Ag Engineer Looks At Dairy Housing Trends
DAVELEFEVER
Lancaster Farming Staff
YORK (York Co.) In any discussion about
animal facilities, Dan McFarland keeps coming back
to a basic set of criteria.
The extension agent from York County will approve
of your dairy setup as long as it provides the animals a
dry, roomy, weH-ventilated area, and offers confident
footing and easy access to feed and water.
For “any kind of dairy housing, show me that you
have provided those five things,” McFarland said.
Beyond those basics, the best type of barn depends on
individual preferences and what will best suit the par
ticular operation.
For example, some producers insist they can take
better care of their cows in a tie-stall barn. Others
claim that they can provide the best care in a free-stall
barn/parlor setup.
To McFarland, as long as the animals are well-kept,
either kind of facility is fine.
“It absolutely depends on the individual situation,”
he said.“ Whatever system gets people excited about
taking care of their animals gets me excited too.”
In milking center construction, McFarland noted
two trends.
One, producers are installing “very simple” swing
type parlors, with greater length than many older par
lors. In these setups, cows are milked on alternating
sides of the parlor with“swing” milking units. This
type of parlor allows the option of adding more units
to the already existing structure at some point in the
future.
McFarland said he is also seeing a lot of interest in
converting tie-stall barns into “step-up” parlors.
These offer a relatively inexpensive way to increase
milking efficiency. McFarland said step-up parlors are
often viewed as a transitional stage until cash flow
provides the ability to install a new parallel or herring-
‘N
Remember
Treat each co
The giving of
rough I
bone “pit” parlor. Some producers, however, are find
ing “they are very happy” with the step-up parlor, and
may be willing to use it for a longer period of time than
they originally thought.
One thing dairy farmers should avoid is putting in a
system with which they become dissatisfied, but feel
they must keep using in order to justify it.
What about the future of automatic milking systems
(AMS)?
“While robotic milking may not be for everyone,
there may be some factors that play into justifying it,”
McFarland said.
Limited availability of labor and increasing prefer
ences for more flexible lifestyles could help promote
this relatively new technology in the U.S.
With one AMS unit able to handle 50-60 milk cows,
McFarland said that smaller dairies stand to benefit
most from this system. In the Netherlands, he pointed
out, robotic milking has contributed to the preserva
tion of family farms.
Several Pennsylvania dairies have installed AMS on
a trial basis, including the Heindel operation in south
ern York County.
“Economies of scale are not in its favor at this
point,” McFarland said. But while an AMS costs about
twice as much per cow as a milking parlor setup,
“that’s not saying it’s going to stay there.”
For calf facilities, McFarland said he’s seeing a
trend toward more permanent buildings, which in
some instances can offer improved shelter and easier
care than hutches.
Greenhouse structures can work well for young
stock, but managers have to be extra attentive to
proper ventilation and temperature control, he said.
It’s a good idea to provide hutch-like shelters along
with the greenhouse to “let the calf decide” on the
most comfortable environment depending on condi
tions.