Summary — Two systems were designed to exert traction on the teatcups and reduce the bending of teats during machine milking: 1 ) an articulated arm, which held the teatcups in a fixed position throughout milking; and 2) a system using springs, which were joined to the short milk tube at one end, and hooked onto a wire mesh at the other end after the teatcups were attached. These systems were compared with the traditional milking system in a Latin square design (3 x 3 weeks), using 36 Manchega ewes in their 3rd week of machine milking, after 5 weeks of suckling. Ewes were milked twice a day with machine and hand strippings. The system using springs produced an increase in total milk production compared with the traditionally milked control group, although the increase was not very large (3.7%). However, its composition (percentage of fat and protein) and residual milk did not vary. Fractionation also improved, increasing machine milk by 16% and decreasing the stripping (machine stripping by 60%; hand stripping by 26%). The arm system produced lower total milk production (6%) when compared with that of the control milking system, although the composition and residual milk did not vary. The machine milk fraction was similar to that of the control group, but stripping decreased by 41 and 7% for the machine and hand strippings, respectively. Teatcup falls increased slightly in the spring (6.6%) and arm (8.9%) systems compared to the control milking system (5.1 %).
Summary-A system which exerts variable traction on teatcups has been designed so that the traction is strongest 35-40 s after the beginning of the milking. The system also makes it possible to reduce the bending of teats during machine milking. This system (traction system) was compared to normal milking (control system) using 62 Manchega ewes. After weaning (5 weeks), all the ewes were milked with the control system for 5 d (preexperimental) and then divided into 2 groups. Each milking system (control and traction) was assigned to each group at random, over a 10-week period (experimental). Milking occurred twice a day with machine and hand strippings until the fourth week of the experimental period (period 1 and then, hand stripping was omitted between weeks 5 to 10 (period 2) of the experimental period. The production and composition (fat and protein) of total milk did not present significant differences. The traction system tended to decrease residual milk while increasing its fat content; the differences were only significant with respect to fat content (15.7 vs 14.8%; P < 0.05). The traction system improved milk fractioning, increasing machine milk, although not significantly (+9%; P= 0.09), and decreasing machine stripping (-40°/ ; P < 0.001 ) and hand stripping (-30%; P < 0.001 Moreover, this system also increased the milking time (12 s, P < 0.001 When hand stripping was omitted (period 2), the traction system tended to improve milk fractioning as compared with the control system, but total milk and fat yield barely varied (+1.7% and +5.9%, respectively; P > 0.05). The interaction &dquo;milking system by period&dquo; was not significant for any of the variables studied. The traction system increased teatcup falls (13.6 vs 7.7%; P < 0.001 It may also have had some effect on udder health as the somatic cell count increased, although not significantly (P = 0.09). The use of this system also resulted in more ewes (2 ewes vs no ewe with the control system) being culled as a consequence of acute mastitis. It can therefore be concluded that the traction system or simpler systems which exert more constant traction on the teatcups may only be interesting for milking routines without strippings (eg in rotary parlors with automatic cluster removers). New experiments need to be done to confirm whether these systems really affect the incidence of mastitis or if they inevitably produce a significant increase in teatcup falls. machine milking / ewes / stripping / milking efficiency
In recent years, new methods of fresh distribution have been adopted and/or tried to increase marketing efficiency. There is uncertainty as to the effectiveness of these new distribution methods compared to the old ones. In this paper, five alternative methods of fresh beef distribution were budgeted for ten regions in the State of Texas. These budgets were analyzed with a multidimension linear programming model. Although all systems entered the optimal solution when wage rates and processing capacities were varied, boxed-beef was clearly the leading system accounting for approximately 75% of the volume. Substantial progress in beef marketing efficiency has been made in recent years. Further progress is needed, however, since beef is one of the few items still processed in the back room of the retail store. Much of the progress to date has been due to wide adoption of boxed beef; first at the wholesale distribution level, and more recently, at the packing plant level. "Boxed beef' is the process of breaking the beef carcass into primals and subprimals, putting each piece in a vaccum sealed bag and then boxing the pieces. The advantages are: transportation cost savings due to less fat and bone shipped to retail stores, higher value for fat and bone better utilized at the packing plant, less product shrinkage, more productive use of labor, and longer storage life of the product. A disadvantage is that one must pay for the vacuum bags and boxes. Labor costs continue to be the largest single cost item in beef marketing and any innovations that reduce labor costs offer an opportunity to hold down increases in beef marketing margins.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.