JDS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 78 No. 8 1873-1880
© 1995 by American Dairy Science Association ®
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mottram, T. T.
Right arrow Articles by Winter, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Mottram, T. T.
Right arrow Articles by Winter, A.

The Role of the Cow in Automatic Teat Cup Attachment

T. T. Mottram 1, R. C. Hall 1, D. S. Spencer 1, C. J. Allen 2, and A. Winter 3

1 Silsoe Research Institute, Animal Science and Engineering Division, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedford, MK45 4HS, United Kingdom
2 Silsoe Research Institute, Animal Science and Engineerlng Division, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedford, MK45 4HS, United Kingdom
3 Institute for Animal Health, Compton, Berkshire, RG16 0NN, United Kingdom

A system for automatically locating the teats of a cow and attaching teat cups was developed and used to milk nine cows for 10 consecutive d. For the first 5 d, the cows were milked three times a day at fixed intervals of 12, 6, and 6 h. For the subsequent 5 d, cows were intercepted for milking on their way from a bedded area to a forage feeding area; the mean numbers of attendances per cow were 3.2/d (range 2 to 4). Of 279 cow visits for milking, 72% were successful. Of the 77 occasions on which all four teat cups were not attached, 13 were attributable to the response of the cow (for example, kicking the robot); 46 were due to a difference between the estimated teat position and the actual teat position; and 14 were due to operational failures of the equipment. Eighty-five percent of attempts to attach individual teat cups were successful. Of the 162 failed attempts to attach teat cups, 15% were due to cow response, 54% to positional error, and 21% to engineering malfunctions. In treatment 2, cows that stayed in the stall for more than 5 min after milking were prompted to leave, which occurred during 13 (9%) visits. Cow behavior did not appear to be a major obstacle to the unsupervised use of automatic milking.

Key Words: milking • automation • animal behavior • cows

Submitted on June 27, 1994
Accepted on March 8, 1995




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J DAIRY SCIHome page
K. P. Waller, T. Westermark, T. Ekman, and K. Svennersten-Sjaunja
Milk Leakage--An Increased Risk in Automatic Milking Systems
J Dairy Sci, November 1, 2003; 86(11): 3488 - 3497.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Composite MaterialsHome page
Z.-H. Jin and Y.-W. Mai
Residual Strength of an ARALL Laminate Containing a Crack
Journal of Composite Materials, April 1, 1997; 31(8): 746 - 761.
[Abstract]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the American Dairy Science Association ®.