Loading...
Effect of teatcup removal settings on milking efficiency and milk quality in a pasture-based automatic milking system
Silva Boloña, P. Reinemann, D.J. Upton, J.
Silva Boloña, P.
Reinemann, D.J.
Upton, J.
Citations
Altmetric:
Date
2019-09
Collections
Files
Loading...
main article
Adobe PDF, 522.54 KB
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Citation
Boloña, P. S., Reinemann, D. J., Upton, J. Effect of teatcup removal settings on milking efficiency and milk quality in a pasture-based automatic milking system, Journal of Dairy Science, Volume 102, Issue 9, 2019, Pages 8423-8430 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15839
Abstract
In automatic milking systems (AMS), it is important
to maximize the amount of milk harvested per day
to increase profitability. One strategy to achieve this
goal is to reduce the time it takes to milk each cow.
Several studies in conventional milking systems have
shown that milking time can be reduced by increasing
the milk flow rate at which the teatcup is removed. One
study analyzed the effect of increasing the milk flow
switch point on milking time in a confinement AMS.
No research has been conducted on teatcup removal
settings in pasture-based automatic milking systems.
Furthermore, not all AMS remove the teatcups based
on absolute milk flow rate (kg/min); hence, it is important
to study alternative strategies. The aim of
this experiment was to measure the effect of 3 novel
teatcup removal strategies on box time (time in the
AMS), milking time, somatic cell count (SCC), and
milk production rate of cows milked in a pasture-based
automatic milking system. Each teatcup removal strategy
in this study was applied for a period of 1 wk to
1 of 3 groups of cows and then switched to the following
group until cows had transitioned through all
treatments. The teatcup removal strategies consisted
of removing the teatcup when the quarter flow rate fell
below 20% of the quarter rolling average milk flow rate
(TRS20), when quarter milk flow rate was below 30%
of the rolling average milk flow rate (TRS30), and when
quarter milk flow rate dropped below 50% of the rolling
average milk flow rate (TRS50). A limit prevented
teatcup removal if the calculated milk flow rate for
teatcup removal was above 0.5 kg/min. This limit was
in place for all treatments; however, it only affected the
TRS50 treatment. The TRS30 strategy had 9-s shorter
milking time and 11-s shorter box time than the TRS20
removal strategy. The TRS50 strategy had 8-s shorter
milking time and 9-s shorter box time than the TRS20
teatcup removal strategy. There was no significant difference
in milking time or box time between the TRS30
and TRS50 teatcup removal strategies, probably due
to the large variability in milk flow rate at teatcup removal.
The TRS20 and TRS30 strategies did not differ
in SCC or milk production rate. The 0.5 kg/min limit,
which affected roughly 25% of milkings in the TRS50
treatment, may have distorted the effect that this setting
had on milk time, box time, milk production rate,
or SCC. The difference in box time for the TRS30 and
TRS50 strategies could allow for more than 3 extra
milkings per day