ICAR Technical Series no. 7 - Nitra Proc.

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Effects of liner buckling pressure and teat lengthare manufactured in different lengths. Pulsation failure will occur if teatpenetration is too high (2,3). The present paper analyses interactions ofliner buckling pressure and teat penetration.Material andMethodsLiners and teatcupplugsFor the laboratory trials, 6 x 4 silicone liners (SL M23, Siliconform, D 86842Türkheim) with 42, 51, 58 Shore and 2.80 / 3.25 mm barrel wall, respectively,were mounted in transparent 147 mm shells (# 457800897, Impulsa, D 4910Elsterwerda). To study teat penetration effects, a series of hard PVC teatcupplugs was tooled on a CNC lathe. The construction based on the ISO 6690specification, but the cylindrical shaft was modified in steps of 10 mmresulting in total plug lengths of 49 - 109 mm.Nominal andeffective bucklingpressureFor conditioning, all liners were stored at room temperature for more than24 h and pulsated for 10 min (40 kPa, 60 c/min, 60%) before measurement.Nominal buckling pressure (BP n) is defined as touch point of oppositewalls of liners closed by a glass plate (6). Effective buckling pressure (BP eff)was defined as measurement with a teatcup plug in place. The touch pointwas observed through the transparent shell and liner held against a lamp.For slow evacuation, a small hand pump (Mityavac II, Neward Ent. Inc.,Cocamonga CA) was connected to the short milk tube with the pulsationnipple open. BP was measured by strain gauge equipment (Pulsotest II,Bitec Engineering, CH 8590 Romanshorn). Measurement frequency was1 kHz, pressure readings (better than class 0.6) were displayed in intervalsof 0.5 s, time recording was better than 1 ms.Measurement ofpulsator phasesElectronic pulsators supplied alternate (Autopuls P, Westfalia Landtechnik,D 59302 Oelde) and simultaneous pulsation (Flow Processor, LemmerFullwood, D 53797 Lohmar). A dry laboratory milking plant providedconstant vacuum conditions (40 kPa) and vacuum drop (40/32 kPa),respectively. The latter was restricted to alternate pulsation, becausesimultaneous pulsation would have required specific wet conditions,exceeding this basic study. Short pulse tubes (230 x 7 mm i.d.) and 2.40 mlong pulse tubes were applied for alternate (2 x 7.5 mm i.d.) andsimultaneous pulsation (1 x 9 mm i.d.), respectively. Pulsator phases wererecorded by Pulsotest. Nominal pulsator phases (PP n) were measured withISO plugs in place while effective pulsator phases (PP eff) were measuredwith 50 and 70 -110 mm teat penetration depth (TPD). The difference of+1 mm to the teat length accounts for liner head deformation undervacuum. Each set of liners was run 3 min for conditioning to the actualplug length before measurement.56Conference on "Physiological and technicalaspects of machine milking"
Worstorff & BilgeryTable 1 summarises mean buckling pressure data of all tested liners withoutteat (zero TPD; BP n) as well as for 7 teat lengths (BP eff), measured twice.The BP nfigures indicate a selection from very soft to fairly stiff liners. Thestandard deviation increased with Shore hardness and was dominated bydifferences between liners, while repeated measurements typically laywithin 0.1 kPa. BP effremained unchanged or was even lower than BP nforTPD 50 and 60 mm, respectively. The slight decrease is attributed todifferent liner deformation: When the mouthpiece is covered by a glassplate, the entire shaft deforms while a teat limits the buckling area to thespace underneath. Starting from 70 mm TPD, liner stiffness increasedprogressively by max. 39 - 55%. As expected, Shore hardness and linerwall thickness acted together and partly interchangeable.Results anddiscussionNominal andeffective bucklingpressure.Table 1. Buckling pressure (kPa) and teat penetration depth (TPD) of liners with different Shorehardness (4 x 48 x 2 measurements).Swingliner SL M23, 2.80 mm barrel wallTPD 42 ShA 51 ShA 58 ShA(mm) BP SD ∆ % BP SD ∆ % BP SD ∆ %0 6.49 0.12 - 8.71 0.14 - 12.50 0.61 -50 6.49 0.16 0 8.65 0.17 - 0.1 12.49 0.45 0ISO 60 6.41 0.11 - 0.1 8.61 0.25 - 0.1 12.46 0.49 070 6.76 0.12 + 0.4 8.91 0.12 + 0.2 12.79 0.43 + 0.280 6.95 0.15 + 0.7 9.28 0.11 + 0.7 13.69 0.26 + 1.090 7.48 0.23 + 1.5 9.88 0.30 + 1.3 14.74 0.52 + 1.8100 8.18 0.29 + 2.6 10.99 0.22 + 2.6 16.39 0.80 + 3.1110 9.43 0.33 + 4.5 12.68 0.57 + 4.6 19.35 0.77 + 5.5Swingliner SL M23, 3.25 mm barrel wall0 9.18 0.11 - 13.81 0.20 - 17.88 0.45 -50 9.01 0.15 - 02 13.55 0.35 - 0.2 17.36 0.31 - 03ISO 60 9.09 0.27 - 01 13.88 0.33 0 17.39 0.49 - 0370 9.35 0.15 + 0.2 14.24 0.30 + 0.3 18.38 0.33 + 0.380 9.74 0.17 + 0.6 15.11 0.46 + 0.9 19.26 0.48 + 0.890 10.41 0.20 + 1.3 16.38 0.43 + 1.9 20.64 0.43 + 1.5100 11.11 0.37 + 2.1 18.18 0.47 + 3.2 22.99 0.50 + 2.9110 12.75 0.26 + 3.9 21.31 0.50 + 5.4 27.64 0.96 + 5.5Generally, BP effincreased with TPD causing less liner deformation andvolume change during the pulsator a- and c- phases (PP eff). For alternatepulsation at 40 kPa, an increase of BP efffrom 6.5 to 27.6 kPa caused apulsator a- phase reduction from 141 to 107 ms. This is a maximumdifference of 3,4% and a relative change of -18 to -30% for soft and hardliners, respectively. For simultaneous pulsation at 40 kPa, the a- phasereduced from 199 to 141 ms (5,8%). For alternate pulsation with 8 kPaEffects of teatpenetration depthon a- and c-phases.ICAR Technical Series - No 757
Page 2 and 3:
The designationsemployed and thepre
Page 4 and 5:
The organisers of the meeting want
Page 6 and 7:
Milking variables in relation to te
Page 8 and 9:
Modelling of liner behaviour using
Page 10 and 11: ForewordThe second half of the part
Page 13 and 14: Rosatiorganizations. The “Lactati
Page 15 and 16: Rosatito guarantee correctness of s
Page 17 and 18: RosatiICAR also sponsors books belo
Page 19 and 20: Technical developments in Slovak co
Page 25 and 26: de Koning & HuijsmanThe Dutch Quali
Page 27 and 28: de Koning & Huijsmanare Medicines,
Page 29 and 30: de Koning & HuijsmanThe pulsation c
Page 31 and 32: de Koning & HuijsmanBalances which
Page 33 and 34: Tancin et al.Physiology of milk let
Page 35 and 36: Tancin et al.In the dairy practice
Page 37 and 38: Tancin et al.Mayer, H., D. Schams,
Page 39 and 40: Effect of machine milking on teatIn
Page 41 and 42: Effect of machine milking on teatBe
Page 43 and 44: Effect of machine milking on teatTa
Page 45 and 46: Effect of machine milking on teatNe
Page 47 and 48: Measurements of vacuum stabilityInt
Page 49 and 50: Measurements of vacuum stabilityTab
Page 51 and 52: Measurements of vacuum stabilityFor
Page 53 and 54: Marnet et al.Comparative study of p
Page 55 and 56: Marnet et al.production during the
Page 57 and 58: Marnet et al.prestimulation by the
Page 59: Worstorff & BilgeryEffects of liner
Page 63 and 64: Worstorff & Bilgeryseries 40/32 kPa
Page 65 and 66: Differential staining of somatic ce
Page 67 and 68: Different diagnostic measures for m
Page 73 and 74: Evaluation of milking routine by La
Page 75 and 76: Evaluation of milking routine by La
Page 77 and 78: Fryc et al.The assessment parameter
Page 79 and 80: Fryc et al.p n[kPa]p n1p n2p npt st
Page 81 and 82: Fryc et al.rate. There were three s
Page 83 and 84: Milking devices disturbance on SCCm
Page 85 and 86: Milking devices disturbance on SCCL
Page 87 and 88: Milking devices disturbance on SCCT
Page 89 and 90: Turki & WinnickiMilking variables i
Page 91 and 92: Table1. Milk flow time from in indi
Page 93 and 94: Table 2. First minute milk flow, av
Page 95 and 96: Turki & WinnickiMayer H., Schams D.
Page 97 and 98: Milk recording in GermanyTable 1. E
Page 99 and 100: Milk recording in GermanyTable 3. A
Page 101 and 102: Milk recording in GermanyTable 5. M
Page 103 and 104: Main fields ofactivities of theGerm
Page 105 and 106: Influence of duration of a and c ph
Page 111 and 112:
Nosal & BilgeryVibrations and vacuu
Page 113 and 114:
Nosal & BilgerykPa45.645.445.245.04
Page 115 and 116:
Nosal & BilgeryIn case of problems
Page 117 and 118:
Testing of vacuum during milkingEva
Page 119 and 120:
Testing of vacuum during milkingthe
Page 121 and 122:
Ryšánek et al.Vacuum fluctuation
Page 123 and 124:
Ryšánek et al.Teat injuries were
Page 125 and 126:
Ryšánek et al.Particular attentio
Page 127 and 128:
de KoningAutomatic milking:Chances
Page 129 and 130:
de Koningfor some time after the mi
Page 131 and 132:
de KoningMilk quality is without do
Page 133 and 134:
de Koningwhen the bulk tank is empt
Page 135 and 136:
de KoningLand, A. van ‘t et al, 2
Page 137 and 138:
Characterising the farms equipped w
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Designing optimal robotic milking b
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
ArtmannThe effects of automatic mil
Page 155 and 156:
ArtmannData was collected on the ma
Page 157 and 158:
ArtmannThe differences of the co-ef
Page 159 and 160:
BarthEvaluation of somatic cell cou
Page 161 and 162:
BarthTable 1. Determined and real m
Page 163 and 164:
Barthyield is often a side effect o
Page 165 and 166:
Milking parameters in modified milk
Page 167 and 168:
Pallas & WendtThe development of ud
Page 169 and 170:
Pallas & WendtSCC (x 1,000) / ml250
Page 171 and 172:
Pallas & WendtTrilk, J. und Münch,
Page 173 and 174:
Udder health and milk low profilesA
Page 175 and 176:
Udder health and milk low profilesD
Page 177 and 178:
AMS in Czech RepublicThis farm size
Page 179 and 180:
AMS in Czech RepublicTable 1. Effec
Page 181 and 182:
AMS in Czech RepublicFigure 1. Stab
Page 183 and 184:
BruckmaierSpecific aspects of milk
Page 185 and 186:
Bruckmaiertowards the end of lactat
Page 187 and 188:
BruckmaierBruckmaier, R.M., D. Scha
Page 189 and 190:
Teat callosity and mastitisResultsT
Page 191 and 192:
de Koning et al.Milking characteris
Page 193 and 194:
de Koning et al.Table 1. Statistica
Page 195 and 196:
Influence of ageing on linersThe re
Page 197 and 198:
Neijenhuis & HogeveenMilking interv
Page 199 and 200:
Knízková et al.Effect of old and
Page 201 and 202:
Knízková et al.Thermograms of the
Page 203 and 204:
Knízková et al.Kunc, P., Knízkov
Page 205 and 206:
Postmilking teat disinfectingIntrod
Page 207 and 208:
Postmilking teat disinfectingNDT an
Page 209 and 210:
Los & MaškováTeatcup hardness aft
Page 211 and 212:
Los & MaškováIt follows from the
Page 213 and 214:
Trends in milking equipmentThe fina
Page 215 and 216:
Olechnowicz & TurkiMilking and milk
Page 217 and 218:
Table 2. Milk components and somati
Page 219 and 220:
Lipinski et al.Effect of some selec
Page 221 and 222:
Lipinski et al.Milk hygiene quality
Page 223 and 224:
Lipinski et al.1. The technical and
Page 225 and 226:
Effect of two milking systems on te
Page 227 and 228:
Effect of two milking systems on te
Page 229 and 230:
Milk quality and mastitis monitorin
Page 231 and 232:
Nitra in ICAR interlaboratory studi
Page 233 and 234:
Botto et al.Effect of ultrasound in
Page 235 and 236:
Báder et al.Change of udder confor
Page 237 and 238:
Báder et al.6050%4030201.scor.2.sc
Page 239 and 240:
Luger et al.Effect of inclination a
Page 241 and 242:
Luger et al.There is no difference
Page 243 and 244:
Harty et al.Modelling of liner beha
Page 245 and 246:
Harty et al.A solid plane was const
Page 247 and 248:
Provolo & SangiorgiUsing daily data
Page 249 and 250:
Provolo & SangiorgiFigure 3. Averag
Page 251 and 252:
Provolo & SangiorgiFigure 7. Cow no
Page 253 and 254:
Provolo & Sangiorgistandardisation
Page 255 and 256:
Cognome/iInhibition of oxytocin rel
Page 257 and 258:
Tancin et al.Milk flow patterns: in
Page 259 and 260:
Szlachta & AleksanderThe influence
Page 261 and 262:
Szlachta & Aleksanderforces in the
Page 263 and 264:
Szlachta & Aleksanderpressure diffe
Page 265 and 266:
List of participantsŠtefan BodoSPU
Page 267 and 268:
List of participantsMarian GregušI
Page 269 and 270:
List of participantsMarija KlopcicD
Page 271 and 272:
List of participantsŠtefan MihinaV
Page 273 and 274:
List of participantsEduard Pravnans
Page 275 and 276:
List of participantsJozef Tonhauser
show all

ICAR Technical Series no. 7 - Nitra Proc.

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?