Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:37:23.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Milking parlour size, pre-milking routine and stage of lactation affect efficiency of milking in single-operator herringbone parlours

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2012

Bernadette O'Brien ,
Jennifer Jago ,
J. Paul Edwards ,
Nicolas Lopez-Villalobos  and
Finola McCoy
Bernadette O'Brien*
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
Jennifer Jago
Affiliation:
DairyNZ, Cnr Ruakura & Morrinsville Roads, Newstead, Private Bag 3221, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand
J. Paul Edwards
Affiliation:
DairyNZ, Cnr Ruakura & Morrinsville Roads, Newstead, Private Bag 3221, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, College of Sciences, Massey University, Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Nicolas Lopez-Villalobos
Affiliation:
Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, College of Sciences, Massey University, Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Finola McCoy
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
*
*For correspondence; e-mail: Bernadette.OBrien@teagasc.ie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Efficient milking systems, in terms of labour demand, capital investment and cow udder health are critical to successful dairy herd expansion. The objective of this study was to establish the effect of two primary influencing factors on efficient milking performance, i.e. parlour size (number of milking units) and pre-milking routine (full and nil) of spring-calved cows, in a single-operator side-by-side, swing-over milking parlour. Efficiency parameters investigated in a 5×2 factorial design included milk-flow and yield, row time, over-milking duration and operator idle time. Five combinations of parlour size (14, 18, 22, 26 and 30 milking units) each with two different pre-milking routines (Full: spray, strip, wipe, attach clusters, and Nil: attach clusters) were examined with one milking operator. The trial was carried out over 40 milking sessions and cows (up to 120) were randomly assigned to groups (n=14, 18, 22, 26 or 30) before each milking session. Row within a milking session was the experimental unit. The experiment was carried out at both peak and late lactation. The data were analysed with a mixed model using GenStat 13.2. The full pre-milking routine reduced time to milk let-down and milking time, increased average flow rate but did not affect milk yield. As milking unit number increased, the duration of over-milking (defined as time at milk flow rate <0·2 kg/min) increased more with a full compared with nil routine. Thus, the use of pre-milking preparation decreased milking time per cow but as parlour size increased, milking row times, as well as the proportion of cows that were over-milked, also increased, thereby reducing overall efficiency. These results have implications for milking management in single-operator swing-over, tandem and rotary parlours with seasonally calved herds.

Keywords

Milking parlourmilking efficiencypre-milking routinedairy cow
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 79 , Issue 2 , May 2012 , pp. 216 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 2012

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

Bruckmaier, RM & Blum, JW 1996 Simultaneous recording of oxytocin release, milk ejection and milk flow during milking of dairy cows with and without prestimulation. Journal of Dairy Research 63 201–208CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruckmaier, RM & Blum, JW 1998 Oxytocin release and milk removal in ruminants. Journal of Dairy Science 81 939–949CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruckmaier, RM & Hilger, M 2001 Milk ejection in dairy cows at different degrees of udder filling. Journal of Dairy Research 68 369–376CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruckmaier, RM, Schams, D & Blum, JW 1994 Continuously elevated concentrations of oxytocin during milking are necessary for complete milk removal in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research 61 323–334CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, T, Cuthbertson, EM, Greenall, RK, Hannah, MC, Jongman, E & Shoesmith, D 2004 Milking regimes to shorten milking duration. Journal of Dairy Research 71 419–426CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowtime Guidelines 2003 In CowTime Guidelines for Milk Harvesting (Eds. Klindworth, D, Greenall, R & Cambell, J). 3/84 William St, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia: Dairy Research and Development CorporationGoogle Scholar
DAFF (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) 2010 A Vision for Irish Agri-food and Fisheries. Food Harvest 2020. http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/agri-foodindustry/foodharvest2020/2020FoodHarvestEng240810.pdfGoogle Scholar
EU 2004 Annex III, Section IX, Chapter I, Part II, Subpart B, Point 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004. Official Journal of the European Commission L226 22–82Google Scholar
Hamann, J 1987 Machine Milking and Mastitis Section 3: Effect of machine milking on teat end condition – a literature review. International Dairy Federation Bulletin 215 33–53Google Scholar
Hamann, J, Burvenich, C, Mayntz, M, Osteras, O & Haider, W 1994 Teat tissue reactions to machine milking and new infection risk. 2. Machine-induced changes in the status of the bovine teat with respect to the new infection risk. International Dairy Federation Bulletin 297 13–22Google Scholar
Hemme, T 2002 Status and prospects of typical dairy farms world wide. IFCN Dairy Report 2002. Kiel, Germany: International Farm Comparison Network, IFCN Dairy Research Centre, http://www.ifcnnetwork.org/media/pdf/DR02-extract.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hemme, T 2010 Developments in global milk production. IFCN Dairy Report 2010. Kiel, Germany: International Farm Comparison Network, IFCN Dairy Research Center, http://www.ifcnnetwork.org/media/pdf/IFCN-IDF-NZ_policy_conference.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hillerton, JE, Pankey, JW & Pankey, P 2002 Effect of over-milking on teat condition. Journal of Dairy Research 69 81–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Dairy Federation (IDF) 1994 Teat Tissue Reactions to Machine Milking and New Infection Risk. Bulletin No. 197. IDF: BrusselsGoogle Scholar
Kaskous, S & Bruckmaier, RM 2011 Best combination of pre-stimulation and latency period duration before cluster attachment for efficient oxytocin release and milk ejection in cows with low to high udder-filling levels. Journal of Dairy Research 78 97–104CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayer, H, Schams, D, Worstorff, H & Prokopp, A 1984 Secretion of oxytocin and milk removal as affected by milking cows with and without manual stimulation. Journal of Endocrinology 103 255–261CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McFarland, DF 2001 Effective, low stress cow movement in and around milking centers. Prepared for the NRAES, Milking systems and parlors conference, held in Camp Hill, PA on January 30–February 1, 2001. http://www.das.psu.edu/dairy-alliance/pdf/cowmovement.pdfGoogle Scholar
O'Donnell, S, Shalloo, L, Butler, AM & Horan, B 2009 A survey analysis of opportunities and limitations of Irish dairy farmers. Journal of Farm Management 13 419–434Google Scholar
O'Donovan, K, O'Brien, B, Ruane, D, Kinsella, J & Gleeson, D 2008 Labour input on Irish farms and the effect of scale and seasonality. Journal of Farm Management, 13 327–342Google Scholar
Osteras, O & Lund, A 1988 Epidemiological analysis of the associations between bovine udder health and milking machine and milking management. Preventative Veterinary Medicine 6 91–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, MD, Frimer, ES & Decker, EL 1994 Reverse pressure gradients across the teat canal related to machine milking. Journal of Dairy Science 77 984–993CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rasmussen, MD, Frimer, ES, Galton, DM & Petersson, LG 1992 The influence of pre-milking teat stimulation and attachment delay on milk yield and milking performance. Journal of Dairy Science 75 2131–2141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, MD, Frimer, ES, Horvath, Z & Jensen, NE 1990 Comparison of a standardized and variable milking routine. Journal of Dairy Science 73 3472–3480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, MD 2000 A review of milking preparation: The science. Proceedings Annual Meeting National Mastitis Council 39 104–110Google Scholar
Rasmussen, MD 2004 Over-milking and teat condition. Proceedings Annual Meeting National Mastitis Council 43 169–175Google Scholar
Vostrikov, VA 1995 Development of methods for relieving fatigue in milking machine operators. Tekhnika v Sel'Skom Khozyaistve 199 24–26Google Scholar