"

 

.0

(0—: ‘1‘.
00 H
\101 i

 

AN AUTOMATIC FEEDGATE SYSTEM
TO ASSIST COW MOVEMENT
IN HERRINGBONE MILKING PARLORS

Thesis for the Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
GERALD EDGAR. DANNER
1972

 

 
  

 
     

dim av
IIIJAG & SIINS' I
500K BINDERV INC 7:

LIBRARY 3mm.“ ‘
MIMI? “ll‘nlnnh -‘

ABSTRACT

AN
AUTOMATIC FEEDGATE SYSTEM
TO
ASSIST COW MOVEMENT
IN
HERRINGBONE MILKING PARLORS

by
Gerald Edgar Danner

A working prototype automatic feedgate system was
designed, constructed, and tested. The system was installed
on one side of a double-8 herringbone milking parlor at the
Dairy Research and Teaching Center, Michigan State University.

Time and motion studies included data on operator
interruption time due to cow movement and traffic within
the parlor. The Ieedgate system in combination with the
existing crowdgate produced a decrease in average operator

interruption time per cycle of 66 per cent.

Approved WW

Major Priofessor

Approved—fiA W

Department Chairman

AN AUTOMATIC FEEDGATE SYSTEM
TO ASSIST COW MOVEMENT
IN HERRINGBUNE MILKING PARLORS

by

Gerald Edgar Danner

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State university
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Agricultural Engineering
1972

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My most sincere appreciation goes to Dr. w. G. Bickert
(Agricultural Engineering) who has given me guidance and
encouragement on this project and throughout the course of
my graduate work.

John Gerrish deserves a hearty thanks for all the
helpful suggestions he has given me at any time for any
reason. To both Dr. Bickert and John Gerrish, a special
thanks for much practical engineering knowledge I feel I
have acquired from them during the last two years.

I am indebted to Dairy Equipment Company for their
generosity and assistance in supplying much of the equipment
needed for this project and special thanks also, to Rolf
Reisgies whom it has been a pleasure to know and work with
on this project.

Finally, I am grateful to everyone who has assisted me
in this work.

Gerald E. Banner

11

I dedicate this work to the memory
of my deceased mother and father. The
memory of my father, George, a small
dairy farmer and my mother, Edna, a
housewife, has been an inspiration to me
to complete my college education — an
opportunity they never had.

111

I.

II.

III.

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODIJCTIONOOOOOOOOOO00.0.00000000......O00.00.00.001

1.1 Background on Recent Milking System

Mechanization...................................3
1.2 Background and Logic of System to

Accomplish the Desired Cow Traffic and

Mbvement in the Parlor..........................h
1.3 Statement of Objectives.........................7

EXPERIWALCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOO0.0.0000000008

2.1 Design Criteria and Initial Prototype...........8
2.11 Criteria of system design.................8
2.12 Criteria of component design..............8
2.13 First prototype feedgate..................9

2.2 Description of Apparatus.......................12
2.21 Feedgate system installation in

milking parlorOO00.00.000.00...OOOOOOOOOOlz

2.22 Description of operation.................12

2.23 Operating mechanism.and control circuit..20

2.3 Feedgate System and Component Testing..........25
2.31 Cow switch placement and design..........25
2.32 Gate sequencing on entrance oycle........28
2.33 Gate sequencing on exit cycle............29
20h Procedure for mta TakinSOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0.00029
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..............................32

3.1 Results of Time and Motion Studies.............32
3.2 Economic Considerations........................37

SUMMARYANDCONCLUSIONS......... ........ ............39
RECOMMENDATIONS............... ..... .................40
LIST OF REFERENCES............. .......... ...........h2
APPENDIX ......... ..............44

iv

FIGURE

1.2

2.13A
2.138
2.130
2.13D
2.13E
2.21

2.22A
2.22B
2.22C
2.22D

2.22E
2.22F

2.22G
2.22H
2.23A
2.23B

2.23C

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

Flow Diagram and Logic of Desired Cow
Traffic and Interconnected Gate Mbtion..............6

Closed Feedgate.......................... ..... .....11
Open Feedgate......................................11
Feedgate mechanism.................................ll
mechanism - Gate Closed Position..................11
mechanism - Gate Open Position....................ll

Double-8 Herringbone, Showing Positioning
Rail and Feedgate Installation.....................l3

System "OFF" —— All Gates Open.....................15
System "ON" -— All Feedgates Closed Except #1......15
Cows in First Two Stalls - Feedgate #3 Open.......16

Cow #3 in Position, Feedgate #h Open,
Feedgate #5 Still Closed...........................16
Parlor Loaded - All Cows in Position..............18

Stalls #7 and #8 Occupied, (left), and
Empty, (right)..................

Rear of Parlor Including Ho1ding Pen...............18
Feedgates Closed - Cows Exiting...................19
manual Control of Entrance and Exit Gates..........21

Solenoid valve and Pneumatic Cylinder
Attached to Feedgate...

0.0.0.000000018

00....00.0.0000000000000000021

OOOCOOOOOOOOOOCOOOZZ

Control Circuit Diagram..........

FIGURE PAGE
2.23D Main Control Panel.................................24
2.23E Exposed Control Circuitry Components......... ..... .24
2.31 Placement of Cow Switches Relative to Stall
Positioning Rails and Feedgates in a h-Stall
Herringbone walking Parlor.........................26
2.33 Force Buildup on Feedgate vs. Time.................30

3.1 Frequency Distributions of Operator
Interruption Times......................... ....... .36

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
3.1 Mean Man Interruption Time and mean Cow Batch

Change Time for Four Situations in a Double-8
Herringbone Milking Parlor.........................33

vi

LIST OF SYMBOLS

allix‘n 4- Way Valve, Pilot Operated
II'AE 3- Way Valve, Solenoid Operated

Il'A—I 3- Way Valve, Push Button Operated

.5

 

 

W
I ——- -—:r‘
:3 —-1'~

Pneumat 1c Cy linder WV
Re lay

Time Delay Relay

0 Air Supply
Shuttle Valve
1 I] I ,I,
_I
| _

 

Single Pole Double Throw Switch

Single Pole Double Throw, Double Break Switch

Huh HJ

 

F.G. Feedgate . C.S. Cow Switch Cyl. Cylinder

N.O. Normally Open N.C. Normally Closed N neutral

vii

I. INTRODUCTION

The modern dairy farmer, just as any other businessman,
must use labor efficiently in order to help assure a profit-
able return on his investment dollars. Since the milking
operation itself has the highest single labor requirement of
the dairy farm, increased mechanization must be considered
as an alternative to manual labor. This labor is increasingly
difficult to procure -— partly because of the need for highly
competent and responsible personnel to take charge of the
milking operation during long and sometimes unusual hours.

The need for increased mechanization has already been
demonstrated and several companies have responded by offering
the dairyman many new kinds of labor saving devices to make
the milking operation more efficient.

Bickert,‘gt..§;., (1970), in a simulation, determined
the approachable limit to the capability of various herring-
bone milking parlors with different degrees of mechanization.
One new scheme, the semi-automated polygon parlor equipped
‘with automatic machine detachment, automatic cow udder stimu-
lation, automatic feedbowl covers, and a crowdgate was shown
to have the capability of about 120 cows per manhour. The

normal average parlor efficiency over the last decade has

been in the neighborhood of one-third of this figure or less.
In order to attain the simulated labor efficiency, a
very high degree of mechanization would be needed. The
working hardware for an automatic machine detaching unit and
a crowdgate has already been built and tested (see Bickert,
31;. $1., 1970 and Gerrish, 33. 91., 1970). However, an
acceptable system of working automatic feedbowl covers and

gates has not been set forth.

1.1 Background on Recent Milking System.Mechanization

Until the last two or three years, there were few
dramatic changes in milking systems and parlors since the
introduction of the herringbone milking parlor, a configur-
ation which had numerous advantages over other parlors (see
Hoglund, 23, al., 1969). Recent developments in milking
systems and parlors will increase the present day labor
efficiency of the milking operation from around 40 cows per
manhour to well over a hundred cows per manhour.

Some of these newer developments include different
parlor configurations such as the polygon and rotary parlors.
Other ideas have taken form in automatic milking machine
detachment, dual pulsation systems, automatic udder stimula-
tion, crowdgates, better milk metering devices, and feedbowl
covers. All of these would potentially reduce the amount of
labor involved in the milking Operation, leaving the man to
do only the tasks that are too costly to mechanize or are
not conducive to mechanization at this time.

The idea of feedbowl covers is just now becoming a
reality. As the milking routine becomes more and more
mechanized, the time it takes a man to operate the gates
and to move a batch of cows into the (herringbone) parlor
and move them out again becomes a considerable part of the
operator's allotted time per cow.

Especially in parlors where grain is fed, cows, when

entering the parlor, may stop at one or more successive

feedbowls and eat grain left by the previous batch of cows.
This slows down the loading of the batch and more importantly,
causes the operator to interrupt ths work routine to chase
cows. Likewise, on the exit cycle, the batch of cows may
leave slowly because of one or more cows who stop and munch
on leftovers.

Feedbowl covers (described by Reisgies, 1967) or a
similar idea could be used to help solve this cow traffic
problem. At least two companies (Ag Pro and Blue Diamond
Dairy Service) now have a parlor option that covers the
feed prior to cow exit and exposes the feed upon entrance.
These systems, however, are not as ambitious as the one

proposed by Reisgies .

1.2 ngkgpound and Logic of System to.Accomplish the
Desired Cow Traffic and Mbvement in the Parlor
Reisgies probably developed the first feedbowl covers

in 1967. His work showed that a substantial improvement in

labor efficiency could be realized with such a system.
Figure 1.2 shows the logic and interconnections of the
desired system adapted from Reisgies and applied to what
will be called the Automatic Feedgate System hereafter.
The sequence starts with a signal that the cows are
ready to be released. In a highly mechanized system this
signal may be that all milking machines have been detached

from a batch of cows. The exit gate would automatically
open and all feedgates would close. The cows, no longer
having access to feed, would be encouraged to leave the
parlor. When the parlor is empty the exit gate would close,
the entrance gate would open and only the first feedgate I
would open. Only when cow*number 1 is in position would
feedgate number 2 open. Feedgate number 3 would open only
if feedgate number 2 were open.ggg_cow number 2 were in
position. This interconnected sequencing would continue
until the last cow moving into position would close the
entrance gate. The flow diagram in figure 1.2 could be
applied to any number of stalls.

Reisgies' feedbowl covers were tested in a double-4
herringbone parlor. However, the particular design.was
experimental and not conducive to manufacture. Also no
attempt was made to interconnect the feedbowl covers with
the automatic operation of the entrance and exit gates.
Test data taken indicated that such a system could poten-
tially increase labor efficiency enough to offset the addi~
tional expense of the system. Moreover, such a system
would indeed be necessary to complement a highly mechanized
milking operation since the operator would have time only

to do more necessary operations.

$5 .3333. set BESS

 

 

 

 

 

sowuoz ouou oouooscoououoH one 03mm: 300 pouamoa mo camoa one Emuwmaa 33m N2" ouamwm
made “2.3
mmSU 2E0
3.5 3.5 mag made mama
ammm numb GE nmmm GEE
Egon “a u_n “2 53E nzoomm “menu .34
_ _ n _ zmmo _ _ _ zmmo _ _ zmmo _ zmmo M530
_ . _ a a
_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ n _ I I
_ _ n _ _ _ _ _ mass mass
_ _ _ _ _ Sam Sam TléluL
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ moose zmmo
__._r III|__I_IIII.I _ IIIII I _ _
Lrllluhfirlllll 4 _ _
fl IIIII IA _ — _ _
n _ _ _ _
Hr _ _ _ _ _
on mom onHHmom onHHmom onBHmom was who
zH 2H 2H max—Hmong
a 300 m 300 N 300 H 300 madam 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.3 Statement of Objectives
The overall objective of this study, then, is to design,
develop, and construct a system that'will:
l. Aid in cow traffic in order to reduce or eliminate
man interruption due to cow movement within the milking
parlor.
2. Be readily adaptable to existing herringbone parlors.
3. Be economically compatible with a highly mechanized
parlor operation.
Finally, the system will be tested, time and motion data

analyzed, and recommendations made as to possible design

changes.

II. EXPERIMENTAL
2.1 Design Cgiteria and Initial Prototype

2.11 Criteria of system design_

The following general design criteria were established
in order to make the system most flexible, convenient, and
efficient from the operator's standpoint.

A. Simple controls requiring minimum use by the

operator.

B. Feedgate sequencing and interlocking as shown in

figure 1.2.

C. Provision for feedgates to operate as an independent

system or to be interconnected with the automatic opera-

tion of the entrance and exit gates.

D. Provision for manual operation of the entrance and

exit gates, even when the system is in the automatic

mode.

E. System switch in the off position to totally de-

energize the system such that all feedgates will assume

an open position.

2.12 Cgiteria of component design
Other specific criteria apply to key components of the
system which should function according to the following

principles. These apply to any type of design - electric,
pneumatic, hydraulic, mechanical, etc.
A. Use of minimum force by the feedgate to move the
cow'out.
B. Gate must be fast opening at appropriate time
indicated in sequence.
C. Positive residual force on all gates not already
open.
D. Cow switch rods for opening gates to contact cow on
an in-sensitive area.
B. Sensitive cow switch which only needs to be momen-
tarily actuated in any direction.
F. Continuous force on a closing gate to move cow out,
but using nonppositive drive so as not to injure cow;
G. Cow switches and actuators must not be dangerous
or a hindrance to cow movement.
H. System components must be tolerant of environment

and abuse.

2.13 First workingpgototype feedgate

In order to accomplish all of the design criteria and
facilitate testing the initial prototype, a mechanical/
electrical model was designed. The prototype was installed
at the first stall of a double-8 herringbone milking parlor.

10

Figure 2.13A shows the gate in a closed position. Figure
2.13B shows a cow‘s eye view of the gate opened, exposing the
feedpan. The feedgate, which opened and closed through a 30
degree arc, was Operated by a reversible electric gearmotor
and a rotary to linear actuator (see figure 2.130, D, E).

The actuator, which.was moved back and forth by the rotation
of a stainless steel shaft, was linked to a one foot lever
arm on the feedgate and produced up to 50 pounds of force on
the gate. This force on the gate was produced by the friction
drive of the actuator on its shaft. Actuator slippage on the
shaft could occur at a pre—set value so as not to injure the
cow.

This model, even though completely workable and extremely
reliable, was probably not the most economical unit that could
be built.

 

A. Closed Feedgate B. Open Feedgate and Feedpan

 

C. Feedgate Mechanism

 

D. Mechanism- Gate Closed Position E. Mechanism- Gate Open Position

Figure 2.13A through Figure 2.13E Initial Prototype

11

12

2.2 Description of Apparatus

2.21 Feedgate system installation in milking parlor

The feedgate system used for testing was installed on
one side of a double-8 herringbone parlor. Even though the
design differed from the first prototype, all design criteria
remained the same. The conventional feedbowls were replaced
by a positioning rail and a continuous feed trough (see
figure 2.21).

The front positioning rail is patterned after the rump
rail and splash panel arrangement which positions the rear
of the animal. The feedgates, operated by a pneumatic cylinder,
are vertically hinged at the convex outward points of the
rails (see figure 2.22E) and swing through a working angle of
about 30 degrees. Switches with rod actuators which control
the opening of each individual feedgate are suspended above
each cow. The cow actuates the switch by moving the rod as
she walks by it into the stall. When actuated in proper se-
quence, the rearmost switch closes the entrance gate relieving

the operator of the necessity of manually closing it.

2.22 Description of operation
Figures 2.22A through 2.22H show the operation of the
feedgate system in an eight stall herringbone parlor. Figure

2.22A shows the normal system off mode in which the entrance

Aegean ou sauna uocv ooam moo so
coHuMHHmumow ouowpoom poo magma wcwco«uwmom wcw30£m .HOaumm woflxaaz moonwsauuom wuoansoa HN.N ouowfim

mgsomammh A<Dmb mHH3 maHm

 

mH<0

Hme muz<mhzm

,.||I. by”

 

1;

 

 

HHm m.mOH<Mmmo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
’/
 \

 

 

 

IA

and exit gates are open as are all of the feedgates to facili-
tate easy access for parlor cleaning. Figure 2.22B shows a
cow‘s eye view of the cow alley from the rear after the system
has been turned on and is ready to accept cows. Note the
feedgates are all closed except feedgate number 1 which opens
automatically with the closing of the exit gate.

The sequencing action of the system during parlor loading
can be seen in figures 2.22C and 2.22D. Figure 2.220 shows
the front two stalls occupied, each cow actuating her own
switch. Notice that cow number 2, after reaching her correct
position, actuates a switch which opens only feedgate number
3. Feedgate number A and all subsequent feedgates remain
closed. Figure 2.22D shows cow number 3 who has just come
into the stall whose feedgate was opened by cow number 2 and
actuates a switch opening feedgate number 4. Gates 5, 6, 7
and 8 are still closed.

Completed parlor loading can be seen in figure 2.22B
which also gives a good view of the stall arrangement as well
as the suspended rail to which the cow switches are attached.
Figure 2.22F shows the rear two stalls of the parlor (stalls
number 7 and 8) with and without cows. Notice that the rod
actuator on switch number 7 contacts the cow on the back,
behind the right shoulder, while on cow number 8, the rod
contacts the rump of the cow. The reason for this will be
explained later.

 

Figure 2.22A System "OFF"- All Gates Open

 

Figure 2.228 System "ON"- A11 Feedgates Closed Except #1

15

 

Figure 2.22D Cow#3 in Position, Feedgate #4 Open,
Feedgate #5 Still Closed

16

17

Switch number 7 opens feedgate 8, the last one, and
switch number 8, when actuated by cow number 8 in her correct
position, closes the entrance gate. The entrance cycle is
completed.

Figure 2.22G shows a view of the rear of the parlor
including the group of cows in the holding pen being encouraged
toward the front of the holding pen by the crowdgate. This
crowding action aids in moving the cows into the parlor once
the entrance gate is opened.

After the cows are milked, the exit gate Opens and the
feedgates sequentially close from the front, moving the cows'
heads out of the feed trough depriving them.of food and room.
This enhances cow exit from the parlor with no encouragement
or chasing by the operator (see figure 2.22B). When the last
cow is out, the cow switches all assume their normal vertical
position automatically closing the exit gate and opening the
entrance gate as well as feedgate number 1. Enter, a new

batch of cows.

 

Figure 2.226 Rear of Parlor Including Holding Pen

18

 

Figure 2.22H Feedgates Closed- Cows Exiting

19

20

2.23 Qperatingmechanism and control circuit

The feedgates are operated by an electric/pneumatic
control system. Pneumatic cylinders, connected to a com-
pressed air supply already present in the parlor to Operate
the entrance and exit gates (from manual push buttons -
see figure 2.23A), are used to operate the feedgates. Figure
2.23E shows the cylinder, attached to a pin on the feedgate,
and the solenoid valve which controls air flow to the single
acting 3/h inch cylinder. A simple T-clamp and bracket sup-
port the cylinder and valve -— both protected behind the
gate. Air lines are 1/16 inch I.D. tubing with a working
pressure of 60 p.s.i.

Figure 2.23C shows the control circuit for the system -—
the heavier lines being air lines and the finer lines being
electrical wires.

Each cow switch is connected to a relay with a holding
contact which keeps the solenoid valve energized. In this
way the cow need not continually actuate her switch to keep
the next gate open. The normally open solenoid valves are
connected in parallel to a common air supply which is controlled
by the system valve. The manual/auto switch operates a relay
which connects normally closed solenoid valves A, B, and C
to the system in the automatic mode by means of thermal
delay relays. These 2 second delay relays provide for a short

duration air flow through.va1ves A, B, and C at appropriate

 

Figure 2.23A Manual Control of Entrance and Exit Gates

 

Figure 2.238 Solenoid Valve and Pneumatic Cylinder Attached to Feedgate

21

 

amumoaa uwaouao aouuaoo omN.N ouswam

 

.u.< pJ)> VN

inch

».xu
uniqu

 

uz.4 ~_<

 

uc.l

xu».!m

 

 

wz_4

.mamnsh. luhm>m

...w.m Ob

 

 

LI

u>4<>
luhM>m

ps ru»_sm tau

«s up<uomuu

tum)

 

 

 

 

    

 

log.

uquJU

.Jyu up<w h.xw

owmaso

awqooo». oh:(\4<:x<l

vs .w.o

 

  

z .0.2 .owm N”
2

 

 

 

 

 

.u.z .oum N

 

 

uh<o
uuz<mhzw
wmodu

O

 

 

 

Il VA

 

u.-
zuz: ommasu

 

   

 

 

.J»u up<a uuz<¢~zw

  
         

u>4<> wJphntm

  

Mh<9
uuz<xhzm
zux:

fi‘w/

 

 

22

23

times which simulate the action of the manual push buttons
(figure 2.23A). This process accomplishes the totally auto-
matic gate operation, while permitting manual push-button
override. Simple connections are made between valves A, B,
and C, and entrance/exit gate air circuitry.

Figure 2.23D shows the main control panel, outwardly
consisting of only two switches which concern the operator.
Whenever the feedgate system switch is "on" the feedgates
are operational. When the lower switch is on "auto" the
feedgates and entrance/exit gates are interconnected for
totally automatic gate operation. "manual" is the mode for
independent operation of the feedgates and entrance/exit
gates. Feedgate system "off" leaves the feedgates all in an
open position. Then the entrance/exit gates can be operated
manually.

Experimental control panel arrangement in the parlor is
shown in figure 2.23E. Box 1 contains a transformer to step
the voltage from 115 volts a.c. down to 24 volts a.c. A, B,
and C are solenoid valves which control the entrance/exit
gate operation in the automatic mode. Box 2 contains all
of the connections between the system switches, solenoid

valves, and the relays in Boxes 3 and 4.

C'LiAYWBEIi

an"
Au' 0
E h" GAYESO

"l-‘ILAL

 

 

A, B, C, - Solenoid Valves

AA - System Valve

DD - Delay on Entrance Gate

EE - Relays to Cow Switches

FF - Relays for Auto Entrance/Exit
Gate Operation

66 - Time Delay Relays

     
    
   
     
   
 

Figure 2.23E Exposed Control Circuitry Components

24

25

2.3 Feedgate System and Copponent Testing

2.31 Cow'switchpplacement and design

Placement of cow switches is critical since the switches
must perform two separate functions. During the entrance
cycle each cow must positively actuate her switch in order
that the succeeding feedgate will Open and allow the next
cow to enter. During the exit cycle the switches must be
situated in such a way that there can be no way that a cow
can be in any stall and not actuate at least one switch. If
this did happen and all switches were in their normal vertical
position, the exit gate would close, locking that cow in.
This cannot be permitted. Figure 2.31 shows a 4-stall herring-
bone with 38 inch stalls with.what was found to be an optimum
switch location relative to the positioning rails. Notice
that switch number 4 is not in the same relative place as
the others. This is because in a 38 inch stall the distance
between two adjacent switches is much less than the length
of a cow. Therefore, one cow could actuate two switches.
Switch number 4 was put to the rear as far as possible to
maximize its distance from.number 3. Also number 4 is situated
off center to require the signal for "close entrance" to come
from the cow'who has correctly positioned herself in stall
number 4 -— moving her rump over to contact that switch.

In locating the switches in a parlor with other than

mzmum :wm £33 HoHHmm osonwcfiuuom :mumuo O 6H
moummvoom one 2H3” wcwooauumom Scum ou ozumflom monouwsm 300 no uaoaoomam HEN 0.3me

AH: UZHZOHHHmom gum :wm
:0.—

..l 1 i.

:ON

 

 

 

 

 

9me 38 v_‘ _ mmpzm
593m 38 41 A
:3.
Tull an
we magnum 2. i»
:0

“Has“ UZHZOHHHmOm 94m:

26

27

38 inch stalls it is recommended that all switches except

the rearmost one, be located along the centerline of the

cow alley as shown in figure 2.31. The switches should be
suspended from a horizontal pipe or rail which may be adjusted
longitudinally in either direction in order to correctly
position the switches for best actuation.

The switch itself is a heavy duty enclosed type limit
switch with a flexible spring rod actuator requiring 5 degrees
deflection with a force of one ounce. Coupled to this is an
extension rod actuator made of semi-rigid polyethylene plastic.
This rod is very well suited for this application since it is
light and flexible enough not to injure the cow; Also the
rod can absorb much of the force in deformation instead of
rigidly transmitting it to the switch actuator or the cow.
Periodically the rod may be hand straightened.

Another important consideration is cow switch.height.

The switches were suspended from a rail, 7 feet above the
floor with the rod actuators extending to within 44 inches

of the floor. At this height, switch actuation was successful
and consistent by cows ranging from 50 inches to 57 inches
from the floor to the pin bone. Our average cow height agreed
with that reported for Helsteins in the Agricultural Engineers
Yearbook (1969).

Observations were made as to cow reaction to the switch

rods. After becoming used to them, the cows were not bothered

28

at all. One rod at the front of the parlor was painted black
(the rest white) and there was less cow reaction to the black
rod. Matthews 9}. $1., (1963), and Smythe, _e_1_:_. £11., (1961),
report that cows are essentially color blind and their sense
of smell is more acute than their sight. This suggests that
once the switch rods assume a "parlor smell" the cows accept
them better. A neutral color which blends in with the back-

ground is recommended, though.

2.32 Gate sequencinggon entrance cycle

Entrance cycle feedgate sequencing is accomplished by
the individual cow switches. Since the distance between two
switch rods was 38 inches, a cow, being much longer than this
could actuate two switches at a time as she walked by -
potentially opening two feedgates simultaneously. To correct
this prOblem the signal between switches was delayed. The
most satisfactory delay under the parlor conditions during
observations was about 4 seconds. This corresponded closely
‘with the average cow travel time of .8 feet per second reported

by Bickert pp. 51., (1970). In other words -—

stall leg-55% ,1 feet
cow wa ra e ' 15—5—7333, ' 3.9 seconds.

However, on the rear stall a different situation was
encountered. In order to assure that cow number 6 or 7 would

not close the entrance gate, a time delay of 15 seconds was

29

included so that the gate would not close until 15 seconds
after feedgate number 8 opened. This time delay was determined
directly from observations on cow movement and then tested,
but it may vary from parlor to parlor, depending on particular

cow traffic conditions.

2.33 Gate sequencinggon exit cycle

Sequenced feedgate closing (from front to rear) was not
a primary objective. However, a semblance of this kind of
desirable action is accomplished merely by locating the common
main air supply line near the first feedgate. When the exit
gate opens, the front feedgate cylinders are pressurized
first. Figure 2.33 shows force buildup on the feedgate
versus time, comparing feedgate number 1 to feedgate number
8. Pressure starts to appreciably increase in the cylinder
of feedgate number 8 about 10 seconds after feedgate number 1
begins to move. Eight to ten pounds is the maximum force on
any gate; this seems quite adequate to get the cow moving -
at least in a parlor without feed.

2.4 Epocedure for Data Takipg
The installation in which the feedgate system was tested

was one side of a double-8 herringbone with automatic udder

stimulation and a holding pen equipped with a crowdgate.

(pounds)

FEEDGATE CLOSING FORCE

     

FEEDGATE #1

kFI-JEDGATE #8

 

 

0 I l r r r l 1”] T I I T I I r’ I l l l I

6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
TIME (seconds)

Figure 2.33 Force Buildup on Feedgate vs. Time, Showing
Gate Closing Delay from Front to Rear

30

31

Individual cow feed trials prevented grain feeding in this
particular parlor. Cows, milked twice a day, were brought
to the holding area from the main barn in groups sometimes
smaller than the capacity of the holding area. Also the
entire group of cows was let in to the milk stalls before
the next group was accepted in front of the crowdgate.
Crowding less than a batch of cows (in this case 8) was not
effective. Sometimes the crowdgate was turned off.

Data were separated as to feedgate side of the parlor and
non-feedgate side and note was taken whether or not the crowd-
gate was effective. The operators were instructed to go
through their normal milking routine, but to chase cows only
when and if necessary. Normally two men working in the pit
carried out the milking.

Time and motion studies consisted of observing man
interruption time and cow batch travel time on.each side of
the parlor. Nan interruption time is defined as any time
either operator was interrupted from his normal milking routine
to chase cows or to Operate the entrance/exit gates. Cow
batch travel time is the time for a batch of cows to either
load or leave the parlor (milk stalls).

32

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Results of Time and Mbtion Studigp

The results of the time and motion studies which consisted
of data taken on over 1,300 cows (herd size about 100) are
summarized in Table 3.1. In these data feedgates are considered
along‘with the use of the crowdgate because it was found that
in a parlor in which grain is not fed, the crowdgate has a
significant effect on the movement of the cows into the parlor.
This fact can be verified from the entrance cycle (batch
loading) average man interruption time (AMIT). Without the
use of the feedgates or crowdgate the AMIT was 36.6 seconds,
but use of the crowdgate (but still no feedgates) reduced the
AMIT to 27.2 seconds. Using the feedgate system without the
crowdgate gave a slightly lower AMIT of 24.0 seconds.

The crowdgate is nearly as effective as the feedgate
system for moving cows into the parlor. However, it must
be remembered that this is only on the entrance cycle and
that no grain is being fed in the parlor to encourage the
cows to move into the stall. Therefore, encouragement by the
crowdgate from the rear is quite effective in aiding cow
movement. The fact that the feedgate system alone gave a
slightly lower AMIT than the crowdgate alone can be partially
explained by the observation that cows headed for the stall

33

TABLE 3.1 Mean Man Interruption Time and Mean Cow Batch
Change Time for Four Situations in the Double-8
Herringbone Parlor

 

WITHOUT WITHOUT WITH WITH
FEEDGATE FEEDGATE FEEDGATE FEEDGATE
WITHOUT WITH WITHOUT WITH

CROWDGATE CROWDGATE CROWDGATE CROWDGATE

 

Operator Interruption Time

 

Entrance Cycle
Exit Cycle

TOTAL CYCLE

36.60 sec 27.20 sec 24.00 sec 14.90 sec
11.00 sec 10.30 sec 1.40 sec 1.25 sec

47.60 sec 37.50 sec 25.40 sec 16.15 sec

 

Cow Batch Change Time

 

Entrance Cycle
Exit Cycle

TOTAL CYCLE

1.19 min .95 min 1.26 min 1.06 min
.70 min .60 min .64 min .62 min

1.89 min 1.55 min 1.90 min 1.68 min

 

34

'with the open feedgate even though there was no grain there.
This facilitated parlor loading sequentially from the front
and lessened the cow movement problems for the operator.
Also, AMIT includes interruption time for cow chasing ppg
interruption time for operation of gates, the latter being
essentially eliminated with the feedgate system in the auto-
matic mode. Naturally, then, AMET was much less with use of
the feedgates and crowdgate in combination - 14.9 seconds.

The effect on AMIT of the use of the feedgates on the
exit cycle (batch uploading) was more pronounced since the
crowdgate has no direct effect on cow movement out of the
parlor. Exit cycle.AMIT was 10.3 seconds and 11 seconds'withr
out the feedgates while only 1.25 seconds and 1.4 seconds
‘with.feedgates. This 1.25 seconds is the actual observed
AMIT for the exit cycle which on the feedgate side includes
the time for pressing the manual Open exit button, (which
starts the automatic cycle) and very infrequent, short duration
interruptions for chasing. This 1.25 seconds would essenti-
ally be eliminated if an exit signal was obtained automatically
from somewhere within the system, say, from."all machines
off."

A very impressive reduction in average man interruption
time for total cycle from 47.6 seconds without feedgates or
crowdgate to 16.15 seconds‘with feedgates and crowdgate is
indicated in.Table 3.1. This is a significant reduction in

35

AMIT from.about 6 seconds per cow per cycle down to about 2
seconds per cow per cycle.

A The bottom half of Table 3.1 gives the average cow batch
change times (ACBCT) for the same four situations mentioned
above. Here there is no real significant difference in the
ACBCT's for the exit cycle. It appears that the exit times
are about as short on one side as on the other. MOre man-
interruption is associated with the non-feedgate side which
implies that more chasing was done there to get the cows out
as fast as on the feedgate side.

On the entrance cycle it may be noted that the ACBCT
without feedgates (1.19 minutes and .95 minutes) is slightly,
but not much lower than the ACBCT with feedgates (1.26 minutes
and 1.06 minutes). The reason for this is reflected in the
fact that the operator was interrupted more frequently without
the feedgates than with them. In other words, more cowbchasing
was observed on the non-feedgate side of the parlor which
resulted in a somewhat faster cow’movement. However, small
changes in ACBCT in.a highly mechanized parlor would be of
no real consequence one way or the other unless the difference
somehow affected the operator's routine. The entrance cycle
data indicated that use of the crowdgate decreases ACBCT by
12 to 14.4 seconds per cycle.

Figure 3.1. graphically shows the relative distributions
of the interruption time data of Table 3.1. From this figure

F R E O U E N C Y

| V E

R E L A T

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENTRANCE CYCLE EXIT CYCLE TOTAL
WITH FEEDGATES, WITH CROWOGATE
1.0
I 5; |
W I .
.s~ I | W
.4 . I I
.3“ I
.21 I
.10 I I
0 Y . r . is e V - I . r 2e . 1 I. I [1» . . E3 - - . . .
4 12 20 26 36 44 52 60 2 6 10 14 16 22 4 12 20 26 36 44 52 60 66
WITH FEEDGATES, WITHOUT CROWDGATE
1.0 T U
11 I FT I
'6’ I
.sI' I |
.41 "I I I
.3’
2, U l |
II I '
0A ’1 [1 r1 .7 . p _ . v . 1 Y | r14r1 - r1
4 12 2o 26 36 44 52 60 2 6 1o 14 16 22 4 12 20 26 36 44 52 6o 66
WITHOUT FEEDGATES, WITH CROWDGATE
1.0
1 I I
05"
4«» I I
. I I
.2<r I
"I II [III ' II IIII
o er I] . , ,7 , l [1 e 7, . r [j I . [j [1 '7 . - . E1 17
4 12 2O 28 36 44 52 80 2 6 10 14 18 22 4 12 20 28 36 44 52 60 68
WITHOUT FEEOCATES, WITHOUT CROWOGATE
1.0 I
1; | '
eB‘I '
.5“ I I
.4‘ | I
.3“
I I
.21 ' '
Hn . [I an
o ‘3’?[1 . [J 1 - 1 - . . [3 ., . I 1 - f? I]
4 12 20 26 36 44 $26 2 6 1o 14 16 22 4 12 20 26 36 44 52 60 66
T I I E ( eeconde )

Figure 3.1 Frequency Distributions of Operator Interruption Times

36

37

can be seen the ranges of the interruption times, the relative
frequencies at which they occurred, and.which specific time
intervals are significant‘with respect to different degrees
and combinations of mechanization. For instance, the man,
interruptions occur with a much greater frequency at the
shorter durations with.the use of the feedgate system. Also,
all of the exit cycle man-interruptions on the feedgate side
occur in the interval 0 to 4 seconds. Other comparisons

may easily be made.

3.2 Economic Consideration;

The Automatic Feedgate System must be economically
justifiable in order to warrant further consideration.

Based on the experimental installation, additional cost per
stall in,a herringbone parlor is estimated at 8100. As
stated before, this system.was designed primarily as a neces-
sary component of a highly mechanized parlor, not just as a
convenience item -— a component needed in order to realize

a labor efficiency of over 100 cows per manhour.

The cost of a semi-automated parlor, including crowdgate,
automatic detaching units, udder stimulation, etc., would be
roughly 81,200 to $1,400 per stall more than.a conventional
parlor. Therefore, adding another $100 for feedgates to
this would.not be a very large percentage increase of the

38

total. Figured as a percentage of the total initial milking
parlor installation investment or figured on a "per-cow“
basis, additional cost for the feedgate system.would be a
small part indeed.

Hewever, in a parlor with a relatively low degree of
mechanization, small herd size, or one in which excessive
manual labor is available, the feedgate system is probably
not economically feasible, although the system is easily
added-on or built-in to any size herringbone parlor. No
economic analysis has been made to determine a break-even

point for this particular system.

39

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The Automatic Feedgate System was designed, built, and
tested with all design criteria and objectives adequately
met. The system proved workable and reliable in performing
gate operations. A significant decrease in average operator
interruption time was observed - a decrease of about 66 per
cent in this study.

Further studies are necessary to test its effectiveness
in a parlor in which grain is fed, although it is expected
to be even more effective in such a parlor.

Advantages of the feedgate system are better realized
when used in combination with a crowdgate.

Such a system is necessary in a parlor with a high degree
of mechanization and.where high labor efficiency is desired.

40

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are made with respect to
convenience and ease of installation of the feedgate system:
1. Wires and air lines should be enclosed in conduit.
2. A central location for control circuitry components
which should be adequately protected from the harsh
parlor environment is desirable.
3. Larger herringbone stalls (42 or #4 inches) would
better separate cow switches which might facilitate
better sequencing on the entrance cycle. Larger stalls
would also leave more room for the operator to work in
a parlor with more mechanization, such as automatic
detachers.
4. Larger pneumatic cylinders and air lines would
probably be needed to operate the feedgates in a parlor
in which grain is fed.

LIST OF REFERENCES

42

REFERENCES

Agricultural Engineer's Yearbook (1969). "Dimensions of
Livestock and Poultry." American Society of Agricul-
tural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan.

Bickert, W. G., J. B. Gerrish and D. V. Armstrong (1970).
"Semi-Automatic Milking in a Polygon Parlor: A
Simulation." Paper No. 70-349, American Society of
Agricultural Engineers.

Fullbright, R. w. Clay Equipment Corporation. Personal
correspondence. (April 24, 1972). Cedar Falls, Iowa.

Gerrish, J. B. and w. G. Bickert (1970). "A Control Circuit
and Transducer for an Automatic Milking Machine Detacher."
Paper No. 70-317, American Society of Agricultural
Engineers.

Hoglund, C. R., J. A. Speicher and J. S. Boyd (1969).
"Milking Efficiency, Investments and Annual Costs for
Different Milking Parlors." Research Report 93, Michigan
State University Agricultural Experiment Station.

Matthews, L. H. and Maxwell Knight (1963). The Senses 91
Animals. Philosophical Lib., Inc., New Yor .

Reisgies, R. w. (1967). "Systematization of Cow Traffic
in a Herringbone‘Milking Parlor." Unpublished research,
Michigan State University.

Rogers, Charles. Blue Diamond Dairy Service. Personal
correspondence. (April 17, 1972). Mt. Vernon, Washington.

Smythe, R. H. (1961). Animal Vision: What Animals gag.
c. c. Thomas, Pubil'éfiTr, Wfiefi", 1m.

Truan, mark. Ag Pro, Inc. Personal correspondence. (may
10, 1972). Santa Rosa, California.

APPENDIX

 

Too .mHDom >30 "00.5.53 woumu uwxaoocmhuam mo cowumuoao 13st How 3.50.50 gums—soap 10 ousmfim

3.5 .38 $30 8.6 Bzgzm Macao

 

 

 

 

 

mmnzHAMU I
mezHHWU NH<G El

MH<G Hme muz<mHzm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mH¢u HHXM zmmo MHdw muz¢mhzm zmmo