Automatic milking

Automatic milking is the milking of dairy animals without human labour.

The milking process

The milking process is the collection of tasks specifically devoted to extracting milk from an animal (rather than the broader field of dairy animal husbandry). This process may be broken down into several sub-tasks: collecting animals before milking, routing animals into the parlour, inspection and cleaning of teats, attachment of milking equipment to teats, extraction of milk, removal of milking equipment, routing of animals out of the parlour.

Milking schedules

Maintaining milk yield during the lactation period (approximately 300 days) requires consistent milking intervals, usually twice daily and with maximum time spacing between milkings. In fact all activities must be scheduled around the milking process on the dairy farm. Such a milking routine imposes restrictions on time management and personal life of an individual farmer, as the farmer is committed to milking in the early morning and in the evening for seven days a week regardless of personal health, family responsibilities or social schedule. This time restriction is exacerbated for lone farmers and farm families if extra labour cannot easily or economically be obtained, and is a factor in the decline in small-scale dairy farming. Techniques such as once-a-day milking and voluntary milking (see below) have been investigated to reduce these time constraints.

Automation in milking

To alleviate the labour involved in milking, much of the milking process has been automated: many farmers use semi-automatic or automatic cow traffic control (powered gates, etc.), the milking machine has entirely automated milk extraction, and automatic cluster removal is available to remove milking equipment after milking. Automatic teat spraying systems are available, however there is some debate over the cleaning effectiveness of these.

The final manual labour tasks remaining in the milking process were cleaning and inspection of teats and attachment of milking equipment (milking cups) to teats. Automatic cleaning and attachment of milking cups is a complex task, requiring accurate detection of teat position and a dextrous mechanical manipulator. These tasks have been automated successfully in the voluntary milking system.

Automatic Milking Systems (AMS)

Since the 1970s, much research effort has been expended in investigating methods to alleviate time management constraints in conventional dairy farming, culminating in the development of the automated voluntary milking system (AMS).

Voluntary milking allows the cow to decide its own milking time and interval, rather than being milked as part of a group at set milking times. AMS requires complete automation of the milking process, as the cow may elect to be milked at any time during a 24 hour period.

A typical AMS layout is shown in Fig. 1. The milking unit comprises a milking machine, a teat position sensor, a robotic arm for automatic teat-cup application and removal and a gate system for controlling cow traffic. The cows are permanently housed in a barn, and spend most of their time resting or feeding in the loose-stall area.

When the cow elects to enter the milking unit (due to highly palatable feed that she finds in the milking box), a cow ID sensor reads an identification tag on the cow and passes the cow ID to the control system. If the cow has been milked too recently, the automatic gate system sends the cow out the unit. If the cow may be milked, automatic teat cleaning, milking cup application, milking, and teatdipping takes place. As an incentive to attend the milking unit, concentrated feedstuffs needs be fed to the cow in the milking unit.

The barn may be arranged such that access to the main feeding area can only be obtained by passing the milking unit. This lay out is referred to as forced cow traffic.

The innovative core of the AMS system is the robotic manipulator in the milking unit. This robotic arm automates the tasks of teat cleaning and milking attachment and removes the final elements of manual labour from the milking process. Careful design of the robot arm and associated sensors and controls allows robust unsupervised performance, such that the farmer is only required to attend the cows for condition inspection and when a cow has not attended for milking.

You can also see device-profile of DeLaval Milking System at http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT8308307720.html .

Typical capacity for a AMS is 50-70 cows per milking unit. AMS usually achieve milking frequencies between 2 and 3 times per day, so a single milking unit handling 60 cows and milking each cow 3 times per day has a capacity of 7.5 cows/h. This low capacity is convenient for lower-cost design of the robot arm and associated control system, as a window of several minutes is available for each cow and high-speed operation is not required.

AMS units have been available commercially since the early 1990s, and have proved relatively successful in implementing the voluntary milking method. Many of the research and developments have taken place in the Netherlands. The most farms with AMS are located in the Netherlands and Denmark.

Advantages

Elimination of labour - The farmer is freed from the milking process and associated rigid schedule, and labour is devoted to supervision of animals, feeding, etc.

Increased milking frequency - Milking frequency may increase to three times per day, however typically 2.5 times per day is achieved. This may result in less stress on the udder and increased comfort for the cow, as on average less milk is stored. Higher frequency milking increases milk yield per cow, however much of this increase is water rather than solids.

Perceived lower stress environment - There is a perception that elective milking schedules reduce cow stress. An objective study found no decrease in stress between automatic and conventional milking.

Herd Management - The use of computer control allows greater scope for data collection. Such data allows the farmer to improve management through analysis of trends in the herd, for example response of milk production to changes in feedstuffs. Individual cow histories may also be examined, and alerts set to warn the farmer of unusual changes indicating illness or injury. Information gathering provides added value for AMS, however correct interpretation and use of such information is highly dependent on the skills of the user.

Considerations and disadvantages

* High initial cost - AMS systems cost approximately €120,000 ($190,524) [http://vasatwiki.icrisat.org/index.php/Disadvantages_Automatic_milking] per milking unit (presuming barn space is already available for loose-stall housing). Equipment costs decreased from $175,000 for the first stall to $158,000. Equipment costs decreased from $10,000/stall for a double-six parlor to $9000/stall for a double-ten parlor with a cost of $1200/stall for pipeline milking. Initial parlor cost was increased $5000/stall to represent a high cost parlor. [ [http://jds.fass.org/cgi/content/full/86/12/4167/T2 Automatic Milking Systems, Farm Size, and Milk Production - Rotz et al. 86 (12): 4167 - Journal of Dairy Science ] ] Whether it is economically beneficial to invest in an AMS instead of a conventional milking parlor depends on constructions costs, investments in the milking system and costs of labour. Besides costs of labour, the availability of labour should also be taken into account. In general, an AMS is economical beneficial for smaller scale farms, and large dairies can usually operate more cheaply with a milking parlor.

* Increased complexity - While complexity of equipment is a necessary part of technological advancement, the increased complexity of the AMS milking unit over conventional systems, increases the reliance on manufacturer maintenance services and possibly increasing operating costs. The farmer is exposed in the event of total system failure, relying on prompt response from the service provider. In practice AMS systems have proved robust and manufacturers provide good service networks.Because all milking cows have to visit the AMS voluntarily, the system requires a high quality of management. The system also involves a central place for the computer in the daily working routines.

* Difficult to apply in pasture systems - AMS works best in zero-grazing systems, in which the cow is housed indoors for most of the lactation period. Zero-grazing suits areas (e.g. the Netherlands) where land is at a premium, as maximum land can be devoted to feed production which is then collected by the farmer and brought to the animals in the barn. In pasture systems, as used in most of the world, cows graze in fields and are required to walk to the milking parlour. It has been found that cows tend not to attend the milking unit if the distance to walk is too great.

* Lower milk quality - Somatic cell count (SCC) and Plate loop count (PLC) are, respectively, measurements of the quantity of white blood cells and total number of bacteria present in a milk sample. A high SCC indicates reduced udder health (as the immune system fights some infection) and implies lower milk quality. Machine milking of any kind increases SCC, however AMS herds consistently show higher SCCs than conventionally milked herds. A high PLC indicates bacterial contamination, usually through poor sanitation or cooling and similarly implies low milk quality. High PLC in AMS may be attributed to the continuous use of milking lines (rather than twice a day in conventional systems), which reduces the time window for cleaning, and the incremental addition of milk to the bulk milk tank which may not cool efficiently at low milk levels.

* Possible increase in stress for some cows - Cows are social animals, and it has been found that due to dominance of some cows, others will be forced to milk only at night. Such behaviour is inconsistent with the perception that AM reduces stress by allowing "free choice" of milking time.

* Decreased contact between farmer and herd - Effective animal husbandry requires that the farmer be fully aware of herd condition. In conventional milking, the cows are observed before milking equipment is attached, and ill or injured cows can be earmarked for attention. Automatic milking removes the farmer from such close contact with the animal, with the possibility that illness may go unnoticed for longer periods and both milk quality and cow welfare suffer. In practice, milk quality sensors at the milking unit attempt to detect changes in milk due to infection, and farmers inspect the herd frequently. However this concern has meant that farmers are still tied to a seven-day schedule.

* Environmental concerns - Cows at pasture spread waste (manure) on the pasture. Concentration of animals in zero-grazing AM systems increases the accumulation of excrement that must be collected and treated by the farm.

Current AMS manufacturers

SAC. (Denmark) Purchased the Dutch manufacturer of the Galaxy Robot AMS in 2005. [http://www.sac.dk]

WestfaliaSurge/Robotic Milking Solutions.(Germany) Titan AMS [http://www.westfaliasurge.com]

DeLaval. (Sweden) DeLaval VMS [http://www.delaval.com]

Lely. (Netherlands) Lely Astronaut AMS [http://www.lely.com]

Fullwood. (UK) Merlin AMS [http://www.fullwood.com/milking_products/139/]

References

Rossing, W. and Hogewerf, P. H., (1997), “State of the art of automatic milking systems”, Computers and electronics in agriculture, Vol. 17, pp. 1-17

Hogeveen, H.,W., et al., (2001), “Milking interval, milk production and milk flow-rate in an automatic milking system”, Livestock Production Science, Vol. 72, pp. 157–167.

EU project Automatic Milking [http://www.automaticmilking.nl]

Schukken, Y.H., Hogeveen H., and Smink, B.J., (1999), "Robotic Milking and Milk Quality, Experiences From the Netherlands", National Mastitis Council Regional Meeting Proceedings 1999, pp 64 - 69 [http://www.engormix.com/robotic_milking_and_milk_e_articles_80_GDL.htm]

Millar, K. M., (2000), "Respect for Animal Autonomy in Bioethical Analysis: The Case of Automatic Milking Systems (AMS)", Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Springer, NetherlandsVol. 12, No. 1, pp. 41 - 50

Hopster, H., et. al, (2002), "Stress Responses during Milking; Comparing Conventional and Automatic Milking in Primiparous Dairy Cows", Journal of Dairy Science Vol.85, pp.3206–3216

Links