1Department of Production Animal Health,University of Calgary,3330 Hospital Drive,Calgary,Alberta,Canada T2N 4N1.
2Department of Animal Biosciences,University of Guelph,50 Stone Road East,Guelph,Ontario,Canada N1G 2W1.
Animal. 2018 Dec;12(12):2649-2656. doi: 10.1017/S1751731118000654. Epub 2018 Apr 4.
Automatic milking systems (AMS), or milking robots, are becoming widely accepted as a milking technology that reduces labour and increases milk yield. However, reported amount of labour saved, changes in milk yield, and milk quality when transitioning to AMS vary widely. The purpose of this study was to document the impact of adopting AMS on farms with regards to reported changes in milking labour management, milk production, milk quality, and participation in dairy herd improvement (DHI) programmes. A survey was conducted across Canada over the phone, online, and in-person. In total, 530 AMS farms were contacted between May 2014 and the end of June 2015. A total of 217 AMS producers participated in the General Survey (Part 1), resulting in a 41% response rate, and 69 of the respondents completed the more detailed follow-up questions (Part 2). On average, after adopting AMS, the number of employees (full- and part-time non-family labour combined) decreased from 2.5 to 2.0, whereas time devoted to milking-related activities decreased by 62% (from 5.2 to 2.0 h/day). Median milking frequency was 3.0 milkings/day and robots were occupied on average 77% of the day. Producers went to fetch cows a median of 2 times/day, with a median of 3 fetch cows or 4% of the herd per robot/day. Farms had a median of 2.5 failed or incomplete milkings/robot per day. Producers reported an increase in milk yield, but little effect on milk quality. Mean milk yield on AMS farms was 32.6 kg/cow day. Median bulk tank somatic cell count was 180 000 cells/ml. Median milk fat on AMS farms was 4.0% and median milk protein was 3.3%. At the time of the survey, 67% of producers were current participants of a DHI programme. Half of the producers who were not DHI participants had stopped participation after adopting AMS. Overall, this study characterized impacts of adopting AMS and may be a useful guide for making this transition.
自动挤奶系统（AMS），或挤奶机器人，正逐渐被广泛接受为一种可减少劳动力并提高产奶量的挤奶技术。然而，报告的节省劳动力数量、产奶量的变化以及过渡到 AMS 时的牛奶质量变化差异很大。本研究的目的是记录采用 AMS 对农场的影响，包括报告的挤奶劳动力管理、牛奶生产、牛奶质量和参与奶牛群改良（DHI）计划的变化。这项研究在加拿大进行了电话、在线和现场调查。2014 年 5 月至 2015 年 6 月底期间共联系了 530 个 AMS 农场。共有 217 个 AMS 生产者参与了总调查（第 1 部分），回应率为 41%，其中 69 名受访者完成了更详细的后续问题（第 2 部分）。平均而言，采用 AMS 后，员工人数（全职和兼职非家庭劳动力总和）从 2.5 人减少到 2.0 人，而与挤奶相关的活动时间减少了 62%（从 5.2 小时/天减少到 2.0 小时/天）。中位数挤奶频率为 3.0 次/天，机器人平均每天占用 77%的时间。生产者每天平均去取奶牛 2 次，每次取奶牛的次数为 3 次，每天每台机器人取奶牛的次数为 4%，每天每台机器人的取奶牛次数为 4 次。农场每天平均有 2.5 次挤奶失败或不完全挤奶/机器人。生产者报告产奶量增加，但对牛奶质量影响不大。AMS 农场的平均牛奶产量为 32.6 公斤/奶牛天。大容量奶罐体细胞计数中位数为 180 000 个细胞/ml。AMS 农场的牛奶脂肪中位数为 4.0%，牛奶蛋白质中位数为 3.3%。在调查时，67%的生产者是 DHI 计划的当前参与者。一半没有参与 DHI 计划的生产者在采用 AMS 后停止了参与。总体而言，本研究描述了采用 AMS 的影响，可能有助于指导这一转变。
