Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:40:46.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improved milking characteristics of teatcups fitted with non-return valves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

R. Jeffrey Andrews ,
Graeme A. Mein  and
Murray R. Brown
R. Jeffrey Andrews
Affiliation:
Herd Improvement Laboratory, Grindle Road, Wacol, Queensland 4076, Australia
Graeme A. Mein
Affiliation:
Milking Research Centre, Institute of Dairy Technology, Werribee, Victoria 3030, Australia
Murray R. Brown
Affiliation:
Milking Research Centre, Institute of Dairy Technology, Werribee, Victoria 3030, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The milking characteristics of conventional clusters were compared with individual teatcups or clusters fitted with valves in the short milk tubes without external air admission to the liners. Individual teatcups fitted with non-return valves had peak milk flow rates 13% higher than conventional teatcups. A daily cross-over experiment involving 36 cows compared clusters fitted with non-return valves to conventional clusters. Valved clusters milked 18% faster, showed significantly better teatcup stability and 3% higher machine milk yields, but 48% higher strip yields were recorded. Clusters with non-return valves were difficult to remove after milking because the valve closed when the vacuum supply was shut off, thereby maintaining the vacuum level under the teats. When the nominal plant vacuum level for teatcups with non-return valves was reduced by 10 kPa to compensate for the higher effective milking vacuum level, the valved teatcups had peak flow rates 20% lower than the conventional teatcups. Clusters fitted with a modified valve, which allowed some reverse flow when closed (a ‘leaky’ valve), milked significantly faster than conventional clusters, had 33% lower strip yields and were easy to remove after milking.

Type
Original articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , November 1988 , pp. 505 - 511
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andrews, R. J., Mein, G. A. & Williams, D. M. 1988 Increased milking vacuum in teatcups fitted with nonreturn valves. Journal of Dairy Research 55 495–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babcock, S. M. 1889 Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station Report No. 6, p. 42 (cited in Dodd & Clough, 1957)Google Scholar
Bailey, G. L., Clough, P. A., Dodd, F. H., Foot, A. S. & Rowland, S. J. 1953 The effect of incomplete milking on the secretion of milk. 13th International Dairy Congress, The Hague 2 76–82Google Scholar
Brandsma, S. 1969 [Stripping.] Dairy Science Abstracts 31 59 (Abstract)Google Scholar
Brandsma, S. 1978 The relation between milking, residual milk and milk yield. Proceedings, Annual Meeting, National Mastitis Council 17 47–56Google Scholar
Cowie, A. T. 1979 Anatomy and physiology of the udder. In Machine Milking, 2nd printing, pp. 156–178 (Eds Thiel, C. C. and Dodd, F. H.). Reading: National Institute for Research in Dairying (NIRD/HRI Technical Bulletin No. 1)Google Scholar
Dodd, F. H. & Clough, P. A. 1957 Machine milking. Outlook on Agriculture 1 131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibb, I. McD. & Mein, G. A. 1976 A comparison of the milking characteristics of teatcup liners. Australian Journal of Dairy Technology 31 148–153Google Scholar
Goff, K. R. & Schmidt, G. H. 1967 Effect of eliminating machine stripping of dairy cows on milk production, residual milk, and mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 50 1787–1791CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregoire, A. T., Mochrie, R. D., Elliott, F. I., Eaton, H. D., Spielman, A. A. & Beall, G. 1954 Effects of vacuum level and milking duration on milk production, milking time and rate of milk flow in mastitis-free first calf heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 37 276–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, T. K., Bramley, A. J. & Dodd, F. H. 1980 Milking machine modifications in the control of bovine mastitis. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Machine Milking and Mastitis, Moorepark, Fermoy pp. 19–28 (Ed. O'Shea, J.) Brussels: International Dairy FederationGoogle Scholar
Grindal, R. J. & Griffin, T. K. 1985 Modification of the design of the milking machine. National Institute for Research in Dairying Final Report 1984–5 p. 102Google Scholar
Ilieva, P. & Ivanov, P. 1972 [Stripping of machine milked cows.] Dairy Science Abstracts 34 519 (Abstract)Google Scholar
International Organization For Standardization 1977 Milking machine installations – vocabulary. Geneva, Switzerland: IOS (International Standard ISO 3918)Google Scholar
International Organization For Standardization 1981 Method of milk recording of cows. Geneva, Switzerland: IOS (International Standard ISO 1546)Google Scholar
International Organization For Standardization 1983 Milking machine installations – construction and performance. Geneva, Switzerland: IOS (International Standard ISO 5707)Google Scholar
Mein, G. A., Brown, M. R. & Williams, D. M. 1983 Pulsation failure as a consequence of milking with short teatcup liners. Journal of Dairy Research 50 249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mein, G. A., Thiel, C. C. & Clough, P. A. 1973 a The patterns of milk flowrate and teat movement in the teatcup liner during milking. Australian Journal of Dairy Technology 28 26–30Google Scholar
Mein, G. A., Thiel, C. C., Fulford, R. J. & Hoyle, J. B. 1973 b Air leakage past the teat and teatcup liner during milking. Australian Journal of Dairy Technology 28 31–36Google Scholar
Mein, G. A., Thiel, C. C., Westgarth, D. R. & Fulford, R. J. 1973 c Friction between the teat and teatcup liner during milking. Journal of Dairy Research 40 191–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mein, G. A., Williams, D. M. & Thiel, C. C. 1987 Compressive load applied by the teatcup liner to the bovine teat. Journal of Dairy Research 54 327–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napper, A. R. & Williamson, J. A. 1983 The effect of milking end point on somatic cell count. Biophysics Group Annual Report 1982–3 p. 24. New Zealand: Ruakura Agricultural Research CentreGoogle Scholar
Olney, G. R. & Mitchell, R. K. 1983 Effect of milking machine factors on the somatic cell count of milk from cows free of intramammary infection. II. Vacuum level and overmilking. Journal of Dairy Research 50 141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Shea, J. & O'Callaghan, E. 1980 Milking performance of commercial clusters with standard pulsation. Experiments on Milking Machine Components at Moorepark 1976–79 pp. 95–103. Fermoy, Irish Republic: An Foras TalúntaisGoogle Scholar
O'Shea, J. & Walshe, M. J. 1970 Effect of eliminating machine stripping of dairy cows on milk production and mastitis. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 9 301–309Google Scholar
Phillips, D. S. M. 1982 A sensitive experimental technique for the comparison of milking systems. Proceedings of the Conference on Dairy Production from Pasture pp. 34–35 (Eds Macmillan, K. L. and Taufa, V. K.). Hamilton, NZ: New Zealand and Australian Societies of Animal Production (New Zealand Society of Animal Production Occasional Publication No. 8)Google Scholar
Williams, D. M. & Mein, G. A. 1986 The bovine teat canal: information from measurement of velocity of milk flow from the teat. Journal of Dairy Research 53 179–185CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woolford, M. W. & Phillips, D. S. M. 1982 The influence of the milking machine on milk yield and mastitis. Proceedings of the Conference on Dairy Production from Pasture pp. 11–28 (Eds Macmillan, K. L. and Taufa, V. K.). Hamilton, NZ: New Zealand and Australian Societies of Animal Production (New Zealand Society of Animal Production Occasional Publication No. 8)Google Scholar