Relative motivations of dairy cows to attend a voluntary automatic milking system

1997 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 80-83
Author(s):  
N. B. Prescott ◽  
T. T. Mottram ◽  
A. J. F. Webster

Voluntary automatic milking is proposed as a system whereby dairy cows can choose to be milked when they want. The aim is to develop a system that can milk and perform all the associated tasks without requiring routine human intervention. (Details of the design and operation can be found in Street et al., 1992.) The system may not be viable unless the cows visit at an appropriate frequency, high enough to generate the 0·10 to 0·15 proportional increase of milk yield from cows milked three or more times per day (e.g. Knight and Wilde, 1993) but not so high as to result in some cows over-using the system. Understanding why cows may want to visit the system is therefore important. The two most important reasons why a cow may attend are likely to be motivation to be milked and motivation to eat. Motivation to be milked may change as lactation progresses. Late lactation cows have been shown to enter a milking parlour later than high yielding cows in one experiment (Rathore, 1982) but not in another (Winter, 1993). Rathore (1982) suggested that motivation to be milked may be generated by the discomfort of a large and distended udder. Motivation to be milked may also be linked to some inherent desire of the cow to suckle and subsequently wean her calf. This may be independent of the amount of milk in her udder and decline during lactation. Therefore motivation to be milked could be generated either from the discomfort of a large and distended udder or by some psychological desire by the cow to suckle a calf generalized to a milking machine. Either way, the strength of motivation to be milked may have implications for how an automatic milking system (AMS) is designed. For example, if cows were highly motivated to be milked and attended at an appropriate frequency, there would be no requirement to provide additional incentives, such as food, to attract cows into the AMS. In addition, if cows choose to be milked more frequently than they are milked in conventional systems (generally twice per day), then this may be a method by which choices can be engineered into an animal’s environment.

2010 ◽  
Vol 93 (3) ◽  
pp. 1069-1073 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.P. Nielsen ◽  
G. Pettersson ◽  
K.M. Svennersten-Sjaunja ◽  
L. Norell

Author(s):  
Oto Hanuš ◽  
Pavel Hering ◽  
Gustav Chládek ◽  
Daniel Falta ◽  
Petr Roubal ◽  
...  

Automatic milking system (AMS) brings a change in approach to ensure the data reliability in the official milk recording (MR). The AMS is equipped with flowmeter. AMS software provides the daily milk yield (DMY) and average of the last 7 daily milk yields (AVG7) for MR. Classic MR uses DMY. AVG7 could be more reliable value. Origin of both records (DMY and AVG7) is from AMS flowmeter. The aim of paper was to compare the values of milk yield of cows from daily (DMY) and the extended records (AVG7) from AMS for objective assess of lactations to be used in cattle breeding. Study (2013) with 2 AMS herds (DeLaval and Lely Astronaut): herd 1 – Holstein (H) dairy cows; herd 2 – Czech Fleckvieh (CF) dairy cows. There were following milk records: n = 521 DeLaval (H); n = 567 Lely Astronaut (CF); 70 (H) and 68 (CF) dairy cows. MR samples were analyzed on: fat content; crude protein; somatic cell count. Correlations between AVG7 and DMY were: 0.888 (H); 0.898 (CF, both P ≤ 0.001). There were insignificant differences (P > 0.05; −0.07 ± 3.29 kg for H and 0.28 ± 3.3 kg for CF) between AVG7 and DMY for both robots. The same is valid for differences in the production of milk components. According to this comparison experiment the AVG7 of AMS is a suitable equivalent for the DMY regarding official MR for assessment of lactations.


2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 1093-1098 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayakrishnan Vijayakumar ◽  
Ji Hoo Park ◽  
Kwang Seok Ki ◽  
Dong Hyun Lim ◽  
Sang Bum Kim ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 98 (10) ◽  
pp. 7248-7263 ◽  
Author(s):  
L.J. Watt ◽  
C.E.F. Clark ◽  
G.L. Krebs ◽  
C.E. Petzel ◽  
S. Nielsen ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 102 (2) ◽  
pp. 1386-1396 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Poppe ◽  
H.A. Mulder ◽  
B.J. Ducro ◽  
G. de Jong

2014 ◽  
Vol 150 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuliana G. Miguel-Pacheco ◽  
Jasmeet Kaler ◽  
John Remnant ◽  
Lydia Cheyne ◽  
Caroline Abbott ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document