Here’s the “bells and whistles” they added to their barns
by
by Roger
Roger W.
W. Palmer
Palmer and
and Jeffrey
Jeffrey M.
M. Bewley
Bewley
S
ELECTION of the proper free stall base, surface, and bedding type are very important
choices. Often producers need to choose between sand- and mattress-based free stalls. By analyzing the DHI records for the producers who responded to this survey, we found little difference
in production or somatic cell counts (SCC) between
those using sand or mattresses (Table 1).
Producers using sand seem to be more satisfied with cow comfort and less happy with manure management and bedding issues than those
using mattresses. Sand users reported higher
satisfaction scores for cow cleanliness and hock
damage, whereas mattress users reported higher satisfaction with bedding use, cost, and manure management. The cost per stall was higher
for mattress-based stall users, part of which
would be the initial cost of the mattress.
Only 37 percent of producers reported using
fans and even fewer, 18 percent, use sprinklers.
Not surprisingly, producers who used either or
both fans and sprinklers had higher production
levels. Fans showed the highest gain at 2,143
pounds of milk followed by fans and sprinklers
at 1,581 and sprinklers at 1,164 (Table 2). InThis is the third in a six-part series. Next
we will look at cow handling.
terestingly, average producer satisfaction scores
were not significantly different between the
groups. However, owners using cooling equipment
were more satisfied with cow cleanliness than
those using both fans and sprinklers.
When it comes to manure removal, more herd
owners are using a tractor to scrape barns, as
shown in Table 3. Their reported cost per stall
was significantly less than producers choosing
slats and slightly lower when compared to alley
scrapers or flush systems. However, overall farm
labor efficiency, as measured in cows per full-time
worker equivalent (FTE), was greater for alley
scrapers.
As herds expand, so do feed needs. In our study,
satisfaction with bunkers or trenches appears to
be much higher (4.37) than with upright silos (3.54)
or flat pads (3.43) and storage bags (3.73). Producers who reported raising all of their forage and
grain farmed, on the average, 3.99 acres per cow. At
the other extreme were farmers who reported buying most of their forage and all of their grain —
they averaged 1.05 acres per cow.
Milking systems highlighted . . .
In Wisconsin, most producers who expanded or
are thinking about expanding had or still have a
stall barn with pipeline milking system. Now they
must change their milking system to support their
larger herds. In Table 4, you can see the milking
systems utilized by these dairy producers, along
with their relative capital investment costs.
Most producers in this study (59 percent) reported
using some type of a pit parlor while 22 percent
still milk in a traditional stall barn. Of those with
pit parlors, 58 percent milk in parallel parlors and
37 percent have herringbones. When it came to flat
barn parlors, 79 percent were walk-through.
Herds selecting the three cheaper options were
generally smaller in size and likely chose those
options to keep capital investment per cow down.
Pit parlors in a new building were chosen by herds
that were larger prior to expansion and were probPalmer is an assistant professor in the Dairy Science Department
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a member of the UWExtension Dairy Team while Bewley was a graduate student at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison when this survey was conducted.
He is now at the University of Kentucky.
April 10, 2001
ably in their second phase of the expansion process.
turns per hour, and cost more per milking unit
They likely could justify the additional costs aswhich would be expected of a milking system that
sociated with building a new parlor complex.
handles animals individually rather than as groups.
Labor efficiency in this study was measured two
The average cost per stall of herringbone parlors
ways: The overall efficiency of the farm operation
was less than parallel parlors and was probably
was expressed as cows per full time equivalent
caused by a higher percentage of herringbone par(FTE) and the milking system’s labor efficiency by
lors in old buildings and the greater availability of
cows per worker hour. Labor efficiency rose with
used herringbone equipment. Although not a large
each category and was the highest for the pit pardifference, parallel parlors tended to have high
lor in a new building. The average cows per worklabor efficiency values.
er hour was 21 for stall barns
with pipelines, 27 for flat-barn Table 1. Sand and mattresses compared as bedding types
parlors in old barn, 34 for pit
Mattresses
Sand
parlor in old barn, and 43 for pit
parlor in new building.
Number of herds
69
145
This gain in parlor efficiency
1998 median herd size
265
195
1998 RHA milk in pounds
22,519
22,539
appeared to relate to the overall
Change in RHA
1,587
2,071
efficiency of the farming operaLinear SCS
2.88
2.80
tion since the cows per FTE rose
Cows per FTE
45
40
with each milking system type.
Culling rate (percent)
34
32
Cost per stall
$1,306
$946
Little difference was found in
employees needed for milking.
Average satisfaction reported
All milking systems averaged
Cow comfort*
4.42
4.55
between 2.0 and 2.4 workers.
Cow cleanliness*
4.12
4.47
Somatic cell count levels of
Hock damage*
4.22
4.72
Teat damage*
4.48
4.59
herds with pit parlors in new
Udder health*
4.09
4.31
buildings was significantly
Bedding usage and cost*
4.25
3.95
lower when compared to herds
Manure management*
4.32
3.43
milking in stall barns. The dif- *Scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied).
ference, shown in Table 4, was
not as great when compared to Table 2. Farm cooling systems led to higher production
flat-barn or pit parlors in old
Fans and
barns. The number of milking
sprinklers
Fans
Sprinklers
Neither
units rose gradually with each
parlor type. On the average,
Number of herds
28
59
18
139
1998 median herd size
243
283
203
190
cows per milker unit tend to
1998 RHA milk in pounds
22,964
23,943
23,381
21,800
grow with each type of milking
1994 RHA milk in pounds
20,841
21,309
20,993
20,183
facility. This ability to more fully
Change in RHA milk
2,123
2,634
2,388
1,627
Linear SCS
2.82
2.71
2.78
2.87
utilize the milking facility is
Average
satisfaction
reported
characteristic of a farm gaining
Cow comfort*
4.42
4.33
4.29
4.56
greater return on investment.
Cow cleanliness*
4.14
4.39
4.32
4.43
Time spent milking, only 2.21
to 4.15 hours per milk shift in- *Scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied).
dicates most producers have
overbuilt their milking facility Table 3. Scraping is most popular manure removal method
for current needs and have exAlley
Tractor
cess milking capacity which
scrape
scrapers
Slats
Flush
could support future herd
Number of herds
189
26
17
5
growth. Producers milking in
1998 median herd size
205
283
370
545
pit parlors were more satisfied
Cows per FTE
42
50
43
38
Cost per stall
$986
$1,111
$1,458
$1,095
with time spent milking, milk
quality, and safety of operator
Average satisfaction reported
than people milking in a stall
4.39
4.65
5.00
Manure management*
3.55
Bedding usage and cost*
3.95
4.39
4.41
4.20
barn with a pipeline. Flat barn
parlors were preferred over stall *Scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied).
barns for time spent milking,
physical comfort of the milker, Table 4. Milking facility choice and performance outlined
and milk quality.
Stall barn
Flat parlor Pit parlor
Pit parlor in
Most producers using pit
with pipeline in old barn in old barn new building
parlors reported using her73
107
Number of herds
65
52
ringbone or parallel parlors.
1998 mean herd size
117
157
212
411
A few producers reported
1994 mean herd size
62
71
95
148
using the auto-tandem parlor
20,684
21,397
22,207
23,073
1998 RHA milk in pounds
Change in RHA
1,929
1,773
1,721
2,019
design and seemed to be
Linear SCS
3.02
2.97
2.86
2.78
happy with their choice. Milk
Cows per FTE
29
38
43
45
Number milking units
7
9
14
20
production, somatic cell
2.0
2.1
Number workers
2.4
2.2
counts, and user satisfaction
2.21
2.64
3.04
4.15
Time to milk one shift (hour)
scores differ little between
Cows per hour
47
55
61
83
Cows per worker hour
21
27
34
43
parlors. This is partially due
$4,191
$4,954
$6,500
$15,832
Cost per milking unit
to the small number of autoAverage satisfaction reported
tandem parlors and the simTime
spent
milking*
3.03
3.92
3.78
4.12
ilarity in performance exPhysical comfort of milker*
2.45
3.83
4.10
4.32
pected from parallel and herMilk quality*
3.28
3.75
3.66
3.70
ringbone parlors.
Cleanliness and ease of setup* 3.55
3.54
3.75
3.97
Safety of operator*
3.31
3.40
4.01
4.38
Auto-tandem parlors had
*Scale
from
1
(very
dissatisfied)
to
5
(very
satisfied).
fewer milking units, higher
257