Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38254388›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024

Farmers' Perceptions on Implementing Automatic Milking Systems in Large USA Dairies: Decision-Making Process, Management Practices, Labor, and Herd Performance.

Camila Flavia de Assis Lage, Thaisa Campos Marques, Daniela R Bruno, Marcia I Endres, Fernanda Ferreira, Ana Paula Alves Pires, Karen Leão, Fabio Soares de Lima

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Industrial Robotics and the Future of Work.American journal of industrial medicine · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Camila Flavia de Assis LageCornell Cooperative Extension, Cornell University, Bath, ME 14810, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3287-5824
Thaisa Campos MarquesDepartment of Population Health and Reproduction, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1112-6699
Daniela R BrunoCooperative Extension, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Fresno, CA 93701, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4084-3980
Marcia I EndresDepartment of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA.
Fernanda FerreiraDepartment of Population Health and Reproduction, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
Ana Paula Alves PiresDepartmento de Zootecnia, Instituto Federal Goiano, Rio Verde 75901-970, GO, Brazil.
Karen LeãoDepartmento de Zootecnia, Instituto Federal Goiano, Rio Verde 75901-970, GO, Brazil.
Fabio Soares de LimaDepartment of Population Health and Reproduction, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8377-6469
Instituto Federal Goiano · BRUniversity of California, Davis · USCornell University · USUniversity of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

California Dairy Research Foundation project # P-20-003- UCD-FF-SR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automatic Milking System (AMS) installations are increasing in the USA despite the higher investment cost than conventional systems. Surveys on AMSs conducted outside the USA focused on small-medium herds, specific regions, or aspects of AMS milking. This study described farmers' perceptions about the decision-making process of adopting an AMS in the USA's large dairies (≥7 AMS boxes) regarding changes in technology, housing, management practices, labor, herd performance, and health. After being contacted, 27 of 55 farmers from large AMS herds completed the survey. The main reasons for adopting an AMS were labor costs, cows' welfare, and herd performance. Most farms constructed new barns, used a free-flow traffic system, and changed their feed management. Increases in water and energy use were perceived by 42% and 62% of farmers, respectively. Farmers estimated decreases in labor costs of over 21%, and AMS employees worked 40-60 h/week. Milk production increases were reported by 58%, with 32% observing higher milk fat and protein content. Easier sick cow detection, better mastitis management, and improvements in pregnancy rates were reported. Thus, farmers transitioning to AMSs perceived altered resource utilization, labor cost savings, and improvements in employee quality of life, animal welfare, and farm management. While 54% of respondents would recommend an AMS to other farms, 38% suggested considering additional aspects prior to adoption.

Indexed as

adoptioncow healthcow welfarerobotic milking

Identifiers

PMID38254388
PMCPMC10812517
OpenAlexW4390702894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.