International exchange on grazing with milking robots

On 10 February, practitioners, scientists and policymakers from eight countries came together in Brussels as part of the Grazing4AgroEcology project. The central question was: how can policymakers better support grazing?

We brought up a familiar bottleneck from the Netherlands: monitoring grazing at robotic farms. The Robot & Grazing factsheet has previously described how this can be a significant obstacle in practice.

The bottleneck in practice

On robotic farms, the barn doors are usually open. Cows choose when to go inside or outside. This is in line with voluntary grazing and the idea that the cow can control its own behaviour.

However, when checking pasture milk, it is often a snapshot. If a relatively large number of cows are inside at that moment (e.g. due to hot weather, rain or the natural rhythm of the herd), this can have a negative effect.

This is the crux of the matter: rules and checks do not always match how robotic farms graze. As a result, regulations can unintentionally create a barrier.

What solutions were proposed?

1. Utilising technology

• Collars that register when a cow enters and leaves the barn;
• Selection gates that automatically record entry and exit.

This allows you to demonstrate how much time each cow has spent outside. It provides clarity, but does require an investment. Policy can support this by using such registration systems as an official means of control. In addition, financial support can lower the threshold for purchase.

2. Controlling via feed

• Ensuring tasty and sufficient grass outside;
  Feeding less in the barn;
  Possibly provide concentrated feed outside.

This is not always easy, but it is largely within your own control and helps to get cows outside more. At the same time, it was mentioned that policy must allow for different management strategies, as long as the goal (sufficient grazing) is achieved.

3. Different way of measuring

Other policy indicators were also discussed, such as looking at the ratio between feeding products that could also be eaten by humans and the products that the cow produces itself. The more grass in the ration, the more favourable that ratio. By including grass use and grazing in broader sustainability indicators, policy can indirectly reward grazing rather than just monitoring hours.

4. "Follow the cow"

Another idea: leave the door open for a set number of hours and let the cow decide for itself. This is in line with animal welfare and freedom of choice. Policy can explicitly recognise this form of voluntary grazing within existing frameworks. It was noted, however, that this does not automatically mean that other goals, such as biodiversity, will also be achieved if cows choose to stay inside.

5. More trust and customisation

A point that came up several times: more trust in the livestock farmer and less emphasis on control at a single moment in time. Room for customisation per farm was widely seen as important. In concrete terms, this means: focusing on results over a longer period of time.

What does this mean for Robot & Grazing?
The discussion in Brussels confirmed what we are already seeing within Robot & Grazing: 

• There are many technical possibilities
• For robot farms that want to graze, flexibility in regulations is important.

The answer to the central question is therefore clear: policy can better support grazing by adapting controls, using digital monitoring, valuing grass use more broadly and offering more room for customisation. We will incorporate the insights from this international exchange into the rest of the project. In this way, we will continue to work on solutions that are appropriate for practical use on the farm.