Dairy Shed Water Use In Victoria - Agriculture Victoria
Dairy Shed Water Usein Victoria2009 Analysis
If you would like to receive this information/publication inan accessible format (such as large print or audio) please callthe Customer Service Centre on 136 186, TTY 1800 122 969,or email customer.service@dpi.vic.gov.au.Published by the Department of Primary IndustriesMarch 2010 The State of Victoria 2010.This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any processexcept in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.Authorised by the Department of Primary Industries1 Spring Street, Melbourne 3000.ISBN 978-1-74264-065-5 (online)DisclaimerThis publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and itsemployees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind oris wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims allliability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from yourelying on any information in this publication.For more information about DPI go to www.dpi.vic.gov.auor phone the Customer Service Centre on 136 186.
ContentsDairy Shed Water Use in Victoria1Dairy Shed Water Use - 2009 Analysis5The Biometrician Report (August 4, 2009) Summary6Methods6Results7Region7Herd Size7Water use per day per cow7Dairy Type8Dairy Size9Vat Washing9Plant rinse10Pit and Platform Washing11Flood Wash11Effluent produced per year (megalitres per year)12Yard Scraping12Recycled Water Used12Shed Water Caught13Plate Cooler Diverted13Yard Wash Type13Dairy Shed Water Use in Victoria3
AcknowledgementsThe statistical analysis in this report was prepared by Leigh Callinan PhD, AStat from Bendigo ScientificData Analysts. The Department of Primary Industries (DPI) appreciates his help in preparing this report.DPI would also like to acknowledge the assistance received in the preparation of this report from:DPI - Rachael Ward, Benita Kelsall, Scott McDonald, Rod Eldridge, Julie Williams, Joel Spry, BarrieBradshaw, Ann McDowell, Sue Keirnan and Leah de VriesFonterra Australia - John KaneAgVet Projects - Dr Rob GreenallDairy Shed Water Licence Transition Program Committee - Chair, Patrick O'Halloran (Department ofSustainability and Environment), and committee members Simon Cowan (Goulburn-Murray Water), BasilRyan (Victorian Farmers Federation) and Peter Haynes (Australian Dairy Products Federation).4Dairy Shed Water Use in Victoria
Dairy Shed Water Use - 2009 AnalysisFor the past nine years, DPI dairy extension officers havebeen assisting dairy farmers across Victoria to developeffluent management plans for dairy sheds.This has involved comprehensive on farm data collection,which includes water use measurements and calculations todetermine water use by each of the main processes in thedairy operation.In 2005 DPI senior dairy extension officer Scott McDonaldproduced a report ‘Water use in dairy sheds’ from datacollected to that point. The report highlighted the variation inthe volumes of fresh and recycled water used in dairy shedprocesses and the total volumes for various dairy shedsystems.This information has been useful for DPI dairy extension staffand service providers assisting dairy farmers to assess andcompare their water use requirements against similar dairyshed systems. In turn, this has enabled farmers to adoptwater saving strategies and maintain dairy operationsdespite drought conditions.Industry bodies, United Dairyfarmers of Victoria (UDV) andVictorian Farmers Federation (VFF), campaigned to ensuresufficient water allocation for existing dairy farmers and alsoto allow new entrants into the dairy industry.In line with current water policy, the Department ofSustainability and Environment (DSE) introduced a policy toallow this to happen, with water corporations responsible forthe licensing process.This report has been prepared for DPI by Biometrician LeighCallinan, Bendigo Scientific Data Analysts, as an update ofthe 2005 report and to provide predictions of ‘reasonable’daily water use.The key aspects of this report have been reproduced in theDepartment of Primary Industries booklet ‘Dairy shed water –How much do you use?’ The booklet is a comprehensiveguide to calculating water use in the dairy shed and isavailable on the DPI website or by contacting DPI and DSECustomer Service Centre on 136 186.This biometric report has been compiled to determinecorrelations between the volume of water used within thedairy shed per day and herd numbers or shed type.The information used to prepare this report was sourcedfrom the DPI Dairy Nutrients databases and collected frommore than 1,500 farms across the dairying regions ofNorthern Victoria, South West Victoria and Gippsland. Datarelating to water used in the dairy shed was collected duringthe development of effluent management plans for theindividual farms.This report has identified a relationship between herdnumbers, dairy shed type (rotary, double up herringbone,swing over herringbone) and the volume of water used perthday. This is shown in Table 6, 75 percentile for predictedindividual Water Use per Day (l) by Herd Size and DairyType of this report, and as Table 1 on page four of the DPIbooklet 'Dairy shed water – How much do you use?'However, it should be noted that the dataset is limited inregard to rotary dairies with more than 600 cows (only 27 dairies inthe dataset); double up dairies with herds of more than 400 cows (onlythree dairies in the dataset); and swing over herringbone dairies with herds of more than400 cows (only four dairies in the dataset).As such the percentiles for these categories may beunreliable.The daily water usage has also been converted to an annualwater use by using a multiplier of 365, and is shown in Tableth2, Predicted 75 percentile for Dairy Water Use per Year(ML/yr) by Herd Size and Dairy Type of the DPI booklet‘Dairy shed water – How much do you use?’. This gives anindication of ’reasonable‘ annual dairy shed water usage.Even though the report showed a correlation between herdsize and water use, it is worth noting even the smaller herdoperators have been known to have water consumptionequalling the larger herds.When the data was collected, the daily water use wasdetermined by either flow rate or storage volumemeasurements as well as detailed discussions with dairyowners and shed operators. Flow rate was measured bytiming how long a known volume container took to fill thenmultiplying this by the time taken for each process, andtotalling to reach the daily water use. However, this methodrelied heavily on the accuracy with which the dairy shedoperator could determine how long each task took withvariables including daily, seasonal and operator differences.Alternatively, if all the water used in the dairy shed wassourced via a storage such as a tank, then a daily estimatecould be made from the proportion of the storage volumeused.When calculating and comparing total dairy water use it isworth noting that within the dairy the tasks that generallyrequire large amounts of water are the plate cooler, yardwash and continuous platform sprays used in some rotarydairies. Although the water from these tasks is often reusedwithin the dairy, such as recycling the plate cooler water foryard wash, this is not always the case and can be the reasonfor high annual volumes of water used.Also note that in this report the term effluent refers to theurine and solid components accumulated in the yard anddairy and the water used to clean the yard and inside thedairy (all material that would enter the effluent managementsystem).Dairy Shed Water Use in Victoria5
Water saving strategies in the dairy are important, but theseshould never compromise milk quality.The Biometrician Report (4 August,2009) - SummaryThe Department of Primary Industries surveyed water usevolumes and practices on approximately 1,500 dairy farms inVictoria (Gippsland, North and South West), from January2001 to February 2009. The means, medians and ranges forall the water use components within the dairy, as well as anoverall comparison of regions and dairy types (double upherringbones, rotaries and swing over herringbones) arereported here.South Western Victoria had proportionately more swingovers (61 per cent compared to 42 per cent in Gippsland and51 per cent in the North) and less doubles.Northern Victoria had proportionately more rotaries (26 percent compared to 21 per cent in Gippsland and 23 per centin the South West).Water use per day was significantly greater in the North thanin South West which in turn was significantly greater than inGippsland. Water use per day was significantly associatedwith both dairy type (rotary greater than swing over and inturn greater than double) and herd size. Water use per dayincreased with increasing herd size in swing overs to asignificantly greater extent than in doubles or rotaries; anddoubles to a greater extent than in rotaries. Rotaries havehigher water use which is less sensitive to herd size.Water use per day per cow, as well as being significantlyassociated with region (North greater than South West andGippsland), was significantly associated with dairy type(rotary greater than swing over and in turn greater thandouble).Rotaries had significantly: More effluent per cow produced than either herringbones Greater incidence of recycled water use than double Greater incidence of caught shed water than double More flood than hose yard wash than either double orswing over Greater incidence of plate cooler water diverted thanswing overSwing over had significantly: Greater incidence of caught shed water than did double6Dairy Shed Water Use in Victoria Lower incidence of plate cooler water diverted than didswing over.Gippsland had significantly more hose than flood yard washthan either the North or South West.Gippsland and Northern Victoria had significantly higherproportions of farms that used recycled water and caughtshed water than the South West.Gippsland and the South West had a significantly greaterproportion of farms that had plate cooler water diverted thandid the North.Northern Victoria had significantly more plant rinse andpit/platform washing than the South West.MethodsThe distribution of continuous variables like water use perday was tabled with:1. The number of farms with water use per day recorded2. The mean of water use per day3. Some percentiles of water use per day, viz: 0, 5, 25, 50,75 and 100. The 0 percentile is the minimum water useper day recorded, the 100 percentile is the maximum andthe 50 percentile is the median. When recorded wateruse per day are arranged from lowest to highest, themedian is the value in the middle, or the mean of 2values in the middle, the 5 percentile is the highest valueof the lowest 5 per cent of values.Significant differences between levels of factors such asregion in variates such as water use per day weredetermined by analysis of variance, using Fisher’sUnprotected Least Significant Difference with a type 1 errorof 5%, ie. LSD5%. Residual Maximum Likelihood (REML) wasused to determine the significance of differences betweenlevels of multiple factors and variates. Contingency table2analyses were done with Χ test, Fisher’s Exact 2 * 2 testand multinomial analytical methods. In this report significantmeans p 0.05, unless otherwise specified.Statistical analyses were done with: GenStat for Windows. (2007). 10th Edn. VSNInternational Ltd., Hemel Hempstead, UK, R version 2.7.2 (2008). The R Foundation for StatisticalComputing, and StatXact Version 8.0.0. Cytel Studio. MA, USA.
ResultsData was collected from 14 January 2001 to 9 February2009.regions (2007) indicated the Goulburn Broken has morelarger farms (more than 300 cows) compared to othercatchments.Herd SizeRegionWater use per day increased significantly (p 0.001) withincreasing Herd Size (Figure 1).The regional distribution of water use per day is shown inTable 1.Percentiles0% 5%25% 50% 75% 95% 100%Gippsland 702 9780.69 100 1501.5 3500 6000 10400 30000 140000North337 14867.82 1010 30006045 9900 19700 45220 84000SW298 10568.97 1000 2113.5 4887.5 7000 12075 29150 97000Overall1337 11238.63 100 2000Water Use per Day (l)80000Region No. Mean600004000020000004220 7200 13350 35000 140000Table 1. Frequencies, means and percentiles for water useper day (l/day) by regionWater use per day was significantly greater in the North thanin the South West which in turn was significantly greater thanin Gippsland.The data indicates that dairies in the northern area use morewater per day than dairies in the South West or Gippsland forcomparable herd size and shed type. This could be due to anumber of reasons:could also contribute additional water to the effluentsystem, to be stored in the ponds for reuse or recycling Greater volumes of water used for cooling cows to reduceheat stress Higher evaporation, resulting in drying and caking of1200Figure 1. Water use per day by herd size with linear best fit(1 outlier removed)Water use per day per cowThere was a near significant (p 0.07) decline in water useper day per cow during June 2001 to February 2009 (Figure2).200Water Use per Day per Cow (l) Comparative higher rainfall in Gippsland and South West800Herd Size Many of the effluent plans for the northern area were donein earlier years, prior to the current prolonged dryconditions and reduced access to water, when the farmshad ready access to a plentiful supply of water via thechannel system400150100500050010001500200025003000Days from 22 June 2001manure, requiring more water to washdown. Significantly more floodwash systems in larger dairyFigure 2. Water Use per Day per Cow vs Datesheds in the North. A report by Dairy Australia on dairy farms and cowdistribution in Catchment Management Authority (CMA)Dairy Shed Water Use in Victoria7
Statistical models of water use might need to include daynumber as an explanatory variable.There was a significant (p 0.01) association betweenregion and dairy type (Table 4).There was no significant association between water use andday number of year. This is not surprising, as water use perday is an estimate for the overall milking period, not thewater use on the day the farm was visited.RegionWater use per day per cow was significantly higher in theNorth than in either Gippsland or the South West (Table 2).Double Swing over H/bone Rotary Walk TotalH/bone ble 4. Frequency distributions for dairy type by 2511.6222.8611.6251.05100.00384.62100%Table 2. Frequencies, means and percentiles for Water Useper Day per Cow (l/day)South West Victoria had proportionately more swing overs(61 per cent compared to 42 per cent Gippsland and 51 percent in the North) and less doubles. The North had a greaterproportion of rotaries (26 per cent compared to 21 per cent inGippsland and 23 per cent in the South West).Water use per day, as well as being significantly (p 0.001)associated with the region (North greater than Gippsland andin turn greater than South West), was significantly (p 0.01)associated with dairy type (rotary greater than swing overand in turn greater than double) (Table 5).Dairy TypeThere was no significant (p 0.13) interaction between thesetwo factors. The differences between dairy types did notdiffer significantly between regions (Table 5).Herringbone dairies can be either double or swing over; thelatter has one cluster shared between each pair of adjacentcows. Twenty three dairies were not identified as eitherdouble or swing over. For the purposes of the analysis, thisgroup was omitted (Table 3).RegionNo. Mean0%5%25% 50%No.75%95% 100%Double221 7038.95 100 1570 3500 5025 9000 18930 30000H/boneH/bone 23 6963.04 2400 2500 3875 6500 10000 13250 14000NorthWalk17 2909.41 150through190 1010 2000 3000 7800 15000Overall 832 11357.97 100 2000 4000 7000 14450 35270SWDairy Shed Water Use in VictoriaAllDairies931996973148Mean 4111.00 20312.19 7203.81No.Total140121642Mean 7038.95 25102.16 8010.332No.221182389All ble 5. Frequencies and means of water use per day forregion by dairy type140000Table 3. Frequencies, means and percentiles for water useper day (l/day) by dairy type8SwingOverMean 8489.87 30355.40 10338.28No.Rotary 182 25102.16 1500 4929 12250 20000 30225 60361 140000Swing389 8010.33 480 1922 3880 6200 10000 20552 48300overh/boneRotaryGippsland Mean 6574.82 21802.73 6449.22PercentilesDairyTypeDoubleWater use per day was significantly associated with bothdairy type (rotary greater than swing over and in turn greaterthan double, p 0.001) and herd size (P 0.001), and therewas a significant interaction between dairy type and herd
size, viz: water use per day rose with increasing herd size inswing overs to a greater extent than in doubles or rotaries;and doubles to a greater extent than in rotaries (p 0.001).Rotaries have higher water use and are less sensitive toherd size.Dairy SizeDairy size was measured by total number of clusters in useat any one time.Total cluster number was not significantly different betweenregions (Table 8).The statistical model predicts that 75 per cent of individualdairies would have water use per day below the thresholdsshown in Table 6 900Double 5642 6456 8465 11131 14654 193481Rotary111118358 21057 24142 27694 31790 36509 41957 48243 5126.98Overall77326.6Table 8. Frequencies and means for total cluster number byregion.Swing14921 6113 9444 14618 22663 25195Over1There were only three double and four swing over dairies with herd sizes ofmore than 400 and there were only 27 rotary dairies with herd size of morethan 600; so percentiles for these categories may be unreliable.Table 6. 75th percentile for predicted individual water use perday (l) by herd size and dairy type.Water use per day per cow, as well as being significantly (p 0.001) associated with the region (North greater thanGippsland and South West), was significantly (p 0.01)associated with dairy type (rotary greater than swing overand in turn greater than double) (Table 7). There was nosignificant (p 0.18) interaction between these two factors.RegionNo.135Mean 43.84No.SWVat WashingThe distribution of vat washing overall and in the regions isshown in Table 9.PercentilesDouble Rotary Swing Over All RegionsGippsland Mean 32.75NorthWater use per day was significantly and positively associatedwith total cluster number. Water use per day per cow wasfound to be significantly associated with dairy type (p 0.001), but not with total cluster number (p 0.12) and therewas no significant interaction between dairy type and totalcluster number (p 0.46).69Mean 19.55No.11All regions Mean 76Table 7. Frequencies and means of water use per day percow (l) for region by dairy type.RegionNo. Mean 0% 5% 25% 50% 75% 95% 100%Gippsland12 378.75 35 49 100 325 525 890 1000North310 366.71 10 42 116 300 600 800 1600SW88 423.75 20 40 150 300 600 1000 2500Overall410 379.30 10 40 120 300 600 800 2500Table 9. Frequencies, means and percentiles for vat washing(l/day) by regionThere was no significant (p 0.79) difference in vat washingbetween the North and South West. There were too few vatwashing dairies in Gippsland to include in this analysis.Vat washing was recorded for only two walk-through dairies.This category was not included in Table 10.Dairy Shed Water Use in Victoria9
PercentilesPercentilesDairyTypeNo. Mean 0% 5% 25% 50% 75% 95% 100%DoubleH/bone79 275.57 20 34Rotary75 572.13 100 100 325 600 800 1060 160070200 400 800800Swing 166 347.74 20 46 111 300 500 800 1400OverH/boneOverall 322 383.28 10 40 120 350 600 800 1600Table 10. Frequencies, means and percentiles for vatwashing (l/day) by dairy typeThere was significantly more vat washing water used inrotaries than in swing overs and significantly more in swingovers than in doubles.However, there were no significant differences between dairytypes in vat washing per cow (Table 11).RegionNo. Mean 0% 5% 25% 50% 75% 95% 100%Gippsland 12 974.17 150 309.5 500 700 1075 2340 3000North315 1174.70 60 271 600 940 1200 2500 18000SW90 850.56 100 205 500 800 1000 1600 2750Overall417 1098.97 60 236 600 900 1200 2452 18000Table 12. Frequencies, means and percentiles for plant rinse(l/day) by regionThe North had significantly (p 0.005) more plant rinse thanthe South West. There were not enough dairies with plantrinse in Gippsland to include in this analysis.Only one walk-through had a record for plant rinse.Significantly more plant rinse occurred in rotaries than ineither herringbones (Table 13).PercentilesDairy TypeType of DairyCountMeanDouble Herringbone781.396Rotary741.311Swing over Herringbone1651.689Overall3171.529Table 11. Frequencies and means for vat washing(l/day) per cowPlant rinseThe regional distributions of plant rinse are shown in Table12 - see next column.No.Mean0% 5% 25% 50% 75% 95% 100%Double81Herringbone887.7860 120 500Rotary750980 2000 900075 1852.80 150 800 1200 1600 2400 3060 6470Swing over 170 874.58 140 240 600Herringbone800 1175 1473 5454Overall900 1200 2485 9000326 1102.91 60 240 600Table 13. Frequencies, means and percentiles for plant rinse(l/day) by dairy typeThere were no significant differences in plant rinse per cowper day between dairy types (Table 14).Dairy TypeCountMeanDouble Herringbone804.673Rotary744.262Swing over Herringbone1694.494Overall3234.485Table 14. Frequencies and means for plant rinse per cow(l/day) by dairy type.10Dairy Shed Water Use in Victoria
Pit and Platform WashingPercentilesThe regional distributions of pit and platform washing areshown in Table 15.No.RegionMean0%5% 25% 50% 75%95% 100%Gippsland 4 19125.00 3000 3300 4500 6750 21375 52275 60000PercentilesRegionNo.Gippsland6Mean0% 5% 25% 50% 75%95%100%2000.00 300 475 1050 1600 237543755000North301 5413.96 40 800 2000 3990 6000 13500 91000SW77 3256.10 100 380 1250 2400 4000 10328 15600Overall384 4927.92 40 500 2000 3500 6000 12426.5 91000Table 15. Frequencies, means and percentiles for pit andplatform washing (l/day) by region.The North had significantly (p 0.001) more pit and platformwashing than the South West. There were not enoughdairies with pit and platform washing in Gippsland to includein this analysis.The distribution of pit and platform washing in the dairy typesis shown in Table 16.PercentilesNorth192 10931.36 1000 1300 4000 8650 15000 27956 60000SW10 8625.009 1800 1845 2487 5550 9500 24600 30000Overall206 10978.50 1000 1374 4000 8000 15000 29720 60000Table 17. Frequencies, means and percentiles for flood wash(l/day) by regionThere were too few dairies in Gippsland and the South Westwith flood washing for any statistical inference about regionaldifferences.The distribution of flood wash in the dairy types is shown inTable 18.PercentilesDairyTypeNo.Double 23H/boneRotaryMean0%5% 25%8732.17 1260 1550 3500 700095% 100%Swing 75OverH/boneDouble 74H/bone4684.27 100 323 1500 3000 48009210 91000Overall 159 11375.38 1000 1500 4150Rotary8510.66 600 2240 4000 6800 10800 21780 43200No.73Mean0%Swing 157 4157.05overH/bone40Overall 325 5315.97405%25% 50%800 2000 3200 56259020 48000800 2000 3750 6000 13160 91000Table 16. Frequencies, means and percentiles for pit andplatform washing (l/day) by dairy type.75%95% 100%13990 15900 1800061 16403.44 2400 4500 10000 15000 18000 40000 6000075%DairyType50%8096.47 1000 1200 3038 6000996911650 20300 4500015000 27480 60000Table 18. Frequencies, means and percentiles for flood wash(l/day) by dairy typeThere were no significant differences between the dairytypes in flood wash used per cow. The data for teatwashing, yard washing, plate cooler, cup sprays and yardwetters are very sparse (Table 19) and will not be furtherconsidered.RegionTeatYardWashing WashingPlateCoolerCupSpraysYardWettersMean No. Mean No. Mean No. Mean No. Mean No.There were no significant differences between dairy types inpit and platform washing per cow.GippslandNorthFlood WashThe regional distributions of flood wash are shown in Table17.SW4717 10291612000511177 30 6139 50 26165008 582880174909 10Table 19. Frequencies and means for teat washing, yardwashing, plate cooler, cup sprays and yard wetters (l/day) byregion.Dairy Shed Water Use in Victoria11
Effluent produced per yearRegionNoYesTotalEffluent was not recorded in the North (Table 6661622PercentilesRegionNo. Mean 0% 5% 25% 50% 75% 95% 100%Gippsland 515 4.74 0.05 123.6 5.6 13.1630SW267 4.08 0.65 1.2 2.15 3.1 4.51027Overall782 4.51 0.05 1113023.55Table 20. Frequencies, means and percentiles for effluent(Ml/year) by regionThere was no significant (p 0.26) difference in effluentproduced per dairy between Gippsland and the South West.The distribution of effluent in the dairy types is shown inTable 21.PercentilesDairyTypeNo. Mean 0% 5% 25% 50% 75% 95% 100%Double140 3.25 0.2 1 1.77 2.65Herringbone4Rotary7.211 24.330Swing over 223 3.40 0.3 1Herringbone234.1 6.614Walk-through12139.27 1.5 3.12.05 0.1 0.1475 4.520.1 123.525.75.2 12There was no significant difference between dairy types andthe incidence of yard scraping (Table 23).Dairy TypeNoYesTotalDouble Herringbone20914223Rotary17612188Swing over 4Table 23. Frequencies for yard scraping by dairy type115Overall998Table 22. Frequencies for yard scraping by region.1030Table 21. Frequencies, means and percentiles for effluent(ML/year) by dairy type.Recycled Water UsedRecycled water refers to the liquid effluent componentrecycled for washing the yard.Gippsland and the North had a significantly greaterproportion of farms that used recycled water, than the SouthWest (Table 24).Effluent produced per cow was significantly higher in rotarythan in double and swing over.RegionNoYesTotalGippsland596147743Effluent (megalitres per year) increased significantly (p 0.001) with increasing herd ent (megalitres per year) increased significantly (p 0.001) with increasing total cluster number.Table 24. Frequencies of recycled water used by regionYard ScrapingGippsland had significantly higher proportions of farms thatdid yard scraping than the South West and North Victoria(Table 22).12Dairy Shed Water Use in VictoriaA significantly greater proportion of rotary and swing overdairies used recycled water than did double herringbonesand all three had a significantly greater proportion than didwalk-through (Table 25).
Dairy TypeNoYesTotalDouble Herringbone17449223Rotary12662188Swing over 824Table 25. Frequencies of recycled water used by dairy typeBoth Gippsland and the South West had a significantlygreater proportion of farms that had plate cooler divertedthan the North (Table 45SW1911431288Total9986241622Table 28. Frequencies of plate cooler diverted by regionShed Water CaughtGippsland and the North had a significantly greaterproportion of farms that caught shed water (Table 45SW279551288Total11085141622Table 26. Frequencies of shed water caught by regionThere was a significantly greater proportion of swing overswith plate cooler diverted than double or rotary. All three hada significantly lower proportion of plate cooler diverted thandid walk-through (Table 29).Dairy TypeNoYesTotalDouble Herringbone18043223Rotary16424188Swing over allA significantly greater proportion of rotary and swing overdairies caught shed water than double herringbones and allthree had a significantly greater proportion than did walkthroughs (Table 27).Table 29. Frequencies of plate cooler diverted by dairy typeYard Wash TypeDairy TypeNoYesTotalDouble Herringbone13489223Rotary73115188Swing over 388436824Table 27. Frequencies of shed water caught by dairy typePlate Cooler DivertedGippsland had significantly more hose than flood yard washtype than either the North or South West (Table 12307308SW2155581Total13650426666Table 30. Frequencies of yard wash type by regionPlate cooler diverted refers to when water used in the platecooler flows into a tank to be reused for the plate cooleragain or for yard wash.Dairy Shed Water Use in Victoria13
Rotary had significantly more flood type than did eitherdouble or swing over (Table 31).Dairy TypeFlood Hose Hydrant TotalDouble Herringbone141505169Rotary61556122Swing over talTable 31. Frequencies of yard wash type by dairy type14Dairy Shed Water Use in Victoria
herringbones, rotaries and swing over herringbones) are reported here. South Western Victoria had proportionately more swing overs (61 per cent compared to 42 per cent in Gippsland and 51 per cent in the North) and less doubles. Northern Victoria had proportionately more rotaries (26 per cent compared to 21 per cent in Gippsland and 23 per cent
Plans from CheapSheds.com Single slope lean to style shed plans with porch in 45 sizes Deluxe gable roof shed plans with loft in 31 sizes Tall barn style shed plans with loft in 31 sizes Gable roof shed plans in 21 sizes Compact vertical bike shed plan How To Build a 1-2-3 Car Garage, Garage Plans How To Start A Business e-Book All
Non-Dairy Products: Margarine, non-dairy creamer, non-dairy sour cream, non-dairy flavored beverage and non-dairy whipped topping all of these are to be catego-rized as non-dairy fat 3. California Mastitis Test -20 min Samples should be scored using even numbers from 0 – 8 inclusive. 8 points per sample.
Oregon Dairy Industries 2019 Awards 2019 Dairy Princess Ambassador . Dairy plant sampler, 5 years. Pasteurizer equipment testing, 13 years. Dairy Specialist, 10 years. . Chocolate Milk Albertsons/Safeway Clackamas Albertsons/Safeway Bellevue Albertsons/Safeway San Leandro Alpenrose Dairy
3 Definitions Dairy businesses are businesses that develop, produce, market, or distribute dairy products. Dairy plants are any location where milk, cream, dairy products, or trade products are received for the purpose of manufacturing, processing, or packaging (T.C.A. 53-3-106). Dairy products must be derived from the milk of hooved mammals including, but not limited to: cattle,
1996. Dairy Technology Division, NDRl, Karnal. Sherman P. 1970. Industrial Rheology. Academic Press. DT 514 DAIRY PROCESS BIOTECHNOLOGY 2 1 Objective To project the importance of biotechnology in dairy processing and impart knowledge on all aspects of dairy process biotechnology in production and
May 18 cool runnings at the westhill mens shed.docx P a g e 7 Westhill & District Men’s Shed Make friends, share interests and help our community Operations inc. H&S: Running the shed to make a successful shed: maintenance,
Shed Plus Shelter Note: Shed drawings and materials list are located at the end of this PDF This shed has a large sliding door on one end to access the 8 x 16-ft. storage area, three windows for lots of light and a front entry door for extra convenience. But the best feature is the l
This 10x20 gable shed is a large size shed that is perfect for storing your supplies and spending leisure hours. It is a storage shed with a garage door, entrance door and 2 windows. The overall height of the shed is 12 feet including the roof and the width
