Andra-Sabina Neculai-Valeanu
Catalina Sanduleanu
Ioana Porosnicu- 1Laboratory of Nutrition, Quality and Food Safety, Department of Research, Research and Development Station for Cattle Breeding, Iasi, Romania
- 2The Academy of Romanian Scientists, Bucharest, Romania
- 3Department of Animal Resources and Technologies, Faculty of Food and Animal Resources, Iasi University of Life Science, Iasi, Romania
- 4Department of Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Iasi University of Life Science, Iasi, Romania
Traditional cattle production practices relied heavily on manual observation and empirical decision-making, often leading to inconsistent outcomes. In contrast, modern approaches leverage technology to achieve greater precision and efficiency. Advancement in technology has shifted to a new dimension of predictive and monitoring in cattle health management. This review aims at highlighting the available and current digital technologies in cattle health, evaluate their utility in practice, and identify possible future advancements in the field that can potentially bring even more changes to this industry. The paper highlights some of the barriers and disadvantages of using these technologies, such as data security issues, high capital investments, and skills gap. The integration of these advanced technologies is set to play a fundamental role in enabling the livestock industry to meet the rising global demand for high-quality, sustainably produced products. These technologies are essential for ensuring compliance with ethical standards and best practices in cattle care and well-being. In light of these advancements, the application of digital innovations will support the achievement of socially responsible cattle production, while simultaneously maintaining optimal levels of animal health and welfare.
1 Introduction to digital tools in cattle health
A key goal of livestock rearing is to ensure optimal health and welfare of animals, not only for ethical and economic reasons, but also to meet increasing societal demands for products that are originated from animals with high welfare standards, i.e., raised under conditions where they can thrive (1, 2). Digital technologies that quantify aspects of animal behavior, physiology, and production over time have the potential to contribute to the identification of welfare and health related problems early on (3).
This in turn can enable a rapid intervention at herd or individual level to improve the animals’ living conditions, prevent animals from suffering, improve treatment efficacy and reduce antibiotic consumption (4, 5). This mini-review provides an overview of the most common digital tools currently used within the cattle sector where the integration digital tools has led to enhanced monitoring capabilities, allowing farmers to collect real-time data on cattle health and behaviors. By utilizing technologies such as wearable sensors, drones, and mobile applications, stakeholders can make informed decisions that promote better welfare outcomes and disease prevention strategies. Digital tools have led to practical improvements for both researchers, the cattle industry, and veterinarians.
The use and market penetration of digital technologies for health management within the cattle sector is considered relatively low in some countries when compared to other sectors such as pig or poultry farms. Initially, digital tools in the cattle sector were mainly introduced as an aid to both monitoring production quantities and quality. Indeed, the need to support management decisions on a range of aspects such as feeding, heat detection, the timing of insemination, and the knowledge around the different growth curves created a demand for data collection tools (3, 6) (Figure 1).
Figure 1. From tradition to precision in cattle farming.
At a herd level, management tools now allow for automated data collection and herd management, outfitted with data collection on production details, such as yields and compositions, for all cows. In certain nations, the implementation of data management tools differs depending on the respective industry sector (7). For example, France and Ireland demonstrate significantly contrasting proportions of dairy farms employing cow identification, monitoring milk production peaks, and engaging with a milk advisor. Recent studies have also documented that specific digital tools have facilitated optimization of labor productivity, logistics, and operations, or have improved the monitoring of technical data (8, 9).
2 Practical applications of digital technologies in cattle management—case studies
Animal-friendly cattle management strategies, which include providing the best possible conditions for the health, welfare, and productivity of cattle, are key factors in achieving sustainability in cattle production systems (10, 11). In this context, the use of digital technology in the field of cattle management can facilitate more effective and efficient preventive as well as curative animal care. These applications encompass both on-animal devices and sensors embedded within the living environment, which monitor the behavior, breeding, and health of cattle (12, 13).
Traditionally, the animals’ behavior and health are controlled by visual observation and handling, and are frequently influenced by treatment. As the livestock sector is evolving, the farmers’ opportunities to work with the herd and the animal caretaker’s activity periods must also be considered (14). Given the forecasted shortage of 64,000 workers by 2028 that the dairy sector alone faces, as well as the urgent need to focus on both improving farm efficiency and increasing animal health and welfare, there is an ongoing need to develop technologies that are science-based for ensuring minimal disturbance of the animals, as well as a better and more efficient use of resources. Similarly, concerns about the safety and quality of dairy products have led to development for innovative methods and tools of assessment (15, 16).
Recent advancements in AI, IoT, and sensor technologies have improved cattle health monitoring, disease prevention, and farm management. Their impact is demonstrated through several case studies carried out over the past years. One such study was conducted by Marku et al. (17) who explored the implications of digitalization in livestock farming in two distinct settings: Baden-Württemberg (Germany), respectively North Savonia (Finland). Farmers in Finland, for example, perceive digitalization as an essential catalyst in boosting collaboration with industry partners, facilitating access to new markets, and optimizing financial resource allocation. In contrast, German farmers were less confident of its transformative impact on these elements, emphasizing regional differences in digital usage. These findings highlight the importance of personalized digital approaches that address farm-specific and regional difficulties in order to fully reap the benefits of precision livestock production.
Digi4Live, a Horizon Europe project spanning 2024–2028, exemplifies the multinational efforts to advance digital livestock technologies (18). The initiative, which includes 16 partners from nine countries, intends to boost digital technology adoption in the European cattle sector, benefiting farmers, agribusinesses, and policymakers. The effort aims to create over 50 data-driven cattle management solutions using embedded sensors, AI-powered computer vision, and IoT technologies. Digi4Live has pioneered two key technologies for cattle monitoring. The first one is Computer Vision for Behavior Analysis, a technology that automates behavior tracking, enhancing animal welfare assessment. GPS Sensors for Dairy Cows, is the second solution developed, designed to monitor outdoor access and grazing patterns, thus improving sustainability and resource efficiency. To strengthen AI-based animal tracking, the project integrates multi-farm datasets from 20 dairy farms with diverse environmental conditions. A novel web-based tool, called Smart Labeling Loop, that facilitates manual data labeling to train neural networks, ensuring robust algorithm development will also be developed. The project’s goal is to demonstrate the reliability of digital tracking technologies across different farm settings, refine prediction models for outdoor access, and establish general guidelines for AI-driven monitoring systems (18).
Beyond improving livestock monitoring, Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) technologies are also recognized as an effective strategy for greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. In a study conducted by (49), data from the Scottish Cattle Tracing System (CTS) was used to model the impact of PLF adoption on carbon emissions in beef production systems. The research team developed two baseline scenarios—one for grazing systems and one for housed systems—and calculated emissions using the Agrecalc carbon footprinting tool. They analyzed the effects of automatic weigh platforms, accelerometer-based estrus detection sensors (fertility sensors), and health sensors for early disease detection on farm-level emissions. The findings indicated that PLF adoption had a greater impact in housed systems than in grazing systems, suggesting that technology-driven efficiency improvements could significantly reduce the carbon footprint of beef production. Although this study focused on Scotland, it is likely that similar emission reductions can be achieved in other European countries with comparable farming practices.
The use of PLF sensors represents an essential mechanism to reduce how climate change affects dairy cattle welfare. The research by Ranzato et al. (19) evaluated behavioral adaptations of Italian Holstein cows under heat stress conditions on a precision livestock farming facility. The dairy farm experienced three hot weather events defined as heat waves that lasted for five straight days where the temperature-humidity index exceeded 72 in the summer of 2021. A study with 102 cows studied milk yield records to identify animals that showed reduction in milk without concurrent mastitis symptoms. The ear-tag-based accelerometer sensors tracked both the time spent laying down and chewing action alongside total movement patterns. Results from the research revealed heat waves prompt all cows to chew more often and move around more frequently during the day while shortening the time they spend resting. Heat-sensitive animals spent 15 more daily minutes carrying out these activities. Device-generated frequent sensor data enables accurate identification of cows requiring specific heat stress relief methods resulting in better animal welfare outcomes along with production gains.
3 Future developments and innovations in digital tools for cattle health
The constant improvement of technological innovation in recent decades is providing a solid and competitive base for the “fourth agricultural revolution,” a “digitally augmented era” which is expected in the coming years (9). In animal production, different digital technologies, in particular the Internet of Things, big data, robotics, and artificial intelligence, provide the basis to originate the so called Precision Livestock Farming (Table 1). This allows for the continuous collection of an ever-increasing amount of data of direct interest, which may be sent and processed so that new decisions may be made in a positive feedback loop (20).
Table 1. Applications of digital technologies in cattle management.
The expanded capabilities of sensors and data processing, together with advances associated with cloud computing, fast analytical algorithms, big data, and machine learning, are enabling ambitious and complex systems to be developed not only for highly specialized applications in different contexts like smart farming agriculture-oriented, but also for the smart livestock tasks (21). When it comes to cattle, possibly the best-known application of Internet of Things tools is the automatic milking system (22). Technologies for milk production monitoring include, in addition to equipment for milking, radiofrequency identification ear tags and collars, as well as accelerometer-based devices that monitor the activity and rumination of individual animals (23, 24).
These tools are either utilized as separate devices on individual animals or combined together to complement the data in the “Integrated System” of production, in a farming automation context, very close to the Internet of Living Things vision. Over the past years, various IoT tools that provide risk alerts to improve on-farm control of animal welfare, allowing for the early detection of diseases like respiratory infections, nutritional alterations, mastitis or physiological modifications such as calving, or estrus have been developed (25).
4 Challenges and barriers to implementing digital technologies in cattle production
In order to effectively deploy digital technologies across a broad spectrum of cattle producers and related industries like those related to health and welfare, it is important to appreciate and address barriers to scaling that deployment. This is specifically important, as animal welfare is ultimately the responsibility of the owner and the manager of the animal, regardless of the level of digital assistance (26). There are many different types of cattle production systems, but not all of these systems are applicable to every single production context. For example, high-input outdoor grass-fattened cattle operations will face very different issues and require varying resources than low-input extensively managed animals do.
Additionally, these concerns are distinct from those encountered in feedyards, where conditions and management strategies vary significantly. Each type of production has its own unique set of challenges and advantages, tailored to its specific approach in the cattle industry (27). The aim of cattle production and the associated challenges are very different in these settings. Producers are motivated by many different factors to adopt technology. Ultimately, those products that can improve efficiency or overall economics are needed. Access to cost-effective technology is also a critical limit to many adoption issues (7, 28). Products that do not pay for themselves in a reasonable amount of time may not be adopted. Since not all production practices are alike, the potential economic benefits of a digital technology may not apply to everyone, which limits the target audience.
The digital divide, that is, a gap in labor skill or access to technology, might also limit the number of users (29). Additional training or troubleshooting may be required when implementing new technologies, especially in environments where the use of technologies does not occur regularly. A perceived lack of value to the producer might also reduce willingness to invest, even if the product is now affordable. Returns and overall positive outcomes are easier to demonstrate to potential buyers if supported by data; while product manufacturers may provide data, they may also be biased. Data ownership and data rights are very important, as the data may be leveraged in both the short term and long term (28). It is also not uncommon for the potential user to have several reasons why adoption would not be beneficial to them, which is what extension and academia are trying to uncover, understand, and ameliorate.
Research is important to identify barriers, including actual technology adoptions. Qualitative data can also provide insights into motivations and actions for each specific region, since the concept of one size fits all, may not be applied to all contexts.
5 Conclusion
The future is bright, bearing in mind predictions regarding the advances in artificial intelligence over the coming years. This could take the form of more sophisticated image analysis that is able to monitor more traits of interest. Developments in sensor technology in terms of miniaturization and computing capability are also expected to assist with this. For those technologies that are currently emerging, such as the deployment of wearable sensors for calf monitoring, opportunities will need to be identified for how and where these systems are adopted.
Many of these digital technologies are underpinned by artificial intelligence or machine learning. Collectively, the application of digital technologies is seen to improve economic productivity, including through improved animal health, welfare, and environmental sustainability. A common thread throughout the subsections was the role of digital technologies not just as a tool but as a driver to deliver sustainable changes to beef and dairy farming. The uptake of digital technologies is delivering significant data and information for management analysis, environmental assessment, managing carbon emissions, feeding practices, and the delivery of new consumer-facing options. Although the adoption of digital technologies is accelerating at an unprecedented pace, many of the present findings not yet reflect the leading edge of development.
Ongoing practical application and adaptive research, aimed at policy and practice application, must be encouraged to inform regarding the development and uptake of digital technologies. These will further encourage a mutually beneficial engagement between the cattle industries, associated stakeholders, and the digital technology sector. It is evident that cattle farming practices of the future will require substantial multi-industry, cross-institutional decision-making and engagement. It is both an exciting time and opportunity for the livestock monitoring and digital technology industries. While the deepening and implementation of this knowledge and use of digital technologies will benefit the economy and social well-being, it will also benefit the global cattle industry, our ecosystems, and the outputs of associated support industries.
Author contributions
A-SN-V: Project administration, Writing – original draft. CS: Writing – review & editing. IP: Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. Article processing charge was partially supported by the Academy of Romanian Scientists (grant no. 16/08.04.2024).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Maselyne, J, Maes, E, Van De Gucht, T, Vandenbussche, C, Zwertvaegher, I, and Van Weyenberg, S. Influence of automated animal health monitoring and animal welfare label on consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for filet mignon. Front Anim Sci. (2024) 5:1359650. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2024.1359650
2. Liu, J, Chriki, S, Kombolo, M, Santinello, M, Pflanzer, SB, Hocquette, É, et al. Consumer perception of the challenges facing livestock production and meat consumption. Meat Sci. (2023) 200:109144. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2023.109144
3. Mazumdar, H, Khondakar, KR, Das, S, and Kaushik, A. Aspects of 6th generation sensing technology: from sensing to sense. Front Nanotechnol. (2024) 6:1434014. doi: 10.3389/fnano.2024.1434014
4. Papakonstantinou, GI, Voulgarakis, N, Terzidou, G, Fotos, L, Giamouri, E, and Papatsiros, VG. Precision livestock farming technology: applications and challenges of animal welfare and climate change. Agriculture. (2024) 14:620. doi: 10.3390/agriculture14040620
5. Neculai-Valeanu, A-S, Ariton, A-M, Radu, C, Porosnicu, I, Sanduleanu, C, and Amariții, G. From herd health to public health: digital tools for combating antibiotic resistance in dairy farms. Antibiotics. (2024) 13:634. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics13070634
6. Kaushik, A, Gupta, P, Kumar, A, Saha, M, Varghese, E, Shukla, G, et al. Identification and physico-chemical characterization of microplastics in marine aerosols over the northeast Arabian Sea. Sci Total Environ. (2024) 912:168705. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168705
7. Toufaily, E, Zalan, T, and Ben, DS. A framework of blockchain technology adoption: an investigation of challenges and expected value. Inf Manag. (2021) 58:103444. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2021.103444
8. Malik, M, Gahlawat, VK, Mor, RS, Dahiya, V, and Yadav, M. Application of optimization techniques in the dairy supply chain: a systematic review. Logistics. (2022) 6:74. doi: 10.3390/logistics6040074
9. Hassoun, A, Garcia-Garcia, G, Trollman, H, Jagtap, S, Parra-López, C, Cropotova, J, et al. Birth of dairy 4.0: opportunities and challenges in adoption of fourth industrial revolution technologies in the production of milk and its derivatives. Curr Res Food Sci. (2023) 7:100535. doi: 10.1016/j.crfs.2023.100535
10. Saefullah, E, Kenedi, K, and Khaerudin, D. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in beef cattle farming through the implementation of animal welfare principles, as part of sustainable rural area development. J Penelit Pendidi IPA. (2024) 10:1468–76. doi: 10.29303/jppipa.v10i4.6824
11. Nogueira, LB, and Hötzel, MJ. From naturalness to environmental control: influences of transitioning production systems on dairy farmers’ perceptions of cow welfare. Animals. (2024) 14:3063. doi: 10.3390/ani14213063
12. Neethirajan, S, Scott, S, Mancini, C, Boivin, X, and Strand, E. Human-computer interactions with farm animals—enhancing welfare through precision livestock farming and artificial intelligence. Front Vet Sci. (2024) 11:1490851. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1490851
13. Dayoub, M, Shnaigat, S, Tarawneh, R, Al-Yacoub, A, Al-Barakeh, F, and Al-Najjar, K. Enhancing animal production through smart agriculture: possibilities, hurdles, resolutions, and advantages. Ruminants. (2024) 4:22–46. doi: 10.3390/ruminants4010003
14. Medeiros, I, Fernandez-Novo, A, Astiz, S, and Simões, J. Historical evolution of cattle management and herd health of dairy farms in OECD countries. Vet Sci. (2022) 9:125. doi: 10.3390/vetsci9030125
15. Herlin, A, Brunberg, E, Hultgren, J, Högberg, N, Rydberg, A, and Skarin, A. Animal welfare implications of digital tools for monitoring and Management of Cattle and Sheep on pasture. Animals. (2021) 11:829. doi: 10.3390/ani11030829
16. Anzai, H, and Hirata, M. Individual monitoring of behavior to enhance productivity and welfare of animals in small-scale intensive cattle grazing systems. Front Sustain Food Syst. (2021) 5:694413. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.694413
17. Marku, D, Hoxha-Jahja, A, and Maurmann, I. Impact of digital technologies on farm operational activities: a case study analysis between Germany and Finland. Proc Int Conf Res Bus Manage Fin. (2024) 1:17–24. doi: 10.33422/icrbmf.v1i1.519
18. digi4Live Driving progress: charting digital and data routes for European livestock tracking Available at: https://digi4live.eu/ (Accessed February 6, 2025).
19. Ranzato, G, Lora, I, Aernouts, B, Adriaens, I, Gottardo, F, and Cozzi, G. Sensor-based behavioral patterns can identify heat-sensitive lactating dairy cows. Int J Biometeorol. (2023) 67:2047–54. doi: 10.1007/s00484-023-02561-w
20. Javaid, M, Haleem, A, Singh, RP, Suman, R, and Gonzalez, ES. Understanding the adoption of industry 4.0 technologies in improving environmental sustainability. Sustain Operat Comput. (2022) 3:203–17. doi: 10.1016/j.susoc.2022.01.008
21. Mishra, A, and Sharma, M. Artificial intelligence and its impact on different business functions. Manag Dyn. (2023) 23:6. doi: 10.57198/2583-4932.1328
22. Maltz, E. Individual dairy cow management: achievements, obstacles and prospects. J Dairy Res. (2020) 87:145–57. doi: 10.1017/S0022029920000382
23. Alipio, M, and Villena, ML. Intelligent wearable devices and biosensors for monitoring cattle health conditions: a review and classification. Smart Health. (2023) 27:100369. doi: 10.1016/j.smhl.2022.100369
24. Tzanidakis, C, Tzamaloukas, O, Simitzis, P, and Panagakis, P. Precision livestock farming applications (PLF) for grazing animals. Agriculture. (2023) 13:288. doi: 10.3390/agriculture13020288
25. Singh, D, Singh, R, Gehlot, A, Akram, SV, Priyadarshi, N, and Twala, B. An imperative role of digitalization in monitoring cattle health for sustainability. Electronics. (2022) 11:2702. doi: 10.3390/electronics11172702
26. Spigarelli, C, Berton, M, Corazzin, M, Gallo, L, Pinterits, S, Ramanzin, M, et al. Animal welfare and farmers’ satisfaction in small-scale dairy farms in the eastern Alps: a “one welfare” approach. Front Vet Sci. (2021) 8:741497. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.741497
27. Gehlot, A, Malik, PK, Singh, R, Akram, SV, and Alsuwian, T. Dairy 4.0: intelligent communication ecosystem for the cattle animal welfare with Blockchain and IoT enabled technologies. Appl Sci. (2022) 12:7316. doi: 10.3390/app12147316
28. Al-Emran, M, and Griffy-Brown, C. The role of technology adoption in sustainable development: overview, opportunities, challenges, and future research agendas. Technol Soc. (2023) 73:102240. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102240
29. Balehegn, M, Duncan, A, Tolera, A, Ayantunde, AA, Issa, S, Karimou, M, et al. Improving adoption of technologies and interventions for increasing supply of quality livestock feed in low- and middle-income countries. Glob Food Sec. (2020) 26:100372. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100372
30. Giannuzzi, D, Mota, LFM, Pegolo, S, Gallo, L, Schiavon, S, Tagliapietra, F, et al. In-line near-infrared analysis of milk coupled with machine learning methods for the daily prediction of blood metabolic profile in dairy cattle. Sci Rep. (2022) 12:8058. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-11799-0
31. Abdanan Mehdizadeh, S, Sari, M, Orak, H, Pereira, DF, and Nääs, d A I. Classifying chewing and rumination in dairy cows using sound signals and machine learning. Animals. (2023) 13:2874. doi: 10.3390/ani13182874
32. Mincu, M, Nicolae, I, and Gavojdian, D. Infrared thermography as a non-invasive method for evaluating stress in lactating dairy cows during isolation challenges. Front Vet Sci. (2023) 10:1236668. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1236668
33. Gavojdian, D, Mincu, M, Lazebnik, T, Oren, A, Nicolae, I, and Zamansky, A. BovineTalk: machine learning for vocalization analysis of dairy cattle under the negative affective state of isolation. Front Vet Sci. (2024) 11:1357109. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1357109
34. King, K, Thornton, C, and Roopaei, M. Smart feeding: integrating deep learning into dairy farm practices. 2024 IEEE World AI IoT Congress (AIIoT) IEEE (2024), 151–156. Available at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10579035
35. Dickinson, RA, Morton, JM, Beggs, DS, Anderson, GA, Pyman, MF, Mansell, PD, et al. An automated walk-over weighing system as a tool for measuring liveweight change in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. (2013) 96:4477–86. doi: 10.3168/jds.2012-6522
36. Gritsenko, S, Ruchay, A, Kolpakov, V, Lebedev, S, Guo, H, and Pezzuolo, A. On-barn forecasting beef cattle production based on automated non-contact body measurement system. Animals. (2023) 13:611. doi: 10.3390/ani13040611
37. Bai, L, Zhang, Z, and Song, J. Image dataset for cattle biometric detection and analysis. Data Brief. (2024) 56:110835. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2024.110835
38. Choquehuanca-Zevallos, JJ, and Mayhua-Lopez, E. A low-cost IoT platform for heat stress monitoring in dairy cattle In: 2021 IEEE 6th international conference on computer and communication systems (ICCCS) : IEEE (2021). 982–6.
39. Leliveld, LMC, Brandolese, C, Grotto, M, Marinucci, A, Fossati, N, Lovarelli, D, et al. Real-time automatic integrated monitoring of barn environment and dairy cattle behaviour: technical implementation and evaluation on three commercial farms. Comput Electron Agric. (2024) 216:108499. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2023.108499
40. Mahaboob, M, Dharan, AD, Benildus, R, Gowtham, S, and Balaji, L. Livestock monitoring and management system using a random Forest algorithm In: 2024 10th international conference on advanced computing and communication systems (ICACCS) : IEEE (2024). 2307–11. Available at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10717151
41. Tan, A, and Ngan, PT. A proposed framework model for dairy supply chain traceability. Sustainable Futures. (2020) 2:100034. doi: 10.1016/j.sftr.2020.100034
42. Zhang, J, Zuo, M, Zhang, Q, and Yan, W. Research on the whole chain traceability system of dairy products based on consortium blockchain. MATEC Web Conf. (2022) 355:02038. doi: 10.1051/matecconf/202235502038
43. Manisha, N, and Jagadeeshwar, M. BC driven IoT-based food quality traceability system for dairy product using deep learning model. High Conf Comput. (2023) 3:100121. doi: 10.1016/j.hcc.2023.100121
44. Han, S, Fuentes, A, Yoon, S, Jeong, Y, Kim, H, and Sun, PD. Deep learning-based multi-cattle tracking in crowded livestock farming using video. Comput Electron Agric. (2023) 212:108044. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2023.108044
45. Cabrera, VE. Artificial intelligence applied to dairy science: insights from the dairy brain initiative. Anim Front. (2024) 14:60–3. doi: 10.1093/af/vfae040
46. Varavallo, G, Caragnano, G, Bertone, F, Vernetti-Prot, L, and Terzo, O. Traceability platform based on green Blockchain: an application case study in dairy supply chain. Sustain For. (2022) 14:3321. doi: 10.3390/su14063321
47. Oztuna Taner, O, and Çolak, AB. Dairy factory milk product processing and sustainable of the shelf-life extension with artificial intelligence: a model study. Front Sustain Food Syst. (2024) 8:1344370. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1344370
48. Khanna, A, Jain, S, Burgio, A, Bolshev, V, and Panchenko, V. Blockchain-enabled supply chain platform for Indian dairy industry: safety and traceability. Food Secur. (2022) 11:2716. doi: 10.3390/foods11172716
Keywords: digital revolution, cattle health, welfare, precision livestock farming, internet of things, artificial intelligence, predictive technologies, monitoring systems
Citation: Neculai-Valeanu A-S, Sanduleanu C and Porosnicu I (2025) From tradition to precision: leveraging digital tools to improve cattle health and welfare. Front. Vet. Sci. 12:1549512. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1549512
Edited by:
Fisayo Oretomiloye, Dalhousie University, CanadaReviewed by:
Wei Tang, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, ChinaCopyright © 2025 Neculai-Valeanu, Sanduleanu and Porosnicu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Catalina Sanduleanu, Y2F0YWxpbmEuc2FuZHVsZWFudUBzY2RiLWRhbmN1LnJv