scholarly journals Modelling options to increase milk production while reducing N leaching for an irrigated dairy farm in Canterbury

2017 ◽  
Vol 79 ◽  
pp. 147-152
Author(s):  
P.C. Beukes ◽  
P. Edwards ◽  
T. Coltman
Keyword(s):  
Milk Production ◽  
Dairy Farm ◽  
Nitrogen Leaching ◽  
N Leaching ◽  
Baseline Scenario ◽  
Catch Crop ◽  
Forage Production ◽  
Fodder Beet ◽  
Hypothetical Scenario ◽  
Farm System

Abstract The Forages for Reduced Nitrate Leaching programme (FRNL) aims to address the challenge of presenting farmers with alternatives for forage production that will sustain milk production and farm profit, but simultaneously reduce nitrogen leaching by 20% from current levels. This paper describes the improvements made to a dairy model comprising three software packages, and how this model was used to evaluate proposed farm system changes on a Canterbury dairy farm (Canlac Holdings) associated with the FRNL programme. After a baseline scenario was sensechecked against actual farm physical and financial data for the 2014-2015 season, alternative options were modelled in an additive way by expanding the effluent area, growing fodder beet on the platform, replacing some pasture with maize silage, growing diverse pastures on 7% of the milking platform, and including a feed pad. The cumulative effect of these changes was an increase of 3 and 13% in production and profit respectively, but only a 5% decrease in nitrogen leaching as estimated for the combined platform and support block areas over 3 climate years. A hypothetical scenario, of a third of the platform in diverse pastures, less nitrogen fertiliser, all fodder beet grown on the milking platform, lifted and fed on the feed pad, and with an oats catch crop following fodder beet, increased production and profit by 2 and 10%, respectively, with a reduction in N leaching of 19%. This result indicates that high-performing farmers have scope to reduce N leaching by ~20% and still increase profit by implementing some of the options emanating from the FRNL programme. Keywords: diverse pastures, dairy farm system, fodder beet, effluent block, feed pad, catch crop

scholarly journals Exploring options to reduce nitrogen leaching while maintaining profitability within a Canterbury farm business comprising several distinct enterprises

2018 ◽  
pp. 191-194
Author(s):  
Pierre C Beukes ◽  
Taisekwa Chikazhe ◽  
J Paul Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Business Model ◽  
Nitrogen Leaching ◽  
N Leaching ◽  
Catch Crop ◽  
Fodder Beet ◽  
Mitigation Options ◽  
Crop Area ◽  
Fertiliser Use ◽  
Farm Business

This paper reports on a study evaluating the effects of nitrogen (N) mitigations on N leaching and profitability across all hectares of a farm business consisting of a dairy platform, dairy support and beef blocks. Two different models were used, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Mitigation options focussed on N fertiliser use, plantain-ryegrass-clover diverse pastures, cropping regime, and animal and feed movements between the blocks. A combination of less N fertiliser, replacing kale with fodder beet for wintering to reduce the crop area, an oats catch-crop following autumn-harvested fodder beet, diverse pastures on a proportion of platform and support blocks, and wintering non-pregnant cows on the beef block reduced N leaching by 19%. Profitability was not affected by these mitigations. Profitability did not increase, but N leaching did, when changing to an all-dairy business model. Nitrogen leaching reductions can be achieved if all enterprises implement some or all of these mitigations.

scholarly journals Nitrogen leaching losses from fodder beet and kale crops grazed by dairy cows in southern SouthlandNitrogen leaching losses from fodder beet and kale crops grazed by dairy cows in southern Southland

2020 ◽  
Vol 82 ◽  
pp. 61-71
Author(s):  
L. Chris Smith ◽  
Ross M. Monaghan
Keyword(s):  
Dairy Cows ◽  
Nitrogen Leaching ◽  
N Leaching ◽  
First Year ◽  
Leaching Losses ◽  
Fodder Beet ◽  
Previous Season ◽  
Crop Type ◽  
Dairy Animals ◽  
Urinary Nitrogen

Fodder beet has become increasingly common as both a winter forage and as a supplement at the shoulders of the dairy season in southern New Zealand. One advantage over the more traditional kale crop option is that fodder beet results in less urinary nitrogen (N) excretion in dairy animals, potentially reducing N leaching. Two trials were undertaken to measure nitrogen leaching losses under both autumn-grazed or autumn-lifted fodder beet crops. Leaching losses were also measured from winter-grazed fodder beet and winter-grazed kale treatments. Results from Trial 1 show that leaching losses from autumn-lifted or autumn-grazed fodder beet  treatments were large (108–131 kg N ha-1) relative to losses measured in the winter-grazed fodder beet treatment (82 kg N ha-1). This indicates that autumn-grazed fodder beet crops have a greater potential for N leaching than winter-grazed fodder beet. The practice of lifting and removing fodder beet during autumn appeared to reduce N leaching somewhat, but losses were still relatively large, perhaps due to carryover of N from the previous season as a result of the dry summer conditions that preceded the drainage season in in the first year of Trial 1. The amount of N leached from the winter-grazed fodder beet treatment from Trial 1 at 82 kg N ha-1 was 50% less than the 176 kg N ha-1 observed for the kale crop. Results from Trial 2 using larger plots showed a similar trend, with winter-grazed fodder beet leaching 42% less N than winter-grazed kale (41 vs 70 kg N ha-1; P<0.001), despite not all the urine N being collected by the end of the drainage season. These losses are relatively large compared to the annual N leaching losses measured from pasture paddocks on the same farm, which ranged from 13–23 kg N ha-1. Considerations of grazing and/or harvest timing (autumn vs winter) as well as crop type appear to be important factors that determine N leaching losses from Southland dairy systems.

scholarly journals Resource use efficiency and environmental emissions from an average Waikato dairy farm, and impacts of intensification using nitrogen fertiliser or maize silage

2003 ◽  
pp. 185-189
Author(s):  
S.F.Ledgard J.D.Finlayson J. Gavin ◽  
M.B. Blackwell ◽  
R.A. Carran ◽  
M.E. Wedderburn ◽  
N.A. Jollands
Keyword(s):  
Resource Use ◽  
Energy Use ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Dairy Farm ◽  
Environmental Efficiency ◽  
N Leaching ◽  
Land Resource ◽  
Food Miles ◽  
Environmental Emissions ◽  
Farm System

A life cycle assessment (LCA) approach was used to estimate whole-system (dairy farm + grazing and forage land) resource use and environmental emissions for an averag e Waikato dairy farm enterprise. Effects of increased production from 850 to 1020 kg milksolids/ha using more nitrogen (N) fertiliser (+200 kg N/ha/yr) or forage (+2 t DM/ha/yr maize and oats silage) were also assessed. Fertiliser N increased production and economic efficiency, but decreased environmental efficiency through a predicted increase in N leaching and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In contrast, using forage increased the use of land but increased milksolids/ha and with no loss in environmental ef ficiency (per kg milksolids). A preliminary compar ison of the average Waikato farm system and an example Swedish dairy farm system showed small dif ferences in environmental efficiency (GHG or N leaching/m3 milk) but much higher (5-fold) energy efficiency on the Waikato farm. This is important to maintain, particularly as farms intensify, if "food-miles" (energy use in transpor ting produce to markets) become a component of our "ecolabel" for supplying produce to overseas markets. Keywords: dairy farm, ef ficiency, environment, intensification, maize, nitrogen, resource use

Sources and uses of information on a West Coast dairy farm

2002 ◽  
pp. 31-32
Author(s):  
C. Van der Geest
Keyword(s):  
Milk Production ◽  
Time Pressure ◽  
Data Gathering ◽  
Technical Information ◽  
Dairy Farm ◽  
Farming System ◽  
Herd Size ◽  
Financial Benefit ◽  
Nitrogen Response ◽  
Directional Information

I am a 30-year-old sharemilker on my parent's 600 cow developing farm near Blackball on the western side of the Grey Valley. Earlier this year I competed in the National Young Farmer of the Year competition and finished a close third. So what is information? There are two types of information that I use. There is data gathered from my farm to help fine tune the running of the day to day operations on the farm And directional information This is the information that arrives in papers and directs the long-term direction and plans of the farm and farming businesses. Due to the variability in weather on the Coast there is a greater need to monitor and adjust the farming system compared to an area like Canterbury. This was shown last year (2001/02) when the farm was undergoing a rapid period of development and I was under time restraints from increasing the herd size, building a new shed as well as developing the farm. The results of the time pressure was that day to day information gathering was lower resulting in per cow production falling by 11% or around $182 per cow. So what information was lacking that caused this large drop in profit. • Pasture growth rates • Cow condition • Nitrogen requirements • Paddock performance • Milk production • Pre-mating heat detection As scientists and advisers I hear you say that it is the farmer's responsibility to gather and analyse this information. You have the bigger topics to research and discover, gene marking, improving pasture species, sexing of sperm and ideas that I have not even contemplated yet. This is indeed very valuable research. Where would farming be without the invention of electric fences, artificial breeding and nitrogen research? But my problem is to take a farm with below average production to the top 10% in production with the existing technology and farming principles. I have all the technical information I need at the end of a phone. I can and do ring my consultant, fertiliser rep, vet, neighbour and due to the size and openness of New Zealand science, at present if they do not know I can ring an expert in agronomy, nutrition, soils and receive the answer that I require. I hope that this openness remains as in a time of privatisation and cost cutting it is a true advantage. I feel that for myself the next leap in information is not in the growing of grass or production of milk but in the tools to collect, store and utilise that information. This being tied to a financial benefit to the farming business is the real reason that I farm. Think of the benefits of being able to read pasture cover on a motorbike instantly downloaded, overlaying cow intake with milk production, changes in cow weight, daily soil temperature and predicted nitrogen response. Telling me low producing cows and poor producing paddocks, any potential feed deficits or surpluses. This would be a powerful information tool to use. The majority of this information is already available but until the restraints of time and cost are removed from data gathering and storage, this will not happen.

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

scholarly journals Response of Vertical Migration and Leaching of Nitrogen in Percolation Water of Paddy Fields under Water-Saving Irrigation and Straw Return Conditions

Water ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chengxin Zheng ◽  
Zhanyu Zhang ◽  
Yunyu Wu ◽  
Richwell Mwiya
Keyword(s):  
Vertical Migration ◽  
Growth Stage ◽  
Nitrogen Leaching ◽  
Water Saving ◽  
Paddy Fields ◽  
N Leaching ◽  
Leaching Losses ◽  
Leaching Loss ◽  
Straw Return ◽  
Percolation Water

The use of water-saving irrigation techniques has been encouraged in rice fields in response to irrigation water scarcity. Straw return is an important means of straw reuse. However, the environmental impact of this technology, e.g., nitrogen leaching loss, must be further explored. A two-year (2017–2018) experiment was conducted to investigate the vertical migration and leaching of nitrogen in paddy fields under water-saving and straw return conditions. Treatments included traditional flood irrigation (FI) and two water-saving irrigation regimes: rain-catching and controlled irrigation (RC-CI) and drought planting with straw mulching (DP-SM). RC-CI and DP-SM both significantly decreased the irrigation input compared with FI. RC-CI increased the rice yield by 8.23%~12.26%, while DP-SM decreased it by 8.98%~15.24% compared with FI. NH4+-N was the main form of the nitrogen leaching loss in percolation water, occupying 49.06%~50.97% of TN leaching losses. The NH4+-N and TN concentration showed a decreasing trend from top to bottom in soil water of 0~54 cm depth, while the concentration of NO3−-N presented the opposite behavior. The TN and NH4+-N concentrations in percolation water of RC-CI during most of the rice growth stage were the highest among treatments in both years, and DP-SM showed a trend of decreasing TN and NH4+-N concentrations. The NO3−-N concentrations in percolation water showed a regular pattern of DP-SM > RC-CI > FI during most of the rice growth stage. RC-CI and DP-SM remarkably reduced the amount of N leaching losses compared to FI as a result of the significant decrease of percolation water volumes. The tillering and jointing-booting stages were the two critical periods of N leaching (accounted for 74.85%~86.26% of N leaching losses). Great promotion potential of RC-CI and DP-SM exists in the lower reaches of the Yangtze River, China, and DP-SM needs to be further optimized.

Increasing home-grown forage consumption and profit in non-irrigated dairy systems. 1. Rationale, systems design and management

2014 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 221 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. F. Chapman ◽  
J. Hill ◽  
J. Tharmaraj ◽  
D. Beca ◽  
S. N. Kenny ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Milk Production ◽  
Perennial Ryegrass ◽  
Systems Design ◽  
Farming Systems ◽  
Early Summer ◽  
Annual Rainfall ◽  
Forage Production ◽  
Winter Cereal ◽  
Dairy Systems ◽  
Milk Solids

The profitability of dairy businesses in southern Australia is closely related to the amount of feed consumed from perennial ryegrass-dominant pasture. Historically, the dairy industry has relied on improvements in pasture productivity and utilisation to support profitable increases in stocking rate and milk production per hectare. However, doubts surround the extent to which the industry can continue to rely on perennial ryegrass technology to provide the necessary productivity improvements required into the future. This paper describes the design and management of a dairy systems experiment at Terang in south-west Victoria (780-mm average annual rainfall) conducted over four lactations (June 2005–March 2009) to compare the production and profitability of two forage base options for non-irrigated dairy farms. These options were represented by two self-contained farmlets each milking 36 mixed-age, autumn-calving Holstein-Friesian cows at peak: (1) well managed perennial ryegrass pasture (‘Ryegrass Max’, or ‘RM’); and (2) perennial ryegrass plus complementary forages (‘CF’) including 15% of farmlet area under double cropping with annual species (winter cereal grown for silage followed by summer brassica for grazing on the same land) and an average of 25% of farmlet area in perennial pasture based on tall fescue for improved late spring–early summer feed supply. The design of these systems was informed by farming systems models (DairyMod, UDDER and Redsky), which were used to estimate the effects of introducing different forage options on farm profitability. The design of the CF system was selected based on modelled profitability increases assuming that all forage components could be managed to optimise forage production and be effectively integrated to optimise milk production per cow. Using the historical ‘average’ pasture growth curve for the Terang district and a mean milk price of $3.71 per kg milk solids, the models estimated that the return on assets of the RM and CF systems would be 9.4 and 15.0%, respectively. The objectives of the experiment described here were to test whether or not such differences in profitability could be achieved in practice, and to determine the risks associated with including complementary forages on a substantial proportion of the effective farm area. Key results of the experiment are presented in subsequent papers.

MILK PRODUCTION ON A MODERN DAIRY FARM

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (90) ◽  
pp. 101-106
Author(s):  
А.I. Shilov ◽  
◽  
R.N. Lyashuk ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Milk Production ◽  
Dairy Farm

scholarly journals Efficiency of water use and nitrogen for goat milk production in irrigated pasture to different management

2016 ◽  
Vol 68 (5) ◽  
pp. 1374-1380
Author(s):  
A.C.R. Cavalcante ◽  
P.M. Santos ◽  
J.A.A. C. Júnior ◽  
M.J.D. Cândido ◽  
N.L.S. Lemos
Keyword(s):  
Milk Production ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Goat Milk ◽  
Nitrogen Efficiency ◽  
Panicum Maximum ◽  
Intensive Management ◽  
Water Efficiency ◽  
Forage Production ◽  
Use Efficiency

ABSTRACT The aim was to determine the efficiency of use of water and nitrogen for forage production and goat-milk production on an irrigated Tanzania Guineagrass (Panicum maximum cv. Tanzânia) pasture subjected to different management practices. The management levels tested were combinations among nitrogen fertilization levels and post-grazing residual heights (ResH): Intensive (ResH = 33.0cm and 600.0kg N/ha.year-1); Moderate (ResH = 47.0cm and 300.0kg N/ha.year-1); Light (ResH = 47cm and 0kg N/ha.year-1); and Conventional (ResH = 33cm and 0kg N/ha year-1). The efficiency of water use for forage production was higher in intensive and Moderate management. The Conventional management was recommended only for forage production since there is no nitrogen input available because this result was similar to Intensive management in water efficiency. The efficiency of water use to produce goat milk was higher in Intensive management. Moderate management presented higher efficiency of nitrogen to produce forage. On the other hand, Intensive management was more efficient using nitrogen in goat milk production. The amount of water needed to produce one liter of goat milk varied from 893.20 to 3,933.50L. In the moderate management, up to 121.48kg forage and 21.56kg of milk were produced for every kilogram of N utilized. Intensive management is advantageous for water use efficiency as well nitrogen efficiency to produce goat milk in cultivated pasture.

scholarly journals Pasture species and drought impacts on milk yield 2. Predicted farm milk yield at four sites

1998 ◽  
pp. 45-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.J. Barker ◽  
D.A. Clark ◽  
E.R. Thom ◽  
J.N. Couchman ◽  
R.N. Burton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Deficit ◽  
Milk Production ◽  
Milk Yield ◽  
Seasonal Pattern ◽  
System Modelling ◽  
Milk Supply ◽  
Increase Milk Production ◽  
Growth Differences ◽  
Highly Correlated ◽  
Farm System

A desirable option for increasing milk yield per farm is to increase milk production in summer without compromising peak-season production or the duration of lactation. The dairy industry has a goal to achieve a 4% per month post-peak decline of milk production. The effect of five pasture types and two summer water regimes on predicted farm milk yield, in Northland, Waikato, Manawatu and Canterbury was measured over 1 year. Two pasture treatments, resident pasture and Grasslands Nui ryegrass, were common to all sites. A third pasture treatment varied between sites: triple mix (Grasslands Advance tall fescue, Grasslands Kara cocksfoot, and Grasslands Maru phalaris) at the Manawatu site; the same triple mix but with Grasslands Raki paspalum at the Northland site; and low-endophyte ryegrass and Grasslands Kahu timothy (LER) at the Canterbury site; all sown treatments included red and white clover. All five pasture types were included at the Waikato site. On average for all pasture types, water deficit reduced summer herbage accumulation (HA) to 79, 68, 43 and 18% of irrigated controls, and annual HA to 88, 80, 73 and 63% of irrigated controls in Northland, Waikato, Manawatu and Canterbury, respectively. Since farm milk yield predicted by UDDER was highly correlated with annual HA (R2 = 83%), the effects of pasture type and water deficit on milk yield were similar to effects on HA. Seasonal and annual HA differed among the five pasture types at each of the four sites. The most important factor affecting predicted farm milk yield was annual HA, with relatively little effect from the seasonal pattern of pasture growth. Differences in shapes of the predicted milk supply curves for various treatments occurred, particularly when drought forced early drying-off. The best predicted summer milk yield was for the Canterbury irrigated LER pasture treatment, a 6.8% per month postpeak decline of milk production. Keywords: farm milk yield, farm system modelling, forage supply, pasture species, water deficit

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document