Search

An increase in the average herd size on Australian dairy farms has also increased the labor and animal management pressure on farmers, thus potentially encouraging the adoption of precision technologies for enhanced management control. A survey was undertaken in 2015 in Australia to identify the relationship between herd size, current precision technology adoption, and perception of the future of precision technologies. Additionally, differences between farmers and service providers in relation to perception of future precision technology adoption were also investigated. Responses from 199 dairy farmers, and 102 service providers, were collected between May and August 2015 via an anonymous Internet-based questionnaire. Of the 199 dairy farmer responses, 10.4% corresponded to farms that had fewer than 150 cows, 37.7% had 151 to 300 cows, 35.5% had 301 to 500 cows; 6.0% had 501 to 700 cows, and 10.4% had more than 701 cows. The results showed that farmers with more than 500 cows adopted between 2 and 5 times more specific precision technologies, such as automatic cup removers, automatic milk plant wash systems, electronic cow identification systems and herd management software, when compared with smaller farms. Only minor differences were detected in perception of the future of precision technologies between either herd size or farmers and service providers. In particular, service providers expected a higher adoption of automatic milking and walk over weighing systems than farmers. Currently, the adoption of precision technology has mostly been of the type that reduces labor needs; however, respondents indicated that by 2025 adoption of data capturing technology for monitoring farm system parameters would be increased. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of precision technology is increasingly seen as an option to improve productivity, animal welfare, resource use efficiency, and workplace features on dairy farms. There is limited research related to longitudinal adoption patterns of precision dairy technologies and reasons for any patterns. The aim of this analysis was to investigate trends in technology adoption regarding both the amount (number of farms with a technology) and intensity (number of technologies per farm) of adoption. Surveys of parlor technology adoption were conducted on New Zealand dairy farms in 2008, 2013, and 2018, with 532, 500, and 500 respondents, respectively. Technologies were grouped into labor-saving (LS, such as automatic cluster removers) or data-capture (DC, such as in-line milk meters) categories. Trends were examined for farms that had only LS, only DC, or LS+DC technologies. Technology adoption increased over time; the likelihood of technology adoption in 2018 (and 2013 in parentheses) increased by 21 (22), 7 (68), and 378% (165) for LS, DC, and LS+DC technology groups, respectively, compared to 2008. Farms with LS+DC technologies also had a greater proportion of LS technologies compared to non-LS+DC farms, although this relationship declined over the 10-yr period. The use of a rotary versus herringbone parlor was estimated to be associated with 356 and 470% increase in the likelihood of adopting LS technologies and LS+DC, respectively, from 2008 to 2018. Regional differences in adoption were also found, with the likelihood of adopting DC and LS+DC technologies found to be 46 and 59% greater, respectively, in the South Island of New Zealand, compared to the base region of Waikato. The results highlight the importance of understanding spatial and temporal farm characteristics when considering future effect and adoption of precision dairy technologies. For example, the analysis indicates the occurrence of 2 trajectories to technology investment on farms, where larger farms are able to take advantage of technology opportunities, but smaller farms may be constrained by factors such as lack of economies of scale, limited capital to invest, and inability to retrofit technology into aging parlor infrastructure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The assessment of grazing behavior is important for research and practice in pasture-grazed dairy farm systems. However, few devices are available that enable assessment of cow grazing behavior at an individual animal level. This study investigated whether commercially available Smarttag "eating time" sensors (Nedap Livestock Management, Groenlo, the Netherlands) were suitable for recording the grazing time of cows. Smarttag sensors were mounted on the neck collars of multiparous Holstein-Friesian cows in a herd in Taranaki, New Zealand. Cows were randomly selected each observation day from the milking herd for 8 separate days across a 1-mo period. Trained observers conducted 90-min observation periods to evaluate the relationship between the sensor eating time measure and grazing time. A set of 5 defined cow behaviors (2 "head up" and 3 "head down" behaviors) were assessed. In total, observations of 37 cows were recorded in 14 sessions over 8 d in the study period, providing 55.5 total hours of observations. Observation data were aligned with sensor data according to the sensor time stamps and grouped into matching 15-min intervals. Interobserver reliability was assessed both before and after the main trial period, and the mean percentage eating time per observer had a coefficient of variation of 0.46% [mean 93.2, standard deviation (SD) 0.425] before and 0.07% (mean 96.3, SD 0.074) after. In the main trial, the relationship between observed (mean 70.8%) and sensor-derived (mean 69.3%) percentage eating time over the observation period gave a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.971, concordance correlation coefficient 0.968, mean difference 1.50% points, and SD 5.8% points. Therefore, sensor-identified percentage "eating time" and observed percentage active grazing time were shown to be both very well correlated and concordant (in agreement, with high correlation and little bias). Therefore, the relationship between observed and sensor-derived data had a high degree of agreement for identifying cow grazing activity. In conclusion, Smarttag sensors are a valid and useful tool for estimating grazing activity at time periods of 1 h or more. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To attract and retain quality employees, dairy farms must be competitive with other workplaces offering more conventional hours of work. Milking requires significant labor input and influences the start and end times of the working day, affecting flexibility to suit employee needs or availability. The use of labor-saving technology and milking management strategies could help with this challenge. Previous studies have used scenario modeling in attempt to quantify the value of in-parlor technologies, however, they have relied on assumptions about the effect of the technologies on labor in the dairy. Similarly, the effect of management strategies on work patterns, such as flexible milking intervals (changing the timing of milking), has not been evaluated. The aims of this study were to (1) quantify the milking labor requirements in a range of pasture-based dairy farm systems and (2) identify practices or technologies that facilitate efficient milking. A telephone survey of 500 dairy farmers in New Zealand was conducted during April and May 2018, with questions asked about milking practices and technology use. Predictive analysis showed that at peak lactation, milking required between 17 and 24 h/wk per worker for farms milking twice a day, representing 43 to 58% of a conventional 40-h work week, depending on parlor type (herringbone or rotary), the number of clusters, and herd size. Using milking intervals of 8 and 16 h (intervals between milkings), compared with the more usual 10 and 14 h, largely avoided starting milking before 0500 h. Eight percent of herds were milked once a day, which required between 7 and 14 h/wk per worker (18–35% of a 40-h week). ANOVA showed that for metrics that related to people (labor efficiency and work routine), using automatic teat spraying had a positive effect on efficiency. Having both automatic cluster removers and drafting were associated with longer milking times in terms of throughput and row/rotation time compared with using drafting only. The results highlight considerable opportunity to reduce the number of hours those milking (employers and employees) spend in the parlor and increase staff time flexibility through milking (e.g., intervals between milkings) and parlor management (e.g., row/rotation time) and use of specific technologies. This study provides useful data for those wishing to analyze the likely value of an in-parlor automation technology or management practice for an individual situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]