Editor's Note: This is the first of two articles on the Precision Dairy Technology Forum hosted by Penn State University. Click here to read the second article. “When you're making a transition, have a plan. Don't just have a five-minute conversation in the yard about how to make the transition. Have a real plan,” said Paul Berdell of Robotic Milking Integration Solutions. Berdell is a consultant helping dairy producers transition to robotic milking and has more than a decade of experience with robots.

Berdell spoke at a Precision Dairy Technology Forum hosted by Penn State University Extension in Franklin County, Pennsylvania, on Oct. 18, where planning and management was a key theme in both of the day’s sessions: robotic milking and automated calf feeding.

“Technology eliminates the some of the day-to-day drudgery, but adds some thinking management to do something you never had to do before,” said Dr. Jud Heinrichs, professor of Dairy Science, speaking about automated calf feeding technology.

Berdell and Heinrichs, although speaking on completely different topics, echoed each other in these two major areas: automated systems, whether for milking cows or feeding calves, may eliminate some labor, but they both need solid planning and management to ensure positive results.

Robotic milking – Lessons learned from 15 farms
Berdell gave a detailed presentation about how 15 different farms transitioned to robots and the similarities and differences transition for different sub-groups of dairies. Farms represented in the 15-farm sample group included:

• Three brands of robots
• An average of 57 cows per robot
• Located in five different states (Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania)
• Stocking density averaged one-cow per stall
• 30 percent bedded in sand, 40 percent bedded on dual chamber waterbeds, 20 percent bedded on mattresses, 10 percent bedded on other surfaces
• Ventilation included natural, box fans, and/or sprinklers
• All farms had automatic feed pushers.

Berdell looked at a wide range of dairies covering a wide range of factors, noting that every farm is going to have a different transition experience. However, there were some key takeaways that all dairies can draw from when considering a transition to robotic milking.
Commonalities

Over a one-year timespan, the 15-farm sample saw a milk average of 73.5 pounds per day before robots grow to an 80.2 pounds per day after robots, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. Although most herds saw some increase, some had very little or no change.

“The herd that saw the biggest increase was 22 pounds and the smallest change was zero pounds. Why?” said Berdell. “The herd with no change was a farm that really struggled from Day One transitioning the whole system because the cows weren’t their primary focus in farming to start with.”

Berdell indicated that a dairy that starts out focused on the cows with a lot of hands-on management is going to have a better transition with potentially more dramatic results than a dairy with a lot of other things to juggle. Other common themes across all 15 herds were:

• There was no real change in somatic cell count due to the installation of robots
• The largest milk changes came from herds entering new facilities (+14 pounds average) as the newer facilities were designed for comfort, which tends to add to any increased milk production due to the robot
• A younger herd transitions more quickly
• An overweight herd transitions more slowly
• There was a small correlation between increased number of feed-pusher runs to increased number of visits to the robot
• There was no significant change in milk components due to the installation of robots
• There was a very strong correlation between days-in-milk during transition and milk production. “If you’re looking at a robot and looking at timing the transition, days-in-milk is going to be a factor. If your herd is at a lower DIM, your potential increase in production with the robot is going to be a lot higher,” said Berdell.
  

Include a separation pen
Nearly every farm in Berdell’s 15-farm group regretted not planning and including a vet area or separation area in the facility, especially in larger herd settings.

“Not having a separation pen is adding about ½-hour per day to their chores," said Berdell.

Since most of the 15 farms transitioned to robotic milking to help reduce labor, the process of fetching cows for herd health or breeding was actually adding labor. Including a separation pen in the initial planning phase was something most dairy producers recommended.
Consider bedding

In looking at labor efficiency and costs, robotic barns bedding in sand saw an increase in both labor and maintenance cost of the robots.

Across the 15-farm sample, Berdell calculated that the robots cost an average of $18.22 per robot per day to run (including checkups, parts, service, labor, and chemicals). However, robots in mattress and waterbed-bedded barns were lower, between $12 and $18, and barns in sand were higher, between $21 and $26.

Carefully plan the layout and pay attention to foot health
The location and position of both the robots and the footbaths was an issue in many of the dairies.

Berdell recommends doing a lot of research and talking with other dairy producers about barn layout to head off issues in cow flow in the planning phase, and once the transition is complete, pay close attention to foot health.

“It doesn't matter what the flow is, foot health is going to have a major impact in a robot system,” said Berdell. “The less they walk, the less they eat, the less they go in to get milked. You need to pay attention to foot health.”

Feed costs vary
Although it’s difficult to calculate feed cost across a wide variety of regions, Berdell noted that the average cost of feed increased 22 cents per-cow, per-day versus the pre-robot feed costs. This was as high as a 40-cent increase for one farm, but one of the other farms saw no change in feed costs based on the feed supply or the decision to not use pellets in the robot.

One of the more interesting facts was that the higher the production average, the lower amount of pellet that can be fed. Farms at a higher production level averaged 12.2 pounds of pellet per cwt/milk versus farms at a lower production level averaged 14.4 pounds of pellet per cwt/milk in the 15-farm group.

“When they crave it more, you can give it less,” said Berdell, referring to the increased drive of the cow to get into the robot means that they need less of the robot pellet feed to motivate them to get milked.
Across the group, the feed cost per CWT was an average of $9.75 with the average income over feed cost at $5.30 (the high was $8.10 and the low was $3.66).

If possible, transition slowly
“I know a lot of people need to start full because of financial reasons, but that can hold your cows back from making the transition,” said Berdell.

If at all possible, he advised producers to start with a smaller group on the robot to transition so they have more time to learn without being rushed.

“The optimum time frame is a two- to three-week transition with smaller cow numbers. You don't want to overload it right from the start [with a maxed out 60 to 65 cows per robot]. But if you're only planning for 50 to 55 cows on robot, you can do that starting from Day One,” he said.

Your cows will transition
"I don't think that anyone has the perfect system figured out. We are all still learning, but it is a proven technology, and it works,” said Berdell. “And when I hear ‘Not my cows,’ I say ‘Yes they will.’ Any cow will do it, you just have to believe it.”

Voices from the farm
Two dairy producers were on-hand to answer questions. Both producers emphasized the need to understand the information in the system’s computer interface to use it to its greatest advantage.

The information coming from the robot is “beneficial if you know how to use it, and detrimental if you don't,” said Hannah Shabanowitz, the farm manager at Kurtland Dairy in Elverson, Pennsylvania.

Hannah, a 2012 graduate of Penn State with a degree in animal science, spoke about the dairy’s new free stall barn that started up in March 2013 with four robots, manure solid bedding, automatic side curtains, and a fan ventilation system for its 210 cows.

Blair Courter of Mill Hall, Pennsylvania, also spoke about his family’s transition to robots. After a fire destroyed the family’s tie-stall barn in June 2011, Courter and his two sons rebuilt a robotic-milking facility with dual chamber waterbeds, side curtains and micro-fans for their 115 cows.

Courter is a good example of how a robotic facility can be managed based on the dairy producer’s own personal preferences. Using a combination of ground, shelled corn and ground, roasted soybeans, Courter doesn’t buy pellet feed for the robots.

“I’m probably one of the few people feeding homegrown ground feed instead of pellets,” he said, indicating he is still meeting his set goals for milk production as well.

Holly Harper is marketing director at Advanced Comfort Technology Inc. You can reach her by email.

PHOTO
Hannah Shabanowitz, the farm manager at Kurtland Dairy in Elverson, Pennsylvania, (left) and Blair Courter, a dairy producer in Mill Hall, Pennsylvania, both use robotic milking systems on their dairies and offered their insight and experiences at PSU’s Precision Dairy Management Forum in Franklin County, Pennsylvania. Photo courtesy of Holly Harper.