Motivation for Compliance in the Milking Parlor

Human behavior can be challenging to change once habits are established. This might be one reason some employers prefer to hire new employees without experience, as compared to those who may bring previously learned bad habits to the job. New employees without previous experience can start with a clean slate and learn the farm’s protocols or standard operating procedures (SOPs). Following the detailed, step-by-step instructions in SOPs fills the strong need for consistency and attention to detail in the milking parlor.

Not all farms have SOPs, and for those farms that do, the SOPs are not always followed. Some reasons farmers have given for not following SOPs in the milking parlor include a lack of information about why practices are important, a lack of concern about udder health, difficulty associated with educating and training employees, the perceived fear of creating new issues by instituting changes, and concerns about additional time, money and labor requirements tied to the changes (Belage et al., 2019).

Following the proper milking protocol benefits the farm in many ways. Good SOPs are conducive to maintaining udder health and reducing the risk of mastitis. A well-timed udder preparation routine maximizes parlor efficiency and increases throughput. The likelihood of safety hazards associated with the milking parlor can be reduced when milkers properly follow SOPs. To a farm owner or manager, the preceding points are all good reasons to follow SOPs, but are these reasons enough to motivate workers?

Farm employees may be motivated by incentives or concern about incurring some type of penalty. Many farms set goals for milk quality, which, when achieved, may result in monetary rewards or other incentives like paycheck bonuses or participation in special events such as lunches or other outings. When offering incentives, it is important to ensure that achieving the incentive is within the employee's control. For example, poorly maintained parlor equipment that causes a loss of incentive is not within the employee's control and will be demotivating. For some, there is pride and satisfaction in a job well done. Maintaining animal and udder health should be the primary motivation for farmers and employees. Some farms will even encourage friendly competition through peer groups, as monitored by comparison of the cleanliness of milk filters at the end of milkings or by other metrics.

Role of Training

Job descriptions and SOPs make the expectations of employee performance clear. Having open communication of goals and training on how to perform tasks, as well as a good relationship with managers, is tied to employee retention (Moore et al., 2020). While the way a task should be performed may seem obvious, training with the SOP and periodic reviews can curb procedural drift. The role of educator or trainer may fall on the manager or farm owner, but not all of them are comfortable or adept at training (Erskine et al., 2015).

Additionally, many educators and trainers firmly believe that explaining and demonstrating the reason behind a task will lead to increased adherence to properly performing the task. The milking routine is no exception. Sharing the production and milk quality goals of the farm with employees often helps in obtaining compliance and meeting milk quality goals. In one survey, more than one-third of the employees were not aware of the somatic cell count goal of the farm (Erskine et al., 2015).

Recent work from Michigan State University and DeLeval examined the influence of training on compliance with milking routine procedures (Rodriguez et al., 2025). The importance of each step and scientific principles supporting the milking procedure were incorporated into training. The training also included the pathogenesis of mastitis, recognizing signs of clinical mastitis, and practices tied to a greater likelihood of detecting mastitis. The results support the inclusion of this information in training as demonstrated by increased knowledge, improved compliance with recommended milking practices, overall improvement in milk quality, and identification of mastitis (Rodriguez et al., 2025). Therefore, training is a key component to increase compliance with milking SOPs.

Employee Input and Engagement

Farm owners and managers often seek employee input on farm SOPs based on the interest and aptitude of the employees involved. The capability and engagement of the staff on the farm have been linked to the adoption and implementation of SOPs for colostrum management (Koralesky et al., 2021). The prevailing attitude and desire of the farm employees may contribute to their compliance with SOPs, which also may factor into the goals set for an individual farm.

Setting the stage from the start of employment can play a role in compliance with policies and procedures. A recent project examining the merit of an employee onboarding program demonstrated increased regulatory compliance and clarification resulting from participation in the program (Stup et al., 2025). The outcomes on employee performance were mixed, but managers reported greater adoption of sharing mission statements, safety training, using written SOPs, and an overall increase in satisfaction with the farm’s program (Stup et al., 2025).

Farm Size May Have a Role

As the number of workers on the farm increases, so does the likelihood of the farm having SOPs (Beecher et al., 2024). Training that includes SOPs has resulted in workers reporting greater accuracy in their work (Hesse et al., 2019). Developing and adopting written SOPs for farm practices provides clear, consistent expectations for all. Milking is one of the tasks on a farm for which a written SOP is more likely to exist (Beecher et al., 2024). However, having SOPs in place does not necessarily equate to compliance. Training, observation, and reinforcement may be needed to encourage employees to follow SOPs.

Tool for Managers

Management practices were reflected by employees as the employees expressed greater job satisfaction, and a greater likelihood of remaining with the employer when relationships were better (Moore et al., 2020). The relationship with a supervisor was specifically noted (Moore et al., 2020).

Employee buy-in to SOPs may be enhanced by collecting periodic employee input into those procedures. Useful employee feedback could include asking the employees if expectations are consistent with current practices, inquiring whether the necessary supplies to carry out the tasks are provided, and assessing if any barriers or obstacles prevent compliance with the procedure.

A clear expectation of compliance for all is supported by posting milking SOPs in a visible location, such as on the wall in the parlor. Using graphics or other visual aids to depict SOPs is very useful. It is also important to include adequate training and review of SOPs when onboarding new employees and routinely during team meetings. Management should take note of the language and literacy level at which the SOPs are developed. Managers can be encouraging by modeling proper milking procedures when they are helping in the parlor. Managers who reported difficulty in following SOPs reported higher bulk tank somatic cell counts (Schewe et al., 2015).

Providing information through training can help facilitate improvement in milking practices. Going beyond relaying the SOPs in the milking parlor by providing the reasons behind the procedure is useful for learning, but motivation to make the change is also needed. Obtaining buy-in requires input and effort on many levels, including from management and employees.

This article was originally published in Progressive Dairyman (agproud.com) on 11/7/2025.

References:

Beecher, M, Lawton, T, and Hogan, C. 2024. An examination of the use of standard operating procedures on family-operated farms. JDS Communications 6:39-43. Doi.org/10.3168/jdsc.2024-0587.

Belage, E, Croyle, SL, Jones-Bitton, A, Dufour, S, and Kelton, DF. 2019. A qualitative study of Ontario dairy farmer attitudes and perceptions toward implementing recommended milking practices. J Dairy Sci 102:9548-57. Doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15677.

Erskine, RJ, Martinez, RO, and Contreras, GA. 2015. Cultural lag: a new challenge for mastitis control on dairy farms in the United States. J Dairy Sci 98:8240-4. Dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9386.

Hesse, A, Ospina, P, Wieland, M, Leal Yepes FA, Nguyen, B, Heuwieser, W. 2019. Short communication: Microlearning courses are effective at increasing the feelings of confidence and accuracy in the work of dairy personnel. J Dairy Sc 102:9505-11. Doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15927.

Koralesky, KE, Mills, KE, von Keyserlingk, MAG, and Weary, DM. 2021. Using Realistic Evaluation to understand how interventions work on dairy farms. Animal 15:1-10. Doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100233.

Moore, SJ, Durst, PT, Ritter, C, Nobrega, D, and Barkema, H. 2020. Effects of employer management on employee recruitment, satisfaction, engagement, and retention on large US dairy farms. J Dairy Sci 103:8482-93. Doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-18025.

Rodriguez, Z, Lopez-Benavides, M, Gentilini, MB, and Ruegg, PL. 2025. Impact of training dairy farm personnel on milking routine compliance, udder health, and milk quality. J Dairy Sci 108:1615-24. Doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-25609.

Schewe, RL, Kayitsinga, J, Contreras, GA, Odom, D, Coats, WA, Durst, P, Hovingh, EP, Martinez, RO, Mobley, R, Moore, S, and Erskine, RJ. 2015. Herd management and social variables associated with bulk tank somatic cell count in dairy herds in the eastern United States. J Dairy Sci 98:7650-65. Dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8840.

Stup, RE, MacKenzie, MK, and Lutz, KA. 2025. Onboarding dairy farm employees: improving the new employee experience. J Dairy Sci 108:4462-73. Doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-25319.