Research associate and doctoral candidate in the “Agricultural and Food Policy” department at the University of Hohenheim

In practice, sensors are already frequently used in dairy cattle sheds. These automatically record production and animal welfare data, such as the cows’ movement activity and the amount of milk each cow produces. Data such as animal injuries and illnesses are also collected automatically in slaughterhouses today. 

As a scientist, I would very much like to work with this data, in anonymized form of course. For example, the effectiveness of political measures to improve animal welfare in Germany could be investigated across many farms. Of course, a Europe-wide or international comparison would be even better.

Unfortunately, this is still a dream: Scientists get access to such data only in individual cases, usually only for a few farms and in certain regions. Therefore, the great potential of this already existing data remains largely untapped from a scientific point of view. 

It would be a huge step forward for policy-makers if regular reports on the animal welfare situation could be produced, similar to the census or agricultural statistics. Since 2023, there has even been a tangible proposal from scientists on how animal welfare monitoring could be designed in Germany (the so-called “NaTiMon” project). Unfortunately, this has not yet been implemented politically.

Back to the top

Student in the “Agricultural Sciences” program at the University of Hohenheim, trained farmer and member of the “Junge DLG” association

This model shows an ultra-modern dairy shed. Automation does not stop at agriculture. Even if the romantic image of Britta the cow on the mountain pasture gives us a better feeling of consumption, it does not mean that a cow without pasture is worse off. 

From my training, my studies and my work as a student trainee, I know that farmers have high expectations of themselves and always want to improve. The large amount of measurement data collected in such a shed offers added value that should not be underestimated – also in terms of the early detection of diseases. 

For example: A high water content can, for example, indicate the onset of mastitis, which I can still treat with herbal remedies. If I only recognize the inflammation when the udder becomes hard or the milk becomes flaky, I have to start using antibiotics at a certain point. That's bad for the cow and bad for the farmers, who can't sell the milk. Another example: The movement pattern of a cow can provide indications of hoof disease. 

However, personal contact with animals can never be completely replaced. Even if you have implemented this level of automation in your shed, it becomes all the more important to go into the shed and work with your animals. Whether it’s caring for sick animals or the daily walk through the shed to check that the technology is working. 

Above all, it is important not to forget that in any form of husbandry, whether with or without pasture and with or without automation, the focus is on the welfare of the animal.

Back to the top

Director of the Center of Animal Husbandry at the University of Hohenheim and trained farmer

It is part of my job to be in love with both animals and technology. Animal-technician interaction plays a major role in the development, design, and research of modern and innovative husbandry systems and housing concepts. Which sensors, which automatisms, which digital tools are really useful? Where is the boundary between costs and benefits? Are we inhibiting or promote the animal-animal relationship and the animal-human relationship? Which techniques support animal welfare? 

I also marvel at the rapid developments of recent years with wide eyes. However, I hear and see more advantages than disadvantages from practice and science. 

We can close many observation gaps for the individual animals. The animals accept automatic feeding and milking systems very well. We can make the husbandry environment better and more flexible. We are relieved of manual work in favor of qualified animal observation. 

Of course, not everything is as beautiful in reality as it may shine digitally, because it doesn't work without a lot of empathy and animal husbandry expertise.

Back to the top

Student of the “Bioeconomy” Master’s program at the University of Hohenheim, member of the Sustainability working group

This time, I’m deliberately speaking in technical terms. Researchers clearly warn that intensive milk use has a high environmental impact: Emissions such as methane are released into the atmosphere, nitrate is released into the groundwater, and there is also a high demand for land and water and thus dwindling biodiversity. 

From a bioeconomic perspective, the system is inefficient: Feed competes with human food, nutrients are lost along the chain, and the true costs – climate, water and health damage – are hardly reflected in the price. 

What also annoys me: Parts of the dairy lobby are fighting alternatives such as oat milk by wanting to ban its designation as “milk” or demanding other conditions – that really irks me. Those who expand the product range instead – for example with plant-based drinks, precision fermentation, microbial proteins – protect the environment AND the brand: less risk, new customers, more innovative strength.

In the end, it must not be cheaper to exploit animals than to grow plants. Only when CO2, methane, nitrate and water consumption are honestly priced and food alternatives given a fair framework will we have real freedom of choice – ecologically and ethically.

Back to the top

Director of the “Livestock Infectiology and Environmental Hygiene” department at the University of Hohenheim, specialist veterinarian for animal hygiene

The model reflects a modern dairy farm with a high degree of automation (milking/feeding systems, health monitoring). For me, it is particularly important that − due to the high degree of mechanization − the personal bond between the staff members and the animals does not fall by the wayside (unsatisfactory expertise, empathy) and that the cows’ natural behavioral patterns and basic needs (lying down, rumination, social behavior) can be met without restrictions.

The clear advantages of these housing systems for the animals are the early detection of health problems (udder, lameness, metabolism) and increased animal welfare (feeding systems enable continuous intake of basic feed, milking robots enable individual milking for each cow). From an animal hygienist’s point of view, the higher hygiene standards that can be achieved are important. Important disadvantages are the lack of access to pasture, the large amounts of manure produced and the high dependence on technicians.

Back to the top

Former State Commissioner for Animal Welfare with teaching duties at the University of Hohenheim

Space, light, air, and cow comfort – a modern dairy cattle shed should offer all of this. Cows can move freely and choose for themselves when and where they eat or rest, which companions they surround themselves with and when they stroll to milking. 

Nevertheless, where is the way out? 

How pleasant it is to let the fall sun shine on your back and flanks, to ruminate peacefully in a group of like-minded people and relatives under the trees, or to let a rain shower cool you down if you feel like it. 

Where is the space to occasionally jump around crazily? Anyone who has ever observed a herd of cattle – possibly consisting of several generations – on an extensive pasture will find even a spacious cowshed with the best cow monitoring cramped.

Back to the top