Fall 2013
Free copy
®
How to
maximize
results
Report:
Scotch Lake Dairy
Vastly profitable on the farm!
1
Rob Lister, B.Sc., Agr.
Ken Smith
Chris Elias
Ruminant Technical Specialist
Shur-Gain, Atlantic Region
Business Manager
Shur-Gain, Atlantic Region
Dairy Nutrition Advisor
Landmark Feeds
®
a Nutreco Company
Our comprehensive
approach to
robotic milking
Over the last few years many producers have invested in robotic systems on their dairy farms.
These technologies have helped dairy producers improve efficiencies in milking, feeding, labour,
quality of life, and overall farm management.
The Impacts
of Milking
Robots
The first robotic milking unit was introduced to the Canadian market in
1999. It took a few years for our dairy industry to embrace the technology,
but in the past five years it seems we’ve been making up for lost time.
Invested right from the start
with the first milking robots
Shur-Gain has been invested in robotic milking and feeding right
from the start and actually collects research data from specific
robotic milking herds. We strongly feel that these technologies
provide us with more measurement and management information,
which, combined with our expertise in the field, helps us to make
better recommendations and assist producers in reaching their
goals faster.
With our exclusive NEWTON ® system, we have developed
customized milking robot feeds and the nutritional strategies
to help maximize the performance and health of the cows in these
dual feeding systems. Nothing makes us happier than hearing
from our customers that they have achieved their goals and are
taking their dairy to new heights!
As with all new technologies, we try to take a comprehensive
approach that involves people, management tools, and specialized
feeds. We have trained our Dairy Nutrition Advisors (DNA) to be
milking robot specialists to ensure they have the specialized
knowledge needed to help producers at every step in the transition
to milking in an automatic milking system (AMS).
Over the years, At a Glance has published many articles on
management practices, new feed technologies, and strategies
that producers can utilize to be more profitable, but we are proud
to say that this is our first “robot” themed edition. In this edition,
we focus on everything from robotic calf feeding to milking
robots. We hope you enjoy reading it as much as we did putting
it together.
A special issue on robotics
Why are milking robots attractive?
According to Dr. Diana Stuart from Michigan State University,
and Dr. Rebecca Schewe from Mississippi State University, there
are four primary answers to this question:
To
reduce labour
on farm
The need to
upgrade facilities
IN THIS ISSUE
Your comments
are always welcome!
Send them to Rob Lister
By mail: 50 Saunders, Fredericton
(New Brunswick) E3B 1N1
By e-mail: [email protected]
2
Higher production
with a third milking
2 Editorial
12 Scotch Lake Dairy
3 The Impacts of Milking Robots
14 Ferme Wallu
Cow Traffic Systems
VIVALTO - Testimonials:
VIVALTO - Testimonials:
6 in Robot Milking
15 Brackley Farm
9 Automatic calf feeders
16 Shur-Gain to supply feed for
Why do dairy farmers trust
their robotic milking stations?
(explanation below)
To transition the farm
to the next generation
The answer may vary from farm to farm, but from the numerous
producers I’ve spoken to and worked with, the primary answer
is usually “to reduce labour.” Larger farms want to reduce
the amount of hired labour, and smaller, family farms want more
flexibility in their schedules. Large or small, it comes down
to labour efficiency and being able to get more done in less
time. There are various studies that support a 20-30% reduction
in labour for milking-related activities when switching to an
automatic milking system (AMS). In a 2003 Canadian study
by McKnight, Rodenburg and Fisher, they compared 22 AMS
herds with parlour herds of a similar size and discovered that
for milking, related set-up and clean-up, it took 1.02 minutes
per cow per day in the AMS system vs. 3.28 minutes per cow per
day in the parlour system. Only 31% of the time spent on milking!
Creating a schedule that can bend to daily or seasonal duties
can be quite appealing compared to having a schedule that
revolves around milking times—it becomes about doing what
you want when you want to do it (see Figure 1 on next page). It’s the
rare producer who hasn’t been in the middle of making hay when
the clock says it’s milking time, forcing him back to the barn.
Whether it’s doing field work or spending time with family,
having the choice of when to go to the barn can make life
a lot more enjoyable.
(March 2012 Robotic Milking Conference, Michigan State University)
3
Figure 1: D
istribution of daily activities in robotic
milking operations
8%
Feeding
6%
Computer-based herd management
6%
Herd Health
Grooming Stalls
64%
2%
1%
5%
Fetching cows
4%
Cleaning robots and milk room
Training new animals
Changing milk filters
Pushing up feed
Free time and other tasks
Rodriguez, Francisco. “Progressive Dairyman” (2013).
Some producers would also rather manage more equipment
than more people. A milking robot will do the same job, day
in and day out, will always be on time, and will never complain.
Of course, there is the occasional inconvenient phone call from
the robot, but producers will say these are generally rare.
A different management style
It’s not surprising that managing a farm with milking robots
requires some different management techniques than a conventional farm. Below are a few of the main areas that I’ve found
change significantly when a producer starts using an AMS:
Data management
Having an AMS will substantially increase the amount of available
data on your farm; it may even be overwhelming for some. It’s
easy to sit down in front of the computer and get lost in all of the
numbers, charts, and graphs, which makes it imperative that you
know what you’re looking at and know how to find what you need.
Here are a few tools that can help
make data management easier:
1 Training courses – Many of the equipment dealers have great
training courses or round table forums on navigating
the computer software and interpreting the numbers.
These sessions are also a great place to discuss ideas
and experiences with other producers.
2 Knowledgeable advisors – Aligning yourself with knowledgeable advisors can be very valuable when trying to figure
things out. These advisors can be a good resource for ideas
and problem solving.
3 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) – These numbers can
be incredibly useful to streamline the data management
process. Once you know which main KPIs you should be
looking at, you can work with your advisors to figure out what
they should be on your farm. You can likely get a standard
set of KPIs from the equipment dealer and compare them
with where you’re currently at and where you want to go.
Here is a short list of KPIs and where you want them to be:
Rest feed (<5%), Milkings/cow/day (2.6-3.5), Failures/
Incompletes (<5%), Free time (>10%).
Time management
As discussed earlier, robotic milking creates a much more flexible
schedule. The key to this, however, is making the most of your
extra time. A good way to start is by making a list of all the necessary daily tasks and prioritizing them. Once that’s done, you can
then start planning the other tasks you want to get done during
the rest of the day. Prioritizing is a great way to make sure that
nothing is overlooked. With 64% of your day open (Figure 1),
you don’t want to let it go to waste!
Cow management
With an AMS, cows are no longer seen at each milking time
to check for mastitis, injuries, etc. At the same time, it’s likely
easier than ever before to manage individual cows in an AMS.
To do this well, time needs to be spent in front of the computer
looking for cows on the various lists and then following up by
visually checking those cows in the barn. Some producers
are using their smartphones to help in this area, which is handy
if you have several lists to go through.
A well-designed barn with conveniently placed gates leading
to a catch pen will greatly assist with catching and sorting cows,
and moving them to where you want them.
Here are two areas where an AMS
can help better manage your cows:
1 Heat/sick cow detection – Many robotic milking units come
with some sort of activity meters, rumination tracking and/
or heat detection devices. If installed properly, these tools
are very useful for detecting cows in heat as well as sick
cows, doing their job consistently 24/7. When you check
the reports, you’re looking for cows with irregular rumination
or activity they don’t normally have; these are the cows you
need to monitor. Some units will also predict the optimal time
for insemination based on the cow’s activity and the herd’s
previous records.
I’ve also seen numerous cases where sick cows were
detected earlier than they would have been in a conventional
facility because of reduced activity and/or rumination.
2 Udder health – One of the unique features of an AMS is that
each udder quarter is milked individually, so data is collected
about each quarter. This information enables more accurate
monitoring and treatment. The AMS allows you to track chronic
problem cows or new infections, and act accordingly. Since
most robots don’t measure actual SCC, comparing the
numbers with DHI may prove useful.
Impact on cow health
and production
Table 1 shows what the typical day should look like for a cow in any
free stall barn compared to a cow in an AMS.
Table 1: Comparison of activities for free stall vs. AMS
You’ll notice the numbers vary most in “Social interactions”
and “Lying/resting” behaviour. In an AMS facility, you want the
cow to be able to choose what she wants to do when she wants
to do it. Cow comfort is every bit as important as before (if not
more) because you want the cows to be able to move around as
naturally as possible—lame and sick cows won’t do that. Having
comfortable stalls that promote lying behaviour is important,
but so is proper access to the robot, adequate water and bunk
space, as well as space to socialize and walk around. The primary
goal needs to be to keep the cows comfortable and stress-free,
and not to restrict the patterns they want to create. You want
the cows to reach their potential by creating their own patterns.
Your most comfortable cows will still make the most milk, just
like they always have.
As stated earlier, the third main reason for installing milking robots
is to increase production via more frequent milkings. There is
plenty of evidence to support this when switching from 2x milking
to an AMS (Table 2). However, Table 2 also shows that when
switching from 3x milking to an AMS, milk production actually
drops. Though your average milkings per cow per day may
increase to 3.1 or even higher, many cows will choose to get
milked less than 3 times per day, so we see a decrease in milk
production. There is great benefit to increasing the number
of milkings from 2 to 3, but beyond that the benefit is marginal.
If you are going from 2x to an AMS, one potential concern that
can arise is reduced fertility due to more stress on the cows
and a greater negative energy balance postpartum from producing
more milk.
Activity
Free stall
(hrs/day)
AMS
(hrs/day)
Drinking
0.5
0.25
2.5 - 3.5
3
Groups
2x to AMS
3x to AMS
2x
AMS
3x
AMS
81
81
12
12
25
27.2
27.5
26.7
62.1
63
64.9
62.3
Holding area & milking parlour
Table 2: Production and milking frequency
Social interactions
2-3
6
Milking frequency
Eating
3-5
3.75
Number of farms
Ruminating
7-10
Lying/resting
12-14
Grant and Albright (2000). Rodriguez. “Progressive Dairyman” (2013).
11
Milk yield (kg/d)
56-day nonreturn rate
Kruip, T.A.M., et al. “Journal of Dairy Science” (2002).
In a 2001 study, T.A.M. Kruip reported that although milk
increased by switching from 2x milking to an AMS, fertility measured
by the 56-day nonreturn rate stayed almost the same (see Table 2).
Though it appears this number is higher with 3x milking, Kruip
states in his report that this number doesn’t match the other
research (could be attributed to the small number of farms in this
study) and that fertility in an AMS facility is actually unchanged.
Like many changes on a dairy farm, a well-designed facility,
proper nutrition and good management are essential to making
them work. Adding milking robots to your farm just adds a new
element to the mix.
Since averages can be misleading, it’s important to look
at individual cows and not just the averages.
®
a Nutreco Company
4
5
The milk-first system
Brian Tarr
Ruminant Nutritionist
Shur-Gain, Central Region
®
modern
feeding
strategy
facilitate
technology
a Nutreco Company
robot
health
milking
system capacity
very popularexperience
optimize
cow
modernity facilitate
milk
goals
quality of life
cow
strong
cow well-being
investment
lactation advantages
labour
researchoptimize efficiency all theaccess
time
system capacity
robot
pellet
Cow Traffic Systems
in Robot Milking
Robotic milking has become very popular,
and an increasing number of farms are converting
to robots. The most frequently reported reason for
installing robots is improved quality of life. Some
farms have converted existing barns to accommodate
robotic milking, while others have built new barns
and installed robots.
In this article we are looking to give you a generic review
of the different cow traffic systems available that can be used with
robot milking. The most popular are free-flow cow traffic and
forced cow traffic, of which milk-first and feed-first cow traffic
systems are the most common. Critically evaluating the different
cow traffic systems is difficult as each has its ardent advocates.
All three cow traffic systems work well, so it is important for
producers to select the system that best suits them, promotes
cow well-being, and meets their goals.
The basic parameters by which the different systems can be
evaluated include the feeding strategy, system capacity, labour
efficiency, initial investment, and typical advantages and
disadvantages generally accepted in the industry (Rodriguez,
2013). These differentiating criteria reported in the literature
and promoted by industry help to set the expectations for each
cow traffic system.
The free-flow system
In the free-flow cow traffic system, the cows have unrestricted
access to the feed bunk, stalls, robot(s), and water. The cows are
fed a partial mixed ration (PMR) at the bunk. The minimum
and average amount of grain ration must be greater than that
fed in the milk-first system. The main motivation for this system
is providing a palatable and high quality pellet. In addition the
amount of robot feed delivered is another key factor in motivating
cows to visit the robot. This system accommodates 55-60 cows
per robot. The initial set-up cost is the lowest of all the systems
(Rodriguez, 2013).
The key benefit is that cows have free access to feed, stalls, the
robot, and water all the time (Rodriguez, 2013). Early lactation
cows are milked more frequently with shorter inter-milking intervals
compared to the forced traffic systems (Gygax et al., 2007). There
is less risk of cows blocking gates, passageways or walkways
(Lely 2013). Some reports suggest that there are more fetch cows
compared to the forced traffic systems (Bach et al., 2009). Cows
may visit the robot without being milked (refusals), reducing robot
capacity. Milking frequency tends to decline with increasing days
in milk (Gygax et al., 2007). This may reduce milk production
and potentially increase fetch cows (DeLaval, undated). How
the ration is balanced is critically important to help maintain turns
in late lactation and lower producing cows (Lely, 2013).
by the robot. The system, with no refusals at the robot,
accommodates 55-75 cows per robot. Reported number of fetch
cows is 1 to 5%. The initial set-up costs are higher than those
for the free-flow cow traffic system (Rodriguez, 2013).
In the milk-first cow traffic system, the cows are pre-selected
on their way from the stalls to the bunk. Cows with milking
permission are directed to a holding pen to be milked on their
way to the feed bunk. If not, they are directed to the feed bunk.
The cows are fed a partial mixed ration at the bunk with
a minimum grain ration per cow per day fed through the robot.
The main motivation for cows to visit the robot is the bunk mix
(PMR). Managing the partial mixed ration well is extremely important.
The cows have unlimited access to the feed bunk. Only cows
with milking permission are in the sort pen waiting to be milked,
which increases robot capacity. Cows follow their daily feeding
pattern and present more often at the sort gate, resulting in more
regular milking. There are reportedly few fetch cows (Rodriguez,
2013). Cows may spend longer than necessary in the feed alley,
there may be congestion at the sort gates (Lely, 2013), and cows
selected to be milked, particularly low-ranked cows, may spend
longer waiting to be milked (Jacobs & Siegford, 2012). Cows will
be without water unless it is provided in the holding area.
This system, with no refusals at the robot, accommodates
55-75 cows per robot. The reported number of fetch cows
is 1 to 5%, possibly more labour efficient than free flow. The initial
set-up costs are higher than those for the free-flow cow traffic
system (Rodriguez, 2013).
Benefits include more consistent milking frequency between early
and late lactation cows (Gygax et al., 2007) and the reportedly
lower number of cows to fetch. The low amount of ration fed
through the robot allows for more on-farm feeds with this cow
traffic system (Rodriguez, 2013). Research demonstrated that
the number of visits to the bunk is lower than with a free-flow
system, but the cows partially compensated by spending more
time eating per feeding and ate a larger meal at a faster rate
(Bach et al., 2009). There is a risk that cows may get acidosis,
especially if they can sort the bunk mix. Low rank cows may
wait for extended periods of time to be milked (Jacobs &
Siegford, 2012), keeping them away from feed, stalls, and water,
unless water is provided in the holding pen.
Advantages to all systems
Despite the reported advantages and disadvantages of the
different cow traffic systems, in practice it is evident that all these
systems can work very well when managed appropriately.
The sometimes reported advantage of forced traffic over free flow
for milkings/cow/day and fetch cows (Svennersten-Sjaunja
and Pettersson, 2008, DeLaval, undated) are not necessarily
observed on farm.
The single most important factor in robot milking is milk speed,
followed closely by milkings/cow/day (or total milkings/day)
and kg milk/milking (kg milk fat/milking may be just as important).
Milk speed is primarily determined by genetics and udder
preparation at the beginning of milking. Milkings/cow/day
is affected by many factors, some of which are summarized
in the diagram (Figure 1. Adapted from Hendrix UTD, 2007).
The cow traffic or feeding system, although important, is only one
of many factors that determines milkings/cow/day. Because of
all the factors impacting turns, it is impossible to definitely say
that one traffic system is better than another. It is difficult to control
for all these factors in research (and surveys), so the results
usually vary substantially. The averages may differ but are rarely
significantly different.
The feed-first system
In the feed-first cow traffic system, the cows are pre-selected after
feeding at the bunk on their way back to the stalls. Cows with
milking permission are directed to a holding pen to be milked on
their way to the stalls. If not, they are directed to the stall area.
The cows are fed a partial mixed ration at the bunk. The minimum
and average amount of grain ration must be greater than that
fed in the milk-first system. For this system to be successful the
palatability and quality of the robot feed is extremely important.
The main motivation for cows to visit the robot is the feed delivered
Figure 1.
Selected factors affecting milking frequency in robot milking herds. Adapted from Hendrix UTD,
Robot
Barn
Cows
Amount of ration fed in robot
Feeding system/barn design
Cow genetics
Nutrition
Milking frequency
(turns/cow/day)
Health
• Lameness
• Mastitis
• Metabolic
Cow Comfort
• Clean, dry and comfortable
• Access to feed, water, stalls and robot
6
• Cows/robot
• % free time
Social order
• Fresh cows
• Heifers
Milk production
(kg milk fat)
2007.
Pressure on robot
(and box time)
Robot
Milk access matrix
Feeding
• Time and routine
of feeding and push-up
• Palatable pellet
Cow factors
• Days in milk
• % 1st lactation cows
• Number fetch cows
7
Pierre Dionne, Agr.
Sales and Technology Transfer Advisor
Shur-Gain, East Region
automatic milking system (AMS) herds revealed that herds with
>60 cows/AMS averaged 2.4 turns and herds with <60 cows/AMS
averaged 2.8 turns. The average turns/cow for all herds was 2.6.
However, there was large variation with 36% of farms
with fewer than 2.5 turns, 44% of farms with 2.5-3.0 turns,
and 20% of farms with more than 3 milkings/cow/day. There was
no correlation between milkings/cow/day and the cow traffic
system in the herds surveyed (de Jong et al., 2003).
Feeding fresh feed and pushing up feed appear to have a
consistent benefit on turns/cow/day. In a survey of 13 free-flow
cow traffic herds in Ontario, feeding fresh feed more frequently
enticed cows to go up to eat and remain standing after being
milked, as well as generally improved cow traffic, turns, milking
intervals, and fewer fetch cows (Deming et al., 2013). A lack of
feed (bare bunk) at times during the day increases synchronicity
among cows. There is more crowding at the robot waiting
to be milked, fewer turns, greater variation in milking interval,
and typically more fetch cows (Svennersten-Sjaunja and
Pettersson, 2008).
Many important factors
Regardless of the cow traffic system and the diurnal pattern,
having feed available at the bunk all the time is very important as
cows are milked and eat on different schedules throughout the
day. This is especially important in the milk-first system. Producers
that have push-up robots typically run them once an hour
for 20 hours a day. These herds are achieving very high turns
and production: more than 3 turns depending on the number
of cows/robot (DNA Trip to British Columbia, 2013).
The low synchronicity in milking and other activities, regardless
of the cow traffic system, makes it difficult to obtain good research
results on cow behaviour, as well as feeding and lying behaviour
in robot herds. The contradictory results and large variations
often seen in surveys (and research) means that differences
in farm management and individual farm variations are more
important to production and efficiency than the specific features
of the robot (Deming et al., 2013, Jacobs & Siegford, 2012)
or the cow traffic system.
The appropriate cow traffic system and feeding recommen­
dations will vary by farm. The best option is to choose the robot
and cow traffic system that best reflects your philosophy,
management style and goals. Understand the key functions,
features, and characteristics of the robot and the cow traffic system.
Understand the many factors that affect milkings/cow/day
(and kg milk/minute; kg milk/milking); these ultimately translate
into kg milk per robot. Optimize each of these to facilitate
the most efficient use of your robot, while promoting cow
well-being and the bottom line.
your
Contact
Shur-Gain
for
representative
specific suggestions.
®
Automatic
calf feeders
A powerful tool that deserves to be understood
The pre-weaning period is a key time in the development of
heifers. Many studies have shown that if a heifer can at least
double its weight prior to weaning and avoid disease during
this period, its first lactation milk production will be increased
by at least 800 litres. With the current average milk price of
$79.00/hl, an additional gross income of $632.00 could be earned
during a heifer’s first lactation.
The automatic calf feeder or “auto feeder” technology is a tool
that could help the dairy producer to achieve these goals.
Advantages and disadvantages
In the past, individual housing has been promoted as a superior way
to raise calves, as opposed to grouped housing. This practice was
thought to reduce the incidence and severity of disease.
However, recent studies have shown that the additional nutrients
generally provided in a group setting allow the calves to develop
a better immune system, resulting in a lower incidence of disease.
These observations are supported by many producers who have
adopted this management practice. CY Heifer Farm, a custom
heifer raiser in WNY, reported a difference in weight gain during the
first 12 weeks of life for individually housed and group-housed heifers.
Individually fed calves weighed 110 kg, while those in group housing
weighed 125 kg (courtesy of Grober, 2010).
In addition, weaning can be done more gradually with the auto
feeder than with the manual pail feeding system, and with much
less labour, reducing stress and the decline in gain that is often
observed during this period:
DAILY GAINS
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
Weaning
0.7
0.6
3
6
8
10
Grober 2011
With 60 cows per robot, the theoretical maximum number
of turns is 2.8/cow/day. A survey of 10 U.S. and 15 Canadian
Proponents of the free-flow cow traffic system argue that more
than 5% fetch cows (similar to the forced traffic system) means
the ration is not correctly balanced for this system, or that there
is a high number of lame cows, or both (Lely, 2013, Hulsen,
undated). In a survey of 43 herds, the fetch cows in 35 free-flow
traffic herds was 16.2% ± 10.8%, and in eight forced cow traffic
herds it was 8.5% ± 5.9%. Even though the averages
are different, the variation is so large that we can’t conclude that
the number of fetch cows between these traffic systems is truly
different. Of all the fetch cows, 19% were classified as lame
and 57.6% as non-identifiable reason (Rodenburg, 2007),
possibly “lazy cows,” a result of not having a correctly balanced
ration for the system.
Average daily gain, kg/d
At a basic level, the maximum turns possible is determined by
the total time available, the box time, and the number of cows
per robot. If we assume 1,260 minutes per day and an average
box time of 7.5 minutes, then we have 168 milkings per day.
Weeks of age
Individual pen (bulls)
Large group (11 heifers)
Paired pen (bulls)
Small group (6 heifers)
a Nutreco Company
8
9
A worthwhile investment
Several producers have stated that the purchase of an automatic
feeder is an expensive investment. However, the labour saved
by the producer and the improvement in growth more than
compensated for this investment. An auto feeder station can feed
a group of 25 to 30 heifers, but, with a double nipple system,
the system can feed 50 to 60 heifers at a time. The labour savings
for a farm milking 100 cows and raising 50 heifers per year represents
385 hours per year (7.7 min./day/calf X 60 days) (Bentley et al.,
2011). At an average wage of $12.00/h, this results in a savings
of $4,620.00 annually. However, a portion of the time saved
should be used to observe the calves more and improve the overall
calf management.
The auto feeder allows the calf raiser to implement a program
of accelerated or intensified growth. Indeed, the health of the calf
is dependent on several factors, including the amount of nutrients
consumed. To meet the energy needs of a calf, especially in the
winter months, we need to feed a minimum of 1,200 grams of solids/
day in three meals. A calf naturally suckles 6-8 times per day
(Hafez and Lineweaver, 1968). The auto feeder station allows the
calf to express this natural behaviour, and thus consume the quantities
of milk required for optimal development (between 8-10 litres/day,
1,200-1,500 grams of solids/day). Another important element
in the success of the program is the stability of the concentration
(% of solids) and the temperature of the milk, which is controlled
by the auto feeder.
The software in the calf feeder system can also provide the calf
raiser with valuable information on the health status of heifers.
By monitoring daily consumption and activity of each calf, the producer
can address a health problem quicker. Another key feature
is the scale installed at the feeding station, which allows the producer
to keep track of each animal’s weight gain and thus validate if the
feeding program is providing the appropriate nutrition. The manager
can also use this information to make an assessment and culling
decision on each heifer.
Another benefit of the automatic feeding system is the ability
to provide treatment in milk for individual heifers at a specific time
instead of medicating all heifers.
Key success factors
All technologies used with livestock require very good management.
The calf feeder is a tool that must integrate a sound calf management program.
It is recommended to acclimate the calves in individual pens during
the first 5-10 days of life. This allows you to manage the distribution
of colostrum and ensure that the calf’s suckling reflex is good.
Diarrhea or pulmonary health problems are often observed
at this stage of the heifer’s acclimatization to its new environment.
The ideal grouping of calves depends on farm size and the number
of calves born per week. For a farm where fewer than 10 heifers are
raised per week, having two different age groups (10 days to
30 days, and 31 days at weaning) is the preferred grouping strategy.
This is done to avoid competition in the group between older heifers
and new arrivals, and to reduce the risk of disease contamination.
However, if there are enough calves raised per week to fill one group
within 2-3 weeks, an all-in, all-out system works better and allows
for proper cleaning of the pens between groups.
The environment is a key factor in the success of an automatic
calf feeder. In the past, this element has not been properly
handled, resulting in poor development and gain, and a higher
incidence of disease and mortality in calves. A clean, dry
environment with a good amount of bedding, along with good
ventilation to remove ammonia and humidity is critical for the
overall success of the program. This is true for every housing
system: ventilation is critical for any calf housed inside a barn.
It is necessary to implement a maintenance protocol for the feeder,
i.e. a daily checklist for the mixer, feeding line and nipples. Make
sure that the milk powder outlet is unobstructed. Clean the
nipples with a disinfectant solution every day, and clean the line
that carries the milk from the mixer to the nipple once a week.
The new models of automatic feeders now have auto cleaners,
which simplifies this task. It is important to remember that
the purpose of the auto feeder is only to feed the calves;
the producer still needs to manage the system.
ls
a
i
n
o
m
i
st
e
T André and Urs Studhalter from Irma Farm
in Saint-Albert, QC, have worked with an auto
milk feeder for 7 years. They appreciate this
equipment because it reduced mortality prior to
weaning. Before installing the automated
system, the mortality rate was 10%; over the last
two years, it has dropped to 1%.
Use the Advantage S-G milk powder throughout the entire
pre-weaning phase. Its optimum formula contains high-quality
milk protein (26%) and fat (16%). In addition, the milk replacer
is mildly acidified to reduce the incidence of diarrhea and disease
risks. The fact that it is also easy to mix makes it the ideal choice
to achieve your objectives in terms of your herd replacement program.
Conclusion
The automatic calf feeder is a powerful tool, but it should not
be purchased in the aim of spending less time with your herd
replacements, but rather to manage them more effectively.
Your S-G representative can help you define the elements
of management, environment, and feed that will allow you
to maximize this investment and achieve your goal of
heifer growth.
®
a Nutreco Company
André and Urs commented, “The time saved
in preparing and serving the milk to the calves
gave us the opportunity to better manage
and monitor our heifers.”
© Photo : Éric Labonté,
MAPAQ
For Jacquelin Drapeau of Ruisseau
Clair Farm in Normandin, QC, who raises
about 100 heifers per year, the automatic milk
station has improved development in terms
of the weight (+ 3.6 kg at 4 months) and
height (+ 0.2 cm at 4 months) of his heifers.
André
10
Urs
In addition, it has decreased the
time spent by his employees feeding
the calves.
11
Initially, the new robot was a little daunting.
The system operates continuously 24/7, so
someone always needs to be “on-call” to
deal with potential problems. Richard said
that it took some time getting used to,
but that now they take it in stride; besides,
they’ve been lucky enough to have had very
few problems! The robot also sends a huge
amount of information to the farmer every
day, which can be overwhelming, but
with the right mindset and a strong support
network, Richard and Carol have adapted
brilliantly.
A life-altering shift
Scotch Lake Dairy and
From left to right: Rachel, David, Carol, Isaac, Christina, Natalie and Richard.
Embracing milking robot
technology
Richard and Carol Boonstoppel
purchased Scotch Lake Dairy
in 1996. At the time, the
acquisition included the barns
and the land; the cows, equipment,
and quota (60 kg) were purchased
elsewhere. In September 2010,
they switched from a double
6 herringbone parlour to
a Lely A3 Next milking robot,
which completely revolutionized
their operations.
The Boonstoppels own 300 acres in
Scotch Lake, New Brunswick, where they
have a herd of 100 Holstein cows, 50 of
which are milking. The herd’s average milk
production is 10,500 kg. In addition to their
dairy operations, they grow grass forages
on their land.
All hands on deck
Richard and Carol have five children:
Rachel, 15, Christina, 13, Isaac, 11, and
twins Natalie and David, 9, all of whom have
daily chores to do on the farm. The kids are
also involved in the local 4 H club, taking
part in dairy, rabbit, and other non-livestock
projects. In their spare time, the
Boonstoppels enjoy downhill skiing and
road cycling, and are also active members
of the Fredericton Christian Reformed
Church. Richard is a member of the
Fredericton Dairy Management Group and
secretary of the local milk committee. For
her part, co-owner Carol is a physiotherapist
and, along with Richard, a graduate of the
Atlantic Agricultural Leadership Program.
She is also the organizational leader of the
Keswick Ridge 4-H club. On farm, she does
all the bookkeeping, the baling in the
summer, and she runs the farm on her own,
with help from the kids, when Richard
is away.
Improvements
through technology
The Lely milking robot—which the
Boonstoppels consider their greatest
achievement thus far—was placed in
the old free stall barn where the double
6 herringbone parlor used to be. Since
“We’ve seen
a 10-15% increase
in production
since the arrival
of the robot.”
Bright future
Richard and Carol’s only regret is that they
didn’t install their milking robot sooner.
Other than that, they love the freedom,
flexibility, and family-oriented lifestyle that
come with the profession. They have no
plans to stop farming; in fact, they hope
to one day turn the operation over to their
children. They foresee a very bright future
for the dairy industry, provided all farmers
work together to promote the benefits
of supply management to governments
and the general public. One of the best
ways to do this, according to Richard, is to embrace social media.
In the meantime, it’s full steam ahead for Scotch Lake Dairy!
Farm profile
Scotch Lake Dairy, Scotch Lake, New Brunswick
Owners: Richard and Carol Boonstoppel
Average herd size
Cows in milk
Average production
Average milk components
Quota
Types of crops
Size of property
100
50
10,500 kg
3.90% BF − 3.3% P
60 kg
Grass forages
300 acres
“It is an absolute pleasure working
with the Boonstoppel family!
They are very passionate about
what they do and are willing
to share and communicate information openly with others. The
Lely Robot has been an exciting
addition to their farm and has
been a great learning opportunity
for me as well. I look forward
to working with them to help
meet their future goals.”
Jackie Sweetland
Service center: Shur-Gain Moncton Mill
IMPROVEMENTS
with the milking robot
Scotch Lake
12
The introduction of this new technology
has also meant more free time for the family.
As Richard says, “It has completely
changed our daily routine. When we’re busy
with crops in the summer, we no longer
have to stop for evening milking. One of the
kids can feed and we can keep going.
Having a robot doesn’t mean we’re no
longer in the barn, but now we can be much
more flexible. In fact, we probably spend
more time around the cows now, walking
through the whole barn, than when we were
milking. We’ve noticed that the cows
are much more relaxed around humans.”
This means extra time to attend the kids’ extracurricular activities,
and even the occasional day away from the farm; they simply keep
an eye on things remotely by computer or smartphone.
Scotch Lake Dairy
Adjustment period
then, their lives have changed dramatically.
After the initial start-up, their year-over-year
production went up by about 10-15%,
and the somatic cell count has dropped
to below 100,000 most months. Udder
health has improved significantly due to the
fact that the cows are milked more often
(average of 3-3.2 visits per day); however,
the Boonstoppels have had to learn to
spend more time cleaning the stalls and
keeping the udders free from hair and dirt.
Dairy
• 10-15% annual increase in production
• Improved animal health
• Better quality of life
• Improved organization and efficiency
13
TESTIMONIALS
Vastly profitable on the farm!
Wallu
BrackleyFarm
Ferme
Sainte-Julienne (Lanaudière), Québec
Owners: Jean-Marc Wolfe and his two sons,
Stéphane and Pascal
Brackley, Prince Edward Island
Owners: Barry and Denise Uyterlinde
Cows in milk: 88
Kilos of quota: 98
Average production: 10,305 kg
Average milk components: 4.02% BF − 3.33% P
BCA: 231-244-237
Service center: Meunerie Marcel Bouchard Inc.
Number of head in the herd: 110
Cows in milk: 46
Average production: 10,452 kg
Average milk components: 407 kg BF − 329 kg P
Jean-Marc, Anne Frédérick, Pascal, Benjamin, Lorie, Stéphane and Mégane.
Ferme Wallu, located in Sainte-Julienne in the Lanaudière
region, is operated by Jean-Marc Wolfe and his two sons,
Stéphane and Pascal. Driven by performance, the owners make
every effort to increase their dairy production and decrease
the number of replacement heifers. To do so, they rely on
the expertise of their Shur-Gain Dairy Nutrition Advisor, who
proposes targeted solutions.
the average projection for the herd during this period to 486 kg
of milk/cow/year, which represents close to $30,000 more in revenue
from the herd at Ferme Wallu. Thanks to the increased milk production,
it is possible to make up the volume of milk needed for the additional
fall days given the limited number of stalls, and thereby increase
revenues. “With such a steady and significant increase in milk,
I’m wondering just how far Vivalto will take us?” asks Stéphane.
VIVALTO: more milk, same quality!
Decrease in replacement heifers
Since adding VIVALTO to their rations, the owners have seen an
increase in milk production. “Peak milk is higher and faster. The milk
fat level in the tank has stayed the same, despite the increased
volume of milk,” confirms Stéphane. “The same goes for reproduction
—it’s remained stable,” he adds.
The proof is in the numbers
We compared the herd’s results before adding Vivalto with
today’s results after six months of use, with similar forages
and feed. “The increase in milk production from month to month
is very obvious on my milk control reports,” states Stéphane.
Corrected milk production rose from 34.3 kg to 38.6 kg, increasing
“To produce the quota of 98 kg/day, we had to milk an average
of 87 cows with the fat test holding stable around 4.0%; now,
we plan to milk no more than 82 cows to make the quota, considering
the increased milk production and the stability of fat levels in the
milk,” states Stéphane. He adds: “If things continue like this, we will
be milking five fewer cows, and based on my average cost/cow/day,
I’ll save $11,300 per year. The cost of Vivalto is $2,860 per year
for the herd; this means we’ll make a net profit of $8,440 per year,
not to mention needing fewer replacement heifers.”
“???”
“It’s a real pleasure to work with the Wolfe family. Since my goal is to help them meet their needs and objectives,
I’m always on the lookout for new solutions to offer them. A work-family balance is much easier to achieve
???
when you have a productive and perfectly healthy herd. It’s a privilege for the entire team at Meunerie
Marcel Bouchard Inc. to contribute to the success of Ferme Wallu.”
Martin Cartier, T.P.
14
Shur-Gain representative
From left to right in the photos are Denise, Barry and Marc. Missing from the photos are Hannah, Andre and Justin.
Brackley Farms, located in Brackley, PEI, is owned by Barry
and Denise Uyterlinde, who took over from Barry’s father,
Adrian Uyterlinde, in 1997. With just 12 cows when Adrian first
started farming in 1961, they now have a herd of 110 Holsteins
(46 in milk). Passionate about what they do and highly optimistic
about the future of dairy farming, the Uyterlindes attribute
a great deal of credit for their success to their Shur-Gain dairy
nutrition advisor, who brings new technologies to their farm.
VIVALTO: making a difference
Since adding Vivalto to their rations in early April 2013, the
owners have noticed a clear improvement in production. According
to Barry, “Since starting on Vivalto, our first lactation heifers have
shown improved peak milk and are milking like crazy!” In fact, one
of the main reasons the Uyterlindes chose to work with Shur-Gain
is because they get very good results from the technology.
The numbers don’t lie
On average, the Brackley herd produces 10,452 kg of milk, with
407 kg of fat and 329 kg of protein. Between July 2012 and April
2013, before Vivalto came into the picture, the average peak
milk for first lactation heifers was 35.5 kg. Since adding Vivalto
to the mix, however, their on-farm dairy management software
reports that peak milk for first lactation cows was 36 kg in May 2013
and 39 kg in July 2013—an increase of 3.5 kg per cow, a result
Barry considers to be excellent!
Support from a trusted advisor
The Uyterlindes have high praise for their Shur-Gain dairy nutrition
advisor, Trevor Tower. They’re extremely satisfied with his service
and say they wouldn’t hesitate to recommend him to a friend. He’s
great at his job, they have an open and honest relationship, and he
helps them meet all their needs by bringing innovative Shur-Gain
technologies to their farm. It’s a win-win relationship!
“Working with the Uyterlinde family over the last four years has been a real pleasure. They are open-minded
producers who are always willing to use Shur-Gain’s technology to help them meet their goals on farm.
They take great pride in their operation and it shows! We have a great working relationship and I look forward
to seeing them succeed now and into the future.”
Trevor Tower
Territory Manager, Eastern PEI and Newfoundland
15
Why do dairy farmers trust
Shur-Gain to supply feed for their
ROBOTIC MILKING STATIONS?
good
reasons:
• Certified advisors who offer
a global approach to help you achieve
maximum value from this technology
• Proven degree of expertise
gained over the last 10 years working
with the first users of robotic milking systems
• Customized rations thanks
to NEWTON®, a formulation program
exclusive to Shur-Gain that optimizes
the value of forages used at the farm
16
That’s why dairy farmers have chosen to do
business with the LEADING SUPPLIER OF FEEDS.
SG130756
The purchase of a milking robot represents
a significant investment.