Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T18:22:39.604Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Offering a forage crop at pasture did not adversely affect voluntary cow traffic or milking visits in a pasture-based automatic milking system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2015

V. E. Scott ,
K. L. Kerrisk  and
S. C. Garcia
V. E. Scott*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Science, Dairy Science Group, University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia
K. L. Kerrisk
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Science, Dairy Science Group, University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia
S. C. Garcia
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Science, Dairy Science Group, University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia
*
†E-mail: tori.scott@sydney.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

Feed is a strong incentive for encouraging cows in automatic milking systems (AMS) to voluntarily move around the farm and achieve milkings distributed across the 24 h day. It has been reported that cows show preferences for some forages over others, and it is possible that offering preferred forages may increase cow traffic. A preliminary investigation was conducted to determine the effect of offering a forage crop for grazing on premilking voluntary waiting times in a pasture-based robotic rotary system. Cows were offered one of two treatments (SOYBEAN or GRASS) in a cross-over design. A restricted maximum likelihood procedure was used to model voluntary waiting times. Mean voluntary waiting time was 45.5±6.0 min, with no difference detected between treatments. High and mid-production cows spent <44 min/milking in the premilking yard compared with >55 min/milking for low-production cows, whereas waiting time increased as queue length increased. Voluntary waiting time was 23% and 80% longer when cows were fetched from the paddock or had a period of forced waiting before volunteering for milking, respectively. The time it took cows to return to the dairy since last exiting was not affected by treatment, with a mean return time of 13.7±0.6 h. Although offering SOYBEAN did not encourage cows to traffic more readily through the premilking yard, the concept of incorporating forage crops in AMS still remains encouraging if the aim is to increase the volume or quantity of home-grown feed rather than improving cow traffic.

Keywords

automatic milking systemcow trafficforage cropincentivepasture
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , March 2016 , pp. 500 - 507
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Bach, A, Iglesias, C, Calsamiglia, S and Devant, M 2007. Effect of amount of concentrate offered in automatic milking systems on milking frequency, feeding behavior, and milk production of dairy cattle consuming high amounts of corn silage. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 5049–5055.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bargo, F, Muller, LD, Delahoy, JE and Cassidy, TW 2002. Performance of high producing dairy cows with three different feeding systems combining pasture and total mixed rations. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 2948–2963.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farina, SR, Garcia, SC and Fulkerson, WJ 2011. A complementary forage system whole-farm study: forage utilisation and milk production. Animal Production Science 51, 460–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, SC, Fulkerson, WJ and Brookes, SU 2008. Dry matter production, nutritive value and efficiency of nutrient utilization of a complementary forage rotation compared to a grass pasture system. Grass and Forage Science 63, 284–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halachmi, I 2009. Simulating the hierarchical order and cow queue length in an automatic milking system. Biosystems Engineering 102, 453–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halachmi, I, Maltz, E, Livshin, N, Antler, A, Ben-Ghedalia, D and Miron, J 2004. Effects of replacing roughage with soy hulls on feeding behavior and milk production of dairy cows under hot weather conditions. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 2230–2238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halachmi, I, Ofir, S and Miron, J 2005. Comparing two concentrate allowances in an automatic milking system. Animal Science 80, 339–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halachmi, I, Shoshani, E, Solomon, R, Maltz, E and Miron, J 2009. Feeding soyhulls to high-yielding dairy cows increased milk production, but not milking frequency, in an automatic milking system. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 2317–2325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horadagoda, A 2009. What forages do cows prefer if given choice? Proceedings of the Dairy Research Foundation: Current Topics in Dairy Production, Camden, NSW, Australia, September 14, pp. 44–58.Google Scholar
Horadagoda, A, Fulkerson, WJ, Nandra, KS and Barchia, IM 2009. Grazing preferences by dairy cows for 14 forage species. Animal Production Science 49, 586–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jago, J and Kerrisk, K 2011. Training methods for introducing cows to a pasture-based automatic milking system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 131, 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketelaar-de Lauwere, CC, Devir, S and Metz, JHM 1996. The influence of social hierarchy on the time budget of cows and their visits to an automatic milking system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49, 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketelaar-de Lauwere, CC, Hendriks, M, Zondag, J, Ipema, AH, Metz, JHM and Noordhuizen, J 2000a. Influence of routing treatments on cows’ visits to an automatic milking system, their time budget and other behaviour. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 50, 174–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketelaar-de Lauwere, CC, Ipema, AH, Lokhorst, C, Metz, JHM, Noordhuizen, J, Schouten, WGP and Smits, AC 2000b. Effect of sward height and distance between pasture and barn on cows’ visits to an automatic milking system and other behaviour. Livestock Production Science 65, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolbach, R, Kerrisk, KL, Garcia, SC and Dhand, NK 2012. Attachment accuracy of a novel prototype robotic rotary and investigation of two management strategies for incomplete milked quarters. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 88, 120–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolver, ES and Muller, LD 1998. Performance and nutrient intake of high producing Holstein cows consuming pasture or a total mixed ration. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 1403–1411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyons, NA, Kerrisk, KL, Dhand, NK and Garcia, SC 2013a. Factors associated with extended milking intervals in a pasture-based automatic milking system. Livestock Science 158, 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, NA, Kerrisk, KL and Garcia, SC 2013b. Effect of pre- versus postmilking supplementation on traffic and performance of cows milked in a pasture-based automatic milking system. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 4397–4405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, NA, Kerrisk, KL and Garcia, SC 2013c. Comparison of 2 systems of pasture allocation on milking intervals and total daily milk yield of dairy cows in a pasture-based automatic milking system. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 4494–4504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, NA, Kerrisk, KL and Garcia, SC 2014. Milking frequency management in pasture-based automatic milking systems: a review. Livestock Science 159, 102–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marotti, DM, Cosgrove, GP, Chapman, DF, Parsons, AJ, Egan, AR and Anderson, CB 2002. Growing grass and clover separately allows animals to sustain a high nutrient intake. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 62, 163–166.Google Scholar
Oostra, HH, Stefanowska, J and Sallvik, K 2005. The effects of feeding frequency on waiting time, milking frequency, cubicle and feeding fence utilization for cows in an automatic milking system. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 55, 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, AJ, Newman, JA, Penning, PD, Harvey, A and Orr, RJ 1994. Diet preference of sheep: effects of recent diet, physiological state and species abundance. Journal of Animal Ecology 63, 465–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prescott, NB, Mottram, TT and Webster, AJF 1998a. 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
Prescott, NB, Mottram, TT and Webster, AJF 1998b. Effect of food type and location on the attendance to an automatic milking system by dairy cows and the effect of feeding during milking on their behaviour and milking characteristics. Animal Science 67, 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primdal, L, Johansen, M and Weisbjerg, MR 2014. Do dairy cows have preferences for different concentrate feeds? Australian Society of Animal Production, Canberra, Australia, September 8–12, 363pp.Google Scholar
Rutter, SM, Orr, RJ, Yarrow, NH and Champion, RA 2004. Dietary preference of dairy cows grazing ryegrass and white clover. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1317–1324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, VE, Kerrisk, KL, Thomson, PC, Lyons, NA and Garcia, SC 2015. Voluntary cow traffic and behaviour in the premilking yard of a pasture-based automatic milking system with a feed supplementation regime. Livestock Science 171, 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, VE, Thomson, PC, Kerrisk, KL and Garcia, SC 2014. Influence of provision of concentrate at milking on voluntary cow traffic in a pasture-based automatic milking system. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 1481–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sporndly, E and Wredle, E 2004. Automatic milking and grazing – effects of distance to pasture and level of supplements on milk yield and cow behavior. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1702–1712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sporndly, E and Wredle, E 2005. Automatic milking and grazing – effects of location of drinking water on water intake, milk yield, and cow behavior. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1711–1722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Dooren, HJC, Heutinck, LFM and Biewenga, G 2004. Contribution partner 1 in automatic milking and grazing: grazing strategies and their effect on animal welfare and system performance. EU Project Report Implications of the introduction of automatic milking on dairy farms (QLK5 – 2000 – 31006), pp. 1–14. Retrieved July 7, 2014, from http://www.automaticmilking.nl.Google Scholar
Williams, YJ, Doyle, PT, Egan, AR and Stockdale, CR 2005a. Increasing the intake of highly digestible Persian clover herbage reduces rumen fluid pH and the rate of degradation of neutral detergent fibre in grazing dairy cows. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45, 1529–1537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, YJ, Walker, GP, Doyle, PT, Egan, AR and Stockdale, CR 2005b. Rumen fermentation characteristics of dairy cows grazing different allowances of Persian clover- or perennial ryegrass-dominant swards in spring. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45, 665–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar