Gruppering av sinkor i stora besättningar

The dry period is usually 6-8 weeks and in this period the basis of the performance in the following lactation is settled. In an average herd about 15% of the cows are dry (Marcussen & Krog Laursen, 2008). In many herd the dry cows are set aside, that means setting aside 15% of your herd, at the time when they are preparing for their next lactation. The recommendation for number of groups differs depending on country traditions or reasons for grouping. If you look at recommendation for feeding, some companies selling feeding equipment advocates one group throughout the dry period, but the number differs from one to three. The recommendation from USA is for two groups, where the time to planned calving decides. From 8-3 weeks precalving the cows are in a Far-off group, where the feed is low in energy density and high in fiber. 3 weeks precalving the cows move into a Close-up group where they stay until calving. There they are fed with a feed containing more energy, to meet the needs of the cow near calving. It is also beneficial to mix in some of the lactation feed in this groups feed, to allow the rumen to adjust to the different feeds in the lactation feed. In Sweden the recommendations are for three groups; Drying off, Far-off and Close-up. If the grouping is based on health in the herd you get a more complex grouping. You then divide the dry cows in proven sound, proven sick and heifers. The optimal number of groups is six, because you also should move the cows and heifers near calving into a service unit, and keep the three groups previously stated (Landin et al, 2007). Another strategy for grouping is after udder health class (Herlin et al, 2007). If you get S.aureus into your herd these cows should be considered as disease carriers and be separated from the rest of the herd, even those with bad udder health class. Heifers should be separated from the rest of the cows if you don’t know the health status of your cows. The work has been done as a documentary research and we have also visited three large dairy farms to get a practical view on grouping. The knowledge has then been used when we have drawn up designs for Fröstorp Mjölk AB, where a building for dry cows and heifers is planned at Djupatorp, a farm nearby. We have also given suggestions for some changes in the dairy stall at Fröstorp. In the changes we have focused on improving the work environment and efficiency improvement in drying off and treatment of cows. We have also given two suggestions on designs for Djupatorp, where the focus has been on a good environment for the animals together with a good and rational work environment together with a good service unit. We think that Fröstorp mjölk AB has a god feeding strategy, but it is time for them to start focusing on improving the grouping on basis of health, and foremost udder health. We want the cows infected with S. aureus separated from the rest of the cows throughout the whole lactation cycle. With this strategy we hope to minimize the transmission of infection to uninfected animals and in time we think that the number of infected animals will decrease. 8 We also would like to see a grouping based on udder health class, to prevent cows with poor udder health class infecting cows with good udder health class. Our conclusions are that in large herd you should group based on health, because you already have the sufficient size so that you can divide the dry cows into different groups depending on time in the dry period and thus different feeds. If you have only one feed in the dry period then you could add groups based on health. If you have different feeds in the dry period groups easily can be created by having gates set up to separate the feeding group into subgroups and still have a rational system. S. aureus cows should be separated from the rest of the herd throughout both lactation and dry period. It is also important that you keep a good balance of vitamins and minerals to sustain your cow’s health

Sensors and systems in Dairy farms : a Review

The trend in milk production is similar in Sweden and across the world; the farms are getting fewer but increasingly bigger. The costs for hiring workers are increasing, which results in more cows per animal keeper. Sensors can then be a great tool for keeping track of animals which need special attention. With a reported decreasing fertility, sensors that can detect oestrus even at low levels can be especially helpful in bigger herds to pinpoint the cows that may be in oestrus. The number of farms with dairy cows that install AMS, Automatic Milking Systems, are increasing, and that also increases the need for sensors to control milk quality and composition when there is no visual control of the milk by a milker before milking starts. For the sensor data to be useful you have to have software designed to analyze and interpret the data to get relevant information that the farmer can use. A lot of companies that make sensors and systems for the sensors also design a management system to gather information from all systems for a better overall view and herd management. The project has been conducted as a review where information and research reports on sensors and systems has been gathered, in order to make a background for further research at the Department of Rural Buildings and Animal Husbandry. There are many sensors on the market today. Most of the sensors used today are designed to detect mastitis, abnormal milk or oestrus. Since the major reasons for culling cows are udder health related problems or low fertility rate, the economic gain in research and development for sensors that can detect the problem early on and diminish the costs are obvious. A management system that is being introduced is Smart Farming, by DeLaval, that besides milking, feeding and fertility control, which are obvious in a dairy farm management system, also focuses on environmental sustainability and optimize the farms production to get a more effective company. It also holds possibilities for advisors to gain access to several farms data and help the farmers to get better production and profitability. Many of the companies that sell milking equipment have their own sensors and analyzing systems that can be combined in their respective management systems. The components in the respective companies’ management systems are similar, indicating the demand from the farmers. Critical parts of how well the system will perform are the settings of threshold values and how easy the system is to use. With low threshold value you get more false positives but with a high threshold value you risk missing early signs of for example mastitis. User friendly systems would probably determine how much the farmer will use the system and how much information one would choose to get from the system. The conclusions are that there are different kinds of limitations in the sensors. The limitations can be roughly divided as technical, system related and economic. There is a constant development and tomorrows sensors will hopefully have fewer limitations. More sensors to detect lameness and metabolical disorders are desired. The systems that are being launched are of a network structure where farmers and advisors can work together for a better milk production. Sensors can never replace a good animal keeper, but it can help them pinpoint the cows that need extra attention