scholarly journals Comparative environmental impacts of intensive all-grass and maize silage-supplemented dairy farm systems: a review

2007 ◽  
pp. 137-143
Author(s):  
I.D. Williams ◽  
S.F. Ledgard ◽  
G.O. Edmeades ◽  
R.J. Densley
Keyword(s):  
Dairy Farm ◽  
N Leaching ◽  
Maize Silage ◽  
Dairy Farmers ◽  
Low Protein ◽  
Matter Production ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Dairy Systems ◽  
On Farm ◽  
Stocking Rates

Abstract New Zealand dairy farmers are lifting stocking rates and increasing available feed through nitrogen (N) fertiliser applications to pasture, growing maize for silage and other supplementary crops for silage or grazing on-farm, and/or procuring feed supplements off-farm. This has raised concerns about the possibility of increased risk of nutrient losses to waterways and the atmosphere. This paper reviews NZ and overseas data on the integration of maize silage into dairy systems. Maize silage is a low protein forage which helps optimise animal protein intake and reduces N loss. Maize silage-supplemented dairy farms leached more nitrogen per hectare but less per kg milksolids (MS) than intensive all-grass systems. Feeding maize silage on a feedpad and spreading the resulting effluent uniformly over the farm further reduces N leaching. In the Resource Efficient Dairying (RED) trial, total emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O, a potent greenhouse gas) for the maize-supplemented farmlet was 14% lower on a per hectare basis and 22% lower on a kg MS basis than the all-grass system when both received 170 kg N/ha as urea. The increases in maize dry matter production in response to incremental additions of N and water, where production is constrained by these inputs, can be 2-3 times greater than that for pasture. Using a feed and stand-off pad and managing maize growing through minimising tillage effects, determining soil N status at planting and timing N applications appropriately further reduce the environmental impact of maize silage-based dairy systems. Keywords: all-grass, environment, greenhouse gases, intensive dairy systems, maize silage, nitrates

scholarly journals Applying science as a tool for dairy farmers

2005 ◽  
pp. 61-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Savage ◽  
C. Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Management Practices ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Dairy Farm ◽  
Gross Margin ◽  
Dairy Farmers ◽  
Dairy Systems ◽  
Operating Strategies ◽  
Gross Margins ◽  
On Farm ◽  
The Impact

Dairy Systems Monitoring (DSM) was developed out of response from dairy farmers for a benchmarking tool that made fair and equitable comparisons between farms. This benchmarking system is used by the clients to improve their productivity and profitability. The dairy farm simulation model UDDER is used to simulate the farm system. The input information is milk production from fencepost, and monthly data from the farm, including, areas, stock numbers, supplements, crops and nitrogen (N). The model is then calibrated to simulate the farms production, revised and validated monthly. There has been a successful uptake of this program. Currently 50 farms are involved. Dairy Systems Monitoring has generated change in the systems of participating farmers. Dairy Systems Monitoring has proven to be an effective tool to demonstrate the impact of a range of new technologies on farm systems. The tool is used on an ongoing basis to simulate and compare different operating strategies. It has the ability for clients to compare themselves to simular farms. A key benchmark that is analysed is the feed harvested. For every additional 1 tonne of dry matter (DM) harvested, the gross margin (GM) increases by $339/ha. The question this poses for participants is "how do we harvest more pasture"? Is it by growing more pasture, or improving management to harvest more of the existing pasture growth? Dairy Systems Monitoring is an effective extension tool to highlight the impact of new technologies or management practices on the client's farm program. Keywords: benchmarking, dairy farm programmes, feed harvested, gross margins, UDDER model

scholarly journals Experiences with evaluating two farming systems in a split herd comparison on a commercial Waikato dairy farm

2001 ◽  
pp. 189-194
Author(s):  
C.B. Glassey ◽  
M.B. Blackwell ◽  
K.A. Macdonald ◽  
P.C. Lawrey ◽  
P. George ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dairy Farm ◽  
Farming Systems ◽  
Management Control ◽  
Stocking Rate ◽  
Maize Silage ◽  
Pasture Production ◽  
On Farm ◽  
Stocking Rates ◽  
Management Issues ◽  
Friesian Cows

An on-farm demonstration of the effects of a higher stocking rate (expressed as cows per hectare), supported by purchased maize silage, was conducted on a commercial Waikato dairy farm that was split into two farmlets. Milk from each farmlet was collected into separate vats. This paper reports on two seasons of comparison between: 1. A 57-ha farmlet with 185 Friesian cows stocked at 3.25 cows per ha, representing the farm's previous management (Control -LS) and; 2. A 51-ha farmlet with 185 Friesian cows stocked at 3.6 cows per ha, supported by the purchase of 430 kg DM per cow of maize silage (Treatment -HS) The comparison aimed to demonstrate that higher stocking rates, supported by purchased maize silage, would increase total pasture utilisation and increase profit per hectare. Milksolids production for the HS farmlet was 105 and 99 kg per ha higher than LS in years one and two with Economic Farm Surplus per ha increasing by $113-$375 per ha (depending on payout). The comparison highlighted the difficulty of determining stocking rate on a cows-per-ha basis for a farm with unknown pasture production. In effect, the comparison was between two herds stocked at a similar level relative to total feed supply, with both herds being limited by total feed supply. This study also demonstrated practical management issues involved for farmers who are adding purchased feed into their systems. Being a commercial dairy farm meant this split herd demonstration could not be subjected to strict scientific protocols, as the commercial objectives of the farmers had to be met. The limitations and advantages of this type of on-farm demonstration are discussed. Keywords: economic farm surplus, maize silage, milksolids production per ha, on-farm demonstration, split-herd comparison, stocking rate

Identifying current challenges and research priorities to guide the design of more attractive dairy-farm workplaces in New Zealand

2020 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 84 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. R. Eastwood ◽  
J. Greer ◽  
D. Schmidt ◽  
J. Muir ◽  
K. Sargeant
Keyword(s):  
Value Chain ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Dairy Farm ◽  
Meaningful Work ◽  
Data Driven ◽  
Dairy Farmers ◽  
Effective Teams ◽  
On Farm ◽  
Design And Testing ◽  
Good Career

Globally, dairy farmers face issues with attracting and retaining high-quality staff. In the present study, a qualitative research method was used to explore the current challenges in relation to people on farm, the approaches currently used by farmers to make dairying more attractive and productive for people, and perspectives on the challenges for attracting and retaining people on future farms. Current challenges were in the areas of recruitment, productivity, skills and learning, farm and industry structural issues, and impact of farm profitability on ability to implement new people practices. Participants’ vision of the future dairy workplace was one that is highly dynamic, more open to consumers and the community, and largely data-driven. We suggest that dairy workplace research priorities focus on the design and testing of new systems to provide people with meaningful work and a good lifestyle, without compromising profit. Specific priorities include using new ways of connecting and communicating to create engaged and effective teams, developing flexible farm teams who deeply understand their role in the value chain and the consumer connection, defining the opportunity for technology to make the job easier and more enjoyable, developing farm systems that are safe, innovative, and provide a good career, and helping farming businesses demonstrate their people performance to consumers.

Performance, return and risk of different dairy systems in Australia and New Zealand

2013 ◽  
Vol 53 (9) ◽  
pp. 894 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. K. M. Ho ◽  
M. Newman ◽  
D. E. Dalley ◽  
S. Little ◽  
W. J. Wales
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Survey Data ◽  
Dairy Farm ◽  
Feed Conversion ◽  
Return On Assets ◽  
Technical Performance ◽  
Policy Environments ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Dairy Systems ◽  
Farm Performance

Changes in the farm operating and policy environments and a need to remain profitable under a cost-price squeeze have contributed to dairy systems in Australia and New Zealand becoming more intensive and complex in recent decades. Farm systems in both countries are now diverse, varying from being based predominantly on pasture with little purchased supplements, to those dependent on high levels of feed supplements and even having zero grazing. Dairy farm performance (defined in this paper as production or technical performance), return (return on assets or profit) and risk (variation in economic performance over time), and intensity of dairy systems was examined using farm survey data, case studies and existing published studies. The level of single technical performance measures, such as milk production, feed conversion efficiency and pasture consumption, prevailing in a business are not guides to the operating profit and return on assets of a business. In addition, when survey data of farm performance was grouped by return on assets, few farms were in the top 25% in successive years. Farms that performed consistently well were characterised by good, but not extreme, technical performance in a range of key areas, which translated to favourable business return (return on asset and profit). The knowledge and skills of farm managers are critical, and means that many different dairy systems can perform well physically and financially and successfully meet farmer goals. The relation between risk and the intensity of dairy systems was also investigated. Options that intensified systems generally resulted in higher net wealth for the farm owner, but almost always at increased risk. The best system for any farmer to operate is one which best meets their multifaceted preferences and goals, regardless of system type.

scholarly journals Enhancing pasture-based dairying with supplementary feeds

1996 ◽  
pp. 113-118
Author(s):  
W. Penno ◽  
A.M. Bryant ◽  
K.A. Macdonald ◽  
W.A. Carter
Keyword(s):  
Dry Matter ◽  
Supplementary Feeding ◽  
Stocking Rate ◽  
Maize Silage ◽  
Dairy Farmers ◽  
Lactation Length ◽  
Metabolisable Energy ◽  
Maize Grain ◽  
Stocking Rates ◽  
Friesian Cows

New Zealand dairy farmers are increasingly using supplementary feeds in an attempt to overcome the quantitative and nutritional limitations of pasture. The use of rolled maize grain and pasture silage supplements was evaluated on a farmlet basis for two seasons. Supplementary feeding resulted in 88 and 82 g milksolids (MS)/kg dry matter (DM) at stocking rates of 3.24 and 4.48 Friesian cows/ha respectively. At the lower stocking rate the responses during spring, summer and autumn were 11, 53 and 113 g MS/kg DM respectively. Small spring responses were attributed to poor use of the spared pasture and cow condition that resulted from supplementary feeding. Large autumn responses were due to extending lactation length. Responses were less variable at the high stocking rate. If large amounts of supplements are used, the stocking rate must be sufficient to ensure high rates of pasture utilisation are maintained. A second farmlet trial compared rolled maize grain, maize silage, and a nutritionally balanced ration at 4.41 Friesian cows/ha. Offering 1.04 - l.23 t DM/cow of supplement increased annual pasture net herbage accumulation by 1.8 t DM/ha, and MS production by up to 96kg/cow (32%). Maize grain resulted in the largest response, although responses to maize grain and maize silage were similar when the differences in metabolisable energy (ME) content were accounted for. The balanced ration produced the lowest response, both to DM and ME, and was 20% less than that predicted by the CNCPS nutrition model. ME content is the key nutritional parameter which will determine the likely MS response to supplements. Keywords: balanced ration, dairying, farm systems, grain, milksolids, silage, supplementary feeding

scholarly journals Comparison of conventional and leafy maize silage hybrids in New Zealand dairy farm systems

2005 ◽  
pp. 163-168
Author(s):  
R.J. Densley ◽  
E.S. Kolver ◽  
D.B. Miller ◽  
I.D. Williams ◽  
R. Tsimba
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Dairy Cows ◽  
Dry Matter ◽  
Nutritive Value ◽  
Dairy Farm ◽  
Maize Silage ◽  
Dairy Farmers ◽  
Farm Systems ◽  
Small Plot ◽  
Metabolisable Energy

This study compared the yield and nutritive content of conventional and leafy maize silage hybrids, and the expected differences in milksolids (MS) production if fed to cows. A range of conventional and leafy hybrids were planted in paired strip trials (n=162) or small plot trials (n=132) during spring 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 in all of the main maize silage growing areas from Nor thland to Canterbury. Pair ed comparisons of short, medium, and long maturity conventional and leafy hybrids were made. On average, conventional hybrids yielded 1824 kg DM/ha (9%) more than leafy hybrids and had a marginally lower fibre digestibility (0.6 percentage units). Modelling using the Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein Systems (CNCPS) model showed that leafy hybrids had a similar metabolisable energy (ME) content and MS per cow and per tonne of maize silage were not different. For dairy farmers growing their own maize silage crop to feed to cows, the planting of conventional hybrids will result in more MS and profit/ ha of maize grown than will the planting of leafy hybrids. If maize silage is purchased on a cent/kg dry matter (DM) basis, the small differences in nutritive content of leafy and conventional hybrids will not affect MS production or profit. Keywords: dairy cows, leafy hybrids, maize silage yield, nutritive value

Addressing on-farm management to enhance pasture productivity and persistence

2013 ◽  
pp. 241-244
Author(s):  
W.N. Reynolds
Keyword(s):  
Management Strategies ◽  
Dairy Farm ◽  
Stocking Rate ◽  
Pasture Management ◽  
Pasture Production ◽  
Operating Profit ◽  
The North ◽  
The Cost ◽  
On Farm ◽  
Attention To Detail

Following the 2007/08 drought, we experienced poor pasture production and persistence on our dairy farm in north Waikato, leading to decreased milksolids production and a greater reliance on bought-in feed. It is estimated that the cost of this to our farming operation was about $1300 per hectare per year in lost operating profit. While climate and black beetle were factors, they did not explain everything, and other factors were also involved. In the last 3 years we have changed our management strategies to better withstand dry summers, the catalyst for which was becoming the DairyNZ Pasture Improvement Focus Farm for the north Waikato. The major changes we made were to reduce stocking rate, actively manage pastures in summer to reduce over-grazing, and pay more attention to detail in our pasture renewal programme. To date the result has been a reduced need for pasture renewal, a lift in whole farm performance and increased profitability. Keywords: Focus farm, over-grazing, pasture management, pasture persistence, profitability

Measuring the cost of environmental compliance for Waikato dairy farmers - a survey approach

2015 ◽  
Vol 77 ◽  
pp. 159-166
Author(s):  
T.O.R. Macdonald ◽  
J.S. Rowarth ◽  
F.G. Scrimgeour
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Management Practice ◽  
Dairy Farm ◽  
Environmental Compliance ◽  
Dairy Farmers ◽  
The Past ◽  
Farm Systems ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Farm System ◽  
Survey Approach

The link between dairy farm systems and cost of environmental compliance is not always clear. A survey of Waikato dairy farmers was conducted to establish the real (non-modelled) cost of compliance with environmental regulation in the region. Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered to improve understanding of compliance costs and implementation issues for a range of Waikato farm systems. The average oneoff capital cost of compliance determined through a survey approach was $1.02 per kg milksolids, $1490 per hectare and $403 per cow. Costs experienced by Waikato farmers have exceeded average economic farm surplus for the region in the past 5 years. As regulation increases there are efficiencies to be gained through implementing farm infrastructure and farm management practice to best match farm system intensity. Keywords: Dairy, compliance, farm systems, nitrogen, Waikato

Investigating farmer’s identity and efficiency of tourism-oriented farm diversification

2021 ◽  
pp. 135481662098018
Author(s):  
Yasuo Ohe
Keyword(s):  
Data Envelopment ◽  
Dairy Farmers ◽  
Tokyo Metropolitan Area ◽  
Business Opportunity ◽  
Farm Diversification ◽  
Sbm Model ◽  
Educational Tourism ◽  
New Business ◽  
Tourism Activity ◽  
On Farm

Whether farm management in conducting tourism activity becomes more efficient or not is an important theoretical and empirical question for the promotion of tourism in agriculture. Thus, this study theoretically and empirically evaluated the efficiency of educational dairy farms that provide educational tourism by data envelopment analysis. The financial data were collected by the author’s survey of these farms located around the Tokyo Metropolitan area. Based on the theoretical framework that stipulates that the efficiency of farm activity is determined by a farmer’s identity, a bilateral slacks-based measure (SBM) model and Super SBM model were applied to empirically evaluate efficiency. The results revealed that those farmers who engage in processing milk products and direct selling have higher efficiency than those who do not. This is because having an enlarged identity that provides a wider perspective on farm activity enables these farmers to create demand and reduce marginal cost. This wider perspective was nurtured through the network of educational tourism activity. Thus, educational tourism activity by dairy farmers can nurture a new business opportunity and lead to efficient farm resource allocation. Identity can be a crucial factor in building rural entrepreneurship in tourism.

scholarly journals The Carbon Footprint of Energy Consumption in Pastoral and Barn Dairy Farming Systems: A Case Study from Canterbury, New Zealand

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (17) ◽  
pp. 4809 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hafiz Muhammad Abrar Ilyas ◽  
Majeed Safa ◽  
Alison Bailey ◽  
Sara Rauf ◽  
Marvin Pangborn
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Carbon Footprint ◽  
Dairy Farming ◽  
Carbon Footprints ◽  
Energy Inputs ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Feed Supplements ◽  
Dairy Systems ◽  
Milk Solids ◽  
On Farm

Dairy farming is constantly evolving to more intensive systems of management, which involve more consumption of energy inputs. The consumption of these energy inputs in dairy farming contributes to climate change both with on-farm emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels, and by off-farm emissions due to production of farm inputs (such as fertilizer, feed supplements). The main purpose of this research study was to evaluate energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, the carbon footprint, of pastoral and barn dairy systems located in Canterbury, New Zealand. The carbon footprints were estimated based on direct and indirect energy sources. The study results showed that, on average, the carbon footprints of pastoral and barn dairy systems were 2857 kgCO2 ha−1 and 3379 kgCO2 ha−1, respectively. For the production of one tonne of milk solids, the carbon footprint was 1920 kgCO2 tMS−1 and 2129 kgCO2 tMS−1, respectively. The carbon emission difference between the two systems indicates that the barn system has 18% and 11% higher carbon footprint than the pastoral system, both per hectare of farm area and per tonne of milk solids, respectively. The greater carbon footprint of the barn system was due to more use of imported feed supplements, machinery usage and fossil fuel (diesel and petrol) consumption for on-farm activities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document