robotic and information technologies in uk dairy farming milking project brochure.pdfattend the...

Robotic and Information Technologiesin UK Dairy Farming

November 2012Department of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences

Robotic milking technologies arebecoming increasingly important in UKdairy farming, as well as elsewhere inEurope and in North America. Roboticmilking machines milk cowsautomatically at any time, without theneed for a human worker to be present.Cows choose when to be milked, enterthe robot, are milked and then return tothe herd.

The robot records detailed data during thisprocess, which can be accessed viacomputer. It is claimed by manufacturersthat the system can potentially raise milkyields, and also produces benefits in termsof animal health and welfare and for theworking conditions of the farmer. Scientistsand companies working on thedevelopment of automatic milking systems(AMS) have had to engage with a range ofissues surrounding the deployment of thetechnology; these concern, for instance, the

maintenance of hygiene, the way the robotcan 'learn about' and adapt to cows (andudders) of different shapes and sizes, themanagement of herds so that all cowsattend the robot a sufficient number oftimes per day, and the implications ofrobotic milking for the health status ofcows.

As well as being associated with a set oftechnical issues, however, the developmentof robotic technologies in agriculture raisesmany questions of interest to socialscientists. This project, which was fundedby the Economic and Social ResearchCouncil and involved collaborationbetween researchers at the University ofHull and Cardiff University, investigatedhow the introduction of AMS may changethe ways dairy farmers manage their farmsand businesses, and might affect thefarmer-cow relationship.

Robotic and Information Technologiesin UK Dairy Farming: Project Overview

Robotic and Information Technologies in UK Dairy Farming1

Robotic and Information Technologies in UK Dairy Farmingwww.hull.ac.uk 2

The research focused on three central themes, eachraising a series of specific questions:

1. How technologies change farm practices• How does the use of AMS change farming

routines and activities? How does it change theway people and cows are expected to behave?How do AMS change the relationships betweenfarmers and their cows?

2. How farmers learn and make decisions• How do farmers decide whether to adopt robotic

milking technologies on their farms? How dofarmers learn to use the information generatedby robotic milking systems?

3. Health, welfare and agricultural ethics• What ethical questions are raised by the use of

robotic milking technologies? What positive andnegative effects on animal welfare areassociated with robotic milking, and what arethe implications of these for the public image ofdairy farming?

The research involved detailed interviews with dairyfarmers and dairy farm workers, staff on the researchfarms of agricultural colleges, agricultural scientists andresearchers involved in developing robotic milkingtechnologies, the companies marketing robotic milkingequipment and representatives of a wide range oforganisations including veterinary practices, thoseconcerned with animal welfare, and specialist dairy feedand management companies. It involved periods ofresearch on three case study farms, during which theroutines and behaviours of both cows and humans wereobserved. The case studies included the college farm atAskham Bryan College, a farm with a well establishedrobotic dairy, and a farm in the process of convertingfrom conventional to robotic milking.


Manufacturers outlined five key benefits of AMS forfarmers and cows:

1. Economic benefitsLabour costs are reduced as labour demands areminimised whilst yields should increase.

2. Management benefitsManagement of the herd can be made moreefficient, although this is dependent on farmersmaking use of the additional data provided by AMSand changing their approach to managementaccordingly. Manufacturers were clear that adoptingrobots meant adopting a whole new farming system,a whole new farming routine, and a whole newattitude to dairy farming, as shown by theircomments during interviews for this research:

“For a farmer who’s never managed his cows properly therobot computer will force him to do so. It tells him aboutblood in the milk, conductivity, yield per quarter. If a cow’spossibly lame it can indicate that, it tells him how manytimes a cow has been fed every day. There’s heaps ofinformation that they’ve never ever had before and if theydon’t take account of that things can quickly go wrong.Farmers sometimes put robots in thinking that it’s allautomatic, it’s like, you know, the cows will feed themselvesautomatically, and milk themselves automatically. But itdoesn’t work like that. And those are the things that we’vegot to make sure the farmer understands”.

“I think with robotics you’re looking at managing byexception. The data you can pull off the cows i.e. yield,activity, and start collating that information it allows you tomanage and fine tune the animals you know accordinglywhich then brings the efficiencies into play of the feed. Andit’s keeping that balance and that efficiency so, I think, itgives you the tools to manage by exception; it gives you allthe information to actually manage the animalsaccordingly. I would say that’s one of the sorts of corestrengths of the system.”

3. Cow health and welfare benefitsFor example, benefits resulting from quarter-by-quarter milking, which can help to reduce udderinfections.

4. Cow ‘quality of life’ benefitsCows milked by AMS are said to be quieter and lessstressed; their quality of life is claimed to improve asa result of increased choice about when to bemilked.

5. Farmer ‘quality of life’ benefitsAMS are promoted as freeing farmers from rigidtwice-a-day milking routines, allowing them tospend more time with their families or pursue farmbusiness diversification. One manufacturer said:

“We want to recognise, we do say this to people, if you’relooking to save six hours a day you won’t. What roboticmilking brings is it will free up a lot of time that you canthen invest into herd management, looking after theenvironment, other jobs on the farm, fine. It will save yousome time but not six hours a day. It might be one hour aday, it depends on the particular circumstances. What itdoes do is it gives the farmer the opportunity to actually goaround the shed, look at what’s going on, look at thefeeding, look at the other things, and that’s where a lot ofthe mastitis, the health improvements, even the milk fromthe feeding, it’s having that management capability tostand back and look at the business and not spend sixhours a day milking cows.”

AMS in a European contextManufacturers compared AMS use in the UK to mainlandEurope where they have been used commercially since1992. The reasons given for their increased use are variedbut as one manufacturer commented this may in part bedue to a different ‘mentality’ that is inherent in UKdairying:

“I would say we’re lagging behind Holland continuously. Soif we went back to Holland like this year for instance, of allthe systems sold, i.e. a new milking system, there will beover 50% of them are actually robotics. And I thinkGermany you’re maybe looking at 30-35% of all systemssold will be robotic. So what we’re seeing is a lot of theEuropean countries are embracing the technology, but Ithink also the herd sizes suit those countries as well. In theUK we’re looking about a hundred and five cows being theaverage herd size. Well that is too much for one robot,maybe not enough for two, it’s that middle of the ground,whereas a lot of the Dutch market you’re maybe fifty cows.I’m not sure specifically but that will influence the marketreception to the machine. But I think also the culture, thementality, and I think one of the European sort ofmentalities really is more of a family environment, i.e. youknow the husband may go out to work and they may have afew cows, and it’s more the home life, the family life, thefarming life. So I think there’s a cultural reason why.”

Robotics on Dairy Farms:Manufacturer perspectives


1. Learning about and adopting robotsKey reasons given for adopting robots were:

Lifestyle Farmers would no longer be tied to a traditionaldairy farming lifestyle. Some adopted AMS with theintention of prolonging their working life or enablingthem to have an ‘easier’ working day as they grew older.

Flexibility Farmers were drawn to AMS by the potentialof not being bound by the clock and having more time tohave a social life. A key attraction was the possibility ofcarrying out other work on the farm without the absoluteneed to get back to milk.

Labour (cost and availability) Whilst the initial outlayon AMS is expensive, many farmers set this against thecost of the labour which it replaces. Others highlightedthe difficulty in attracting experienced and reliable labourand viewed AMS as a potential solution to this.

Interest to younger generations Some farmers investedin robotic technology as a way of maintaining their dairyherd for their children, who did not want to follow thesame working routine as their parents.

Second-hand market Tenant farmers especially foundthat investing in a robot made more sense economicallythan updating their original parlour. Should they movethey could take the equipment with them or it could besold on if no longer required.

Increased productivity Farmers spoke of AMS’spotential to increase milk yields through more frequentmilkings; this could produce greater returns from high-yielding cows in particular.

2. Robots, farm routines and information useFarming routines Following the adoption of AMS, manyfarmers found that their daily routines changed. Mostresearch participants experienced increased flexibility intheir daily routines and spent more time on herdmanagement. As these farmers commented:

“It’s given me flexibility to do the jobs and the things that Iwant to do when I want to do them. When you’re milking ina parlour, you can’t do that.”

“I walk around them more than I used to do, I’ve got moretime. I spend more time managing the cows than I used todo because I don’t have to prat around milking.”

In spite of this, farmers also highlighted new constraintson their time and freedom, especially resulting from theability of AMS to send alerts and alarms to their mobilephones at any time. Other farmers contrasted theeveryday flexibility provided by AMS with new-founddifficulties in going on holiday or staying away from thefarm for longer periods unless another person wastrained to use the AMS computer.

Information use Beyond the automation of milkingitself, AMS also impacts on farming routines through thedata it provides about milk yields and cow health.Manufacturers encourage farmers to check this dataregularly and use this to direct them to particular cows,which might be displaying irregular patterns of behaviouror have conductivity readings (a measure used to indicatethe presence of infection) that are suggestive of mastitis.Some farmers follow this approach:

“I look at the computer at what cows need milking: freshcalvers, or lame cows, or sick cows, lazy cows, whateverthat need milking. I write a list out and I get them in thepens and put them through the robot.”

Others, though, preferred to be guided by their visual andtactile engagement with cows, before using the AMS datato clarify issues they had identified.

While all of the AMS farmers in the study found data fromthe robots useful – especially in relation to milk yield,milking frequency and conductivity – most also spoke oftheir inability to make use of the majority of dataproduced. For instance:

“We could spend hours sat there, but we’ve too much on,we’re too busy to trawl through pages and pages ofdifferent types of information. You just head for the firsttwo or three pages that are pertinent to you – i.e. who’slate, who’s got a higher conductivity – those are the cowsyou’re checking out.”

There may be a need for systems to enable farmers tobetter use the information generated by AMS. In part thismay come from more training being available for farmersbefore, during and after starting robotic milking, in partfrom higher continuing levels of support frommanufacturers, in part from systems allowing datasharing and comparisons between farms, and in partfrom specialist consultants able to analyse and interpretdata for farmers.

Understanding and Using Robots:Farmer Perspectives


The role of the stock person While AMS farmers wereenthusiastic about the benefits of robotic milking, theywere keen to emphasise that AMS could only advancecow health and welfare if the farmer remained cow-focused. The introduction of AMS did not reduce the needfor good stockmanship:

“Robots will never take over from a good cowman but theyprovide you with a lot of information that you can makeyour decisions on without necessarily having to be thegreatest cowman in the world.”

Cow ‘freedom’ Beyond this, AMS farmers generallycommented on reduced levels of mastitis (although theselevels sometimes rose in the early stages of their AMSuse), the calmness of cows and changes in the herdstructure. In discussing these issues, they often focusedon the ‘freedom’ cows have in AMS to choose when to bemilked:

“It’s maybe just they’re happier because they do seemgenuinely happy, they’re free range cows as opposed tothey’ve been managed and driven around.”

Farmers referred to AMS cows as ‘happy’, ‘chilled out’and ‘relaxed’. In a related issue, most farmers alsodiscussed the impact of AMS on herd hierarchies, with‘bully cows’ becoming less dominant.

Farmer-cow relationships The research highlightedhow AMS changed ways of identifying cow health andwelfare issues. In particular, the time farmers spent withtheir cows changed, as did their contact with the animals:

“The advantage of the parlour system is the cows arepresented to you twice or three times a day, and if you’vegot a lame cow you can shed her off and see to her in theherringbone. In the robots all you notice is ‘oh she’s late tomilk’ and you go and get her up out of the cubicle, and it’sthe last job at night. ‘I’ll see to her in the morning’, and inthe morning you’re off calving a cow, or you’re doingsomething else and she’s left for two or three days whenyou maybe should have dealt with it. By that time she haslost condition and you could have dealt with it.”

AMS, therefore, is not a panacea. Good stockmanship isstill crucial, but a new approach to cow health andwelfare is necessitated, involving new forms ofinteraction between farmer and cow, mediated by thedata provided by AMS.

AMS Impacts on Cow Health and Welfare:Farmer Perspectives


Case study farmsThe following section provides a brief overview of thethree case study farms that formed part of the study,giving a description and some of the reasons whyAMS was used, or were about to be installed.

Our first case study farm, located in the East Riding ofYorkshire, combines around 600 acres of arable land witharound 100 dairy cows. A family farm for threegenerations, the current owner has been there since 1998.The dairy unit was converted to a robotic milking systemin November 2006.

Why convert to AMS? The main reasons for convertingthis farm to a robotic system were to address difficulties inattracting and retaining reliable labour, while alsoreducing overall labour costs. Cows are housed indoorsthroughout the year and do not go out to graze. Housed ina ‘cubicle’ barn, they are free to move around the shedand also have access to a cow-operated brush.

Our second case study farm is at Askham BryanCollege, located to the south of York. Askham Bryan has arobotically-milked dairy herd of approximately 40 cows,situated alongside a herd of about 160 cows milked usinga conventional milking parlour. The robotically-milkedherd is kept inside all year, while some of theconventionally-milked herd goes out to graze for part ofthe year.

Why use two systems? The college farm, Westfield Farm isrun as a commercial enterprise as well as providingopportunities for students to take part in practical learning.This was one of the reasons the College invested in an AMSso providing the opportunity for students to see twoalternative milking systems working thus complementingthe classroom elements of their studies.

Our third case study is a farm in North Yorkshire thatconverted to robotic milking during the project.Previously the farm used an ‘abreast’ parlour to milk 170cows twice a day, which was very labour intensive. Theypurchased four robotic milking machines, builtextensions to their existing buildings and changed thelayout of the cow shed to accommodate the newmachines. Herd management shifted from grazing toyear-round housing.

Why convert to AMS? The family, who have been there forthirty years, hope that investing in robots will provide aviable future as the older generation begin to think aboutretirement and as a way of encouraging the youngergenerations to stay in dairy farming. AMS will also givemore free time to spend on other parts of the farm, whenthey are freed from the daily milking routine.

More detail on the case study farms is available at:

http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/geography-1/research/livestockrobotics/casestudies.aspx


Veterinary and dietary specialists were interviewedas part of the research. Four key areas were identifiedwhere AMS contrasted with conventional milkingparlours.

Use of AMS as a feeding station Previous research hasdemonstrated that given a choice cows will select milkingrandomly and that udder fill, or the time since their lastmilking, has no effect on the choice to attend the AMS.Thus the most reliable motivating factor for a cow is feedrather than being milked and if given a choice cows willrarely visit a milking system. It is important therefore toget the nutritional balance right and use the robot as away of feeding cows correctly:

“[An AMS is] a feeding station that happens to milk thecows. They don’t go there really to get milked, they go therebecause they know there’s some nice tasty concentrates.And it is a mistake to feed Total Mixed Ration at the barrier,if you over feed the cows here they’re not hungry tonecessarily go to the milking station. Whether it’s feed firstor free cow traffic they’ll just stand around and will notmove around the system if you fill her up with nice tastyTMR. They just sit there or stand there and don’t moveanywhere. So the feeding is really an extremely key elementto a robotic system. But she will always have food available,if she’s got milking permission as we call it she will havefood available. That’s the way the system is calculated.”

AMS and improving welfare It was felt that cows werequieter and less stressed when milked through an AMS.They experienced greater freedom and were happier:

“I personally think AMS are a very positive thing. Havingspent my entire life working with cows I would say cowsseem far more, I hate to use the word but happy andcontent, far more content being milked robotically than

they would be being crowded together in a collecting yardand then pushed into a parlour and so on and so forth. So Ithink that is a very positive thing and clearly there are alsothe benefits of choice in that an animal chooses when to bemilked as opposed to being forced in twice a day.”

AMS and a consistent milking process Cows were notsubjected to the changing vagaries of the farmer’s moodand behaviour at milking times. Instead, they candevelop their own milking routine and experience amilking process which is always predictable andconsistent:

“The robot never comes in in the morning tired andgrumpy, or hung-over! Which you know, undoubtedlyhappens in the conventional system. So you get thatrepeatability. And that’s what cows want, they’re creaturesof habit and they want everything to be the same and ofcourse that’s absolutely what you get from a robot.”

AMS and grazing Getting cows to come in and be milkedwhen turned out was something that farmers found wasone of the drawbacks with AMS coupled with the fact thatAMS lends itself to zero grazing. This was seen as an areawhere research and development was needed so thatAMS could be combined with grazing regimes. Thepositive public image of dairy farming is related to thesight of cows in fields so it is important to be able tomaintain that system:

“The biggest downside is the current requirement of 365day housing in the robotic system. The majority of roboticsystems are 365 day housed and whilst pasture basedrobotic systems are being developed and are in theirinfancy the system largely required 365 day housing which Ithink is the significant downside to them as far as theanimal is concerned.”

AMS on Dairy Farms:Specialist Perspectives


• Individual farms and farmers use robots in unique waysrelating to their personalities and specificcharacteristics of their farms. This means technologyadoption and use is complex because the technologyhas to fit into all sorts of existing circumstances andrelationships. Robots are not simply adopted. Decisionsto adopt robots can be complicated; farmers have totake a wide range of factors into account, includingfarm layout, individual and family preferences,economic circumstances and cow health and welfare.Also, getting a robot doesn’t just mean having a newmachine – the robot implies adopting other things aswell, both systemically on the farm, and in terms ofhaving to adopt a new philosophy of dairy farming.

• Automatic milking systems don’t just fit in to existingcircumstances and relationships. They change thecircumstances and relationships. The robot affects whatthe farmer is expected to know and do on his/her farm;it affects farm layout, system and routine and it affectsthe farmer’s behaviour and his/her relationships withtheir dairy cows. However, AMS do not replacetraditional skills of stockmanship. AMS change farmer-cow relationships significantly, creating newpossibilities for how cows are seen and known by thefarmer. But it is stressed that it is up to the farmer tomake the most of the opportunities created by therobot. For many AMS users, robotic milking demandseven higher levels of stockmanship, commitment anddiscipline than conventional milking:

“I think you must be really sharp up on dealing with cows.It is a personal thing, you really must be extremely hard onyourself and disciplined. The robot is not an easy option”

• Farmers using AMS consistently experiment and tinkerwith the robots and with the farm system they are partof. This is a process of trying to get the technology towork as well as possible in unique circumstances. Itinvolves both trying to get the robot to fit the farm andthe farm to fit the robot. It involves trying to make senseof the robot and what it can/cannot do, and trying toovercome some of the limits of the technology.

• Farmers using AMS have to learn to make use of thedata produced by the robot, and to build their workroutines around data analysis and rapid responses towhat the data tells them. However, many feeloverwhelmed and admit to using only a fraction of thedata available. Alternative ways of ensuring better useof the data could usefully be explored bymanufacturers.

For further information please contact:Dr. Lewis HollowayDepartment of Geography, Environment and EarthSciencesUniversity of HullCottingham RoadHull, HU6 7RX, UK

+44 (0)1482 466759

[email protected]

http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/gees.aspx

http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/geography-1/staff/holloway.aspx

The researchers would like to thank the Economic andSocial Research Council for funding the research projectRobotic and Information Technologies in LivestockAgriculture: New Relationships Between Humans, Cowsand Machines (RES-062-23-2086). They would also like tothank everyone who was interviewed as part of theresearch, and they are particularly grateful to those whomade their farms available as Case Studies.

Robotic and Information Technologies in UKDairy FarmingFor further information go to the project website address:

http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/geography/research/livestock_robotics.aspx

Research TeamDr. Lewis Holloway, Dr. Katy Wilkinson and Dr. DeborahButler, Department of Geography, Environment and EarthSciences, University of Hull

Dr. Christopher Bear, School of Planning and Geography,Cardiff University

Key Points:

robotic and information technologies in uk dairy farming milking project brochure.pdfattend the...

Documents