Producer experience with transitioning to automatic milking: Cow training, challenges, and effect on quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the growing popularity of automatic milking systems (AMS), or milking robots, in Canada, little documentation is available on how Canadian dairy producers experience the transition to this milking technology. The objective of this national study was to document the experiences of Canadian dairy producers during the transition to, and use of, AMS. This paper reports on producers' experiences with cow training, challenges during the transition and their solutions, and effect of the AMS on quality of life. The AMS producers (n = 217) were surveyed from 8 Canadian provinces. Overall, producers experienced a positive transition to AMS. Producers perceived that AMS improved profitability, quality of their lives and their cows' lives, and had met expectations, despite experiencing some challenges during transition such as learning to use the technology and data, cow training, demanding first few days, and changing health management. Less than half of the AMS producers (42%) trained cows or heifers to use the AMS before the first milking with the robot. Producers who implemented training before first milking reported that it took an average of 1 wk to train a cow or heifer to use the AMS. Producers reported it took a median of 30 d for an entire herd to adapt to the AMS, whether or not cow training took place. On average, 2% of a herd was culled for not adapting, or not voluntarily milking, when otherwise physically and behaviorally normal. With AMS, producers suggested they gained more time flexibility, found work to be less stressful and physically demanding, found employee management easier, and had improved herd health and management. The vast majority (86%) of producers would recommend others to transition to AMS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".