Dairy Science Group, School of Life and Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia.
Dairy Science Group, School of Life and Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia.
J Dairy Sci. 2020 Feb;103(2):1608-1619. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-16658. Epub 2019 Nov 20.
There are several differences in how an automatic milking system (AMS; milking equipment not requiring human intervention for the milk harvesting process) and a conventional milking system (CMS) are managed, where the effect of milking system type on the human-animal relationship has remained unexplored. A survey and observations from 5 Australian dairy farms transitioning from CMS to AMS were taken twice, 1 yr apart, before and after transition to an AMS. The farmers completed a survey and had all farmer-cow interactions documented for 3 d. In addition, a random selection of lactating cows had their avoidance distance (the distance at which they move away from an approaching person) recorded and were involved in a handling test during both visits. The survey findings indicated that basic management practices remained mostly unchanged, whereas records of farmer-cow interactions showed 4 out of 5 farms had less interaction time after AMS transition. This was caused by a reduction in milk harvesting tasks, where a small portion of this time was re-invested into time that farmers spent around the cows without directly interacting with them and into tasks involving close cow contact. Overall, an approximate 27% decline was observed in avoidance distances of cows from an AMS compared with the CMS. A handling test was performed on 4 of the 5 farms before and after AMS transition, where the farmers were asked to move a selection of cows through a gate one at a time. In the AMS more vocal effort was required to move the cows, and the cows responded with a reduced occurrence of running past the farmer and reduced occurrence of slipping in an attempt to avoid the farmers compared with the CMS. Overall, results show that farmers spent less time interacting with cows in the AMS, and that cows were less fearful around people as seen by reduced avoidance distances and reduced stress responses to close handling.
自动挤奶系统（AMS；挤奶设备在挤奶过程中不需要人为干预）和常规挤奶系统（CMS）在管理上存在一些差异，而挤奶系统类型对人与动物关系的影响尚未得到探索。对澳大利亚 5 家从 CMS 过渡到 AMS 的奶牛场进行了调查和观察，在过渡到 AMS 前后各进行了一次，时间相隔 1 年。农民完成了一项调查，并记录了所有农民与奶牛的互动情况，为期 3 天。此外，随机选择了一些泌乳奶牛，记录了它们的回避距离（它们从接近的人身边离开的距离），并在两次访问中都参与了处理测试。调查结果表明，基本管理实践基本保持不变，而农民与奶牛互动的记录显示，在 AMS 过渡后，有 4 家农场的互动时间减少。这是由于挤奶任务减少造成的，其中一小部分时间重新投入到农民在不与奶牛直接互动的情况下在奶牛周围花费的时间，以及涉及与奶牛密切接触的任务。总体而言，与 CMS 相比，奶牛对 AMS 的回避距离下降了约 27%。在 AMS 过渡前后，对其中的 4 家农场进行了处理测试，要求农民一次将一批奶牛通过一扇门。在 AMS 中，需要更多的声音努力来移动奶牛，并且与 CMS 相比，奶牛在经过农民时跑动的次数减少，试图躲避农民时滑倒的次数也减少。总体而言，结果表明，农民在 AMS 中与奶牛的互动时间减少，而奶牛对人的恐惧程度降低，表现在回避距离缩短，对近距离处理的应激反应减少。
