Potential economic and environmental benefits of automating milking and Total Mixed Ration (TMR) feeding on a dairy farm

Dairy farms are increasingly adopting milking automation and, more recently, there has been growing interest in automating total mixed ration (TMR) feeding. The main motivations for farmers to automate barn operations are the need to reduce production costs and the difficulty in finding skilled labour or the desire to relieve operators of repetitive tasks. The ability to control the production process and improve animal health and welfare are other drivers, while the high initial investment is likely to be the main constraint. Three automation scenarios were hypothesised for a dairy farm with approximately 180 lactating cows: first, replacing the milking parlour with an automatic milking system (AMS); second, introducing an automatic feeding system (AFS) in place of the TMR mixer wagon; third, introducing both automatic systems (AMS+AFS). A technical-economic analysis was carried out to estimate the operating costs of conventional and automated milking and feeding systems, taking into account fixed and variable costs. To analyse the environmental impact of the different scenarios, a simplified estimate of the annual CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions was made. The direct green-house gas (GHG) emissions from the combustion of the fossil fuel (diesel oil) were considered for the TMR mixer wagon, while for the milking parlour, AMS and AFS, the indirect GHG emissions from the use of electricity to operate the different systems were considered. Replacing the milking parlour with an AMS (scenario 1) could reduce milking costs, mainly due to the higher milk production allowed by the system. Introducing an AFS instead of the TMR mixer wagon (scenario 2) could reduce energy and labour costs associated with feeding tasks by up to 91% and 75% respectively. Using both automatic systems (scenario 3) could reduce the total costs associated with milking and the preparation and distribution of TMR by more than 21%. From an environmental point of view, the last scenario could reduce CO2e emissions by 67.5%.