Friedrich Johann Henningson. Thais it» flat Dogma a? M. 5. AN ANALYSIS OF THE MELKMG 'flME AND RELATED CHORES N THE HERRINGBONE

Transcription

1 v AN ANALYSIS OF THE MELKMG 'flME AND HAWK SYSTEM o v RELATED CHORES N THE HERRINGBONE Thais it» flat Dogma a? M. 5. MICHFGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Friedrich Johann Henningson 195.9

2

3 AN ANALYSIS OF THE MILKING TIME AND RELATED CHORES IN THE HERRINGBONE MILKING SYSTEM BY Friedrich Johann Kenningsen AN ABSTRACT Submitted ta the College of Agriculture of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements ror the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Dairy 1939 Approved: W. 24/; WXAL [Ir/H445?

4 ABSTRACT FRIEDRICH JCHANN HENNINGSE] Milking tlme was determined for the single six herringbone and the double six herringbone with one and two operators to compare the adaptability and efficiency of each. The milking time per cow in the two types of parlors did not vary appreciably. The single six herringbone required more total chore time. The idle machine time averaged 50 minutes 4d seconds in the single six herring bone as compared to three minutes 33 seconds in the double six herringbone. A double six herringbone appeared to be more work than one operator could handle with a moderate working pace. For the six farms Studied the time in the milking parlor was sufficient for all cows to eat their concentrates. Clean, safe and fast milking can be carried out in the herringbone milking parlor. The data indicated that one observation per farm would have been just as reliable as the four observations for the milking time, preparation of cow for milking, cleanup of equipment and all other factors studied.

5 AN ANALYSIS OF THE MILKING TIME AND RELATED CHORES IN THE I ierringbone I- lilking SYSTEM By Friedrich Johann Kenningsen A Ti-IE U] I l U) Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of D'lASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Dairy 1959

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION REVIEW OF LITERATURE The Milking Machine Milking Systems for Loose Housing Barns Let Down l6 Managed Milking Concentrate Eating Time OBJECTIVES O DEFINITIONS SECTION A EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Part I. The Time Required to Complete the Milking Operation Part II. A Comparison of the Single Six Herringbone, the Double Six Herringbone with One and Two Operators Part III. Management and/or Construction Features which Affect the Chore Time.... S7 SUWRY AND CONCLUS ION O O O O O C O O O O O O C O O 63 LITERATURE CITED 0 O O O O C O O O C O O O O O C O O 65

7 C) C; 1 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE The time required to complete the various phases of the milking operation in a single Six herringbone. o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 (ix) II The time required to complete the various phases of the milking operation in a double Si.)< IIGrang bone. o o a o o o o o o o o o o 42 III The time required to prepare, clean the parlor and equipment and to drive the cows into the holding area IV The time required to complete the various phases of the milking operation in a double six herringbone with one Operator..... J}- The time required to prepare, clean the parlor and equipment and to drive the cows into the holding area ol VI The time required to milk in six different herringbone parlors VII The average idle machine time for six her ringbone milking parlors I Li) VIII A comparison of the average mi king time per cow, length of time each batch is in the par lor, time to wash udders, the preparation and cleanup time for the single six herringbone, the double six herringbone with one and two Operatsrs O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O I LC. IX The affect of dry cows entering the parlor with a batch of cows to be milked upon the idle n!ac11:ine tinle O O O C O I O O O O O C..IU

8 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) TABLE PAGE X Available time for cows to eat concentrates. 59 XI A relationship of the space per cow in the holding pen to the parlor entrance time.. bl LIST OF FIGURE FIGURE PAGE I An example of crisscrossing in a herring bone milking system to get the unit on a slow milking cow as soon as possible.... So

9 nntrmjx nnfir f- ~" j"-. " _. r'1(_ tapiquhsi J)uin.urLiu I am grateful to Dr. N. P. Ralston for his interest and encouragement. I would also like to thank Dr. J. T. Stone for ass sting in my graduate pro Special th.. m *3 U1 LQ O o (n rt- 0 *6 fl 1 ) graciously gave of uate program and the writing of tnis thesis. I am indebted to my wife Dar 5 for her encouragement and assistance, terest to help. and to my parents for their sincere inl' The dairymen of MLCiigan who allowed me to visit their farms and time their milking operation are to be commended. ijithout their hela, I A this study would not have been possible.

10 INTRODUCTION The introduction by dairymen of loose housing and the separate milking room was a step toward increasing the number of cows milked per unit of time. Under this system the cows come to the man rather than the man going to the cows. A large amount of walking, steeping and squatting is eliminated. The cows are milked in a compact area minimizing the walking distance. The operator stands while milking, working in a position most comfortable to him. Originally the milking parlor was a room set aside for milking. Eventually these milking rooms were designed to save time and labor. The latest development in the design of milking parlors is handling cows in batches rather than individually. The Herringbone utilizes this principle and reduces the distance between cows by having the cows stand at an angle. According to Hoglund_g.al. (1959) the first Herringbone to be used in the United States was constructed in The Herringbone was developed in New Zealand with

11 the cow-a minute milking rate as a major claim. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the practicdnlty of the Herringbone under our system of dairying. In New Zealand cows are not fed concentrates during the milking and there are also other differences in management. In this study the number of milking machines per man along with other factors desirable for good milking practices were investigated.

12 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Many factors influence the efficiency of the milking operation. A dairyman should consider all factors. In this review the various factors affecting the milking operation will be discussed under the following topics: milking machines, let down, managed milking and concentrate eating time. The Milkinngachine Dodd ggngl. (1957) stated that nothing was known of the physiology of milk secretion and milk ejection when milking machines were first developed. The essential knowledge of the animal was that the teat orfice acted as the valve which retained the milk within the udder. Thus, to milk mechanically, a machine was needed which would open the teat orfice without causing pain or inflicting damage to the teat and/or udder. In an excellent review of milking machine development, Hupp (1958) stated that the perfection of a machine that would rapidly and efficiently remove the milk from the cow's udder has long been the aim of inventors and investigators.

13 Although the milking machines in operation today are all of the intermittent suction type, the methods of achieving the desired amount of intermittent suction and transport ing the milk from the teat cups to the storage receptacle are as varied as American inventive ingenuity can make them. In spite of these developments research in machine modifications is still being conducted. Milking Systems for Loose Housing Barns In many ways the milking room is the most important part of a "pen barn according to Jefferson EEHEL- (1945), because the quality of milk depends so much upon how it is handled. The milking room should be arranged to facilitate production of clean milk with a minimum of labor. A great labor saving aspect is presented in that the cow carries the milk to the man. There are several reasons behind this trend toward a change in our method of handling milk cows. Wilkins (1949) and Laycock (1950) agreed that the advantages of milking parlors are as follows: (1) elimination of steep and squat while milking; (2) the operator can milk for a longer period of time without fatigue;

14 5 (3) facilitates faster milking and better observance of the cow during the milking; (4) odors are eliminated and the parlor more easily cleaned; (5) flexibility to size of herd; (6) the cow comes to the operator; and (7) the farmer can build milking parlors in a smaller area than he can a stall barn. According to Wilkins (1949) the disadvantages of the milking parlor are as follows: (1) auxilary heat may be desired in cold climates; (2) less individual cow attention; (3) sewage disposal may be a problem. Braun (1957) further stated that if too much spacing is allowed per cow they move around. Cow training is important so they must acquire a desirable association with the parlor. The combination milk house and milking room, frequently called the milking parlor", usually includes a milking room, milk and utensils handling room vestibule or hall connecting these rooms, a feed storage room for concentrate feed and sometimes a toilet or shower room. Wolley g; 31. (1951) stated that this system is greatly influenced by the fact that highly efficient milking and milk handling facilities, meeting the most stringent sanitation requirements, can be provided at a reasonable cost.

15 Laycock (1950) and Bendixen _al, (1950) stated that careful planning of the location and construction can help 6 insure easy work and clean milk. platform higher than the operator. The cows stand on a This makes his work much easier. Wolley l, (1951) recommended that they be 30 inches or higher than the bottom of the pit. Morris.e l. (1955) studiedl the time and effort it takes to milk a cow at various elevations above the work area. They found that different elevations did not greatly affect the time, but did the effort. The different levels experimented with were 0", 16", 28", 32", and 36". The effort required to milk at 32 and 36 inches elevation was significantly less than for all others. The effort with the 36 inches elevation was also significantly less than the elevation of 32 inches. Therefore, they say that the optimum height might well be 36 inches or even more, depending upon the elbow height of the Operator. Stalls which allow the cow to stand away from the operator (as in a lane-type parlor) should not be as high as those which keep the cow close to the work area (side opening stalls). Braun (1954) recommended that the bottom of the pit be

16 wider than the top to provide toe room for the operator. According to Witzel (1950) the elevated stall parlor makes the practice of good milking techniques possible. Machine stripping and the manipulation of each quarter of the cow's udder just before taking the machine off will result in quick, clean milking. He further stated that the more times each stall can be used each milking, less overhead each cow will be required to carry. the Therefore, each operator must determine the parlor size and herd size for the most efficient overall operation. The task of milking is of major importance. It requires a large amount of skilled labor at very definite periods twice each day. Since milking is one of the most time consuming jobs, there is always a desire to save time. Baker t l, (1952) studied the milking process on 15 farms and reported that milking took 40-50% of the total time of caring for the cows. Another one sixth of the time was spent in the care and cleaning of milking equipment. They found that skilled help was not easy to hire so the operator and his family had to do the milking. In herds of 20 cows the operators Spent an average of two hours and 20 minutes per day milking. This was an average

17 8 of about four and one-fifth minutes per cow per milking or three and one half minutes per cow in the herd (dry cows included). Sturrock g;_ 1. (1958) also found that milking takes approximately 40% of the cowman's time and that it proved to be a strain on the farm labor force. Cleaver (1952), Morris.al. (1955), and Baker _a1. (1952) after studing various milking operations and types of parlors stated that no single answer exists to the correct number of operators and the routine of doing the job. Everyone is somewhat different. Cleaver (1952) has found that the requirements are more flexible in loose housing than in stall barns. From his studies he suggests the following combinations if milk has to be carried: No. of Operators No. of Stalls No. of Machines Herd Size One operator 2 elevated stalls 2 machines cows One operator 3 4 elevated stalls 2 machines cows operators 4 elevated stalls 3-4 machines cows Operators 5 elevated stalls 4 machines 45 e cows However he stated that the use of a pipeline could change

18 this. Pelissier (1957) compared a 10 stall parlor with a 60 cow stanchion barn on the same dairy farm with the same management and found that there was no significant differ ence in labor efficiency between the two systems. However, Morris _al, (1955) found that milking in a stanchion barn would require considerably more labor. Baker 23 _l. (1952) found that of the 15 operators observed there existed a considerable variation in chore time and travel. For the same jobs, many of the least efficient men spent three and four times as much time per cow as the most efficient operators. The five least efficient men spent 20 times as much time per cow waiting for cows to finish milking and waiting between other jobs as did the five most efficient men. Time for letting cows into the parlor, feeding them and letting cows out varies greatly. Morris 33.31, (1955) stated that this depends on the number of cows let in at a time, the location of the controls for the let-in and letout doors, the appetite of the cows, and on other factors which might be classed as "cow psychology". They say, the most satisfactory layout for a milking parlor would be six stalls and three milking machines, with three elevated

19 lo stalls, on each side of the work area. The output from such a layout may not be higher than from a similar number of stalls and units arranged in a single-level abreast layout, but much less effort will be required to operate the two-level parlor. The use of side-opening stalls makes the parlor more flexible, but it is not certain that the extra cost of these and the wider building to house them would result in a proportionally higher output from labor. Studies were made by Kirsch 3.2l, (1955). They timed the milking of 24 cows by pipeline systems. Their results showed the average time per cow for the entire milking operation, including tying, udder pre-treatment, hand stripping, untying and cleaning up. For the normal cowshed using four sets of teatcups, the time was eight minutes 28 seconds. Seven minutes 15 seconds were required in a normal two level parlor in which four COWS'Were tied in tandem without separate stalls. They were all brought in at once. A study of the normal cowshed and two-level parlor was repeated with eight cows and two operators with times of eight minutes one second and six minutes 23 seconds respectively. The pipelines were cleaned in place for nine months with satisfactory results.

20 11 Baker 35 El. (1952) have found that the care of the milking equipment consumes almost the same amount of time even if the herd varies from 10 to 25 cows. Milking machines require the same treatment and must be carried to and from the milking area before and after each milking regardless of the herd size. The average time spent in caring for milking equipment on the 15 farms they studied was 45 minutes per day. This was one-seventh of the total time spent with the milking herd. People spend different amounts of time cleaning and caring for the equipment, de pending on individual differences, manufacturers recommendations, facilities for cleaning and standards of cleanliness set by the individual himself. The time spent in caring for milking equipment is a fixed item which doesn't vary greatly with size of herd. Construction of the milking room and the milkhouse must be done with great care. Wooley._ l. (1951) recommended that regardless of the type or size of milking barn and milkhouse, definite fundamental construction requirements must be met in order to get approval from local and state health authorities. It is advisable to work very closely with local milk sanitation and health authorities

21 12 when contemplating construction of a milking barn. Doing this will help prevent errors, which might cause serious trouble and be costly to change. Pokhoalenskii (1955) reported that a construction feature on a farm near Moscow, Russia has brushes hooked to a source of vacuum. These are used in a 12 point milking parlor and suck away dirt freed during cleaning of the udder. T'Wilkins (1949) suggested that mastitis and udder troubles can be quickly and easily treated in the milking stalls during milking, providing the necessary materials are at hand. However, he stressed that elevated milking stalls are not hospital stalls and should not be used for such. For general veterinarian work, a separate area where cows can be confined and tied should be provided. The Herringbone Milking System The development of the herringbone milking system took place in New Zealand several years ago. The first one constructed in the United States was completed in 195? (anonymous). In Michigan, the first herringbone milking system, a double Six was completed in November of 1957.

22 13 Hoglund g -_l. (1959) estimated that by the end of 1958, there were at least 80 herringbone systems in Michigan either in operation or in some stage of construction. It is important that dairy farmers select the milking system that best fits their individual farm needs. Hoglund.ggu_l, (1959) pointed out that dairymen need to consider many factors when selecting a milking system. Much advertisement has stressed the spectacular accomplishments of one man milking 50 to 60 cows per hour in a herringbone system. It is important to use labor effectively but factors other than speed in milking are important. Good milking practices should also be stressed. When one man handles 50 cows an hour, there is a tendency to handle all cows alike. Some dairymen also leave out recommended milking steps which does not make for good management practices. Hoglund gt_ l, (1959) stated that the dairy farmer needs to give careful consideration to designing a flexible system. The larger operations must be flexible enough to operate on weekends and other times when the milking force may be reduced. It should also provide room for expansion if more housing and feeding units are to be added. When the dairymen decides to erect a milking system he

23 14 should study the various types and decide which is best for him. Thirty-three Michigan dairy farms were studied by Brown gt l, (1959). They found that four basic milking parlor styles are used in Michigan. These are: (1) the herringbone; (2) the walk-thru; (3) double side opening and (4) single side opening. One man can milk 40 cows in 70 to 100 minutes in the single three side opening using three milker units, or the single four and double two side opening stalls using four milker units. A dairyman with 40 cows could milk them in an hour or less in a double four herringbone milking room. Brown (1959) further stated the choice of a system for the dairyman with 50 to 60 cows may be determined quite largely by his labor force, including family labor. The 50 to 60 cow dairyman who must milk with only one man could use the same systems as the dairymen with 30 or 40 cows but he would spend two hours or more milking if he used side-opening stalls. For 60 cows, he could do the milking in one and one-half to two hours if he used a double 3 walk through and in one and one-fourth to one and one-half hours if he used a double four or double five

24 15 herringbone. They predicted that the herringbone milking system will have its greatest appeal to dairymen milking more than 40 cows. A good operator can handle four or five milker units and should have no difficulty milking 40 to 50 cows an hour. Their timing of milking operations in double six herringbone systems showed only one man; milking as many as 55 cows per hour. Dairymen must also consider the time spent in assembling and cleaning the milking and milk room equipment, in cleaning floors and walls of the building and in doing other daily chores associated with the milking operation stated Brown g _ l, (1959). These other chore jobs combined usually take from 50 to more than 90 percent as much time daily as does the chore of milking. Holden (1958) observed a "herringbone" milking parlor to learn the routine and reported that milking first involves bringing in 12 cows, six per side. One set of six' is washed and the units put on. washed off ready for milking. The other six are then A second cowman helping in the pit gets the washing off done. The first cowman then does the milking while the second lets cows in and out and does the feeding. No Special order of milking is adopted,

25 16 although certain cows tend to come in first. Let Down Hopson (1944) stated that if the cow fails to let down her milk,there is no possible way for the machine to take it from her. It is extremely important for the operator to stimulate let down. Gaines (1915) experimenting with goats found that letting a kid nurse on one gland, stimulated the other gland. He further stated that the mechanical effect of the kid.nursing stimulateithe mother to let down. Although she was mechanically stimulated her psychic state at the time must also be considered. Whittlestone (1951) stated that the strippyu COW WhiCh gives one-third to one-half of her milk to hand stripping following machine milking, does so because of inadequate starting stimulus. The aim of the milker in such cases must be to give the cow an adequate initial stimulus and to establish a regular routine which will firmly establish a strong conditioned reflex leaving the cow in the proper frame of mind. Baker (1952) related that rapid milking is based upon certain fundamentals and facts which he stated as follows:

26 17 (l) cows must be milked out completely or drying will set in; (2) the let down of milk is a positive act involving a stimulus, the nervous system, the pituitary gland, the blood stream and the tiny muscle cells located around the alveoli; (3) adverse stimuli such as excitement, fright and rough handling may interfere with the let down of milk; (4) if all milk is to be obtained, it must be removed rapidly once a cow has been stimulated to let down her milk; and (S) cows respond to milking depending upon their previous training. It may be necessary to cull individual cows if they are particularly hard to milk. Milking at the same time every milking will facilitate let down according to Hopson (1944). He stated that cows are creatures of habit. Milking is no longer a chore" but a full time job which requires the full attention of the operator during the milking period. Hopson (1944) and Jordan (1956) agreed that the operator should stimulate the cow to let down her milk. To do this they suggested that the udder and teats be washed in warm chlorine water immediately before applying the teat cups. Then draw a stream of milk from each teat into the stripcup. This opens the natural seal over teat openings

27 and completes preparation. Jordan (1956) recommended that 18 not more than two minutes elapse after washing stimulation. Investigations into various methods of stimulation were carried out by Dodd gt a1. (1949). They did this for one milking only on cows used to a particular routine. Cows accustomed to preparation for milking one minute before putting on the teat cups were on single mornings milked without preparation, which resulted in a delay of let down but no abnormality in milking rate. When milked three minutes after preparation there was no pronounced effect on milking efficiency. Cows milked six minutes after preparation had a slightly slower rate of milking and a reduced rate of milk and butterfat. In a second experiment, Dodd.EEHEL' (1949) made a comparison between two established routines, in one of which udder washing, fore-milking and concentrate feeding was done less than one minute before milking and in the other more than 20 minutes before milking. The data showed that the more efficient routine was the one where milking took place immediately after preparation. The differences however, were not very great.

28 l9 Knoop t 21, (1950) investigated the influence of premilking preparations with three temperatures of water used to wash udders, 45, 100, and 132 Fahrenheit. They washed the udders one minute before milking. The various temper atures of water used were of minor importance in stimulating let down. Dodd 3; a1. (1949) reached this same conclusion in experiments they completed. Without pre-milking treatment of the udder, the milking period was prolonged approx imately one minute and the initial let down was slow. Total milk production remained rather constant throughout these experiments regardless of the pre-milking preparation. Six cows were used by Smith gt a1. (1948) to find the effect of pre-paration on milking rate. Methods of washing and stimulating were used. On successive days the cows were not stimulated. A lapse of 30 to 60 seconds occurred before the milk was let down when the cows were not stimulated. Preparing the cow for milking by stimulation with a wash and massage of the udder with water at degrees Fahrenheit was found to increase the rate of milking and decrease the time required for the milking process as compared with no preparation.

29 20 Rate of milking measurements were obtained on 286 different cows by Stewart eta]: (1957). Guernsey, Holstein, Brown Swiss and Jersey breeds were used over a four year period. They found that both the rate of milking and total milking time decreased significantly with advanced lactation. Total milking time decreased from four minutes 28 seconds in early lactation, to three minutes 25 seconds in middle lactation, to two minutes 49 seconds in late lactation. The machine stripping time and yield remained approximately the same from early to late lactation. Significant variation was found between the breeds to suggest that it is an inherent characteristic. between cows in milking rate. Great variation was found Total milking time varied from one minute 15 seconds to 11 minutes 40 seconds. Baxter g l. (1950) and Dodd 2: a1. (1947) stated, that when milking with a machine the rate of flow is de pendent upon the anatomical structure of the ducts, udder cistern, teat sinuses and teat orfice. Washing the udder and teats with warm.water helped prepare the cow psychologically and not physiologically.

30 21 Managed Milking The best management principles always leave room for improvement. Alone the task of milking is of major importance because of the skilled labor required. The operator not only runs the cows through the parlor but must be acquainted with each of them and know their personalities in order to get the most milk from each. Dodd 33 a1. (1949) reported that the milking time is a characteristic of each cow, probably depending in most cases on the anatomical structure of the udder on each particular cow. A major requirement for efficient milking must therefore be the accurate appraisal of the point at which the flow approaches zero, this differing in each cow. If the operator manipulates the teat cups at this point, he will quickly remove the remainder of the milk that would otherwise be obtained by the machine at a slow dribble. Dodd 2; _l. (1953) reported that the machine milking rates of individual cows are inflexible and up to the present time it has not been possible to affect changes in this rate by altering herd management. However, the milking rates of individual cows are different. The differences

31 22 being sufficient to affect their milk yields to a considerable extent. Dodd ggual. (1957) stated that because of the marked differences in milking rate and milk yield between cows, the duration of milking will vary from below three minutes to more than 15 minutes. The individual cow will take longer to milk at peak lactation. Variations in milking rate, considering stage of lactation and age, are a reflection of changes in yield. Milking rate declines as lactation advances, the decline being greater for fast milking cows, according to studies by Dodd (1953). Studies by Standvik (1957) showed that the rate of machine milking at any recorded milking was correlated with the milk yield, when the yield variation is due to milking intervals which vary in length and when cows are in dif ferent stages of lactation. Faster milking rate after longer intervals is due to a higher udder pressure caused by the larger volume of milk. With this, there is a question as to whether slow milking cows have-larger amounts of residual milk left at the end of milking, and if this can be a cause of decreased production and persistency. Standvik (1957) concluded that the milking character has no significant effect on lactation yield or persistency.

32 23 Slow milking cows need not have low milk production. Whittlestone (1956) and Baker.._l. (1952) agreed that a managed milking procedure should be stimulation of the udder followed by immediate application of the milking machine in order to utilize the optimum of milk let down. Dahlberg (1943) stated that there will always be some milk left in the udder no matter how dry the cow is milked, because milk secretion is a continuous process and there is no advantage to removing every last trace of milk. The machines should be left on the cows from three to five minutes, and milking done the same period of time each day. Jordan (1956) stated that for top production a cow should be milked out as rapidly as possible. Cherkaschenko (1957) related that there are differences between the milking time of front and hind quarters. This can amount to as much as five and one-half minutes in cows having misshaped udders. Adverse milking practices can cause this and can damage these types of udders. Stronks (1953) studied the rate of milking of 15 cows by two milkers with two machines. One milker prepared and milked the cows, the other stripped them. The times of each operation and intervals of waiting was plotted for eadh

33 24 cow. The average milking time per cow was nine and three quarter minutes for the first trial. A study of the histograms for the milking operation revealed faults which could be corrected. The intervals between operations were shortened and the average milking time per cow was six minutes and 50 seconds at the third trial. Zehner (1943) experimented with 20 cows at the University of Wisconsin. The milker unit was on each cow only three minutes, then removed. At first the cows stripped a lot. Soon however, the cows became accustomed to this and milked out well. To start, the cows gave a daily total of pounds of milk per day with considerable stripping. At the end of the experiment, 54 days, the strip ping amounted to 12.6 pounds total and pounds of milk per day. A cow is a creature of habit and will become accustomed to more rapid milking if it is carried out in the same manner and at the same time each day. Dodd gt _1. (1950) subjected 38 first-calf heifers to a rigid control for their entire lactation. Half to four minute milking and the other half to eight minute milking. Results showed that half of the heifers on the four minute schedule did not milk out completely in the alloted time,

34 25 consequently during most of the lactation, there was milk left in the udder after each milking. Four minutes was insufficient time to completely milk out the udders of half the heifers but the eight minutes milking time proved to be too long because milker units were still on after the flow of milk had stopped. Wilkins (1949) and Wilson (1957) found that the level of management has much to do in solving udder problems, particularly mastitis. One of the most usual faults is milking to slow. In a great many herds, udder problems and mastitis have been wiped out by adopting the "fast-milking" routine. That is to train the cows to milk rapidly and then get the machine off when the flow of milk stops. Concentrate Eating Time Interest is often expressed as to the length of time cows are in the parlor and whether or not they have sufficient time to eat the concentrates placed before them. In a study made by Baker t_ l, (1952), on one farm where the cows were usually in the parlor about nine minutes, revealed that they had ample time to eat all concentrates placed before them. Other operators reported that cows will clean up all of their concentrates in five minutes. Cleaver

35 (1952) through time studies of a variety of milking rooms 26 indicated that most cows eat their concentrates in about six minutes. It is pointed out though, that a few high producing cows will get more grain and need more time to eat. However seven and one-half minutes would seem sufficient for most high producers. Cows seem to learn to eat faster in the milking parlor. Dalton gt l. (1953) in studying the effect of feeding concentrates with different degrees of fineness and water contents on the eating and milking times in dairy cattle revealed that high producing cows lack sufficient time to eat concentrates in the length of time they are in the parlor. In their studies the method of eating was changed considerably as the amount of water to concentrate was increased. When eating dry concentrate, the tongue is placed in the concentrate and that part which adheres to the tongue is drawn into the mouth. The cows used their tongues to pull the sticky concentrate into their mouths when one-half pound of water was added per pound of concentrate. Concentrates with a water to-concentrate ratio of one to one were completely wetted and the cows put their mouths into the feed and swallowed the amount taken into their mouths.

36 27 When a water-to-concentrate ratio of five to one was used, the cows drank the slurry contents and licked the mangers clean. Whenever cows failed to eat feed while being milked, milking required a longer period of time than when they ate with relish. The decreased milking rate appeared to be associated with concentrate consumption rate. This may have been a result of a conditioned reflex or an increased feeling of satisfaction when the cows were eating. Cows appeared to be more relaxed when they ate concentrates fast. Dalton l. (1953) also studied the effects of the grind of grain. They conducted two trials, using 12 Brown Swiss cows in Trial 1 under pen-type barn feeding and 11 Brown Swiss and two Holstein cows in Trial 2 to study the effects both during barn feeding and when the cows were on pasture. The texture of the grind was (one-sixteenth, inch, one-eighth inch, five-sixteenth inch) with water-toconcentrate ratios (air-dry one-half, one, one and one half) pounds of water per pound of concentrate. They compared milking rate and concentrate consumption rate in these cows. The data indicated that as the ratio of water-to-concen trate increased, there was a decrease in eating time. These results are explained on the basis of changes in

37 28 methods of eating with the different degrees of water-toconcentrate ratios. There was no significant change in the eating time for the three degrees of fineness. The cows ate air-dry concentrate more slowly when on good pasture than under barn feeding conditions. As concentrate consumption rate decreased, there was a corresponding but not directly proportional decrease in milking rate. The proportional change was similar for each water-to-concentrate ratio. Schalk g;_ l, (1928) using dairy cows, found the fol lowing lengths of time were required for the consumption of one pound portions of various feeds: whole oats, two minutes; corn on the cob, five and six-tenth minutes; and ground grain, four and seven-tenth minutes. Kich 33 a1. (1937) using steers, found that as the grain went from whole corn to ground feed, twice as many chews were needed per pound of feed. Harshbarger (1949) related that the time required to consume one pound of different feeds was as follows: ground grain two to three minutes; corn silage minutes; and hay seven to 16 minutes.

38 From the literature it seems that more coarsely ground 29 feeds become wetted more rapidly and are swallowed quicker. The addition of water to concentrates for dairy cows makes a feed which they can eat more rapidly. The faster the cows eat the more contented they appear to be, which is desirable during the milking operation.

39 3O OBJECTIVES To study the milking operation in herringbone milking parlors: a. a single six parlor - six stalls with six milker units b. a double six parlor with one operator - 12 stalls with six milker units c. a double six parlor with two operators. To observe the time lapse while preparing for and cleaning up after milking. To observe the concentrate eating tnme of the cows while in the herringbone parlor. To study the effect of dry cows entering the parlor on the idle machine time. To observe the use of clean, safe and fast milking in the herringbone milking system.

40 31 DEFINITIONS Herringbone - a milking parlor where the cows stand at an angle during the milking operation, whereby the space in the operator's pit for each cow is reduced from the usual eight feet to approximately three feet. Cows are handled in groups or batches, the number depending upon the number of stalls. Single Six Herringbone - a single six herringbone is a milking parlor with the herringbone arrangement on one side only. There are six milker units for the six stalls. Double Six Herringbone - a double six herringbone is a milking parlor with the herringbone arrangement on both sides of the operator's pit. There are six milker units for 12 stalls. One batch of six cows is milked while second batch of six is prepared for the milker unit transfer. Batch - a batch refers to the number of cows entering the herringbone parlor at one time. In this study a batch consisted of six cows.

41 32 S E C T I O N A EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE To obtain actual and different milking and chore times, it was necessary to get the names of dairymen in the state who were milking with a herringbone system. A letter was written to the County Extension Agent, Agriculture in the counties of Michigan. A near one hundred percent reply helped to locate the dairy operations used in this Study. A stop watch was used to do the timing and five by eight inch cards were utilized for keeping records. A code system was set up so the operation could be recorded rapidly and accurately. The codes used were: C.I. - Let batch of Eggs in_parlor A.I. - Batch all in_parlor W.U. - Wash udders F.W.U. - Finished washing udders D.U. - Dry udders F.D.U. - Finished drying udders O. - Milker unit on cow S.C. - Use strip cup

42 33 F.S.C. - Finish using strip cup Of. - Milker unit off cow C.O. - Let batch of ggwgflggt A.O. - Batch of cows all gut Six farms were selected, with two morning and evening milkings timed at each. Farm 1 had a single six herringbone system. One operator milked 46 Holstein cows in an average time of 94 minutes 46 seconds. Farms 2 and 3 each had a double six herringbone with two operators, milking 63 and 32 Holstein cows with an average milking time of 71 minutes 5 seconds and 50 minutes 52 seconds respectively. Farms 4, 5, and 6 had double six herringbones operated each by one dairyman. 'ReSpectively they milked 34, 49, 34 Holsteins with an average time of 60 minutes 15 seconds, 59 minutes 10 seconds and 44 minutes four seconds. The timings of the milkings on these farms were tab ulated and comparisons made to determine the efficiency of each. The following points were studied to determine their time average in the total milking operation: 1. Number of cows milked each milking. 2. Total pounds of milk for the herd.

43 10. Total batch milking time - first cow in to the last cow out. Average milking time per cow for the herd. Average time that each batch of cows was in the parlor. Average time required to milk a batch of six cows. Idle milking machine time per unit. Time required to wash the udders of a batch of six cows. Time required for a batch of six cows to enter the parlor. Time required for a batch of six cows to leave the parlor Time required to prepare a batch of six cows. Time required for the cleanup of equipment and parlor. 13. Time required to drive cows into the holding pen. 14. Factors which effected the entrance time of a batch of six cows. From the above data the following were calculated: 1. The affect of dry cows entering with a batch on idle machine time.

44 35 2. The available time for the cows to eat their concentrate.

45 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results obtained in these time studies and the discussion thereof will be presented in three parts. In Part I the study of the time required to complete the steps of the milking operation will be presented. Part II will present a comparison of the single six herringbone, the double six herringbone with two operators, and the double six herringbone with one operator. In Part III, various effects on the chore time, brought about by management and/or construction features will be reported. Part I. The Time Required to Complete the Milking Operation The objective of Part I was to investigate the procedures required and the time involved in each, while carrying out the milking operations and the related jobs. The chores on Farm 1 were done by one man. This operator had a single six herringbone in which 46 Holstein cows were milked. The average amount of milk for the milkings timed was 647 pounds with a range of pounds. The average production per cow was 28.1 pounds per day. In Table 1, data are presented showing the different steps

46 37 in the chores and the time involved to carry them out. Only one farm with a single six herringbone was available for this study. The average time to milk the herd was 94 minutes 46 seconds. The milker units were left on the cows an average of four minutes 46 seconds with a range of two minutes 40 seconds to eight minutes 15 seconds, depending on individual cow let down and production. The chore operation followed a certain procedure. First the cows were driven into the holding pen. All of the dairymen agreed that this is an important area. Cows enter more readily from the smaller holding pen than from the barnyard. A range of one minute 30 seconds to three minutes five seconds was required to drive the cows into the holding pen. From the holding pen the cows entered the parlor. Since the cows entered in batches of six, the entrance time is in these terms. During the 11 seconds to one minute 10 seconds that it took for the cows to enter, the operator pulled the feed levers which automatically measured the concentrate for each cow. Next the operator washed the udders with a warm water spray from nozzles between each two cows. The time range for this job was 54

47 38 seconds to two minutes 13 seconds per batch. Following this he milked two or three streams of milk into a strip cup which took another 50 seconds to one minute eight seconds. The operator was able to observe each cow while she milked. He would do some machine stripping until he felt the milking was complete. would be taken off the cow. At this time the milker unit The milker units were not taken off in the same order that they were put on, but removed when the COW WaS finished milking. When a batch was finished milking, they were let out and a new batch brought in. The exit time for a batch averaged 30 seconds, ranging from 19 seconds to 47 seconds. During this time of exchanging batches and preparing the cows, the milker units set free. The average idle machine time per unit was 50 minutes 40 seconds. Therefore, the milker units were idle more than 50 percent of the milking time. A further discussion of the idle machine time is presented in Part III. Each batch of cows was in the parlor an average of 11 minutes six seconds which was sufficient time for them to eat their concentrate. Of this, seven minutes 10 seconds was devoted to milking these cows. The remainder of the

48 39 time was for preparation, treating mastitis infected quar ters if they occurred, checking numbers, or waiting for the previous cow to finish milking. Preparation and cleanup consumed at least one-half hour each milking. The preparation time averaged nine minutes 37 seconds with a range of five minutes 10 seconds to 14 minutes four seconds. The longest preparation time was in the evening. The milker units were set together at evening cleanup and taken to the parlor so that everything was ready for the morning milking, resulting in a shorter morning preparation time. The time required for cleanup of the parlor and equipment ranged from 15 minutes nine seconds in the evening to 29 minutes 54 seconds for the morning. The cleanup time in the evening was less than that during the morning because the milker units were more thoroughly taken apart for washing at that time. After the operator had finished the hand washing of the milking equipment, and while he was waiting for the pipeline to be washed (this was done by automatic in place cleaning), he would clean the parlor. This took an average of five minutes 45 seconds. The operator first swept the

49 40 TABLE I THE TIKE REQUIRJD T0 COMPLLTE THE VARIOUS PHASES OF THE MILKIN OPJRATION. FOUR OBSbRVATlg-IILS 3.12.; TALE CT? (1:;.:...1:') :{ITH A SET-LB SIX :liilfilf-ibceeej L'IITZI OTTE CP MTOR. ( arm 1) Item Timed AoMo Ankle POM. Avg. Range kin.sec. Kin.Sec. Min.Sec. Min.Sec. Min.Sec. Min.Sec. Min.Sec. Time to milk 46 cows 91:15 94:20 96:32 96:58 96:46 91:15-96:58 per cow per mach. 4:41 4:38 4:43 5:01 4:46 2: :15 Time batch in parlor 11:01 11:03 11:20 10:55 11:06 8: :56 Mach. T. 1 per batch 6:48 7:07 7:24 7:21 7:10 4:47-9:25 Total idle mach. T. per unit 55:30 48:15 49:08 48:29 50:40 48: :30 T. to wash uddersz 1:26 1:05 1:35 1:30 1:24 : :13 T. to use strip cup per batch2 :57 : 83 :53 :64 :58 : :08 Entrance T. per batchz :33 :22 :18 :19 :23 : :10 Exit T. per batch2 :35 :28 :34 :23 :30 :19 -- :47 1. This is the total time required to milk six cows starting with the time the first milking machine unit was put on the cow to the time the last milker unit was taken off. 2. The time reported is an average of the batches timed per milking.

50 41 parlor, then he would wet it with a hose and to conserve water, would rinse it with his wash solution. At this time, the parlor was finished and the operator would rinse the pipeline with fresh water, completing the chores. Farms 2 and 3 had double herringbones with two operators. sented. In Table II the chore times at each farm are pre Both of these farm owners milked Holstein cows. At Farm 2 63 cows were milked and at Farm 3 32 cows were milked. The herds produced 967 and 381 pounds of milk per milking, respectively. Because an attempt to find the effect of two operators the chore times of both were combined with the range representing both. Because of the individuality of farm operators, the time (Table III)- involved for each job is left separate except for the average. The steps followed to do the chores on these two farms were similar to those on Farm 1. The chore time on Farm 2 averaged 70 minutes five seconds while that on 3 was 50 minutes 52 seconds. The average cow milking time on the two farms was six minutes 27 seconds with a range of one minute 42 seconds to 10 minutes 25 seconds. As pointed out before this wide range is due to the rate of

51 42 TABLE II THE TINA REQUIRsD T0 COLPLJTE TiL VARIOUS PHASES OF THE MILKING OPARATION IN A DOUBLJ SIX GBQNE. EIGHT CREMVATIONS WERE TAKH E IN TITO HsRIB. (FARMS 2 and 3) Item Farm Timed N00 POM. AOMO POM Avg. Range Min.Seo. Min.$ec. Min.Seo. Min.Sec. Hin.Sec. Min.Sec. Min.Sec. Time to 2 67:08 71:23 65:34 79:16 71:05 65: :16 milk cows 3 47:00 52:04 50:10 54:17 50:52 50: :17 Talking T. per cow 2 5:34 5:41 5:25 6: per batch 3 6:06 7:34 7:29 7:19 3 : : Time batch 2 10:23 11:18 10:09 12: in parlor 3 12:08 14:38 13:25 14:49 1 : 3 ' Mach. T. 2 7:57 8:31 8:03 9: :12 per batcha 3 9:46 11:25 10:22 10:56 9:25 5: 1 Total idle 2 1:29 1:42 2:49 2:53 4:30 1:29 5:14 mach. T. 3 5:14 5:21 4:03 4:35 per unit T. to wash 2 :45 :38 :35 : uddersb 3 2:30 3:21 2:29 3:19 ' T. to dry 2 :26 :27 :27 :26 :26 :15 -- :49 uddersc Entrance T. 2 :45 :43 :43 :41 per batchb 3 1:10 1:07 1:12 1:01 '55 ' '34 EKit T. 2 :24 :25 :24 :27. per batchb 3 :49 :42 :35 :37 :53 :14 '55 a. This is the total time required to milk six cows starting with the time the first milking machine unit was put on the cow to the time the last milker unit was taken off. b. The time reported is an average of the batches timed per milking. 0. Farm 2 dried the udders with paper towels. Only at this farm.were the udders dried.

52 43 milking and amount of milk per cow. The cows were first driven into a holding pen which took from one minute 37 seconds to seven minutes 25 seconds. The cows appeared to be more reluctant to enter the holding pen in the evening than during the morning. In the morning the cows were usually waiting at the holding pen gate, while for the evening milking they would be eating hay in the feeding area. The parlor entrance time for the batch averaged 55 seconds with a range of 16 seconds to two minutes 34 seconds. Certain cows were more eager to enter the parlor than.were others. The reluctant cows would hang back as long as possible before entering; at times they would have to be driven in. This accounts for the wide range in entrance time. The method of stimulating the let down process differed somewhat on the two farms. On Farm 2 each Operator would wash the udders of three cows and strip a few streams of milk from each quarter. No strip cup was used. Instead the milk was strfi 81 into the palm of the hand to study for garget. This process took less than one minute since each operator had only three cows to prepare. After washing, the udders were wiped dry with a paper towel. None of

53 44 the other farm operators did this. The time lapse for wiping the udders ranged from 15 to 49 seconds per batch. On Farm 3 one operator washed the udders while the second followed with the strip cup. somewhat slower than those on Farm 2 These men worked for it took them from two to three minutes to complete this step. On Farm 2 each operator prepared and milked three cows from each batch of six. The operators on Farm 3 utilized no milking system but would take the cows in the order in which they were finished milking. Each batch of cows on these two farms was in the par- 1or an average of 12 minutes 22 seconds with an average batch milking time of nine minutes 25 seconds. The approximate three minute difference was taken up with stimula tion of let down and waiting for the previous batch to finish milking. During the time that one batch was being milked, the operators would let the previous batch out, let a new batch in, machine stripping. prepare them for milking and do some This accounts for the operators time while a batch is milking. The exit time ranged from 14 to 55 seconds, with an average of 33 seconds. The cows had plenty of time to eat

54 45 their grain and were ready to leave when the parlor door was Open. Consequently, they moved out rapidly. Preparation and cleanup on these two farms, was done by both men (Table III). This required more than one-half hour per milking. Evening preparation took longer than in the morning because most of the morning set up was done during evening cleanup as on Farm 1. Preparation time averaged slightly over 10 minutes for the morning and 13 minutes for the evening milking. Twelve minutes nine seconds were utilized on the average for cleaning the parlor. This was done while the other Operator washed the units and the line. This took an average of 24 minutes 29 seconds per milking. Since there were two operators, the one doing utensils was not real busy while the pipeline was being washed. He usually Spent some time keeping the milk house in order and washing the outside of the line and hoses. Even though the system for doing the jobs differed somewhat, it was evident that each operator had a certain job to do and consistently did this same job over the period of the four milkings studied. This consistency made their work easier.

55 46 TABLE III THE TIKE REQUIRED TO PREPARE, CLEAN THE PARLOR AND EQUIPMENT AHD TO ERIVE THE CONS INTO THEIHOLDINGgARAA. (FARMS 2 and 3) Item Farm Timed K00 POM. AOMO POM. AOMO Avg. Rangp MinoSGOO Min.Sec. Min.Sec. MineSeCo Min-See. Min.$80. Min.SGO. Prepara- 2 14:59 12:35.. tion T.a 3 6:10 9:22 10:46 6'10 14' : :56 8: T. to clean 2 21:38 23:32-30:57 equipment 3 21:35 25:3 21: :55 s *20 303~7 T. to clean 2 9:43 12:59-9:10 : parlor 3 11:35 8:18 11: = :10 T. to drive cows into holding 2 7:25 4:50 6:52 5:00 area 3 1:37 2: , : :25 a. Morning preparation usually took less time because the milker units were taken into the parlor during evening cleanup.

56 47 The last three farms studied had double six herring bones with one Operator. The average number of cows milked on these three farms was 39 with a total production of 586 pounds (Table Iv)of milk per milking. The cows were predominately Holstein with a few Guernseys on Farm 6. The chore procedure was similar to that on the previous farms discussed. An average of seven minutes 41 seconds was needed to drive the cows into the holding pen. range was two minutes 31 seconds to 14 minutes 25 The seconds. Much more time was needed on Farm 5 because of the large feed lot. The cows had approximately a two acre lot around the loafing shed. From the holding pen, the cows entered the parlor. The operators would wash the udders and take a few strips from each quarter. This was done in the same operation and took an average of one minute seven seconds. Then the milker units were put on. Milking time took an average of 53 minutes 58 seconds on these farms. The per cow milking time ranged from three minutes six seconds to nine minutes 53 seconds with an average of six minutes 12 seconds. The cows had sufficient time to eat their concentrate, for each batch was in the parlor

57 48 TABLE IV THE TIME REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE VARIOUS PHASJS OF THE MILKING OPJRATION IV A DOUBLE SIX HERRINGBONE WITH ONE OPSRATOR. TflELVE OBSERVATIONS WERE TAKEN IN THRaE HERBS. (EKRLS 4, 5 and 6) Item. Farm Timed No. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Avgo Range Min.Sec. Min.Sec. Lun.Sec. kfin.sec. Min.Sec. min.sec. Min.Sec. Time to 4-50:40 66:50 63:16 milk cows 5 60:30 54:19 59:50 62:01 53:58 37: : :47 43:44 45:39 37:07 Milking T. 4 5:59 6:19 5:39 6:23 per cow 5 6:39 5:34 6:42 6:27 6:12 3: :53 per batch 6 6:46 6:02 6:25 5:28 Time batch 4 13:09 14:58 13:38 16:56 in parlor 5 13:57 12:28 13:13 13:01 13:09 9: : :04 11:14 12:19 9:53 Mach. T. 4 9:07 11:14 9:02 12:09 per betcha 5 9:42 8:15 9:49 9:55 9:35 5: :35 6 9:58 8:58 9:11 7:38 Total idle 4 4:04 1:34 5:21 3:59 mach. T. 5 1:29 1:56 1:46 :51 2:31 : :21 per urit 6 2:52 1:59 :56 1:21 T. to wash 4 :45 :47 :39 1:17 uddersb 5 1:27 1:10 1:35 1:15 1:07 : :07 6 1:12 :41 1:36 1:02 Entrance T. 4 :24 :26 :28 :25 per batchb 5 1:05 :55 :35 :59 :43 : :35 6 :51 :58 :38 :46 Exit T. per 4 :30 :30 :31 :31 batohb 5 :25 :29 :25 :25 :28 :11 -- :45 6 :31 :30 :17 :26 a. This is the total time required to milk six cmws starting with the time the first milking.machine unit was put on the cow to the time the last milker unit was taken off. b. The time reported is an average of the batches timed per milking.

58 an average of 13 minutes nine seconds. Of this time. the 49 units were on nine minutes 35 seconds. The extra three and one-half minutes were utilized in preparation and waiting for the previous cow to finish milking. The batches of cows on these farms utilized an average of 43 parlor. seconds to enter and 28 seconds to leave the Hesitant cows waited until last to enter and in many cases had to be driven into the parlor. As on the other farms studied, the preparation and cleanup took more than one-half hour (Table V). These men spent almost 90 percent as much time preparing and cleaning up as they did doing the actual milking. The morning preparation on these two farms took an average of seven minutes 37 seconds while evening took 15 minutes 21 seconds. The operators were almost ready to milk when they came to the barn in the morning. Cleanup time averaged 25 minutes eight seconds. Since these dairymen were working alone, they cleaned the parlor while the pipeline was being washed. It took them an average of 13 minutes seven seconds to clean the parlor.<m1farm 5 the parlor was only swept in the evening. This took only two to three minutes. Following the parlor cleanup, the

59 50 operator would rinse the pipeline. This job completed their cleanup. Since these men were alone with a double six herringbone they had to work faster in order to keep up with the milker units. They all felt that they were capable of handling a double six. Sometimes their children or wives would help with the preparation and cleanup which cut down their total chore time. This help system was used during harvest time or when the family wanted to go visiting. Part II. A Comparison of the Single Six Herringbone, the Double Six Herringbone with One and Two Operators In Part I is presented the breakdown of the chores and the time taken to complete each step. Since the milking rooms are all herringbone it is reasonable that some comparison be made and conclusions drawn. In Table VI is a comparison of the milking time. There has been much advertisement of Cow a-minute Milking in the herringbone milking parlor. None of the 36 milkings at the six farms were done in a cow per minute. On Farm cows were milked per hour, which was well above that of the other farms.

60 51 TABLE V THE TIRE REQUIRSD TO PREPARE, CLEAN THE PARLOR AND EQUIPMLNT AND TO DRIVE TH: HOLDING (FARMS 4, 5 and 5) Item. Farm Timed NO. AeMe PoMo AeMe POM. Avg. Range NIL Min mnesece Mil Min Prepara- 4 7:15 5:29 tion T.a 5 12:55 11:30 9:17 5: :55 5b :00 8:10 5-9:59 15:21 8: : :14 20:25 T. to clean 4 24:49 9:14 27:08 15:24 equipment 5 26:03 16:30 33:34-25:08 9: : :48 26:28 35:14 25:20 T. to clean 46 24:11 5:27 21:02 7:57 parlor 5 11:50 2:40 27:27 2:30 13:07 2: : :04 24:39 8:10 12:28 T. to drive cows into 4 9:34 5:18 14:10 5:15 holding 5 11:10 7:22 14:25 5:40 7:41 2: :25 area 6 5:40 2:31-3:37 a. Morning preparation usually took less time because the milker units were taken into the parlor during evening cleanup. b. The operator on Farm 6 had no morning preparation. All preparation was done in the evening. c. The two operators on Farms 4 and 5 swept the parlor after the evening milking and washed it after the morning milking.

61 Farm No. of Number of No. Cows Average Cows Milked No. Stalls Operators Milked Milk. T. per hour 52 TABLE VI THE TIME REQUIRED TO MILK IN SIX DIFFERENT HERRINGBONE PARLORS. ALL FIGURES ARE AN AVERAGE OF FOUR OBSERVATIONS. (Min. Sec.) 1 Single Six Double Six Double Six Double Six Double Six Double Six

62 53 The others ranged from 39.7 to 48.9 cows milked per hour. However, fewer cows were milked in a single six herringbone. TABLE VII THE AVERAGE IDLE MACHINE TIME FOR SIX HERRINGBONE MILKING PARLORS. AN AVERAGE OF FOUR OBSERVATIONS AT EACH. Farm No. of' Number of Average Total No. Stalls Operators Idle Machine Time/Unit (Min. Sec.) 1 Single six Double Six Double six Double six Double six 1 l 30 6 Double six 1 l 32 Each unit on Farm 1 was idle for 50 minutes 40 seconds which is more than half of the total milking time. There is no way that an operator can get around this problem in a single six herringbone. When the unit is taken off a cow it must hang idle until another cow is in the stall. Since

63 54 Since the cows come in in batches of six, the first unit off must set idle all during the time that the others are on. A slow milking cow can hold the unit up for six or eight minutes. In the double six herringbone, the unit is idle only during the few seconds which elapse while it is being changed from the cow across the pit. Slow milking cows are taken care of by crisscrossing the machines in the double six herringbone (Figure 1). Assuming that the units are on cows A through F and that cow J is a slow milker. The operator has the option of putting the unit from either C, D or E on cow J; depending upon the one done first. In the single six herringbone, no such option is present. All other milkers must hang idle while the slow milking cow is being milked. A comparison of the jobs required for carrying out the other chore operations is presented in Table VIII. A com parison of the five factors presented indicated no significant difference. If anything, the slight time advantage is in favor of the single six herringbone. This could be an indication that the cows get somewhat more individual attention in the single six herringbone. However, this

64 LT] U1, é Figure 1. An example of crisscrossing in a herringbone milking system to get the unit on a slow milking cow as soon as possible. In this example, J is assumed to be the slow milking cow, thus the unit from either C, D or E could be put on J.

65 (Min. Sec.) (Min. Sec.) (Min. Sec.) (Min. Sec.)(Min. SecJ Double Double 56 TABLE VIII A COMPARISON OF THE AVERAGE MILKING TIME PER COW, LENGTH OF TIME EACH BATCH IS IN THE PARLOR, TIME TO WASH UDDERS, THE PREPARATION AND CLEANUP TIME FOR THE SINGLE SIX HERRINGBONE, THE DOUBLE SIX HERRINGBONE WITH ONE AND TWO OPERATORS. Average Average Total Type No. Per Cow Time Batch Wash Udders Prep- Parlor Op. Milking Time in Parlor of Batch aration Cleanup Single six ll six l 47 ll six O9 1 O

66 advantage is not great enough to overcome the disadvantage 57 of the lengthened chore time and the amount of time the milker units must be idle. The data obtained indicate that the double six herringbone is more efficient than the single six. The data gave no indication as to whether one or two operators was more efficient in the double six herringbone. Part III. Management and/or Construction Features Which Affect the Chore Time Several factors were studied which might, if a few changes were made, make the milking operation more efficient. When a dry cow enters the parlor, the machine is idle. The longer it is idle the less efficient the milking oper ation becomes. The actual free milker time on the farms studied and a calculated free milker time if dry cows had not entered the parlor is presented in Table IX. On Farms 1, 3, 5 and 6 the dry cows were with the milking herd, therefore they could enter the parlor at random. Whenever they entered, that unit was idle for the length of time the batch was being milked. However, with two or three

67 58 cows dry as on the farms studied, it would not prove efficient to handle so few cows in a separate area. If the dairymen had a large number of cows dry, it would pay them to have them separated from the milking herd. The time saved in milking would certainly make up for the extra work. TABLE IX THE AFFECT OF DRY COWS ENTERING THE PARLOR WITH A BATCH OF COWS TO BE MILKED UPON THE IDLE MACHINE TIME Calculated Total No. Farm Total Idle Idle Machine Time Cows No. Time/Unit Minus Dry Cows Dry (Min. Sec.) (Min. Sec.) O l 31 O O 37 2 One of the most important factors in the milking procedure is that the cows are in the parlor long enough to eat their concentrate (Table X). The shortest time was on Farm 2 with an average of 11 minutes with the longest on Farm 4 with an average of 14 minutes 40 seconds. The time

68 59 TABLE X AVAILABLE TIME FOR COWS TO EAT CONCENTRATES Farm Study Average Time Batch No. is in Parlor Range (Min. Sec.) (Min. Sec.) (Min. Sec.) 1 ll ll O 10 O7 - I ll range on all six farms was seven minutes 37 seconds to 19 minutes 42 seconds. Cleaver (1952) found that most cows had their concentrate eaten in six minutes. The studies of the six farms indicated that the cows had sufficient time to eat their concentrate. Moving the cows in and out of the parlor as rapidly as possible saves a lot of time. There seemed to be no particular problem moving the cows out. They had suffi-

69 60 cient concentrate eating time and were ready to leave the parlor. The problem was in the entrance time. The first two batches usually entered quite rapidly. The dairymen stated that most generally they were the same cows. The quickest entrance for a batch was ten seconds, with an average of 32 seconds for all first entrances. The study indicated that batch one and two entered quite rapidly as the averages were 32 and 33 seconds respectively. A ten second jump was observed for batch three and again a jump for batches four and five. The longest entrance time took place with batch five which averaged 55 seconds. Batch six was the last to enter on three of the farms so they were usually driven in which cut the entrance time considerably. On Farms 2 and 5 an electric fencer was used. They placed a charged wire across the center of the holding pen after the s'xth batch had entered. The cows were crowded together more and entered more readily for the next two batches. To hurry the entrance of the last two batches, the dairymen on Farm 5 drove them in. The last batch of cows on all farms were driven in. Another factor found to effect the entrance time, was the size of holding area. Cows were more eager to enter

70 61 when they were more crowded than if they had space to be comfortable. The relationship of the number of square feet per cow in the holding area on the entrance time is presented in Table XI. TABLE XI A RELATIONSHIP OF THE SPACE PER COW IN THE HOLDING PEN TO THE PARLOR ENTRANCE TIME Farm Size of Holding Study Average Entrance Area. No. Time per Batch Range Sq. Ft. per Cow (Min. Sec.) (Min.Sec.)(Min.Sec) l O l l 08 O l O 54 O O l The dairyman should crowd his cows in the holding area»to speed up the parlor entrance time. The long batch entrance time on Farm 3 points this out. The cows had an average of 47.5 square feet each in the holding pen. More time was needed to enter than on.the other farms.

71 62 An interest was shown as to how fresh heifers react to the herringbone system. This problem was discussed with the dairymen. The general opinion was to let them enter the milking herd a few days early so they can go through the parlor several times before having to be milked. This method would subject them to one experience at a time and acquaint them with the parlor before milking them.

72 63 SUMMARY.AND CONCLUSION A comparison of the single six herringbone and the double six herringbone with one and two operators has brought forth much information. The milking time per cow in the three types does not vary considerably, however, the chores in a single six take more time to complete than they do in the double six herringbone. Time studies indicate that the double six herringbone is more efficient. The available data could not definitely substantiate any conclusion regarding the number of operators in the double six herringbone. However, the observations indicated that one operator must work more rapidly than two. One operator cannot Spend as much time observing the cows. The eating time in all cases was sufficient for the cows to clean up the concentrate placed before them. Each batch was in the parlor from 11 minutes to 14 minutes 40 seconds. The milking was done rapidly and cleanly with all dairymen washing the udders and utilizing some method of examining the fore-milk. The length of time that each

73 64 machine remained on the cows ranged from one minute 42 seconds to ten minutes 25 seconds, depending upon the amount of milk given and the rate of flow. The dairymen gave individual attention to their cows, watching for injury, heat periods or any other factor which should be observed. The entrance time is an important factor in efficient milking. The use of a charged wire and the proper size holding pen help get the cows in more rapidly. Preparation and cleanup of the parlor and equipment amounted to more than 50 percent of the total milking time. Obtaining four milkings per farm were sufficient to get proper times for this study. The data indicated that one observation per farm would have been just as satisfactory as the four observations since the variation between milking was small.

74 65 LITERATURE CITED Baker, R. H. and Bailey, R.A. Plan Dairy Chores. Ohio Ag. Exp. Sta. Bull. No Baxter, E.S., Clarke, P.M., Dodd, F.H. and Foot, A.S. Factors Affecting the Rate of Machine Milking. J. Dairy Res. 17: Bendixen, H. A. and Smith, L. J. Approved Washington Milking Parlors. Ext. Bull. No Feb Braun, D. $150 Milking Parlor. Farm Journal. 78:50. N Braun, D. Cow-A-Minute Milking Parlor. Farm Journal. :62. June Brown, B. A., Snyder, W. W., Hoglund, C. R. and Boyd, J.S. Labor Requirements for Herringbone and Other Milking Systems. Quarterly Bull. of the Mich. Agr'l. Exp. Station, Mich. State Univ., East Lansing. Vol 41, No. 4. May Cherkashchenko. I.I. Byul. nauch.-tekln. Inf Dairy Sci. Abs. 20:7: (abstracted). Cleaver, T. Time Travel Studies on Dairy Farms. Ag. Engr. 33 (3) Dahlberg, A. C. Increased Milk Production by Improved Machine Milking. Cornell Ext. Bull. No Dalton, H. L., Huffman, C. F. and Ralston, N. P. The Effect of Feeding Concentrates with Different Degrees of Fineness and Water Contents on the Eating and Milking Times in Dairy Cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 36: Dodd, F. H. Normal Variations in the Rate of Machine Milking. J. Dairy Res. 20:

75 Ox 0\ Dodd, F. H. and Clough, P. A. Machine Milking Outlook on Agriculture. 1 (4) Dodd, F. H. and Foot, A. S. Experiments on Milking Technique. J. Dairy Res. 15: Dodd, F. H. and Foot, A. S. Experiments on Milking Technique. Combined Effect of Reducing the Milking Time and Washing Udder with Hot Water. Effect of Increasing Milking Time. J. Dairy Res. 16: Dodd, F. H. and Foot, A. 8.: The Importance of Machine Milking Rate in Dairy Cow Management and Breeding. J. Dairy Res. 20: Dodd, F. H., Foot, A. S. and Henriques, Ettie. Experiments on Milking Technique. Effect of Temporary Changes in the Interval Between Washing and Milking. Comparison of Established Washing and Milking Routines. J. Dairy Res. 16: Dodd, F. H., Foot, A. 5., Henriques, Ettie, and Neave, F. K. Experiments on Milking Technique. The Effect of Subjecting Dairy Cows, for a Complete Lactation, to a Rigid Control of the Duration of Milking. J. Dairy Res. 17: Gaines. W; L. A Contribution to the Physiology of Lactation. Am. J. Physiol. 38: Harshbarger, K. E. Observations on Time Required for Dairy Cows to Eat Grain, Silage and Hay. J. Dairy Sci. 32: (abs.) Hoglund, C. R., Boyd, J. S. and Snyder, W. W. Herringbone and Other Milking Systems, Operations and Investments. Reprint, Quart. Bull. of Mich. Agr'l. Exp. Station, Mich. State Univ. Vol. 41, No. 3. Feb

76 Holden, M. A Year in the Life of a Herringbone. Farmer and Stockbreeder. 72: Hopson, G. H. New Techniques in Milking. Ag. Engr. 25: HuPP. E. W. Some Factors Associated with the Rate of Milk Flow in Dairy Cattle. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, M.S.U Jefferson, C. H. and Weaver, Earl. The Pen Barn and Milking Room in Michigan. M.S.C. Ag. Ext Circ. No Jordan, J. 0. Fast Milking. Farm Q. 11:38. Summer Kick, C. H., Gerlaugh, P., Schalk, A. F. and Silver, R.A. The Effect of Mechanical Processing of Feeds on the Mastication and Rumination of Steers. J. Agr. Res. 55: Kirsch, W. and Drews, R. Studies on Pipeline and Parlour Milking Machines with Special Reference to Labour and Cleaning. Dairy Sci. Abs. l7 (9) 734b (abs.) Knoop, C. E. and Monroe, C. F. Influence of Pre-Milking Preparations of Cows' Udders Upon the Let-Down of Milk. J. Dairy Sci. 33: Laycock, G. Does A Parlor Pay. Farm Q. 5:68. Autumn Morris, W. H. M. and Boyd, L. L. Time and Effort to Milk Cows. Ag. Engr. 36: Morris, W. H. M. and Boyd. L. L. Efficiency of the Milking Operation. Ag. Engr. 36:

77 Pelissier, C. L. Efficiency in Milking and Milk Handling on the Farm. Conv. Proc. Milk Ind. Founda Dairy Sci. Abs. 20 (4) Pokhvalenskii, V. Mechanization of Milking and Milk Handling. Dairy Sci. Abs. 17 (9) 743b (abs.) Schalk, A. F. and Amadon, R. S. Physiology of the Ruminant Stomach (Bovine). Study of Dynamic Factors. N. D. Ag. Exp. Sta. Bull. No Smith, V. R. and Petersen, W. E. The effect of Preparation of the Cow on the Rate of Milking. J. Dairy Sci. 31: Standvik, O. The Relationship Between Milking Rate and Milk Yield. J. Dairy Res. 24 (3) Stewart, W. E., Schultz, L. H. and Coker, S. P. Studies on the Rate of Machine Milking of Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 40: Stronks, G. W. Off. Org. K. ned. Zuivelb. 45 (5) Dairy Sci. Abs. 15 (6) 466b (abs.) Whittlestone, W. G. Studies on Milk Ejection in the Dairy Cow. N. Z. J. of Sci.and Tech. Vol. 32, sec. A, No Whittlestone, W. G. Efficient Machine Milking. Proc. Ruakura Farmers Conf Dairy Sci. Abs. 18 (4) (abs.) Wilkins, J. W. Some Results of Milking Parlor Research. Ag. Engr. 30 (12) Wilson, C. D. Mastitis. An Appraisal of It's Present- Day Importance. Outlook on Agriculture. 1 (5)

78 Witzel, S. A. Loose Housing for Dairy Cattle. J. Milk and Food Tech. 13 (3) Wooley, J. E., Huff, K. B., Stewart, R. E. and Ragsdale, A.C. Buildings for the Dairy Enterprise. Mo. Ag. Exp. Sta. Bull. No Zehner, C. E. 3-Minute Milking. Successful Farming. 41 (8) Anonymous, Farm Journal. Pg 13a. June y

79 III III I ll I 1 I I II '6 III: I.lll ll ll I I III. I III. Is I I8 Ill 3 III O 3 1 III l l l Hl Nl "I I