Milking frequency management in pasture-based automatic milking systems: A review

Lyons, Nicolas; Kerrisk, K. L.; García, S. C.

doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.11.011

Cited by 53 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 90 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As time is required for the system to wash, coupled with milking failures, periods of non-attendance and technical maintenance, levels of achievable robot utilization of between 20 and 22 h/day are deemed the sustainable maximum (Halachmi, 2004;Lyons et al, 2014). Such high levels of utilization can be achieved by milking more cows/ robot, at the expense of reduced herd milking frequency (Woolford et al, 2004); or if milking frequency is maintained, increased waiting time in the pre-milking yard (Halachmi, 2009) and associated reduction in animal health and production due to extended time, away from feed, and increased milking interval.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such high levels of utilization can be achieved by milking more cows/ robot, at the expense of reduced herd milking frequency (Woolford et al, 2004); or if milking frequency is maintained, increased waiting time in the pre-milking yard (Halachmi, 2009) and associated reduction in animal health and production due to extended time, away from feed, and increased milking interval. A comprehensive review of milking frequency management conducted by Lyons et al (2014), provides a good understanding of different factors such as age and experience of the cow, environmental conditions and management strategies that impact the static mean daily levels of milking frequency, however, the dynamic nature of milking robot utilization across a 24 h period, which is of equal importance to the overall performance of any AMS, is still poorly understood. Irrespective of milking frequency targets that may differ with feeding system (Lyons et al, 2014), achieving high milking robot utilization by having cows present to the milking robot across 24 h with minimal waiting time is ideal for all AMS farmers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A comprehensive review of milking frequency management conducted by Lyons et al (2014), provides a good understanding of different factors such as age and experience of the cow, environmental conditions and management strategies that impact the static mean daily levels of milking frequency, however, the dynamic nature of milking robot utilization across a 24 h period, which is of equal importance to the overall performance of any AMS, is still poorly understood. Irrespective of milking frequency targets that may differ with feeding system (Lyons et al, 2014), achieving high milking robot utilization by having cows present to the milking robot across 24 h with minimal waiting time is ideal for all AMS farmers.This review draws together current knowledge on indoor and pasture-based robot utilization across 24 h, with a specific focus on the factors that impact utilization levels. It is the intent of this novel review to explore both the opportunities that exist for improved system efficiencies on-farm and those that exist for further research.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Review: Milking robot utilization, a successful precision livestock farming evolution

John

Clark

Freeman

et al. 2016

animal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Automatic milking systems (AMS), one of the earliest precision livestock farming developments, have revolutionized dairy farming around the world. While robots control the milking process, there have also been numerous changes to how the whole farm system is managed. Milking is no longer performed in defined sessions; rather, the cow can now choose when to be milked in AMS, allowing milking to be distributed throughout a 24 h period. Despite this ability, there has been little attention given to milking robot utilization across 24 h. In order to formulate relevant research questions and improve farm AMS management there is a need to determine the current knowledge gaps regarding the distribution of robot utilization. Feed, animal and management factors and their interplay on levels of milking robot utilization across 24 h for both indoor and pasture-based systems are here reviewed. The impact of the timing, type and quantity of feed offered and their interaction with the distance of feed from the parlour; herd social dynamics, climate and various other management factors on robot utilization through 24 h are provided. This novel review draws together both the opportunities and challenges that exist for farm management to use these factors to improved system efficiency and those that exist for further research.Keywords: automatic milking system, feeding behaviour, robot idle time, grazing, PLF (precision livestock farming) ImplicationsMilking robots have revolutionized the dairy industry with farmers achieving high levels of robot utilization obtaining greater returns on asset. The first installations were typically associated with 'indoor' systems and nearby grazing fields. Nowadays there is an increasing interest regarding the integration of robots into larger scale pasture-based dairy systems. This review explores the published literature on both 'indoor' and 'pasture-based' dairy systems in relation to milking robot utilization. IntroductionRobotic milking systems have revolutionized the dairy industry. The first dairy cow was milked, more or less without traditional human involvement, in 1986 with a robotic milking box at the experimental farm de Waiboerhoeve, Lelystad, the Netherlands by Gascoigne Melotte, following the US Patent 4010714A (Notsuki and Ueno, 1977). A system from the company Prolion was installed on the experimental farm IMAG-DLO Duiven, the Netherlands, in 1990 and on a commercial dairy in 1992. More institutes and companies became active in the development of robotic milking systems in the nineties as described by Kuipers and Rossing (1996). Since that time until 2011, automatic milking systems (AMS) have been installed on over 10 000 farms worldwide (de Koning, 2011). These installations are predominantly for 'indoor' systems where cows are generally 'housed' in barns and offered a partial mixed ration (PMR) in the feeding alley and grain-based concentrate supplement either in the milking unit or in a nearby concentrate self-feeder. While there have been numerous AMS installations in indoo...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review: Milking robot utilization, a successful precision livestock farming evolution

John

Clark

Freeman

et al. 2016

animal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, feed-based incentives, such as timely, frequent and accurate allocation of pasture and/or supplements could affect the level of cow traffic and the frequency and distribution of milkings in the AMS. However, the milk response to changes in milking frequency could be highly variable both within and between cows and feeding systems (Utsumi, 2011;Lyons et al, 2014). In previous studies, the location and amount of partial mixed ration (PMR) (Sporndly and Wredle, 2004), the timing of PMR feeding (Lyons et al, 2013b) or the level of concentrate offered in the AMS (Jago et al, 2007) had little or no effects on the number of milkings/day and milk production.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential response to stocking rates and feeding by two genotypes of Holstein-Friesian cows in a pasture-based automatic milking system

Nieman

Steensma

Rowntree

et al. 2015

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The throughput of automatic milking systems (AMS) is likely affected by differential traffic behavior and subsequent effects on the milking frequency and milk production of cows. This study investigated the effect of increasing stocking rate and partial mixed ration (PMR) on the milk production, dry matter intake (DMI), feed conversion efficiency (FCE) and use of AMS by two genotypes of Holstein-Friesian cows in mid-lactation. The study lasted 8 weeks and consisted in a factorial arrangement of two genotypes of dairy cattle, United States Holstein (USH) or New Zealand Friesian (NZF), and two pasture-based feeding treatments, a low stocking rate system (2 cows/ha) fed temperate pasture and concentrate, or a high stocking rate system (HSR; 3 cows/ha) fed same pasture and concentrate plus PMR. A total of 28 cows, 14 USH and 14 NZF, were used for comparisons, with 12 cows, six USH and six NZF, also used for tracking of animal movements. Data were analyzed by repeated measure mixed models for a completely randomized design. No differences ( P > 0.05) in pre-or post-grazing herbage mass, DMI and FCE were detected in response to increases in stocking rate and PMR feeding in HSR. However, there was a significant ( P < 0.05) grazing treatment × genotype × week interaction on milk production, explained by differential responses of genotypes to changes in herbage mass over time ( P < 0.001). A reduction ( P < 0.01) in hours spent on pasture was detected in response to PMR supplementation in HSR; this reduction was greater (P = 0.01) for USH than NZF cows (6 v. 2 h, respectively). Regardless of the grazing treatment, USH cows had greater ( P = 0.02) milking frequency (2.51 v. 2.26 ± 0.08 milkings/day) and greater ( P < 0.01) milk yield (27.3 v. 16.0 ± 1.2 kg/day), energy-corrected milk (24.8 v. 16.5 ± 1.0 kg/day), DMI (22.1 v. 16.6 ± 0.8 kg/day) and FCE (1.25 v. 1.01 ± 0.06 kg/kg) than NZF cows. There was also a different distribution of milkings/h between genotypes ( P < 0.001), with patterns of milkings/h shifting ( P < 0.001) as a consequence of PMR feeding in HSR. Results confirmed the improved FCE of grazing dairy cows with greater milk production and suggested the potential use of PMR feeding as a tactical decision to managing HSR and milkings/day in AMS farms.

show abstract

“…Offering feed during milking or in the dairy facility has been linked to increases in voluntary cow traffic in pasture-based systems (Lyons et al, 2013b;Scott et al, 2014), although varying the quantity of feed offered during milking was reported to have no effect on improving cow traffic in indoor systems (Halachmi et al, 2005;Bach et al, 2007). Pasture allocations, or more specifically the amount of pasture biomass offered per cow, has been shown to impact cow behaviour and the timing at which cows exit an allocation (Lyons et al, 2014). Furthermore, cattle and sheep have been reported to show preferences for certain forages when offered a selection of two or more (Parsons et al, 1994;Marotti et al, 2002;Rutter et al, 2004), preferring soybean (Glycine max) over cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata) and lablab (Lablab purpureus) (Horadagoda, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Offering a forage crop at pasture did not adversely affect voluntary cow traffic or milking visits in a pasture-based automatic milking system

Scott

Kerrisk

García

2016

Animal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feed is a strong incentive for encouraging cows in automatic milking systems (AMS) to voluntarily move around the farm and achieve milkings distributed across the 24 h day. It has been reported that cows show preferences for some forages over others, and it is possible that offering preferred forages may increase cow traffic. A preliminary investigation was conducted to determine the effect of offering a forage crop for grazing on premilking voluntary waiting times in a pasture-based robotic rotary system. Cows were offered one of two treatments (SOYBEAN or GRASS) in a cross-over design. A restricted maximum likelihood procedure was used to model voluntary waiting times. Mean voluntary waiting time was 45.5 ± 6.0 min, with no difference detected between treatments. High and mid-production cows spent <44 min/milking in the premilking yard compared with >55 min/milking for low-production cows, whereas waiting time increased as queue length increased. Voluntary waiting time was 23% and 80% longer when cows were fetched from the paddock or had a period of forced waiting before volunteering for milking, respectively. The time it took cows to return to the dairy since last exiting was not affected by treatment, with a mean return time of 13.7 ± 0.6 h. Although offering SOYBEAN did not encourage cows to traffic more readily through the premilking yard, the concept of incorporating forage crops in AMS still remains encouraging if the aim is to increase the volume or quantity of home-grown feed rather than improving cow traffic.

show abstract

Milking frequency management in pasture-based automatic milking systems: A review

Cited by 53 publications

References 90 publications

Review: Milking robot utilization, a successful precision livestock farming evolution

Review: Milking robot utilization, a successful precision livestock farming evolution

Differential response to stocking rates and feeding by two genotypes of Holstein-Friesian cows in a pasture-based automatic milking system

Offering a forage crop at pasture did not adversely affect voluntary cow traffic or milking visits in a pasture-based automatic milking system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About