She was part of the team that helped establish the ground-breaking Greenfield automatic milking project at Newstead, in Waikato, 13 years ago, across the road from DairyNZ headquarters. At the time the work was regarded as left-field research.
“What we set out to do was to prove a pretty outlandish concept for the time that automatic milking technology could work in a typical New Zealand pastoral system.”
The work had in part been prompted by the observations her colleague the late Dr Murray Woolford had made when overseas in the nineties, where many automated milking systems were being installed, particularly in Europe.
The Greenfield project was decommissioned in May, 2009, a reflection to some extent that the project had fulfilled its brief – to prove automatic milking could work in a NZ pastoral dairy system and could at least match conventional standards for production and herd health benchmarks.
A year-long study at Greenfields comparing a higher input system with an all pasture system over the 2008-09 season also highlighted the ability of the Automatic Milking System (AMS) to be successfully integrated to both approaches, with production results consistent with best practice standards used in conventional operations. The site achieved pasture growth of 15 tonnes drymatter a hectare, equal to well-managed conventional farms in Waikato. Average production a cow was 356kg of milksolids on all pasture, and 418kg MS/cow on the pasture plus supplements system.
‘There is also definitely an element of innovation within the character of those going for it; they have a history of picking up new ideas and technology.’
While concluding that the ability to produce high quantities of pasture and acceptable milksolids were not compromised under AMS, the study did acknowledge that profitability was marginal at a milk price below $5.50/kg MS.
A multi-year “rotary versus AMS” comparison based on the Greenfields data had concluded farms with AMS had 27% higher production costs, a 1.7% lower return on assets compared with a 450-cow herd milked through a rotary.
Cost structures on dairy farms with AMS also underwent significant changes.
AMS systems faced significantly higher maintenance, servicing, electricity and depreciation costs than conventional systems, but lower labour costs and slightly lower animal health costs, due to reduced lameness.
“There is a massive learning curve in the first six to 12 months, and there can be a significant drop in production in year one,” Jago said. “We recorded as much as 15% in the early years of the project. However we also have examples of farmers who have installed systems and have done their utmost to avoid that happening, and have achieved the same production in their first year.”
The consensus from the Greenfield experience is being reinforced by observations Jago has made about commercial systems now up and running.
The AMS option has provided an opportunity for major changes to lifestyle and working conditions on farms, including a more flexible working day with less repetition. However the 24/7 milking pattern of an AMS system also requires someone to be available to attend units if there are any problems, itself seen as a limiting factor to adoption by some people.
Evidence of an overall decline in labour requirements still remains largely anecdotal at this stage.
A Dutch comparison between AMS and conventional systems revealed no difference in full-time labour equivalents.
The Greenfield project indicated a 25% decline in labour, assuming half labour time was spent milking on a conventional farm, but the transition period required major labour input to train animals and monitor equipment.
Thorough analysis is needed before installing an automatic milking system.
Some anecdotal evidence suggests labour input declines once established, but the variety of systems now available and the different feed regimes used mean further work is needed to benchmark labour savings, if any.
Some of the work on the economics of AMS concluded at Greenfield continues to hold today.
From an economic perspective, significant changes in the cost of technology and the productivity of the AMS system would be needed for a significant number of farms to pick it up.
“At Greenfield we achieved 90 cows per robot, but that is high for a farm, and requires a milking frequency of around 1.5 and 1.8 milkings a day. The experience of farmers has shown that expectations need to be set early on at about 70-80 cows per machine.”
Greenfield work comparing a project installing either a 40-bail rotary dairy or five AMS units identified the number of cows an AMS unit as a bottleneck to making the option more attractive. It concluded significant advances in technology were needed to achieve a ratio of 150 cows a machine in a 24-hour period.
The researchers identified that more of a combination of changes were needed to boost productivity. These included a 25% reduction in capital costs on the units, valued then at $250,000 a unit, a 10% increase in hourly labour rates, an increase in unit productivity to 112 cows a day, and an overall reduction in farm labour cost by 10% with automation installed.
Jago contends today the decision to invest into AMS remains a “challenging” one to get a positive return from, when compared with alternatives. She also observes it has not stopped some farmers switching to AMS systems, with estimates that about 15 farms nationally have installed automatic milking units.
“The reasons are varied. They include succession, with parents wanting to make the option to take on farming more appealing to the next generation. There is also definitely an element of innovation within the character of those going for it; they have a history of picking up new ideas and technology.”
Others want to be able to spend more time focusing on cow performance and fine-tuning farm management beyond the dairy.
Data from Europe in 2011 indicated 40% of all new systems installed were AMS, milking 9% of cows, and estimates 18% of cows would be milked via AMS by 2016.
In NZ there is a need for more data on the performance of all aspects of these systems.
“Also now that we have proof of concept, and some adoption, it is time to look at what is motivating farmers to do it, and identify what you need to make a good decision that’s right for you and your farm business,” Jago said. “This includes a thorough investment analysis and opportunity costs of investment as well as the changes in skills required to effectively operate these farms.”
Robo milking – what to consider:
Farm contour and location – mobile and broadband coverage is critical for equipment monitoring and alerts. Location to service provider is also critical for machine maintenance and alerts.
Farm system – good grazing management is essential to encourage cows to move to the dairy for milking to activate access to a new break. Some feed concentrate is usually needed to maintain cow flow.
Number of machines – typically machines will milk 60-90 cows and cows a machine is critical to lifting the economics of the system. Remember, in a seasonal system one machine may have to be dedicated to colostrum and mastitis cows over spring. Consider the ability to expand machines.
Operator mindset – opting for robotics involves a leap of faith, and having to trust the technology, without constant interference/adjustment. It also means accepting your role as operator changes from a conventional system in some respects, not in others, ie you still need to be a competent pasture manager, but must also be flexible with your work processes, and focused on hygiene and system maintenance.
