Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:51:40.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The teat cup detachment level affects milking performance in an automatic milking system with teat cleaning and milking in the same teat cup

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2022

Irene Lüdi  and
Rupert M. Bruckmaier
Irene Lüdi
Affiliation:
Veterinary Physiology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Rupert M. Bruckmaier*
Affiliation:
Veterinary Physiology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
*
Author for correspondence: Rupert M. Bruckmaier, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The goal of the present study was to determine the best quarter milk flow for teat cup detachment depending on lactational stage and milking interval to optimize the milking process in automatic milking systems (AMS). Milking characteristics and post-milking teat condition were recorded in an AMS with all actions from teat cleaning to post-milking teat dipping occurring in the same teat cup and liner (GEA DairyRobot R9500). In 24 dairy cows, 12 in early (<80 DIM) and 12 in late lactation (>180 DIM), 294 milkings were recorded during 12 consecutive days. Teat cup detachment was set at a quarter milk flow of 50, 87.5 or 125 g/min. Voluntary milking intervals varied similarly in cows in early (6.1–14.8 h) and late lactation (6.3–15.7 h). Total milk yield, milk production per h and average milk flow were higher in early than in late lactation cows. Total milk yield per milking did not differ between detachment levels. The mean milking time was reduced by up to 1.5 min at the highest compared to the lowest detachment level mainly in early lactation cows (P < 0.05). However, no significant effect of the detachment level on milking time was observed at milking intervals >10 h. Average milk flow was higher at milking intervals >10 h than ≤10 h (P < 0.05). In the early lactation cows (only) the average milk flow increased with higher detachment levels (P < 0.05). Teat condition did not differ among detachment settings or milking intervals. In conclusion, teat cup detachment up to 125 g/min reduces milking time in both early and late lactation without a loss of milk yield or affecting the teat condition. Combined with a higher average milk flow through avoiding too short milking intervals, the total milking time and hence stall occupancy can be optimized by early teat cup detachment.

Keywords

AMSmilking intervalmilking performancemilking timeteat cup detachment
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 89 , Issue 3 , August 2022 , pp. 279 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Hannah Dairy Research Foundation

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

Besier, J and Bruckmaier, RM (2016) Vacuum levels and milk-flow-dependent vacuum drops affect machine milking performance and teat condition in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 3096–3102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breen, JE, Green, MJ and Bradley, AJ (2009) Quarter and cow risk factors associated with the occurrence of clinical mastitis in dairy cows in the United Kingdom. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 2551–2561.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruckmaier, RM and Blum, JW (1998) Oxytocin release and milk removal in ruminants. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 939–949.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruckmaier, RM and Gross, JJ (2017) Lactational challenges in transition dairy cows. Animal Production Science 57, 1471–1481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruckmaier, RM and Hilger, M (2001) Milk ejection in dairy cows at different degrees of udder filling. Journal of Dairy Research 68, 369–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruckmaier, RM, Rothenanger, E and Blum, JW (1995) Milking characteristics in dairy cows of different breeds from different farms and during the course of lactation. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 112, 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruckmaier, RM, Macuhova, J and Meyer, HHD (2001) Specific aspects of milk ejection in robotic milking: a review. Livestock Production Science 72, 169–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, JK and Jago, JG (2011) Comparing somatic cell counts, production and milking durations of dairy cows when milked at two automatic cup-removal flow-rate thresholds. Animal Production Science 51, 920–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, JP, Jago, JG and Lopez-Villalobos, N (2013) Short-term application of prestimulation and increased automatic cluster remover threshold affect milking characteristics of grazing dairy cows in late lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 1886–1893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fahim, A, Kamboj, ML, Sirohi, AS, Bhakat, M and Mohanty, TK (2019) Effect of automatic cluster remover settings on milkability, milk quality and milking irregularities of crossbred cows. Journal of Dairy Research 86, 196–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferneborg, S, Thulin, M, Agenäs, S, Svennersten-Sjaunja, K, Krawczel, P and Ternman, E (2019) Increased take-off level in automatic milking systems – effects on milk flow, milk yield and milking efficiency at the quarter level. Journal of Dairy Research 86, 85–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ginsberg, R (2011) Influence of milk yield and take-off settings on milking parlour performance and udder health. In Hogeveen, H and Lam, TJGM (eds), Udder Health and Communication. Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers,. pp. 407–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, J and Mein, GA (1990) Measurement of machine-induced changes in thickness of the bovine teat. Journal of Dairy Research 57, 495–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hothorn, T, Bretz, F and Westfall, P (2008) Multcomp: simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal 50, 346–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isaksson, A and Lind, O (1992) Teat reactions in cows associated with machine milking. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series A 39, 282–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayer, H, Bruckmaier, R and Schams, D (1991) Lactational changes in oxytocin release, intramammary pressure and milking characteristics in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research 58, 159–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melin, M, Hermans, GGN, Pettersson, G and Wiktorsson, H (2006) Cow traffic in relation to social rank and motivation of cows in an automatic milking system with control gates and an open waiting area. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neijenhuis, F, Barkema, HW, Hogeveen, H and Noordhuizen, JPTM (2000) Classification and longitudinal examination of callused teat ends in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 2795–2804.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neijenhuis, F, Barkema, HW, Hogeveen, H and Noordhuizen, JPTM (2001) Relationship between teat-end callosity and occurrence of clinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 2664–2672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Odorcic, M, Rasmussen, MD, Paulrud, CO and Bruckmaier, RM (2019) Review: milking machine settings, teat condition and milking efficiency in dairy cows. Animal: An International Journal of Animal Bioscience 13, S94–S99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Odorcic, M, Blau, U, Löfstrand, J and Bruckmaier, RM (2020) Short communication: teat wall diameter and teat tissue thickness in dairy cows are affected by intramammary pressure and by the mechanical forces of machine milking. Journal of Dairy Science 103, 884–889.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinheiro, J, Bates, D, DebRoy, S and Sarkar, D (2020) nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package nlme version 3. 1–149.Google Scholar
Prescott, NB, Mottram, TT and Webster, AJF (1998) Relative motivations of dairy cows to be milked or fed in a Y-maze and an automatic milking system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 57, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.r-project.org/index.html (accessed August 2020)Google Scholar
Rasmussen, MD (1993) Influence of switch level of automatic cluster removers on milking performance and udder health. Journal of Dairy Research 60, 287–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
RStudio Team (2019) The R Project for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org (accessed August 2022)Google Scholar
Sandrucci, A, Tamburini, A, Bava, L and Zucali, M (2007) Factors affecting milk flow traits in dairy cows: results of a field study. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 1159–1167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stauffer, C, Feierabend, M and Bruckmaier, RM (2020) Different vacuum levels, vacuum reduction during low milk flow, and different cluster detachment levels affect milking performance and teat condition in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 103, 9250–9260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, S, Godden, S, Rapnicki, P, Reid, D, Johnson, A and Eicker, S (2002) Effects of automatic cluster remover settings on average milking duration, milk flow, and milk yield. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 818–823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, D and Bruckmaier, RM (2005) Optimization of individual prestimulation in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, D and Worstorff, H (2001) Effects of quarter take-off with and without machine stripping under simulated automatic milking conditions. Milchwissenschaft 56, 427–430.Google Scholar
Wieland, M, Nydam, DV, Heuwieser, W, Morrill, KM, Ferlito, L, Watters, RD and Virkler, PD (2020) A randomized trial to study the effect of automatic cluster remover settings on milking performance, teat condition, and udder health. Journal of Dairy Science 103, 3668–3682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Lüdi and Bruckmaier supplementary material

Lüdi and Bruckmaier supplementary material

Download Lüdi and Bruckmaier supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 170.1 KB