure

4) Adaptation or wearing of hardware/software components,

5) Lack of uptake of the most meaningful indicators for animal welfare (i.e. remove disease-centred focus in the development of PLF functionality or cost-benefit case)

6) Under- or Over-reliant on PLF technology causing:

Reducing quality time with the animals or environment

Loses animal-oriented husbandry skills (djüroga).

Compromise the interests of the environment, animals or their caretakers by creating transformations in dairy farming so that the housing and management are adapted to optimize PLF performance rather than PLF working for the animals the farmer.

Further negative impact on the moral status of farm animals in society by creating false expectations

7) Creation of a false sense of sustainability and good animal welfare by increasing production (intensification)

# data[].attributes.body
Input on the new ideas

Would you find it helpful at a population level, or else

Combined outputs

Which areas

Explore new opportunities they are not using it for - from a broader/different perspective

# data[].attributes.body
Practical Workshop Questions for Stakeholders (Day 2) - Here framed for farmers, in TEAMS an excel with the framing of the same question but for different actors that might participate in the workshop

1. How useful is the information we get from the cows (e.g., activity monitors and milk sensors) in helping us make better decisions for their health and welfare?

how valuable is the information for you

for the cows

for the future of the farm or long-term goals

For better management of resources (this one leading to the environment)

In terms of food safety

2. Have you experienced situations where technology gave you predictions or advice that turned out wrong? / Are there times when the data doesn't match what we see with our own eyes?

How did you notice the mistake, and what did you do about it?

3. How much do you run into technical issues, and how do these problems impact your cows or daily work?

4. How easy or hard is it to maintain equipment on the farm and the cows (e.g., software updates, parts, collars, tags, or sensors)?

5. From 1 to 10, how much would you like your system to focus on other than the detection of problem cows (i.e. sick cows

What kinds of information would you find helpful?

What kinds of information would you like to combine to aid you further in your on-farm decision-making?

6. Have you noticed changes in how you or your staff connect with the cows or the farm environment? What has influenced how you prioritize your work?

7. Do you think the system has modified your djuröga skillset? Can you imagine any examples where the system's recommendations didn’t align with your djuröga?

8. How can we ensure the data reflects the animals' true well-being and the farm's sustainability?

# data[].attributes.headline
Quesition 1. Data value for decision making

# data[].attributes.subject
Quesition 1. Data value for decision making

# data[].attributes.body
HS: Valuable data, but they (farmers) do not utilize it. Key areas missing

DA: Positive welfare indicators (lack of); we measure the negative - diseased animals. Tension on the use of these positive indicators: What will be the use of it? *DeLaval + Lely has a similar position in that they do not see its value.

Farmer: *This discussion brought up the different roles of the farmers; thus, within these stakeholders, there are different views on "the use". Big vs. small farms and sharing information. How they communicate within the farm is an issue so to extract the value of the data.

# data[].attributes.body
Farmers: They feel they know well when it does not work. There are issues with the installation of HN and OCC.

DA / TA: Tech companies feel restricted with the diagnosis. What they can and should do in terms of how to transform data points into diagnosis no man's land. Discrepancies are seen differently by the farmers and the tech companies. What responsibilities do they have, and who should assume these responsibilities?

# data[].attributes.body
TENSIONS (Signe):

These are old stories related to the integration of new technology. If is repeating this means keeps being an issue... Why so?

Ripple effect how this affects the animals, the environment and the farmers.

What comes first the happy cow = happy farmer and visversa

Tension on repacking data / data ownership

Power dynamics, if something does not work farmers are in problem.

Farm blindness and the animal eye. How is expertise defined, how this expertise is shifted to embody predictions to data predictions

Desire of calf and heifers information. The explainable AI only kicks in unique aspects of the cycle. (Dorota reaction - Is not super popular in the industry, cause you do not see the profit directly as with the cows. / Gaby - this means that other stakeholders are perpetuating the lack of care in others here: the calves and the heifers ... Something needs to start) / Dorota the calves are often housed in loose environments with no individual id and thus adds a cost to create a system that oversees a group.

*Gaby the dangers of only taking opportunities based on economic returns.

Karin: Her group requested sensors for neglected cows. Terms matter, use terms of late gestations rather than dry cows maybe they will increase the VIP status of these animals. / Questions that it might not be to difficult to have individual following up. So to show the value and make a case.

Liselle:

The difficulties of making your own system. To customize to fit their needs.

They feel they are not trusted. When you make entry errors, there is a big loop in making the changes (contact the manager), yet they feel they are the data owners; they pay for it.

Tools are a co-worker and thus they should not rely on as will be 24/7. This also relates with a sense of trust, Tension of the sensitivity. Some examples are in heat detection and time to inseminate.

They want to switch how sensitive the system is.

Lisa:

Different purposes and clear differences for your everyday work

Diferentiation from their data.

# data[].attributes.body
Easiness to detect small changes in behaviour

Overtrust in technology, where the balance is on the prediction value

The lifetime of the sensors (batteries), new solutions need to be created as these are barriers in practical terms to be able to add value thus to pursuit these

Whit calves there is not key indicators or aspects that pays off for the entire monitoring system

Come up with the heat detection for calves...

Dorota: Also one struggle with late castration calves, is that a lot of the tools used in production animals they are measured in the milk. For those animals there is a need to find other values /sensors.

# data[].attributes.body
One story i see could be around how stakeholders are navigating trade-offs in dairy technologies

I found that many groups expressed that it was hard to sort the impacts because many of the impacts were very interconnected and entangled with each other, so it is interesting to look at how you then navigate these trade-offs. What is prioritised, are there differences in the priorities and values among the different stakeholder groups, what gets decided in the end then and who gets to decide - how is this negotiated?

Are there any impacts that are non-negotiable?

Essentially, look into how we decide what matters the most - and how they may vary depending on the context? → Identify the conflict areas and areas of alignment

# data[].attributes.body
Discussions:

The different views and perspectives between the different groups of stakeholders (this we saw already in viwa focus groups, but also showed during these days)

Missing digital tools for other age groups than only lactating cows (e.g. calves, youngstock)

The trade offs with digital tools: Is extremely helpful, but what happens the day it doesn't work? If a farm becomes too dependent on digital tools, will they lose a lot of their own knowledge (both practical skills and "djuröga")?

Time aspect: Using digital tools should save time, but how is this "extra" time used? How much time is spent on trying to learn and and understand the new system, in order to use it in the optimal way?

Day 2 notes:

Different views on positive welfare indicators (see my notes, you can also see if you can find it in the audio transcription)

The great importance of understanding the data/values that comes out from the digital tools in order to understand what it means and what to do with the information, and the importance that the same thing/value is measured the same way in different systems/farms to enable benchmarking

# data[].attributes.body
Lisas group

What is a digital tool

Pros and Cons to whom?

They agreed on what was important to the farms.

They try to get as much as possible in one tool to define what is more important. *They think the more, the merrier.

Difficult to change the focus on to what information is needed.

I agree that the activity meter is the most important. Thus, I wanted the rumination also included there, but by discussing it, they see no point in doing so.

The exercise worked in that they did not see neutral points

Ninas group (Advisors and Technical advisors)

There is an overload of signals.

Reduced milk is enough.

Most of the positives are related to the life-work of the farmers.

Tech companies store as much information as possible in one place. On the other hand, we have the conversation of

Fragmented data and the need to have it all in one place... Fragmentation in different ways within the system, between systems and in future solutions

Again, others confirmed that most of the notes and posts were about societal values - tech/advisors.

But in other groups with farmers they connected with economics and the environment, some.

Ideas around economics - environment: Battery life, renting vs. buying, how they see the pay off (at times, this is not in money but in other aspects)

Stewardship is not in climate impact per se.

Liselle Group

Here, the focus is not on farmers as for Lisa's groups

Identification as the second best tool here / Niclas group also reach into that... he points out that RFDI is not bulletproof and has many negative consequences around that.

Feedintake is not yet in place.

# data[].attributes.body
What tools they selected and how - to define what is the more meaningful

What are the positive notes for each of these in terms of each of the aspects

What are the negative notes for each of these in terms of each of the aspects

# data[].attributes.body
The discussion on how the selected tools were used and why for each of the different groups/stakeholders

What are the positive, and in what areas

What are the negative,e and in what areas

In the discussion, we must separate gaps from what is in place. So state the gaps in terms

# data[].attributes.body
- Feed

- Reproduction

- Sick animals

- Management in relation to the tools and the social aspects of the farm

- Impact on sustainability: impacts resources on the farm and the management of their animals. It is about internal resources, but little can be said about the external environment.