Evaluating Milking Performance: of The International Dairy Federation

Bulletin
of the International Dairy Federation

003/
396
2005
Evaluating Milking
performance
VIEW THE UPCOMING IDF EVENTS AT:
http://www.fil-idf.org/EventsCalendar.htm
Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 396/2005

© 2005, International Dairy Federation
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USING THIS ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION
Introduction
Use of the material provided in this publication is subject to the Terms and Conditions in this document. These Terms and Con-
ditions are designed to make it clear to users of this material what they may and may not do with the content provided to them.
Our aim has been to make the Terms and Conditions unambiguous and fair to all parties, but if further explanation is required,
please send an e-mail to info@fil-idf.org with your question.
Permitted Use
The User may make unlimited use of the Content, including searching, displaying, viewing on-screen and printing for the purpo-
ses of research, teaching or private study but not for commercial use.
Copyright
Site layout, design, images, programs, text and other information (collectively, the “Content”) is the property of the International
Dairy Federation and is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws. Users may not copy, display, distribute,
modify, publish, reproduce, store, transmit, create derivative works from, or sell or license all or any part of the content obtai-
ned from this publication. Copyright notices must not be modified or removed from any Content obtained under the terms of
this licence.
Any questions about whether a particular use is authorized and any requests for permission to publish, reproduce, distribute,
display or make derivative works from any Content should be directed to info@fil-idf.org
Availability
Although the International Dairy Federation publications are developed in view of maximum user-friendliness, the International
Dairy Federation cannot guarantee any of these products to work on or with any particular computer system.
Liability
Although the International Dairy Federation has taken reasonable care to ensure that the information, data and other material
made available in its publication is error-free and up-to-date, it accepts no responsibility for corruption to the information, data
and other material thereafter, including but not limited to any defects caused by the transmission or processing of the infor-
mation, data and other material. The information made available in this publication, has been obtained from or is based upon
sources believed by the International Dairy Federation to be reliable but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness.
The information is supplied without obligation and on the understanding that any person who acts upon it or otherwise changes
his/her position in reliance thereon does so entirely at his/her own risk.
Send any comments or inquiries to:

International Dairy Federation
Diamant Building
Boulevard Auguste Reyers 80
1030 Brussels
Belgium
Phone: + 32 2 733 98 88
Fax: + 32 2 733 0413
E-mail: info@fil-idf.org
Web: www.fil-idf.org
©FIL/IDF ISSN 0250-5118
Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation

CONTENTS
PRICE : 18 Euro 396/2005
Evaluating Milking Performance

D. J. Reinemann, G.A. Mein, 1.17 Completeness of Milking 10
M.D. Rasmussen, and P.L. Ruegg 1.18 Teat Condition 10
Foreword by Edward Hopkin 1 1.19 Frequency of slipping or
Introduction 2 falling teatcups 10
1. Simple machine checks and 1.20 Bacterial Quality of Milk 11
milking-timeobservations 3 1.21 Working conditions 11
Test equipment 3 1.22 Statistical Considerations 11
Observations with machine not running 3 2. Basic tests of Pulsator Function
1.1 Teatcups and Liners 3 and of Vacuum during milking 12
1.2 Claws 4 Test equipment 12
1.3 Milkline 4 2.1 Pulsator Testing 12
Dry Testing - Machine running Vacuum Measurement during milking 13
but not milking 4 2.2 Average Claw Vacuum 13
1.4 Operating Vacuum level 4 2.3 Vacuum Stability in the Milkline
1.5 Regulator Response 4 and Receiver 13
1.6 Fall-off Test 5 2.4 Vacuum in the mouthpiece chamber 14
1.7 Pulsation 5 2.5 Wet Tests with a Flow Simulator 14
Milking-time Observations 5 3. Complete Professional Machine
Evaluation 14
1.8 Cow Cleanliness 5
Priority of Recommendations 15
1.9 Cow Handling and Behavior 6
References 16
1.10 Cow Grouping 6
1.11 Pre-Milking Cow Preparation 6
1.12 Unit Attachment 8
1.13 Unit Removal 8
1.14 Post-Milking Management 8
1.15 Milking Routines 9
1.16 Milking Time and Average
Milk Flow Rate 9
Subscription Price for the electronic version of the 2005 Bulletin : 305 Euro for all issues.
Adress orders to :
INTERNATIONAL DAIRY FEDERATION / FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE LAITERIE
Diamant Building, Boulevard Auguste Reyers, 80 - 1030 Brussels (Belgium)
Telephone : +32 2 733 98 88 - Telefax : +32 2 733 04 13 - E-mail : info@fil-idf.org - http://www.fil-idf.org
Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 396/2005 Evaluating Milking Performance
Evaluating milking
performance
D. J. Reinemann1, G.A. Mein2, M.D. Rasmussen3, and P.L. Ruegg1
Foreword
IDF’s experts on machine milking, working under the aegis of the Standing Committee on
Farm management, continue to produce an impressive number of authoritative texts for
the Bulletin of IDF while, at the same time, making a very significant contribution to the
work of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) on milking machine instal-
lations (ISO/TC23/WG1)
The dairy sector and the manufacturers of milking machines are especially indebted to
the authors of this report on the Evaluation of milking performance
- D J Reinemann (US)
- M D Rasmussen (DK)
- G A Mein (AU)
- P L Ruegg (US)
And to the other members of the Action Team responsible for the work: J. Baines (GB), F.
Neijenhuis (NL) and E. O’ Callaghan (IE).
On behalf of IDF I should like to thank them for their efforts.
Publication was authorized by the IDF Standing Committee on Farm management fol-
lowing discussion at its meeting in Lelystad (the Netherlands), 24 May 2004.
Edward Hopkin
Director General
International Dairy Federation
Brussels, March 2005
1 University of Wisconsin - Madison, 460 Henry Mall, Madison WI 53706,USA

2 University of Melbourne, 20 K Road, Werribee, Vic 3030, Australia
3 Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Foulum Postbox 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
1
Introduction
The performance of the milking process is evaluated subjectively at every milking by the
operator(s) and by the cows. However, there may be quite different interpretations of what
is implied by ’successful’ milking. This paper provides an overview of common machine
and operator related problems and offers some guidelines for evaluation methods. The
main purpose of any evaluation is to clarify and highlight the interactions between milking
equipment, the cow and the operator. This paper focuses mainly on information that can
be gathered during milking-time observations and, to a lesser degree, upon measurements
made between milkings or from other sources.
A summary of milking related problems and some of their characteristics and causes
is given in Table 1. Milking problems fall into several broad categories such as: labor ef-
ficiency, low milk yield, poor milk quality, nervous cows or unhappy operators. Within each
of these areas, a wide range of characteristics can be measured that may be directly or
indirectly related to the problem. Some are more obvious than others and observers may
have different preferences for some tests or measurements. The characteristics can be
subdivided into measurements or observations that are performed on the cow, the opera-
tor, the machine or the environment. Although the environment may have a large influence
on specific factors, its impact is not the main purpose of this paper. Guidelines for selecting
the types of tests or observations that may be appropriate for trouble-shooting particular
types of milking-related problems are offered in the following sections.
A previous IDF monograph (Hamann, 1997) presented guidelines for evaluating the in-
fluence of operator actions, animal behavior, milking machine characteristics and housing
conditions on the milking process based on a review of the published scientific literature.
In the intervening eight years researchers and practitioners have used these methods,
added new evaluation methods and assessed their usefulness for field application. This
monograph updates the review of scientific literature and presents the methods that have
proven useful for practical application in the field by dairy advisers, udder health special-
ists and competent milking machine technicians. Our aim is to provide suggestions for
measurements to quantify various aspects of milking performance. This quantification can
provide the basis for making recommendations for changes in the milking process and in
determining whether a prescribed intervention has produced a positive benefit.
2
1. Simple machine checks and milking-time

observations
This level of testing is not intended to replace regular machine testing and service by
qualified technicians. A field study in France indicated that the most common problems
of milking machines were improper vacuum level, pulsator defects and poor condition of
cluster components all of which require the attention of a service technician (Sauvee et al.,
1998). Rather these simple checks are intended to help identify possible machine or milk-
ing management causes of slow or incomplete milking, teat condition problems or sanita-
tion problems that may indicate the need for more frequent service or adjustments to the
machine by a service technician.
Test equipment
The equipment required for this entry level testing includes a stopwatch, a spirit level and a
vacuum gauge of known accuracy. Because of the potential health and safety risks associ-
ated with mercury, a mercury column is not recommended for on-farm measurements.
Observations with machine not running

1.1 Teatcups and Liners
Record the condition of the liners and short milk tubes, noting the fraction that have visible
cracking or are distorted (mouthpiece opening not round, liner barrel not round, mouth-
piece lip not flat, etc.). Teatcup liners should be in good condition with no cracks in the
short milk tube connecting to the claw, and no surface crazing evident on the mouthpiece
lip or inner barrel. Swelling and the associated distortion of the liners is an indication that
they have been used beyond their rated life (Davis et al., 2000, Boast et al., 2004). Liner
performance degrades as liners age and their physical properties change (Gleeson and
O’Callaghan, 1998).
Teat cup liners are designed to fit specific types of teatcup shells. When the liner is
mounted in the shell it should be held firmly enough not to twist easily and the mouthpiece
should not be distorted. The length of the shell must match the design length of the liner
so that it is mounted under the correct tension (Capuco et al., 2000, Davis et al., 2000,
Muthukumarappan et al., 1993, Szlachata et al., 2001, Mein et al., 1983). Measure the
length of the shells and compare with the manufacturer’s recommendation for the type of
liner being used.
Note the diameter of the liner barrel relative to the average size of teats in the herd. A
liner barrel diameter (measured 75 mm from the mouthpiece lip) 1 to 2 mm less than the
average teat barrel diameter (about 22 mm for typical Holstein herds) appears to allow
the teat canals of most cows to open fully while also limiting the tensile stress applied to
the tissues of the teat wall (Williams & Mein, 1982). If the barrel diameter is substantially
larger than the teat diameter the liner will ride high on the teat and mouthpiece vacuum
will be relatively high, while liners with barrel diameter substantially smaller than the teat
diameter will tend to ride very low on the teat (Rasmussen et al., 2004).
The liner must collapse around the end of the teat in order to relieve the stresses to the
teat tissues induced by milking vacuum. The effective zone of collapse for a liner is the part
of the liner barrel that the walls touch when milking vacuum is applied to the liner while
mounted in the teatcup shell (Mein et al., 2004). The distance from the mouthpiece lip to
the TOP of the collapse zone should be short enough so that the liner will collapse around
the end of the shortest teats in the herd. The distance from the mouthpiece lip to the BOT-
TOM of the collapse zone should be long enough to collapse around the longest teats in the
herd at the end of milking. Large diameter (wide-bore) liners need to be longer because
3
the teat penetrates further into a liner with a larger diameter. According to Mein (1992),
the distance from the mouthpiece lip to the bottom of the collapse zone for liners made
from natural or synthetic rubber should be greater than:
o 135 mm for liners with 21-22 mm inner diameter at mid-barrel
o 140 mm for liners of 23-24 mm inner diameter at mid-barrel
o 145 mm for liners of ≥25 mm inner diameter at mid-barrel.
1.2 Claws
Note the condition of air vents in the claws or liners. The air vent in the claw should be
clear and unblocked. The air vents in claws typically range from about 0.5 mm to 1.2 mm
in diameter. The minimum air admission to the claw recommend in ISO 5707 is 4 L/min of
air at atmospheric pressure. However for fast milking cows 7 to 12 L/min of air admission
will minimize vacuum drop and improve vacuum stability (Bruckmaier et al., 1996, Johnson
et al., 1994). Blocked air vents will reduce milking vacuum. Measure the diameter of the
air vents using special tools available from the manufacturer or measure the air admis-
sion of the claw air vents using an appropriate airflow meter. Compare these values to
the manufacturer’s specification to determine if the air vents are clear and not over-sized.
Automatic shut-off valves in the claw reduce the amount of unintended air and debris ad-
mitted during unit fall-offs.
1.3 Milkline
If vacuum stability in the milkline during milking indicates that milkline slugging may be
occurring, measure the slope of the milkline. The milkline should slope continuously to-
wards the receiver. To facilitate the drainage of milk and cleaning solutions a minimum
slope of 1% is recommended. Slopes of up to 2 % have been shown to increase milking
carrying capacity and further improve drainage (Reinemann et al., 1995). It is especially
important to maintain adequate slope of the milkline near the receiver and in areas of
bends and fittings. Milk inlets should enter the upper half of the milkline. High-level milk-
lines should be mounted as low as practicable above the cows and never more than 2 m
above the cow standing level.
Dry Testing - Machine running but not milking

1.4 Operating Vacuum level
Check the operating vacuum and the reading on the farm vacuum gauge compared to a
separate vacuum gauge of known accuracy. Farm gauges are often damaged and inaccu-
rate. Sometimes the indicator needle sticks and will not move above the operating vacuum
level to indicate a high operating vacuum if the regulator fails. If the farm vacuum gauge is
not functional or inaccurate a functional gauge should be installed. The regulator vacuum
should be set so that the average claw vacuum is 32-40 kPa during peak flow (see section
2.2 and ISO 5707). Lower milking vacuum extends machine-on time (Provolo et al., 1998),
increases frequency of liner slips, decreases milk flow rate and may reduce milk yields
(Rasmussen & Madsen, 2000) whereas higher milking vacuum level can lead to teat tissue
congestion, poor teat skin condition and incomplete milk out (Hamann et al., 1994; Mihina
et al., 1998; Rasmussen and Madsen, 1998; Reinemann et al., 2001a).
1.5 Regulator Response

A simple test of regulator response is to listen to the sound of air entering a conventional
regulator, or the speed of the vacuum pump if fitted with a variable frequency drive (VFD),
when air is admitted though milking units. Open enough milking units so that the air
admitted reduces the receiver vacuum by about 3 kPa. This should cause a conventional
regulator to close, thereby resulting in a noticeable reduction in the hiss caused by air en-
4
tering the regulator. The increase in vacuum pump RPM should also be readily apparent in
response to this air admission. If the system does not appear to be responding, examine
regulator filters and airlines to regulator sensors. If cleaning these components does not
improve response then call the company service technician.
1.6 Fall-off Test

A milking machine should have sufficient airflow capacity to supply the normal operating
requirements of the milking machine plus unintended air admission that may occur during
unit attachment or unit fall-off (ISO 5707). A unit fall-off test can be performed to deter-
mine if the milking machine has sufficient reserve capacity. Measure the average vacuum
in the receiver with all units in operation and all teatcups plugged. Then open one milking
unit to admit air through all four teatcups and measure the average vacuum in the receiver
again (ISO 6690). If the average vacuum level in the receiver falls by less than 2 kPa the
system has sufficient reserve capacity to cope with a unit fall-off (ISO 5707).
1.7 Pulsation
Listen closely to each pulsator as a first check for uniformity between units. The sound of
air entering the pulsator should be regular and intermittent. This simple check is made
more sensitive by partially covering the air inlet with a finger. A continuous hiss indicates
a leak (usually grit or dirt) under the pulsator valve seat. Check that the pulsator air filter
or air inlet is clean and free of obstruction. Look inside each liner to ensure that the lin-
ers are not twisted in their shells. Look behind at least one liner in each cluster for signs
of milk residues that may indicate a split liner. Feel that all liners are at least opening and
closing fully in a pulsation cycle by turning on the vacuum shut-off valve to each cluster in
turn and inserting a thumb into each teatcup in turn. These simple tests are a good indica-
tion of the uniformity of pulsation. If there is any doubt about pulsator performance, call a
qualified technician to perform pulsator testing (section 2.1). Assessing average milk flow
rates by stall in milking parlors equipped with parlor monitoring software and milk meters
is another way to locate malfunction in pulsators or the malfunctions in components at an
individual stall (Eicker et al., 2000).
Milking-time Observations
Milking management can have a far greater influence on the success of the milking process
than milking machine factors. A systematic review of milking procedures is perhaps the
most important part of determining the source of milking related problems.
1.8 Cow Cleanliness

Note the condition of cows before milking. Cow cleanliness is a major determinant of
both milking efficiency and the rate of intramammary infection. It is estimated that cow
preparation time is doubled for cows that enter the milking parlor with dirty udders, result-
ing in reduced parlor throughput (Reneau & Chastain, 1995). Management practices that
reduce teat end exposure to environmental organisms will reduce the risk of developing
mastitis. Studies in France (Doumalin, 1995) and the USA (Schreiner and Ruegg, 2003)
have demonstrated that teat and udder cleanliness is correlated with reduced herd average
somatic cell count. The incidence rate of clinical mastitis caused by Streptococcus uberis
and Escherichia coli were associated with factors related to housing in a large field study
by Barkema et al, (1999).
Bedding sources that are clean, dry and comfortable will minimize pathogen growth.
Inorganic bedding such as sand will reduce the number of pathogens if manure is removed
from stall beds daily and sand is replenished when needed. Further improvements in cow
cleanliness can be made through removal of udder hair. It is a good practice to routinely
5
remove udder hair twice yearly and keep tails trimmed. Cleanliness of teats and parts of
udders that come in contact with the liner during milking can be recorded on scale from
1=clean and dry to 4=completely covered in dirt (Schreiner and Ruegg, 2003). Less than
5% of cows should be scored as wet and/or dirty before prepping1 and all teats should be
clean at attachment.
1.9 Cow Handling and Behavior

Cow handling techniques should be examined if cows are hesitant to enter the milking
area or are defecating frequently during milking. It is clear from research that human/cow
interactions can have a large influence on the milking process (Bondar, 1992; Seabrook,
1994; Munksgaard et al., 2001; Rushen et al., 2001). If cows are handled well, very few
should react aggressively to pre-milking preparation (Bondar, 1990). Cow handling is an
important determinant of milking efficiency. The release of adrenaline within 30 minutes
of the start of milking can interfere with milk letdown and prolong unit-on time (Svenner-
sten-Sjauna et al., 2003). Calm cows enter the milking parlor readily and do not generally
defecate in the milking parlor. If more than 5% of cows defecate or kick at the milking unit
or operator during milking cow-handling procedures should be reviewed.
1.10 Cow Grouping

Observe whether cows are grouped according to mastitis infection status. Uninfected
cows should be grouped and milked in an order to minimizing exposure to cows known to
be infected with sub-clinical mastitis. Also note the methods used for detection, handling
and recording of clinical cases of mastitis. It is safe to assume that cows with several linear
scores of 4 or more (SCC>250 000) are chronically infected. Most cows that consistently
have linear scores <4 are uninfected. Cows that have a single elevated score or fluctuat-
ing scores fall into the unknown category. Fresh heifers are generally put in the uninfected
group until their first SCC is obtained. Fresh mature cows should be classified based upon
their previous SCC status or cultures obtained at calving. CMT-scoring (California Masti-
tis Test) of foremilk can help in pointing out suspicious quarters differing more than CMT
2 scores on a 5-point scale from the lowest quarter. It is recommended to CMT test and
score all newly calved cows, cows ready to dry off, and cows treated for mastitis before
they enter the normal herd again. In freestall-parlor operations, uninfected cows should
be grouped together and milked first. Cows of unknown infection status are milked next
and the infected cows are milked last. In stall-barns, infection status can be used to order
the cows within the barn so that infected cows are always milked last. Alternatively, one
or more milking units can be identified and always used on infected cows. The risk of new
infection is high immediately pre and post calving. Special care should therefore be taken
to milk fresh cows with a sanitary milking machine.
1.11 Pre-Milking Cow Preparation

Observe pre-milking cow preparation procedures and measure the total amount of time
spent in contact with each cow. Pre-milking preparation is performed to clean teats before
unit attachment, to check for clinical mastitis and abnormal milk and, to stimulate milk
letdown.
If milk quality issues are of concern, note the completeness of pre-milking teat sanita-
tion. Teat end sanitation is important in reducing the number of bacteria at the teat end
before the milking unit is attached thus reducing transfer of organisms from cow to cow by
the milking machine. Proper teat end disinfection can reduce teat surface bacteria by 75%
(Ruegg et al., 2000; Galton et al., 1984; Galton et al., 1986). Pre-dipping with a sanitizer
1. The abbreviation “prep”, meaning preparation of a cow for milking, is widely used, as noun or verb, and is
retained in this text.
6
was associated with reduced pathogen content in milk (Hassan et al., 1999) and has been
shown to be effective in the control of environmental pathogens (E. coli and environmental
streptococci) but has limited effectiveness against coagulase-negative staphylococci (Pan-
key, et al, 1987; Ruegg and Dohoo, 1997). While cleaning teats with water and wiping
dry reduces the number of microorganisms on the teat skin, the reduction is significantly
higher when teats are disinfected (Brito et al., 2000). Contact time of 20-30 seconds is
needed for effective disinfection for most sanitizers.
If washing is required to remove excess manure, the following methods have been
demonstrated to significantly reduce pathogen numbers: 1) only teats should be washed,
2) minimal water should be used, 3) teats should be thoroughly dried (Rasmussen, 2000).
The most important portion of the teat disinfection process is thorough drying of teat ends.
Air-drying is not a satisfactory substitute for manual drying with an individual cloth or
paper towel. Water on teats aids in transporting bacteria and concentrating them at the
opening of the teat canal. Cloth towels were more effective than paper at removing patho-
gens in a study by Rasmussen et al., (1991). When cloth towels are used they should be
disinfected by washing with bleach or very hot water and drying at high temperature in an
automatic dryer (Fox, 1997). To check the effectiveness of teat sanitation and drying, a
clean swab can be rubbed across the end of the teat prior to unit attachment. A swab from
a properly prepared teat will remain clean. A dirty swab indicates that teat preparation
methods should be improved.
If milk quality is of concern, note whether fore-stripping is practiced. Fore-stripping
plays a crucial role in reducing bulk tank somatic cell counts by identifying cows and quar-
ters with abnormal milk. Examination of foremilk has been shown to be associated with
reducing pathogens in bulk tank milk (Hassan, et al., 1999). The failure of milkers on 20%
of dairy farms to strip cows before milking is identified as having significant effects on bac-
terial and somatic cell counts (Helmuth, 1996). Fore-stripping should be practiced in such
a way to avoid transferring pathogens from cow to cow on the workers’ hands. In large
herds with long working hours, forestripping can be a demanding task for the workers. In
such cases, forestripping could be focused on groups of cows at risk, that is, during the first
month of lactation, high SCC cows and cows prone to be dried off.
If average milk flow rates are low observe the milking routine to document the stimula-
tion time and prep-lag time (Worstorff and Dethlefsen, 1994; Reneau and Chastain, 1995).
Also note the percentage of cows that are injected with oxytocin as part of the pre-milking
preparation routine. Chronic oxytocin treatment should not be necessary if proper stimula-
tion is part of the pre-milking routine. Furthermore it has been shown that chronic oxytocin
treatment causes reduced milk ejection in dairy cows (Bruckmaier, 2003). Estimates can
be made of preparation and lag times using data from milking parlors equipped with milk
meters (Eicker et al., 2000). Pre-milking teat stimulation causes induction of alveolar
milk ejection before the start of milking, thus avoiding bimodal milk flow curves (that is,
interruption of milk flow after removal of the cisternal milk) and reducing the amount of
time that the milking machine is on the cow (Bruckmaier and Blum, 1996, Bruckmaier and
Blum, 1998, Bruckmaier et al., 2001). In a large field study prep-time and prep-lag time
had a significant effect on milk flow duration and machine-on time (Turki and Winnicki,
2001).
The combination of effective teat cleaning and fore-stripping will usually provide suf-
ficient stimulation for milk letdown in dairy cows. Ten to 20 seconds of tactile stimulation
is considered sufficient to elicit the milk let-down response in Holstein cows. However,
different breeds may have differing stimulation requirements (Bruckmaier, 1998; Costa
and Reinemann, 2003), for example, longer preparation significantly increased milk yield
for Danish Jersey cows, but not for American or Danish Holstein cows (Rasmussen et al.,
1992). Cows in later lactation have a higher stimulation requirement (Kiiman and Saveli,
2000) and the delay in milk ejection after the start of teat stimulation changes during
the course of lactation and depends on the interval from previous milking (Bruckmaier et
7
al., 2001). A delay of about 1 minute between stimulation and unit attachment has been
shown to minimize milk harvesting time (Rasmussen et al., 1992; Reneau and Chastain,
1995; Turki and Winnicki, 2001).
1.12 Unit Attachment

If vacuum stability in the milkline, milking unit slips and falls, or uneven milk-out are of
concern record the method of unit attachment. The amount of air admitted during unit
attachment has the largest single influence on slugging in the milkline and the result-
ing vacuum drops (Reinemann et al., 1995). Observe if air is being admitted by a single
teatcup or by multiple teatcups during unit attachment. Also observe if efforts are being
made to limit the amount of air admitted during unit attachment. Observe whether units
are adjusted to hang evenly on the udder and if hose supports are being used and/or used
effectively. Effective support should be provided for the long milk tube and units should be
adjusted so that cluster weight is evenly distributed on the 4 teats. Even weight distribu-
tion of the cluster and adequate support for the long milk tube will result in fewer liner slips
and unit fall-offs, and more even milk-out between quarters.
1.13 Unit Removal

If milking speed or completeness of milking are of concern, observe methods for unit re-
moval and assess the amount of stripping yield (see section 1.17). Early unit removal may
result in reduced milk yield and promote the development of sub-clinical mastitis to the
clinical stage. Over-milking is the time of highest risk for damaging teat tissues (Hiller-
ton et al, 2002b). A Danish experiment demonstrated that when the threshold setting on
Automatic Cluster Removers (ACR) was raised from 0.2 kg/min to 0.4 kg/min the average
unit-on time was reduced by 0.5 minutes and teat condition improved (Rasmussen, 1993).
Milking units should be removed promptly when the milk flow rate from the udder drops
below an endpoint of about 0.3 to 0.5 kg/min. Higher threshold settings and shorter de-
tacher delays, resulting in improved teat condition and milking speed, have been success-
fully applied to herds milking three times per day and using milking routines with optimal
stimulation and prep-lag times (Reid and Stewart, 1997; Stewart et al., 2002).
Disconnecting the removal mechanism from the claw and observing milk flow in rela-
tion to the time that the unit is removed can assess ACR function. For both manual and
automatic removal, clusters should be removed by first shutting off vacuum to the claw
and then removing teatcups so that little or no air is admitted to the teatcups as they are
removed. Abrupt unit removal in the presence of vacuum was shown to be associated with
increased risk of reverse pressure gradients across the teat canal (Rasmussen et al 1994).
Machine stripping should not be routinely practiced.
1.14 Post-Milking Management

Evaluate the adequacy of post-milking teat spraying or dipping by wrapping a paper towel
around the teat. Post-milking teat antisepsis was initially developed to reduce the trans-
mission of contagious mastitis pathogens and has been widely accepted. Spray applicators
are preferred by some operators because of convenience and to keep teat dip from becom-
ing tainted with contaminated milk. While it is possible to adequately cover the teat using
a spray applicator, it is difficult to accomplish in practice.
The last step in an effective milking routine is to ensure that the cows remain standing
for as long as possible after milking is completed. This recommendation is based on studies
showing that teat tissues require from 30 minutes up to several hours to recover to pre-
milking conditions (Hamann et al., 1993; Neijenhuis et al., 2001a). Providing water and
fresh feed after milking will encourage this behavior.
8
1.15 Milking Routines

The objectives of a milking routine are to provide teat sanitation, abnormal milk and clinical
mastitis detection and pre-milking stimulation in manner that is friendly to the cow and ef-
ficient for the workers. There are many ways to incorporate these performance goals into a
work routine in a tie-stall barn or milking parlor. If labor efficiency is of concern document
the time taken to perform the various aspects of the milking routine.
Tie-stall barns: Milking routine standardization in tie-stall or stanchion barns has been
shown to improve milk yield (Rasmussen et al., 1990). Cows should be prepped and units
attached in one step with a teat preparation time of at least 20 s. If less time is spend on
prepping, unit attachment should be delayed for 20 to 30 s to avoid milking empty teats. If
ACRs are not used special attention needs to be paid to detaching units in a timely fashion
to avoid over-milking. Assess both the average and variability of prep and attach timing
as well as milking unit-on times and over-milking to determine the adequacy of milking
routines. Where ACRs are used the operator should milk with one unit more than required
(in respect to the machine-on time) in order always to have a free unit for attachment on
a newly prepped cow.
Milking Parlors: Good parlor performance starts with good cow entry, requires proper
cow positioning, correct cluster alignment and prompt cow exit (Hillerton et al., 2002a).
Evaluation of a milking parlor work routine should include measurements of:
• Time to moving cows into and out of a milking parlor
• Time spent for pre-milking cow preparation and unit attachment
• The time that the milking unit is on the cow
• Time to remove milking units (if ACRs are not used)
• Time for post milking sanitation.
The milking parlor management software that is used in milking parlors equipped with
milk meters can also be used to monitor the work routines (Eicker et al., 2000). These
task timings can be used to predict theoretical parlor productivity in cows milked per
hour (Armstrong and Quick, 1986; Reinemann, 1993; Chang et al., 1994; Thomas, et al.,
1996a, 1996b; Thomas et al., 1997). This figure can be compared to the actual productiv-
ity to estimate the efficiency of execution of the work routine and factors that will have the
largest improvement on productivity (Armstrong et al., 1994; Helmuth, 1996; Smith et al.,
1998; Hansen, 1999; Reppo and Lindsaar, 2001).
1.16 Milking Time and Average Milk Flow Rate

The average rate of milk harvest is a good indicator of the efficiency of milking (effective-
ness of pre-milking cow stimulation, proper milking unit attachment timing, and point of
detachment). The average harvest rate is calculated as the total milk yield divided by the
total machine-on time. In milking parlors equipped with milk meters and automated data
collection systems the average harvest rate for the entire milking herd can be easily ob-
tained (Eicker et al., 2000). If automated data collection is not available a random sample
of cows from the herd should be measured. A random sample of 10 cows from a typical
herd will yield an estimate of the average flow rate of most herds to within about +/-0.5
kg/min. A random sample of 30 cows will improve the estimate to within +/- 0.25 kg/min
(LeMire et al., 1998).
Field studies conducted in England (Clough et al. 1973) and the USA (Stewart et al.
1993) yielded the following equations for average milking time for cows yielding 10 to 20
kg of milk per milking.
tm = 2.8 + 0.21 Y (Clough et al. 1973)
tm = 3.6 + 0.26 Y (Stewart et al. 1993)
where: tm = Average milking time per cow (minutes)
Y = mean milk yield per cow per milking (kg)
In general, settings of automatic cluster removers that produce earlier detachment have a
9
larger influence on average milking time than increasing milking vacuum level and intro-
duce less risk to teat tissue.
Low milk harvest rate and longer milking times can result from interference with the
letdown response due to uneasiness of the cows, inadequate cow stimulation, improper
timing of unit attachment in relation to milk letdown, milking machine problems or over-
milking because of improper detachment procedures.
1.17 Completeness of Milking

The completeness of milking can be assessed by hand stripping each quarter immediately
after the milking machine is removed (Davis and Reinemann, 2001). If milking units are
being removed at the proper time the majority of quarters will have little or no milk present
after unit removal. It is common for the slowest milking quarter to have some milk left
in the lower parts of the udder after unit removal. As a practical guide, suspect a problem
of incomplete milking if more than 20% of quarters yield more than 100 mL of milk when
hand-stripped immediately after unit removal (Davis and Reinemann, 2001). Consistent
differences between strip yields from rear versus front quarters, or between quarters on
the right versus the left side of udders, usually indicate a problem of poor cluster position-
ing or uneven weight balance between the four teatcups.
1.18 Teat Condition

Teat ends that are roughened because of excessive hyperkeratosis are more difficult to
clean and appear to have a slightly higher risk for mastitis infections than teats with mod-
erate roughness (Rasmussen et al., 2003; Neijenhuis et al., 2001b; Huusko, et al., 2002).
If mastitis is of concern, score teats for the severity of teat-end rings or hyperkeratosis
immediately after units are removed. Teats that are noticeably red or blue colored after
unit removal also indicate circulatory impairment, which may contribute to discomfort of
cows and prolonged teat recovery time. Record the number of teats with good condition
(no ring or small ring with smooth skin, no roughness or fronding at the teat end, normal
color after milking) and the number of teats in poor condition (raised ring that is rough and
cracked giving the teat-end a flowered appearance or teats that have a bluish discoloration
after milking). The criterion suggested is that less than 20% of cows should have a teat
condition considered to be problematic. Of the milking management or machine factors,
the total time per day when milk flow rate is less than about 1 kg/min appears to have a
major effect on teat-end condition. This is influenced by pre-milking udder preparation
practices or degree of over-milking, as well as milking equipment, such as the settings for
ACR, high milking vacuum or liners with stiff mouthpieces. Greater detail on methods to
assess bovine teat condition is presented by Mein et al. (2001), Hillerton et al. (2001), and
Reinemann et al. (2001b).
1.19 Frequency of slipping or falling teatcups

Note the number of times the units must be adjusted by operators because of slipping
or fall-off. A practical goal is less than 5% of cow milkings requiring correction by the
operator(s) (Mein and Reid 1996). Heavy clusters, uneven weight distribution within the
cluster, blocked air admission holes, and cows kicking at clusters are other common causes
of slips and fall-offs. Note the stage of milking when the slips and falls occur. Flooding
clusters or milklines tend to cause slipping or falling early in milking. Poor liner design,
uneven distribution of weight between the four teatcups within a cluster, and cows kicking
at clusters are the most common causes of slipping and falling late in milking.
10
1.20 Bacterial Quality of Milk

Bacterial evaluation of bulk tank milk is performed periodically on all farms to assure compli-
ance with national, state, and local milk processing requirements. These tests typically include
the somatic cell count (SCC), standard plate count (SPC) and may also include the preliminary
incubation count (PI) or other tests. These tests provide an overall measure of milk quality but
they have little diagnostic value in determining the source of bacterial contamination.
The two main sources of bacteria in raw milk are organisms transported from the envi-
ronment into the milking system and mastitis organisms from within the udder. Bacterial
growth may occur during milking and can be a significant concern as milking time in-
creases. The bulk tank coliform count provides an indication of the cleanliness of the cows’
environment between milking and the effectiveness of cow preparation procedures during
milking (see section 1.8). If the milking system and milk handling equipment are not prop-
erly cleaned and sanitized, bacteria deposited may multiply and become a major source of
raw milk contamination. Elevated thermoduric bacteria counts are the best indicator of a
milking cleaning failure. Further detail on test methods to diagnose bacterial milk quality
problems are given by NMC (2004) and Ruegg and Reinemann (2002).
1.21 Working conditions

Note the hours of work expected of the operators and the number of breaks provided. Also
note the body position and repetitive motions of the workers. The working posture in an
elevated milking parlor should be as close as possible to an erect stance with arms and
hands in a natural working position. The dimensions of the parlor and location of milking
stations and stalls must be designed to accommodate good working postures (Gaudin et
al., 1998). Note if the work routine requires repeated bending of the back and unnatural
motions of the wrists when the workers are preparing cows and attaching milking units.
The risk of repetitive stress injury is high for the task of milking cows (Gustafsson and
Lundqvist, 1987; Lundqvist, et al., 1997). Hand and wrist problems are very common
when working with milking (Stal and Juliszewski, 2001). After 2 h of uninterrupted work,
the efficiency of even highly trained and experienced operators can decrease because of
physical tiredness, resulting in interruptions to milking and errors (Vostrikov, 1995). Milk-
ing in round-the-barn highline systems is stressful to the knees, hips and lower back, while
milking in parlors with elevated cow platforms introduces stresses to the wrists, elbows,
shoulders and upper back. High values of dorsiflexion and radial deviation were found
which might contribute to the high prevalence of hand and wrists symptoms for example
carpal tunnel syndrome among milkers. Furthermore, the velocity and repetitiveness were
close to those values described in repetitive work with a high risk of elbow and disorders
(Stal and Juliszewski, 2001). The high muscle loads in combination with extreme positions
and movements of the hand and forearm might contribute to the development of injuries
among milkers (Pinzke, et al., 2001). For milking with high-level pipeline systems, a stool
tied to the back can reduce stress on the workers’ knees. Milking machines mounted on
rails or cables carry much of the weight of the milking unit and relieve stress on the work-
ers’ shoulders and back.
1.22 Statistical Considerations

An understanding of some basic statistical concepts can help field investigators make the
best use of their time to collect data in the most efficient way to support and appropri-
ate diagnosis of milking performance. An example of a common methodology to assess
changes in the milking process is to make a change and “see what happens”. This ap-
proach does not account for chance bias over time that might affect the response. The
most likely result of such an effort is an indeterminate conclusion (for example, the new
liners may have affected something but we cannot say for sure). This approach does little
to advance the knowledge of the dairy manager or investigator.
11
Field tests are limited by the amount of time, resources and number of cows available.
Tests often need to be performed in one or two milkings or over one or two days. On a
large dairy farm with automated data collection systems one of the practical limitations of
performing a milking-time test is the organization of cows to receive the intended treat-
ment. On dairies without automated data collection systems a single person will likely
collect data. In this scenario a method to design an experiment with the best resolution
that uses the fewest number of cows is highly advantageous. This can be accomplished by
using careful experimental design which controls for the many sources of variability.
Milking parlours equipped with milk meters and electronic data collection systems offer
the possibility of automated assessment of short-term milking performance. Data that can
be used to assess operator or milking machine performance include milking time, average
and peak milk flow rates, and milk yield for individual cows.
Statistical analysis can be a powerful tool to distinguish between real effect and random
occurrence but all statistical analysis is built upon a set of basic assumptions. If these as-
sumptions are violated the subsequent statistical analysis will have little value. Too few
data or the wrong type of data will result in an unsupportable diagnosis. Too many data
result in time spent in an unproductive manner. A review of statistical methods and some
examples of their application to milking performance evaluation have been presented by
Engelke et al., 1996; LeMire et al., 1998; LeMire et al., 1999; Reneau, 2000.
2. Basic tests of Pulsator Function and of

Vacuum during milking
Proper pulsator function is critical to the success of the milking process. Pulsator function
can be assessed either during a dry test or at milking time. Milking-time tests are the most
direct method to determine the adequacy of vacuum production and vacuum regulation in
any milking system. More detailed testing (as described in Section 3) can be used to diag-
nose the causes of any failures noted during the conduct of these basic tests.
Test equipment
A single-channel unit or multi-channel vacuum recorder and at least 4 teatcup plugs are re-
quired for correct testing of pulsators. Because most pulsator testers include an option for
measuring vacuum level, the pulsator test unit can be used as an accurate digital vacuum
gauge and for measuring vacuum stability in the milkline and claw.
Vacuum stability tests require the use of a recorder that can display the average, mini-
mum and maximum vacuum recorded over a known or pre-set measurement period and
with a response rate and sampling rate appropriate to the test location and test condi-
tions (Reinemann et al., 2001c; Rasmussen et al., 2003). A list of test equipment has
been assembled by an International Dairy Federation group of experts (IDF, 1999). A flow
simulator (Stewart, 1997; O’Callaghan et al., 2001) can be used for a wet test of average
vacuum levels in the claw at known flow rates and vacuum drop through components in
the milkline.
2.1 Pulsator Testing

These tests are done with milking units connected, pulsators operating and liners fitted with
teat cup plugs. The objective of these tests is to determine if the pulsation system and all
pulsators are operating according to the manufacturer’s specifications. Pulsator testers are
used to determine the pulsation rate and the duration of the four phases of pulsation. The
main parameters of interest for pulsators are (ISO 5707; Hamann and Mein, 1996):
• Pulsation Rate should be repeatable from day to day and should not deviate more than 3
12
cycles per minute from one unit to the next.

• Pulsator Ratio should not differ by more than 5 percentage units from manufacturer’s
specifications or from one pulsator to another.
• The B Phase (milking or liner-open phase) of pulsation should be at least 30% of the cycle
• The D Phase (massage, rest or liner-closed phase) of the pulsation cycle should not be
less than 15% and not less than 150 milliseconds.
Manufacturers provide more detailed specifications for individual pulsator types. If any
pulsation characteristics fall outside these guidelines, further checks by the manufacturer's
representative are recommended.
Vacuum Measurement during milking

The most fundamental vacuum specification for milking is that the vacuum level in the
claw be maintained in an appropriate range during milking. To support this objective, the
vacuum in the milkline and in or near the receiver should be within a reasonable range
during normal milking. Normal milking is considered to be the time that milking units are
attached to cows, including events such as teatcup attachment and removal, liner slips and
cluster fall-off. Recommendations for measurement methods and interpretation for each
measurement site follow.
2.2 Average Claw Vacuum

The recommended average claw vacuum is from 32 to 42 kPa (averaged over 5 to 10 sec-
onds) in the claw during peak milk flow for the majority of cows (See section 2.5 and ISO
5707). The vacuum at the regulator sensing point should be adjusted to achieve this objec-
tive. Connect a suitable vacuum recorder to the claw using one of the following methods:
• Connect a suitable test T-piece between the long milk tube and the claw outlet (except
for top-outlet claws).
• Insert a 12 or 14 gauge needle through the short milk tube of the liner. The needle should
be at least 60 mm long to ensure proper location of the needle through the claw nipple
and into the top of the claw bowl. The end of the needle should be located out of the milk
flow stream.
• Use a claw fitted with a test port that is located out of the milk flow stream.
Measure average claw vacuum during peak milk flow on a representative sample of cows
from the herd according to the methods in Rasmussen et al., 2003.
2.3 Vacuum Stability in the Milkline and Receiver

The vacuum in the receiver should not differ by more than 2 kPa from the working vacuum
during normal milking (ISO 5707). In addition, the vacuum in the milkline should not differ
by more than 2 kPa from the receiver vacuum at any point in the milkline for at least 95%
of the normal milking period. Make sure that recordings are taken during the operation of
all equipment that is normally operated during milking. Vacuum at these sites should be
recorded while the system is under full milk and air flow conditions, that is, while clusters
are being attached, while all clusters are on cows, and then as clusters are detached. These
tests should be performed for at least 3 cluster changes (detach from one group of cows
and attach to the next) in a milking parlor or stanchion barn.
Connect the vacuum recorder to the milkline. If the vacuum change in the milkline (av-
erage minus minimum, and maximum minus average) does not exceed 2 kPa the milkline
vacuum stability meets international standards. If the system passes the milkline vacuum
stability test it is not necessary to record vacuum stability in the receiver. Additional meas-
urements should be made in the receiver to determine if vacuum fluctuations in excess of
2 kPa in the milkline are caused by milkline slugging or by inadequate vacuum production
or regulation (Rasmussen et al., 2003).
13
2.4 Vacuum in the mouthpiece chamber

The mouthpiece vacuum during milking can be measured for diagnostic purposes to de-
termine if this is a cause of rings at the base of the teat and/or discolored or swollen teats
after milking. According to Rasmussen, 1997, the average MPC vacuum should be at least
10 kPa less than the average claw vacuum during peak milk flow. This is an indication
that the liner is able to close around the teat end during the collapse or massage phase
of pulsation. Teat congestion and ring marks at the base of the teat appear to be reduced
when average MPC vacuum does not exceed 20 kPa. Vacuum in the mouthpiece chamber
decreases as teats penetrate deeper into the liner and a marked change in MPC vacuum
occurs at the start of over-milking (Borkhus and Rønningen, 2003). Large diameter liners
produce greater vacuum in the MPC (O’ Callaghan, 2001).
2.5 Wet Tests with a Flow Simulator

A flow simulator is a useful tool to help determine the correct system vacuum level. A flow
simulator provides an easy, convenient and reliable method of measuring average claw
vacuum, and vacuum drop through the long milk tube and through ancillary equipment
such as sensors and milk meters at known water flow rates. The vacuum at the regula-
tor should be set to achieve the desired average claw vacuum during peak milk flow. Flow
rates of 3.5 L/min to 5.5 L/min cover the range of expected peak flow rates for high pro-
ducing cows. The results of vacuum measurements made using a flow simulator can be
compared with the average claw vacuum recorded during milking to estimate the peak milk
flow rate of individual cows. Flow simulators can be used as a reasonable estimate of the
average vacuum in the claw but do not provide a reliable estimate of vacuum fluctuations
in the claw or short milk tube during milking (Stewart et al. 1996).
3. Complete Professional Machine Evaluation

A milking machine technician should perform a complete system evaluation after each 500
-1000 hours of operation as part of a regular testing service and maintenance contract. In
addition a complete system evaluation should be performed on any new system, whenever
modifications are made to the milking machine, or when milking time tests indicate that
there may be a problem with the milking machine. A complete evaluation of the vacuum
level and airflow in milking machines includes the following measurements:
• Rate and ratio of all pulsators (Section 2.1)
• Detachment threshold for automatic cluster removers
• Operating vacuum in the receiver and vacuum difference between the receiver and the
vacuum pump, regulator and pulsator air line.
• The ‘fall-off’ test to determine if the system has enough reserve capacity to cope with a
unit fall-off (Section 1.6).
• Effective Reserve and Manual Reserve;
• Regulator “undershoot" or "overshoot" when 1 unit is opened and then closed
• Air used by components: Pulsation system, clusters, regulator, and other ancillary
equipment.
• System Leakage
• Vacuum Pump Capacity
14
Priority of Recommendations
It is important to realize that there are many reasons to suggest changes to a milking sys-
tem including:
• Improve milking performance (speed/completeness of milking).
• Improve mastitis control and milk quality
• Decrease power/energy consumption.
• Decrease wear on pump components.
• Improve cleaning performance.
• Aesthetic or cosmetic reasons.
When the evaluation of the milking machine is completed, recommendations should be
listed in order of priority according to their likely cost-benefit for the client, as follows:
Priority 1 - Urgent and important changes
Priority 2 - Important but not urgent improvements
Priority 3 - Cosmetic or other improvements
15
References
ARMSTRONG, D. V., and A. J. QUICK. 1986. Time and motion to measure milking parlor per-
formance. J. Dairy Sci. 69, no. 4: 1169-77.
ARMSTRONG, D. V., J. F. SMITH, AND M. J. GAMROTH. 1994. Milking parlor performance in the
United States. Proceedings of the 1994 Annual Meeting of the NMC, pp. 175-87.
BARKEMA, HW, YH SCHUKKEN, TJGM LAM, ML BEIBOER, G BENEDICTUS, and A BRAND. 1999. Manage-
ment practices associated with the incidence rate of clinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Sci-
ence 82(8):1643-1654.
BOAST, D., M. HALE, D. TURNER, E. HILLERTON, N. MIDDLETON, AND I. OHNSTAD. 2004 Variation in the
rubber chemistry and dynamic mechanical properties as liners age. In: IDF World Dairy
Summit, Bruges (Belgium) 2003 - 100 Years with Liners and Pulsators in Machine milking.
Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation No 388, 65-74
BONDAR, RM., 1990 Repeatability of Milking Behaviour in Cows. 5th All-Union Symposium
on Machine Milking of Farm Animals.
BONDAR, AA. 1992. Characteristics of Cow Behaviour During Milking. Nauchno Tekhnicheskii
Byulleten Ukrainskii Institut Zhivotnovodstva 61:81-86.
BORKHUS, M. and O. RØNNINGEN. 2003. Factors affecting mouthpiece chamber vacuum in ma-
chine milking. J. Dairy Res. 70:283-288.
BRITO, JRF, MAV PAIVA E BRITO, and R DA S VERNEQUE. 2000. Bacterial counts on the surface
of the teats of cows milked under different methods of udder preparation, including cows
milked by hand and stimulated by suckling a calf. Ciencia Rural 30(5):847-850.
BRUCKMAIER, RM, O WELLNITZ, and JW BLUM. 1996. Effects of pulsation and air vent in the claw
on milk removal in cows. Agrarforschung (Switzerland) 3(8):381-383
BRUCKMAIER, RM. 1998. Pre-stimulation, milkability and milk yield in Herens cows. Agrarfor-
schung 5(5):221-224.
BRUCKMAIER, RM, and JW BLUM. 1998. Oxytocin release and milk removal in ruminants. J.
Dairy Sci. 81:939-949.
BRUCKMAIER, RM, A ED. BALDI, and K STELWAGEN. 2001. Milk ejection during machine milking in
dairy cows. Livestock Production Science, Special issue: Fifth International Workshop on
the Biology of Lactation in Farm Animals.70(1-2):121-124.
BRUCKMAIER, RM. 2003. Chronic oxytocin treatment causes reduced milk ejection in dairy
cows. Journal of Dairy Research 70(1):123-26.
CAPUCO, A.V., WOOD, D.L. & QUAST, J.W. Effects of teatcup liner tension on teat canal keratin
and teat condition in cows. J. Dairy Res. 67:319-327 (2000).
CHANG, W., D. H. STREETER, and L. R. JONES. 1994. An object-oriented model for simulating
milking parlor operations. J. Dairy Sci. 77(1): 84-93.
16
Clough, P.A., D.R. Westgarth and D.F. Williams. 1973. In Proceedings of British Society of
Animal Production 2:73.
COSTA, D.A., and D. J. REINEMANN. 2003. The need for stimulation in various bovine breeds and
other species. In: IDF World Dairy Summit, Bruges (Belgium) 2003 - 100 Years with Liners and
Pulsators in Machine milking. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation No 388, 22-27.
DAVIS, MA, DJ REINEMANN, and GA MEIN. 2000. Relationships between physical characteristics
and milking characteristics of the aging liner. ASAE Annual International Meeting Technical
Paper no. 00-3014.
DAVIS M.A., and D.J. REINEMANN, 2001. Methodology of Measuring Strip Yield. Proceedings,
AABP-NMC International Symposium on Mastitis and Milk Quality, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
September 2001.
DOUMALIN, L. 1995. Variation des taux cellulaires. Le batiment, premier responsible. Pro-
duction Latiere Moderne, fev. Rennes, France.
EICKER, S, S STEWART, D REID, and P RAPNICKI. 2000. New tools for measuring the effect of
stimulation and take-off on milk flow. Proceedings of the National Mastitis Council 39th An-
nual Meeting, pp. 127-133.
ENGELKE, E, G WEHOWSKY, F TROGER, and O LIND. 1996. Methodology of comparing three milking
clusters in a large dairy herd. Journal of Dairy Science 79(3):384-389.
FOX, L.K. 1997. Effectiveness of laundering udder cloth towels to reduce mastitis patho-
gens. J Dairy Sci. 80 (Suppl. 1):234.
GAUDIN, V, P BILLON, and O SAUVEE. 1998. What kind of milking parlour for efficient and com-
fortable working conditions? Rencontres Recherches Ruminants 5:321-326.
GALTON, D. M., L. G. PETERSSON, W. G. MERRILL, D. K. BANDLER, and D. E. SHUSTER. 1984. Effects

of premilking udder preparation on bacterial population, sediment, and iodine residue milk.
J. Dairy Sci. 67(11)2580-2589
GALTON, D.M., L.G. PETERSSON and W. G. MERRILL. 1986. Effects of premilking udder preparation
practices on bacterial counts in milk and on teats. J. Dairy Sci. 69(1)260-266.
GLEESON, DE, and EJ O’ CALLAGHAN. 1998. A note on the effect of ageing on teatcup liner per-
formance. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 37(1):93-95
GUSTAFSSON, B., and P. LUNDQVIST. 1987. Working postures and human health problems in
Swedish milk production. Latest Developments in Livestock Housing. : 118-126.
HAMANN, J, GA MEIN, and S WETZEL. 1993. Teat tissue reactions to milking: effects of vacuum
level. J. Dairy Sci. 76(4): 1040-1046.
HAMANN, J., BURVENICH, C., MAYNTZ, M., ØSTERÅS, O. & HAIDER, W. 1994. Machine-induced chang-
es in the status of the bovine teat with respect to the new infection risk. Bulletin of the Intl.
Dairy Fed. 297:13-22.
HAMANN, J, and GA MEIN. 1996. Teat thickness changes may provide biological test for effec-
tive pulsation. Journal of Dairy Research 63(2):179-189;
17
HAMANN, J. 1997. Guidelines for evaluation of the milking process. Bulletin of the Interna-
tional Dairy Federation 321:26-35;
HANSEN, MN. 1999. Optimal number of clusters per milker. Journal of Agricultural Engineer-
ing Research 72(4):341-346.
HASSAN, L, HO MOHAMMED, RN GONZALEZ, PL MCDONOUGH, MV THRUSFIELD, and EA GOODALL. 1999.

Milking practices associated with the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in New York State
dairy farms. Proceedings of the Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medi-
cine Meeting 1-7;
HELLMUTH, U. 1996. A survey of 1500 dairy farms investigating the milking practices of dairy
farms with loose cow housing and establishing appropriate recommendations for milking
parlour equipment. KTBL Arbeitspapier 233:178-183.
HILLERTON, J.E, W.F. MORGAN, R. FARNSWORTH, F. NEIJENHUIS, J.R. BAINES, G.A. MEIN, I. OHNSTAD,
D.J. REINEMANN and L. TIMMS, 2001. Evaluation of Bovine Teat Condition in Commercial Dairy
Herds: 2. Infectious Factors and Infections. Proceedings, AABP-NMC International Sym-
posium on Mastitis and Milk Quality, Vancouver, BC, Canada. September 2001.
HILLERTON, JE, I OHNSTAD, JR BAINES, and KA LEACH. 2002a. Performance differences and cow
responses in new milking parlours. Journal of Dairy Research 69(1): 75-80.
HILLERTON, JE, JW PANKEY, and P PANKEY. 2002b. Effect of over-milking on teat condition. Jour-
nal of Dairy Research 69(1):81-84.
HUUSKO, M, M YLI HYNNILA, K DREDGE, and S PYORALA. 2002. Teat-end condition and udder health
of dairy cows in a health management project of dairy farms in South Pohjanmaa, Finland
1998. Suomen Elainlaakarilehti 108(1):12-17.
IDF, 1999. Instruments for mechanical tests of milking machines. Bulletin of the Interna-
tional Dairy Federation 338:27-37.
ISO 5707:1996. Milking Machine Installations: Construction and Performance. Interna-

tional Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 6690:1996. Milking Machine Installations: Mechanical tests. International Organiza-

tion for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland.
Kiiman, H, and O Saveli. 2000. Working procedures in machine milking and its connection
with milk somatic cell count. Agraarteadus 11(4):306-310.
JOHNSON, A, S STEWART, DJ REINEMANN, GA MEIN. 1994. Factors affecting vacuum level and
vacuum stability in the milking cluster. Pap Am Soc Agric Eng. St Joseph, Mich: American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, Winter 1994 (94-3562/94-3578) 9p.
LEMIRE, SD, DJ REINEMANN, GA MEIN, and MD RASMUSSEN. 1998. Statistical considerations for
milking time tests. ASAE Annual International Meeting Technical Paper no. 98-3128.
LEMIRE, S.D., DJ REINEMANN, GA MEIN, MD RASMUSSEN, 1999. Recommendations for Field Tests of
Milking Machine Performance. ASAE Annual International Meeting Technical Paper no. 993020.
LUNDQVIST, P., M. STAL, and S. PINZKE. 1997. Ergonomics of cow milking in Sweden. J. Ag-
romed. 4(1/2)169-76.
18
MIHINA, S, V TANCIN, V BRESTENSKY, J BROUCEK, and JP CHASTAIN. 1998. Lesion of teats in different
types of milking equipment. Proceedings of the Fourth International Dairy Housing Confer-
ence (USA) pp. 103-109
MEIN, G.A., F. NEIJENHUIS, W.F. MORGAN, D.J. REINEMANN, J.E. HILLERTON, J.R. BAINES, I. OHNSTAD,
M.D. RASMUSSEN, L. TIMMS, J.S. BRITT, R. FARNSWORTH, N. COOK, and T. HEMLING, 2001. Evaluation
of Bovine Teat Condition in Commercial Dairy Herds: 1. Non-Infectious Factors. Proceed-
ings, AABP-NMC International Symposium on Mastitis and Milk Quality, Vancouver, BC,
Canada. September 2001
MEIN, G.A. and D.A. REID. 1996. Milking time tests and guidelines for milking units. Proceed-
ings of the National Mastitis Council 35th Annual Meeting, pp. 235-244
Mein, G.A., 1992. Simple checks of a milking system. Proc. 31st Annual Meeting, National
Mastitis Council, Arlington, VA, pp 103-107.
MEIN, GA, MR BROWN, and DM WILLIAMS. 1983. Pulsation failure as a consequence of milk-
ing with short teatcup liners - Effects on teat condition and mastitis in cows. J. Dairy Res.
50(3): 249-258.
MEIN, G.A., D. REINEMANN, I. OHNSTADT and E. O’CALLAGHAN. 2004. 100 years with liners and
pulsators: where the rubber meets the teat and what happens to milking characteristics.
Bulletin of IDF No 388/2004: 28-34.
MUNKSGAARD, L., DEPASSILLÉ, A.M., RUSHEN, J., HERSKIN, M.S. & KRISTENSEN, A.M., 2001. Dairy
cows’ fear of people: social learning, milk yield and behaviour at milking. Appl. Anim. Beh.
Sci. 73: 15-26.
MUTHUKUMARAPPAN, K., D.J. REINEMANN, and G.A. MEIN, 1993. Compressive load applied by the
teatcup liner to the bovine teat. ASAE paper No. 933538, Presented at the 1993 winter
meeting of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
NEIJENHUIS, F, GH KLUNGEL, and H. HOGEVEEN. 2001a. Recovery of cow teats after milking as
determined by ultrasonographic scanning. J. Dairy Sci. 84, no. 12: 2599-2606.
NEIJENHUIS, F, HW BARKEMA, H HOGEVEEN, and JPTM NOORDHUIZEN. 2001b. Relationship between

teat-end callosity and occurrence of clinical mastitis. J. Dairy Sci. 84, no. 12: 2664-72.
NMC, 2004. Troubleshooting Cleaning Problems in Milking Systems. DJ Reinemann, GA

Mein, DR Bray, D Reid and JS Britt, National Mastitis Council, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
O’ CALLAGHAN, EJ. 2001. Influence of liner design on interactions of the teat and liner. Irish
Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 40(2):169-176.
PANKEY, J. W., E. E. WILDMAN, P.A. DRECHSLER, and J. S. HOGAN. Field trial evaluation of pre-milk-
ing teat disinfection. 1987. J Dairy Sci., 70:867-872
PINZKE, S, M STAL, and GA HANSSON. 2001. Physical workload on upper extremities in vari-
ous operations during machine milking. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine
8(1):63-70.
PROVOLO, G, F SANGIORGI, and JP CHASTAIN. 1998. Low-vacuum high-frequency milking: Results

of field tests. Proceedings of the Fourth International ASAE Dairy Housing Conference, St.
Louis, Missouri, USA pp. 110-116.
19
RASMUSSEN, M.D., E. S. FRIMER, Z. HORVATH and N.E. JENSEN. 1990. Comparison of a standard-
ized and variable milking routine. J. Dairy Sci. 73:3472-3480.
RASMUSSEN, MD, DM GALTON, and LG PETERSSON. 1991. Effects of pre-milking teat preparation
on spores of anaerobes, bacteria, and iodine residues in milk. Journal of Dairy Science
74(8):2472-2478.
RASMUSSEN, M.D., E.S. FRIMER, D.M. GALTON, and L.G. PETERSSON, 1992. The influence of pre-
milking teat preparation and attachment delay on milk yield and milking performance. . J
Dairy Sci. 75:2131-2141.
RASMUSSEN, M.D., 1993. Influence of switch level of automatic cluster removers on milking
performance and udder health. J Dairy Res. 60:287-297.
RASMUSSEN, M. D., E. S. FRIMER, & E. L. DECKER. 1994. Reverse pressure gradients across the
teat canal related to machine milking. J. Dairy Sci. 77:984-993.
RASMUSSEN, M.D. 1997. The relationship between mouthpiece vacuum, teat condition, and
udder health, Proc. 36th Annual Meeting, National Mastitis Council, Albuquerque, NM, pp
91-96.
RASMUSSEN, MD, and NP MADSEN. 1998. Low vacuum milking: effects on the teat. Proceedings
of the National Mastitis Council 37th Annual Meeting, pp. 85-92.
RASMUSSEN, M.D. and N.P. MADSEN. 2000. Effects of milkline vacuum, pulsator airline vacuum,
and cluster weight on milk yield, teat condition, and udder health. J. Dairy Sci. 83:77-84.
Rasmussen, M.D. 2000. A review of milking preparation: the science. Proc. 39th Annual
Meeting, National Mastitis Council, Albuquerque, NM, pp 104-110.
RASMUSSEN, M.D., J. BAINES, F. NEIJENHUIS, and E. HILLERTON. 2003. Teat condition and mastitis.
In: IDF World Dairy Summit, Bruges (Belgium) 2003 - 100 Years with Liners and Pulsators
in Machine milking. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation No 388, 43-48
REID, D.A. and S. STEWART. 1997. The effects on parlor performance by variations in detacher
settings. Proc. 36th Annual Meeting, National Mastitis Council, Albuquerque, NM, pp 101-103.
REINEMANN, D.J., 1993. Milking Center Advisor: Interactive software for estimating milking
parlor performance and costs. UW Extension Bulletin, A3574. Updated versions available
for download from the web site: www.uwex.edu/uwmril
REINEMANN, DJ, M.A. DAVIS, D. COSTA, and A.C. RODRIGUEZ, 2001a. Effects of Milking Vacuum
on Milking Performance and Teat Condition. Proceedings, AABP-NMC International Sympo-
sium on Mastitis and Milk Quality, Vancouver, BC, Canada. September 2001.
REINEMANN, D.J., M.D. RASMUSSEN, S. LEMIRE, F. NEIJENHUIS, G.A. MEIN, J.E. HILLERTON, W.F. MORGAN,
L. TIMMS, N. COOK, R. FARNSWORTH, J.R. BAINES, and T. HEMLING, 2001b. Evaluation of Bovine
Teat Condition in Commercial Dairy Herds: 3. Getting the Numbers Right. Proceedings,
AABP-NMC International Symposium on Mastitis and Milk Quality, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
September 2001.
REINEMANN, DJ, MD RASMUSSEN, and GA MEIN. 2001c. Instrument requirements and methods
for measuring vacuum in milking machines. Transactions of the ASAE 44(4): 975-981.
REINEMANN, DJ, P BILLON, O RONNINGEN, and GA MEIN. 1995. New guidelines for sizing milklines. Proc. 3rd
International Dairy Federation, International Mastitis Seminar, May 28 - June 1, Tel Aviv Israel.
20
RENEAU, J. K. and J. P. CHASTAIN. 1995. Pre-milking cow prep: Adapting to your system. Pp
46 in Proc. Regional Meeting. Natl. Mastitis Counc., Harrisburg, PA. Natl. Mastitis Counc.,
Inc., Madison, WI.
RENEAU, JK. 2000. Process control: timely feedback for quality milk production at the farm.
Proceedings of the National Mastitis Council 39th Annual Meeting, pp. 140-148.
REPPO, B, and I LINDSAAR. 2001. Milker’s work load rate and energy load by machine milking.
Transactions of the Estonian Academic Agricultural Society 15:67-70.
RUEGG, P.L. and I. R. DOHOO. 1997. A benefit to cost analysis of the effect of pre-milking teat
hygiene on somatic cell count and intra-mammary infections in a commercial dairy herd.
Can Vet J., 38:632-636.
RUEGG, P., M.D. RASMUSSEN and D. REINEMANN. 2000. The seven habits of highly successful
milking routines. A3725 UW Extension publications, Madison, WI. 7p.
Ruegg, PL, and DJ Reinemann, 2002. Milk Quality and Mastitis Tests. The Bovine Practi-
tioner, 36:41-54.
SAUVEE, O, P BILLON, V GAUDIN, and S POIRIER. 1998. Milking machine testing: working order
of milking machines in France - what is the best interval between two controls? Rencontres
Recherches Ruminants 5:327-330.
SCHREINER, D.A. and P.L. RUEGG. 2003. Relationship between udder and leg hygiene scores
and sub-clinical mastitis. J. Dairy Sci. 86:3460-3465.
SEABROOK, M. 1994. Psychological interaction between the milker and the dairy cow. Proc.
Third ASAE International Dairy Housing Conference on ‚Dairy Systems for the 21st Century,
Orlando, FL, pp 49-58.
SMITH, J. F., D. V. ARMSTRONG, M. J. GAMROTH, and J. III. HARNER. 1998. Factors affecting milking
parlor efficiency and operator walking distance. Appl. Eng. Agric. 14, no. 6: 643-47.
STAL, M, and T JULISZEWSKI. 2001. Analysis of wrist angles and movements applied to ma-
chine milking. Farm Work Science Facing the Challenges of the XXI Century. Proceedings
XXIX CIOSTA GIGR V Congress, Krakow, Poland, 25-27 June, 2001, pp. 273-276.
STEWART, S., P. BILLON and G.A. MEIN. 1993. Predicted maximum milk flowrates in milking
systems. Proc. 32nd Annual Meeting, National Mastitis Council, Kansas City, MO, pp 125-
132.
STEWART, S., R. FARNSWORTH, G.A. MEIN, D.A. REID, A.P. JOHNSON, G. BEELIER, and J. PAASCH. 1996.
Field measurement of vacuum levels using a portable flow simulator. Proc. 35th Annual
Meeting, National Mastitis Council, Nashville, TN, pp 214-227.
STEWART, S. 1997. Vacuum level measurement using flow simulation. Proc. 36th Annual
Meeting, National Mastitis Council, Albuquerque, NM, pp 97-100.
STEWART, S, S GODDEN, P RAPNICKI, D REID, A JOHNSON, and S EICKER. 2002. Effects of automatic
cluster remover settings on average milking duration, milk flow, and milk yield. Journal of
Dairy Science, 85(4): 818-23.
21
SVENNERSTEN-SJAUNA, K, R BRUCKMAIER, J HAMANN, and M WOOLFORD, 2003. Stimulation of milk

ejection - a basic need or just a time consuming routine? In: IDF World Dairy Summit,
Bruges (Belgium) 2003 - 100 Years with Liners and Pulsators in Machine milking. Bulletin
of the International Dairy Federation No 388: 11-19.
SZLACHATA, J, A LUBERANSKI, and A KRZYS. 2001. Effect of rubber liner tension on intensity of
bovine teat massage and vacuum stability. Inzynieria Rolnicza (Poland) 5(1):303-311.
THOMAS, CV, MA DELORENZO, and DR BRAY. 1996a. Factors affecting the performance of sim-
ulated large herringbone and parallel milking parlors. Journal of Dairy Science 79(11):
1972-1980.
THOMAS, CV, MA DELORENZO, and DR BRAY. 1996b. A network simulation model of large her-
ringbone and parallel milking parlors. Journal of Dairy Science 79(11): 1960-1971.
THOMAS, C. V., M. A. DELORENZO, D. R. BRAY, R. N. WELDON, R. A. BUCKLIN, and J. G. III. MARTIN.

1997. A stochastic economic analysis of large herringbone and parallel milking parlors. J.
Dairy. Sci. 80, no. 10: 2418-28.
TURKI, H, and S WINNICKI. 2001. Effect of pre-milking procedures of cows on milk flow
duration and machine-on time. Folia Universitatis Agriculturae Stetinensis, Zootechnica.
2001(42) : 157-162.
VOSTRIKOV, VA. 1995. Development of methods for relieving fatigue in milking machine op-
erators. Tekhnika v Sel’Skom Khozyaistve. 199(4)24-26.
WILLIAMS, D.M. and G.A. MEIN, 1982. Physical and physiological factors affecting milk flow-
rate from the bovine teat during machine milking. In: Proceedings, Dairy Production from
Pasture pp 42-74. Hamilton, NZ (1982).
WORSTORFF, H, and A DETHLEFSEN. 1994. Correct udder stimulation promotes milk ejection.
Milchpraxis 32(3)136-39.
22
Table 1. Concerns related to milking performance.

Teat Unhappy
Slow Milking Milk Quality Milk Yield Cow Behavior
Condition Workers
Symptoms and quantificaton the situation
Teats rough,
Bacterial Stepping,
Machine- Parlour swollen,
Somatic Cell Milk Quality Milk yield (kg kicking,
on time Efficiency, discolored, Injuries and
Count (Bulk (Bulk tank per cow per Urinating,
(minutes) Cows or lesions complaints
Tank and SPC, TBC, milking and Defecating (%
Milk per Milked (roughness (difficult to
Individual Bactoscan, per day) cows during
machine-on per Hour score, and quantify)
cow SCC) and other milking)
time (kg/min) (cows/hr) percent of
organisms ) (1.9)
herd affected)
Possible Causes and Tests (see text for test numbers)
High Yield
(1.16), Strep.
High Yield Genetics, Pointed Teat
Damaged agalactiae,
(1.16), Cow Large ends (1.18), Poor Cow
Cows
teat canal, Strep. uberis Genetics Breed

Behavior diameter Slow Milking Behavior (1.9)
Small mastitis
(1.9) teat canal cow (1.16)
diameter teat (1.20)
canal
Pre-milking
Pre-post Animal Late manual Control
Late manual Work cow sanitation
milking Handling, unit removal over work
removal routine (1.11), unit Cow handling
sanitation Milking (1.13, 1.16, environment,
Operator
(1.13, 1.17), efficiency fall-off (1.12) in parlour and

(1.11, 1.14), Routine (1.9, 1.17), level of pay,
poor prep (1.10, 1.11, Equipment in housing
separating 1.16, 1.17) teat dip unit slips and
(1.11), prep/ 1.12, 1.13, cleaning area (1.9)
infected unit balance coverage falls (1.12,
lag (1.12) 1.15) routines
cows (1.10) (1.12), (1.14) 1.19, 1.21)
(NMC, 2004)
ACR setting
(1.13, 1.17), Milking High milking
Too few Milking Machine
Milking Vacuum level vacuum (1.2,
clusters Vacuum working
vacuum level (1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6,
Milking Machine
(1.15) level (1.2, Effectiveness properly (3),

(1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 2.2, 2.3, 2.2, 2.3),
Milking 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, of equipment Completeness ease of use,
1.6, 2.2, 2.3) 3), pulsation over milking,
unit Slips 2.2, 2.3), cleaning (1.3) of milking (1.2, educated
pulsation (1.7, 2.1), (1.16, 1.17)
and falls pulsation Milking unit 1.17), workers,
(1.7, 2.1), liner design uncomfortable
(1.19) unit (1.7, 2.1), fall-offs (1.19) Milking unit
liner design (1.1), ACR liner(1.1),
balance liner design, slips and falls
(1.1) setting (1.13, pulsation (1.7,
(1.12), (1.1) (1.19)
Maintenance 1.17) 2.1)
(3)
Ergonomics
Clean dry
Cow Nutrition, and light levels
housing
Cleanliness Clean, access to Ease of cow in work areas,
Cow comfort General environment
Environment
(1.8) Ease dry cow water, cow movement, risk of injury.

in holding level of farm (1.8),
of cow housing and stress, lighting, dogs, Working hours
area and sanitation chemical
movement, exercise temperature, other stresses / breaks,
parlour (1.9) (1.8) contact,
gates, areas (1.8) humidity, (1.9) expectations,
change in
lanes, etc. disease communication
climate
(1.21)
23
EVALUATING MILKING PERFORMANCE
ABSTRACT
Overview of commonly-encountered problems in machine milking

of cows and guidelines for methods for evaluating the milking in-
stallation, its operation and the interaction between equipment, cow
and operator based on recent experience of dairy advisers, udder
health specialists and milking machine technicians. Suggests meas-
urements to quantify aspects of milking performance with a view to
recommendations concerning the milking process and determining
whether measures introduced have had an effect (102 references).
Keywords : ACR, automatic cluster removal, bovine, cow behavior,

cow cleanliness, cow handling, cow preparation, liner, mastitis, milking
equipment, milking routine, over-milking, pulsation, pulsators, SCC,
somatic cell count, Streptococcus, sub-clinical mastitis, teat cleaning,
teat condition, teat end,teatcup, udder cleaning, vacuum level
23 pages English only
Bulletin of IDF No 396/2005 - 18 Euro

INTERNATIONAL DAIRY FEDERATION
INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS
Submission of papers
Submission of a manuscript (whether in the framework of an IDF subject on the programme of work or an IDF event) implies that it is not being
considered contemporaneously for publication elsewhere. Submission of a multi-authored paper implies the consent of all authors.
Types of contribution
Monographs; separate chapters of monographs; review articles; technical and or scientific papers presented at IDF events; communications;
reports on subjects on the IDF programme of work.
Language
All papers should be written in English.
Manuscripts
• Files to be sent electronically on CD-ROM, diskette or by e-mail.
• Final document in Word 2000 or later.
• All tables/figures included in final document to be sent also in separate Word, Excel or PowerPoint files, in colour format.
Pictures to be sent in tif or eps format (resolution 300 DPI)
• All files to be named with author’s surname plus title of paper/tables/figures.
References
• References in the document to be numbered and placed between square brackets.
• Reference lists at the end of the document to contain the following:
* Names and initials of all authors;
* Title of paper (or chapter, if the publication is a book);
* If the publication is a journal, title of journal (abbreviated according to ‘Bibliographic Guide for Editors and Authors’, published by
The American Chemical Society, Washington, DC), and volume number;
* If the publication is a book, names of the publishers, city or town, and the names and initials of the editors;
* If the publication is a thesis, name of the university and city or town;
* Page number or number of pages, and date.
Example: 1 Singh, H. & Creamer, L.K. Aggregation & dissociation of milk protein complexes in heated reconstituted skim milks. J. Food Sci.
56:238-246 (1991).
Example: 2 Walstra, P. The role of proteins in the stabilization of emulsions. In: G.O. Phillips, D.J. Wedlock & P.A. William (Editors), Gums &
Stabilizers in the Food Industry - 4. IRL Press, Oxford (1988).
Abstracts
An abstract not exceeding 150 words must be provided for each paper/chapter to be published..
Address
Authors & co-authors must indicate their full address (including e-mail address).
Conventions on spelling and editing

IDF’s conventions on spelling and editing should be observed. See Annex 1.
ANNEX 1 IDF CONVENTIONS ON SPELLING AND EDITING

In the case of native English speakers the author’s national conventions (British, American etc.) are respected for spelling, grammar etc. but
errors will be corrected and explanation given where confusion might arise, for example, in the case of units with differing values (gallon) or words
with significantly different meanings (billion).
“ ................................................................ Usually double quotes and not single quotes

? !............................................................. Half-space before and after question marks, and exclamation marks
± .............................................................. Half-space before and after
microorganisms ................................... Without a hyphen
Infra-red ................................................ With a hyphen
et al......................................................... Not underlined nor italic
e.g., i.e.,... ............................................ Spelled out in English - for example, that is
litre .......................................................... Not liter unless the author is American
ml, mg,... .............................................. Space between number and ml, mg,...
skimmilk ................................................ One word if adjective, two words if substantive
sulfuric, sulfite, sulfate.............................. Not sulphuric, sulphite, sulphate (as agreed by IUPAC)
AOAC International ............................ Not AOACI
programme ........................................... Not program unless a) author is American or b) computer program
milk and milk product ....................... rather than “milk and dairy product” - Normally some latitude can be allowed in non scientific texts
-ize, -ization ......................................... Not -ise, -isation with a few exceptions
Decimal comma................................... in Standards (only) in both languages (as agreed by ISO)
No space between figure and % - i.e. 6%, etc.
Milkfat ..................................................... One word
USA, UK, GB ......................................... No stops
Figure ..................................................... To be written out in full
1000-9000 ........................................... No comma
10 000, etc. .......................................... No comma, but space
hours ....................................................... ø h
second .................................................... ø s
litre .......................................................... ø l
the Netherlands
Where two or more authors are involved with a text, both names are given on one line, followed by their affiliations, as footnotes
for example A.A. Uthar1 & B. Prof2
1 University of .......
2 Danish Dairy Board .....
IDF does not spell out international organizations
INTERNATIONAL DAIRY FEDERATION / FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE LAITERIE
Diamant Building, Boulevard Auguste Reyers, 80 - 1030 Brussels (Belgium) - http://www.fil-idf.org

Evaluating Milking Performance: of The International Dairy Federation

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Evaluating Milking Performance: of The International Dairy Federation

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bulletin

of the International Dairy Federation

Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 396/2005

GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USING THIS ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION

Send any comments or inquiries to:

Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation

Evaluating Milking Performance

1 University of Wisconsin - Madison, 460 Henry Mall, Madison WI 53706,USA

1. Simple machine checks and milking-time

Observations with machine not running

Dry Testing - Machine running but not milking

1.5 Regulator Response

1.6 Fall-off Test

1.8 Cow Cleanliness

1.9 Cow Handling and Behavior

1.10 Cow Grouping

1.11 Pre-Milking Cow Preparation

1.12 Unit Attachment

1.13 Unit Removal

1.14 Post-Milking Management

1.15 Milking Routines

1.16 Milking Time and Average Milk Flow Rate

1.17 Completeness of Milking

1.18 Teat Condition

1.19 Frequency of slipping or falling teatcups

1.20 Bacterial Quality of Milk

1.21 Working conditions

1.22 Statistical Considerations

2. Basic tests of Pulsator Function and of

2.1 Pulsator Testing

cycles per minute from one unit to the next.

Vacuum Measurement during milking

2.2 Average Claw Vacuum

2.3 Vacuum Stability in the Milkline and Receiver

2.4 Vacuum in the mouthpiece chamber

2.5 Wet Tests with a Flow Simulator

3. Complete Professional Machine Evaluation

GALTON, D. M., L. G. PETERSSON, W. G. MERRILL, D. K. BANDLER, and D. E. SHUSTER. 1984. Effects

HASSAN, L, HO MOHAMMED, RN GONZALEZ, PL MCDONOUGH, MV THRUSFIELD, and EA GOODALL. 1999.

ISO 5707:1996. Milking Machine Installations: Construction and Performance. Interna-

ISO 6690:1996. Milking Machine Installations: Mechanical tests. International Organiza-

NEIJENHUIS, F, HW BARKEMA, H HOGEVEEN, and JPTM NOORDHUIZEN. 2001b. Relationship between

NMC, 2004. Troubleshooting Cleaning Problems in Milking Systems. DJ Reinemann, GA

PROVOLO, G, F SANGIORGI, and JP CHASTAIN. 1998. Low-vacuum high-frequency milking: Results

SVENNERSTEN-SJAUNA, K, R BRUCKMAIER, J HAMANN, and M WOOLFORD, 2003. Stimulation of milk

THOMAS, C. V., M. A. DELORENZO, D. R. BRAY, R. N. WELDON, R. A. BUCKLIN, and J. G. III. MARTIN.

Table 1. Concerns related to milking performance.

Possible Causes and Tests (see text for test numbers)

teat canal, Strep. uberis Genetics Breed

(1.13, 1.17), efﬁciency fall-off (1.12) in parlour and

(1.15) level (1.2, Effectiveness properly (3),

(1.8) Ease dry cow water, cow movement, risk of injury.

Overview of commonly-encountered problems in machine milking

Keywords : ACR, automatic cluster removal, bovine, cow behavior,

23 pages English only

Bulletin of IDF No 396/2005 - 18 Euro

Conventions on spelling and editing

ANNEX 1 IDF CONVENTIONS ON SPELLING AND EDITING

“ ................................................................ Usually double quotes and not single quotes

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen