Practices and equipment differences to milk herds with high milk production

As herds aspire to achieve higher levels of milk production there is a need for more focused management of all areas of the farm. The management of the milking center is no exception to this. In order to achieve success with the milking center the first step is to document what the current baseline is for all the major areas affecting the milking center. During the analysis of this baseline data one important distinction to make is whether the opportunity areas that are identified relate to the system as a whole or to the performance of individual personnel in the system. For opportunity areas that relate to the system as a whole changes are then implemented to optimize the performance of the milking center. The system is then re-evaluated and any additional changes are made to capitalize on all the benefits of the initial change. During this time an intense monitoring program is also put in place that gives management the essential feedback that is necessary to monitor the system as a whole and to manage individual personnel in the system. Coupling incremental changes with an ongoing monitoring program can help dairies consistently achieve high milk production, excellent cow health, and top quality milk.

There are many changes that occur within a milking center over the course of days to months. Many of these changes have impacts on other aspects of the milking center beyond the individual component that was altered. This can lead to a situation that is out of control but no one recognizes this fact. In this state it will be hard for a dairy to achieve or maintain its goals of high milk production, excellent cow health, and top quality milk.

The first step is to document in detail where the herd is currently at. This serves as a baseline that can then be analyzed to determine a priority list of the changes that are needed. At QMPS this would involve a herd visit of a complete milking shift to evaluate the following parameters: average claw vacuum at peak flow, pulsation, unit alignment, milking routine timing, milk flow rate, milking efficiency and throughput timing, teat scoring (short and long term effects), strip yields, teat end cleanliness, and udder hygiene. If a complete test of the milking system as recommended by National Mastitis Council (NMC) to evaluate the vacuum levels and airflow in the milking system has not been performed in the last 6 months then this would be completed as well.

The average claw vacuum at peak flow and the pulsation are measured with the units on the cow and milk flowing through the claw per the NMC guidelines. Unit alignment is measured using a two category scoring system (proper or improper unit alignment). This is assessed within the first two minutes after unit attachment and any three-quarter cow is not scored.

Milking routine timing focuses primarily on initial stimulation time, pre-dip contact time, and the lag time from stimulation to unit attachment. The milk flow rates of individual cows are measured using a Lactocorder® device. If the milking center has milk meters that are providing individual cow flow data this is analyzed as well.

Accurate milking efficiency and throughput timing can be a challenge to obtain at the same time as multiple new people are in the parlor performing the other measurements as this may disrupt some aspects of the routine. We have found that it may be a more accurate assessment to perform these timings during the previous shift or stay until the next shift has started. This data is recorded on a standardized form and minimally includes: time at entrance gate open, time at start of prep on first cow, time at unit attachment of first cow, time at last unit attachment, time at third to last unit detachment, time at second to last unit detachment, time at last unit detachment, and time at exit gate opened.

Teat scoring is performed within one minute of unit detachment using the Teat Club International scoring system (Mein et al., 2001). At least 20% of the herd is scored in the categories measuring the short and long term effects on the teats. As per the Teat Club International recommendations the data is summarized by cow (Reinemann et al., 2001).

Strip yields are performed immediately after unit detachment. Each teat is stripped for a maximum of 15 seconds and the total volume of milk from all four teats recorded. It is also noted if the milk was evenly divided between all four teats or if only one teat accounted for the majority of milk.

Teat end cleanliness is performed after teat preparation but prior to unit attachment. A four by four gauze soaked in alcohol is used to swab the teat end. The scores are recorded using a one to four category system (Westfalia Surge, ©2005) with one being a clean teat end with no dip, dirt, or manure present and four being a teat end with large amounts of dirt or manure present. Udder cleanliness is scored using a one to four category system (Pamela Ruegg, ©2002) with one being an udder that is free of dirt or manure and four being an udder that has greater than 30% of the surface area covered with caked on dirt or manure.

A recent herd example helps to illustrate the importance of completing the detailed assessment. A 1000 cow herd (Herd 1) requested a consultation as they were battling a high bulk tank SCC and too many clinical mastitis cases. We collected the data from all of the parameters outlined above, analyzed the data, and met with the management of the farm. The teat scores evaluating the short term changes (teat color and hardness at the teat end) clearly were not meeting the goal with 70% of cows having one or more abnormal teats in these categories (Table 1). The abnormal behavior of cows, kicking at the units at the end of milking, also supported the need for change. The average claw vacuum at peak flow was determined to be 12.6”Hg (43 kPa). When the management was questioned about the vacuum level being this high, they stated they thought it was much lower. Furthermore, they were not aware of any vacuum level changes in the last six months. The automatic take-offs (ATOs) on this dairy also were set to milk the cows out quite dry as 94% of cows had less than 150 milliliters (mls) of milk remaining after unit detachment. Only six percent of cows had between 150 mls to 250 mls. This farm meeting resulted in two immediate changes of decreasing the vacuum level and changing the ATOs to remove units quicker. Teats were rescored after these changes in the categories of teat color and hardness at the teat end (Table 1). There were noticeable improvements in the teat scores and the behavior of cows at the end of milking.

In analyzing the data from the initial baseline assessment and subsequent followup visits it is important to distinguish between those opportunities areas that relate to the system as a whole versus the performance of individual personnel within the system. This helps give the farm a clear direction for how to move forward to implement a solution to the problem.

In comparing the recent data from two herds (herd 2 and herd 3) it was determined that teat end cleanliness was an opportunity area for both herds but the solution to correct the problem was not the same.

For herd two, all milkers that were analyzed performed poorly in effectively wiping the dirt and manure off the teat end prior to unit detachment. It was further noted that the udder hygiene scores in this herd were not meeting the goal across all groups (Table 2). The solution to this problem was out in the stalls and the alleyways leading to and from the parlor rather than primarily a milker problem. The amount of bedding was increased in the stalls and milkers were re-trained on scraping out the back one-third of the stalls as cows were brought in for milking. The return alley and walkways were scraped an additional time during the milking to reduce the amount of manure that was splashing onto the udder and teats. Milkers need to be presented with reasonably clean cows to consistently achieve good results. In a study done at Cornell University (Munoz et al., 2008) it was demonstrated that the amount of Klebsiella still on the teat after teat preparation was strongly correlated to udder hygiene scores. In other words, the dirtier the udder the more Klebsiella on the teat ends even after a good prep routine.

 

In herd three, two of the three milkers performed quite well on the teat end cleanliness scores but the other milker performed poorly bringing the overall numbers down. In this herd the udder hygiene scores indicated that cows were quite clean (Table 2). Our analysis of this data showed that the system as a whole was adequate. This meant that clean cows entered the parlor, there was acceptable time to effectively wipe cows, and milkers had clean cloth towels to get the job done well. Two milkers were doing their job of wiping teat ends well but the third milker needed re-training. The solution was individual personnel management rather than a change in the system as a whole.

For those opportunity areas where the system as a whole is involved it is critical that as changes are made there needs to be follow-up that documents any changes to the related parameters. For the high producing herd, this is especially critical so that individual changes do not lead to problems in other areas but instead allow the farm to capture the benefits. Too often we see dairies make changes but then do not re-evaluate the system as a whole and so miss the benefit of the change. By following up on changes and re-assessing the complete system you can move closer to optimizing the system for your cows. Cows do adjust over time and it is my belief that you should be continually re-evaluating your milking center to determine the next change that can be made to benefit both the business and the cows.

In a recent herd evaluation (herd 4) it was determined that a poor milking routine was leading to a large percent of cows with bimodal milk flow curves (Table 4). A correction to the milking routine led to a dramatic improvement in the milk flow curves of individual cows which influenced the average claw vacuum at peak flow. At the follow up visit the vacuum level was adjusted and since cows were milking out better and strip yields were low the farm decided to change the ATOs to remove units quicker. In the end, the initial single change led to numerous other changes based on the follow-up testing which allowed the dairy to make rapid progress in milking their cows out quickly, completely, and with minimal teat damage.

The goal for a high producing herd should be to prevent problems rather than react to existing problems. For example once a cow has mastitis the major battle has already been lost. It is true that some cows self-cure and others we can successfully treat but the milk loss has already happened.

In order to prevent problems we need to have a robust monitoring system in place that includes all aspects of the milking center. Depending on the dairy this may involve multiple managers carrying out different aspects of this monitoring system or only a single parlor manager who is responsible for all aspects. The monitoring plan needs to be written out in detail and include what specific parameters will be monitored on what frequency and by whom. It also needs to have the standards that you are monitoring against clearly written out so that it is obvious to everyone when a standard is not being met.

We need to manage the milking center in such a controlled way that the variation day to day is minimized to the greatest extent possible. The best farms that I have the luxury of evaluating are the ones that strive for the highest level of consistency. All milkers bring cows to the parlor in the exact same way on all shifts. All milkers practice excellent animal handling and perform the exact same routine in the parlor. The settings of the milking equipment are optimized for the dairy and the cows that are being milked. There is a constant monitoring plan of the milkers, equipment, and the cows to identify problems before they become catastrophes. Management knows exactly what the settings are and what is happening in the milking center at all times. This includes the system cleaning as well as it has an impact on the life of the perishable products in the milking system.

Teat end cleanliness needs to be monitored on a frequent basis and the data recorded for each individual milker. Since milkers will change their technique when managers arrive, teat end cleanliness scores need to be done on a “surprise” basis. Fewer teats are done each time but the scoring is repeated more frequently to get a true picture of the performance of milkers. This data is then used to manage and motivate milkers to consistently achieve clean teat ends on every cow at every shift. Some farms will post the teat end cleanliness scores by milker or by shift and develop a friendly competition to motivate milkers to do a better job. Spending a small amount of money for a prize at the end of the month such as a meal for the shift that won the competition can pay big dividends in terms of motivated employees. Other farms use the teat end cleanliness scores as part of an employee review process that may be tied to financial incentives.

Consistency in the milking routine is another critical area that needs to be monitored on a frequent basis. With increased automation on many dairies we have excellent tools to be able to evaluate individual milkers on a shift by shift basis. We can make a decision on an individual dairy what parameters will be analyzed and what the standards of performance are. Table 5 below includes some commonly used parameters and the goals associated with these. The parlor manager can evaluate the numbers on a daily basis and provide this feedback to the milkers. There are many ways that dairies do this including posting the results on a bulletin board so that a friendly competition is encouraged. Other dairies use this data along with video clips of the milker during a performance review. This outcome of the performance review may be tied to whether or not an individual milker receives any portion of the milk quality bonus if the farm decides to split this money. These sort of actions send a strong message to the milkers that the management of this dairy cares about how their cows are milked. Within a short period of time on many dairies the milkers are achieving an even higher level because of the pride in their work.

Unit alignment is another area to monitor and manage to achieve top performance from your cows. Unit alignment can have a significant influence on the milking speed of an individual quarter and can therefore influence unit on time and potentially the time spent in low flow of the other three quarters which milk out at normal speed. This increases the risk for teat damage and liners slip on these three teats that spend a considerable time in low flow. Additionally, many cows will experience discomfort in this situation and start to kick at the unit which potentially leads to additional liner slips, forced unit removal, and increased contamination with dirt and manure of the claw and shells. Poor unit alignment can also significantly influence parlor efficiency by increasing unit on time and increasing the number of reattached units.

Unit alignment can be a system problem with improper design of the parlor or of the unit alignment devices. It can also be a maintenance issue with the unit alignment devices in poor repair or non-functional. This needs to be evaluated on an individual parlor by parlor basis as there is no one system fits all. Any reasonable options to promote better unit alignment of the whole system should be explored.

Unit alignment can also be an individual milker issue and therefore needs to be part of a monitoring program for milkers. If milkers are not properly aligning units they need to be re-trained and re-assessed. The small amount of time that milkers need to spend properly aligning units can pay large dividends in increasing parlor efficiency and reducing the risk for mastitis.

Scheduled monitoring and maintenance of the milking equipment is a must for all dairies but especially those that are running around the clock. There is a predictable life of individual products and these products need to be rebuilt or replaced prior to this so that problems are prevented. Too often farms have good intentions of their employees performing these routine tasks but there is not actual time set aside to do this and so they are forgotten. For the majority of dairies, they probably are farther ahead by outsourcing this work and then holding that party accountable for performing the agreed upon tasks. This also brings in an outside set of eyes that if given the appropriate conduit for information flow, can aid the dairy in noticing additional areas for improvement. If problems are consistently identified with the monitoring of milking equipment such as when pulsators are graphed, then the interval between graphing/rebuilding events needs to be shortened. This will lead to prevention or an earlier detection of the problem and therefore reduce the risk of negative effects on cows. Routine assessment of system cleaning is also an essential part of this process as an issue with system cleaning can lead to inappropriate use of chemicals which affects the lifespan of other parts of the milking system.

The first time that a new heifer is milked can be a stressful event for all parties involved. Parlor managers need to develop a protocol for how to handle the milking process for these new heifers and train all milkers on this protocol. Too often we see milkers putting units on manual and/or repeatedly reattaching units when there is no milk flow on these new heifers. The risk for teat damage is high in these new heifers due to compromised circulation in the teat and therefore the time in low flow needs to be minimized. If possible heifers should be brought through the parlor prior to calving so that they are familiar with the sights and sounds of the parlor. This will serve to reduce the level of stress for these heifers in the milking parlor after calving. Milkers need to be trained to understand that these new heifers are an exception and that for the first few milkings it is acceptable if only a small amount of milk is harvested.

In order to achieve excellent milk production, have healthy cows, and produce high quality milk a dairy has to continually focus on the details of how the milking center is managed. This starts with a baseline assessment and then moves to the optimization of the milking center for the dairy by making incremental changes with a re-assessment after each one. Along the way a strict monitoring program is implemented so that there is very little room for undetected procedural drift in the system. If drift is detected in individual personnel they are re-trained or reassigned so that the goals of the dairy are not compromised. Following this regimented program will help the herds with high milk production not only move to the next level but consistently stay at this higher level.

 

 

1. Mein, G.A., Neijenhuis, F., Morgan, W.F., Reinemann, D.J., Hillerton, J.E., Baines, J.R., Ohnstad, I., Rasmussen, M.D., Timms, L., Britt, J.S., Farnsworth, R., Cook, N. y Hemling, T. (2001). Evaluation of Bovine Teat Condition in Commercial Dairy Herds: 1. Non-Infectious Factors. AABP-NMC International Symposium on Mastitis and Milk Quality.

2. Munoz, M.A., Bennett, G.J., Ahlstrom, C., Griffiths, H.M., Schukken, Y.H. y Zadoks, R.N. (2008). Cleanliness Scores as Indicator of Klebsiella Exposure in Dairy Cows. J Dairy Sci. 91:3908-3916.

3. Reinemann, D.J., Rasmussen, M.D., LeMire, S., Neijenhuis, F., Mein, G.A., Hillerton, J.F., Morgan, W.F., Timms, L., Cook, N., Farnsworth, R., Baines, J.R. y Hemling, T. (2001). Evaluation of Bovine Teat Condition in Commercial Dairy Herds: 3. Getting the Numbers Right. AABP-NMC International Symposium on Mastitis and Milk Quality.

4. Ruegg, P. Copyright 2002. Udder Hygiene Scoring Chart: Available at: http://milkquality.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/udder-hygiene-scoringchart.pdf

5. Westfalia Surge. Copyright 2005. Teat Cleanliness Scoring Sheet. Available at: www.westfalia.com/Images/Scorecard%20Handout_tcm93-19407.pdf