PALMERSTON NORTH WORKBOOK THURSDAY 11 MAY 9.30AM-3PM MASSEY UNIVERSITY NO 4 DAIRY FARM TENNENT DRIVE PALMERSTON NORTH W I T H D A I RY N Z

Transcription

1 PALMERSTON NORTH WORKBOOK THURSDAY 11 MAY 9.30AM-3PM MASSEY UNIVERSITY NO 4 DAIRY FARM TENNENT DRIVE PALMERSTON NORTH W I T H D A I RY N Z 1

2

3 Contents Welcome from Dr Tim Mackle 2 Session 1: Are you making money from milk or milk from money? 3 Session 2: Herd efficiency 10 Session 3: Saving nutrients 19 Session 4: Home-grown feed: now and future 34 Massey University No 4 Dairy Farm 45 1

4 Welcome to Farmers Forum It s great for myself and the Board to have this opportunity to connect with you and introduce the many speakers from DairyNZ and beyond, who will discuss the latest in science and innovation in dairy. At DairyNZ it s our job to help you respond to the rapid pace of change, which is a constant in modern dairy farming. Technology, rules and regulations, milk price, customer expectations, and the environment are all evolving. In fact, it s much harder to pick areas of farming that haven t changed. So, how is DairyNZ responding? How can you use the latest research to help you farm in this ever-changing environment? We ll answer those questions for you today at the Farmers Forum. I encourage you to get involved, ask questions, make suggestions and talk with the scientists and presenters. Continue innovating; if you are interested in an idea, refer to this handbook or check out dairynz.co.nz for more information. Kind regards Tim Mackle Chief Executive 2

5 Session 1 Are you making money from milk or milk from money? Marginal milk are you making money from milk or milk from money? John Roche Key messages Profitability from increasing milksolids (MS) production is determined by the cost of the additional MS (i.e., the marginal MS) and NOT the average cost of all MS produced; Profit/ha is maximised when the marginal cost of additional MS = the MS price; To be profitable, supplements cannot replace pasture: they must be used when there is a genuine feed deficit; On average, the marginal cost of milk produced from purchased supplement is approximately 150% of the cost of the supplement. What do we mean by marginal economics? In marginal economics, we attempt to measure the cost of producing an extra kg MS and compare this with the MS price. This is based on the principal that the increase in MS production associated with inputs is large to begin with, but gets smaller and eventually flattens with increasing inputs. For example, applying P fertiliser to very low Olsen P land will lead to a large increase in pasture production; however, the increase in pasture production declines as the Olsen P of the soil increases; applying P fertiliser to soil with above the optimum Olsen P grows very little additional pasture. This is the law of diminishing returns. Similarly, the first 100 kg of supplement provided to a cow results in greater marginal MS production than the second 100 kg, which is greater than the third 100 kg, and so on. The danger with marginal analyses There is a danger with marginal analyses; all the costs associated with system change may not be taken into account. For example, people often talk about the margin over feed, which accounts for the milk production associated with supplementing the cow and the cost of the feed, but does not account for any other cost. Analyses of databases in New Zealand and in other countries have highlighted that virtually all costs increase with the increasing use of non-pasture feeds (e.g., fuel and oil, labour, repairs and maintenance). Historical and ongoing farm systems experiments provide a great opportunity to quantify the cost of offering cows supplementary feeds, either to increase stocking rate or to increase MS production/cow. As well as the increase in feed and associated expenses, the costs per cow increase as stocking rate increases to make best use of purchased feed. Between 50 and 60% of the operating expenses on a dairy farm relate to each individual cow. Therefore, increasing the stocking rate leads to an increase in the majority of expenses/ha (e.g., animal health, breeding expenses, rearing costs, etc.). The costs associated with the increase in stocking rate must be accounted for in any evaluation of the system change. In arguing about which system of farming is best, many people have lost sight of this basic economic principle. In theory, profit increases with increasing MS/ha until marginal cost = marginal revenue (the X on the Figure 1). Irrespective of the chosen farming system, it is important to understand the point at which further milk production is costing you more than the price you are receiving; in technical terms, this is the point at which the marginal cost of milk production (i.e., marginal cost) is greater than the milk price (i.e., marginal revenue; Figure 1). 3

6 Figure 1. The relationship between marginal cost and marginal revenue. When marginal cost is less than milk price (marginal revenue), profit/ha increases with greater production. When the marginal cost is greater than the marginal revenue, the increased production erodes farm profitability. In theory, profit increases with increasing MS/ha until marginal cost = marginal revenue (the X on the graph). In arguing about which system of farming is best, many people have lost sight of this basic economic principle. Summary of results from analyses Results from experiments and the analyses of farm system databases in New Zealand and abroad indicate that total costs increase by approximately 150% of the increase in feed costs; this means that for every $1 spent on feed, total costs increase by $1.50. This is remarkably consistent across countries and farm systems pasture utilisation declines with supplement use in situations where cows are highly stocked (e.g., 4.4 cows/ha on a farm growing 18 t DM of pasture) and supplemented with maize silage (cost $320/t DM fed) and MS yield increased by 75 g MS/kg maize silage DM offered (i.e., a good biological response), average cost of the marginal milk produced was $5.54. This means that milk price must be greater than $5.54 for the additional milk to be profitable in situations where maize silage was used to increase stocking rate (e.g., from 3.3 to 4.4 cows/ha on a farm growing 18 t DM of pasture) and MS yield increased by 80 g MS/kg maize silage DM offered (i.e., a good biological response), cost of the marginal milk produced was $7.81. This means that milk price must be greater than $7.81 if using maize silage to increase stocking rate is to increase operating profit/ha. The increase in marginal costs is a result of the fixed costs associated with each extra cow. Difference between strategic and tactical use of purchased feed There is a difference between the strategic and tactical use of feed. The strategic use of feed is planned from the start of the year. For example, if someone increases stocking rate by 0.25 cows/ha, they will either plan to import 1 t DM supplement/ha (i.e., assumes a cow eats 5 t DM/year) or feed each cow less (~10%/cow). In this scenario, the farm gets both the benefits and additional costs associated with the change to the system (e.g., greater milk production/ha, but also greater herd replacement, animal health, and breeding expenses/ha). In farm system analyses, on average, the total increase in costs associated with the system changes needed to use the purchased feeds was approximately 50% greater than the cost of feed. So, for example, if purchased feed is $1/kg MS, total costs will increase by approximately $1.50/kg MS, on average. 4

7 This is different to the tactical use of feed. Tactical use of feed is where a farmer purchases unplanned feed to minimise a short-term feed deficit (e.g., dry February or cold and wet August). In this situation, they don t capture the benefits of an increase in stocking rate, but they also do not incur many of the costs associated with the change to the system. However, the total cost is greater than the marginal cost of the feed, because there is an increase in associated costs (e.g., labour, fuel and oil, repairs and maintenance, electricity, etc.). These costs are included in DairyNZ s Supplement Price Calculator ( supplement-price-calculator/), which will help calculate the value proposition of purchasing supplementary feeds in a range of situations. Conclusion It is important to account for all costs that change when supplements are used to increase milk production, either through an increase in stocking rate or increased milk yield/cow. This is the marginal cost of the additional milk. At some level of MS production/ha, the marginal cost will exceed the planned milk price. It is at this point that you are paying for the privilege of producing milk. 5

8 6

9 Notes 7

10 Key lessons of intensification over the last decade? Mark Neal About DairyBase Data Dairybase is New Zealand s database of farm physical and financial data. It is used by individual farms to track and compare performance, and for industry good to track farm performance and trends at regional and national level. Because the data describe the results from individual farms, where many things differ between farms, such as soil, rainfall, managerial skill and experience, it is not always straightforward to infer from the data what individual farmers should change as a result. However, some key messages do come out. More pasture equals more money DairyBase consistently suggests that more homegrown pasture and crop eaten per hectare is associated with higher operating profit per hectare. While there is significant variation in profitability between individuals, on average, the trend is clear. 8

11 Notes 9

12 Session 2 Herd Efficiency Farmers could be making at least $1 billion p.a. more in profit through efficiency gains in herd fertility, health and feed conversion. We are researching new ways to capture these gains. Successful transitioning of cows from pregnancy to lactation and improvements in fertility are key to optimising the lifetime productivity of our dairy cows. Making it easier for you to get better in-calf rates - Chris Burke The profitability of dairy farming could be increased by $500 million per year if industry targets for herd reproductive performance of 78% 6 week in-calf rate are achieved, but these targets will not be achieved using current knowledge and technologies alone. A biological breakthrough is required. The project has two major work streams: 1. Increase genetic gain in fertility The aim is to accelerate the current 0.11 unit gain in genetic fertility to as much as 0.35 units per annum. Gains can be made if the accuracy of measuring the Fertility Breeding Value (BV) is increased using phenotypes that provide a stronger signal of genetic fertility than those currently used (e.g. re-calving within 6 weeks). To find such phenotypes, we have created a research herd with extreme diversity in genetic fertility. This low versus high fertility herd was established from heifers born to carefully selected contract matings in spring The live weight and age of heifers at puberty (figure 1) have already provided promising phenotypes to investigate further. Live weight at puberty - looking good as a marker to accelerate gain in genetic fertility B) Liveweight at Puberty 100% Proportion that reached puberty Percent attained puberty 75% 50% 25% High Fert BV Low Fert BV Mating>>> 0% Live Liveweight (Kg) (kg) Figure 1: Liveweight at puberty for heifers selectively bred for high and low fertility breeding values (BV) 2. Provide management options for improving herd fertility The approach was to unravel the underlying biology that differentiates fertile from infertile cows: solutions would be created from knowing more precisely what prevents optimal fertility. We have identified that the first seven days after artificial breeding (AB) is when most pregnancies are lost (figure 2). A failure at this stage indicates deficiencies with egg quality and uterine support, both of which have become focal points for our longer-term research. 10

13 Timing & magnitude of pregnancy losses - one-third of pregnancies have failed 7 days after AB uterine infection 1% submission error 5% Viable pregnancy rate at Day 70 52% Loss in 1st week 31% Loss in 2nd week 7% Loss after 4th week 4% Loss in 3rd week 0% Figure 2: Timing and magnitude of pregnancy losses in dairy cattle We have also identified that endometritis (infection/inflammation of the uterine lining) is more common in the national herd than previously believed. In the 2015 spring, 1806 cows selected randomly from 100 herds were examined for endometritis about four weeks before planed start of mating. Only 58% of them were assessed as having no indications of a reproductive tract infection (purulent vaginal discharge [PVD]-endometritis by metricheck) or inflamed uterus (cytological [CYTO]-endometritis; figure 3). Prevalence of endometritis 30 days from mating start in NZ dairy herds randomly tested cows in 100 North & South Island herds in 2015 Clean uterus 1058 cows ( 58%) metricheck-positive CYTO-endometritis only Both PVD-endometritis only 303 cows ( 17%) 184 cows (10%) 261 cows (15%) Figure 3: Prevalence of endometritis in the national herd Cows with endometritis (about a quarter of the herd having either PVD- or CYTO-endometritis) had poorer reproductive performance; about a 10% decline in conception rates to first AB. A problem of endometritis is most likely a consequence of the immune system not functioning properly in the transition period. Our programme is, therefore, shifting focus onto transition cow management and testing options that farmers could use to accelerate recovery of the immune and reproductive systems after calving. 11

14 Notes 12

15 Getting your cows to have healthier and longer productive lives - Claire Phyn Cow lifetime productivity is a measure of animal production efficiency, health and welfare, and thus longevity; it contributes to both the sustainability and profitability of dairy farming. The expected benefits of improving cow lifetime productivity include: more productive herds because of better animal health, less involuntary culling, and a greater number of lactations achieved per cow; lower costs because of fewer replacement animals and health treatments; easier management and less labour needed to handle fewer sick animals; lower whole-herd greenhouse gas emissions and less effluent per unit milk produced; improved public and consumer perceptions of animal welfare and dairy farming. Despite growing recognition of the importance of cow lifetime productivity, there is increasing international evidence that rates of on-farm deaths and involuntary or avoidable culling (due to health, welfare, or fertility problems) have increased over recent decades as modern production systems have intensified and individual cow production has increased. However, few studies have examined the extent and causes of premature animal removal and health-related productivity losses in NZ dairy herds. Therefore, a 7-year Lifetime Productivity research programme* was initiated in 2013 to quantify this issue in NZ and to investigate strategies to improve cow lifetime productivity. Cow wastage and health-related productivity losses The first phase of the programme has focussed on characterising: the timing, frequency and key reasons that calves, replacement heifers and adult cows are removed from the dairy herd; the health-related productivity losses associated with lower cow survival; and the potential risk factors and costs associated with poor performance. Results to date provide strong evidence that inefficiencies in the lifetime productivity of NZ dairy cows is a significant and costly issue, despite fewer on-farm deaths and less involuntary culling of adult cows compared with overseas dairy systems. Such information reflects positively on the animal welfare of our farming system, but further improvements will help ensure the competitiveness and profitability of our industry into the future. Although some voluntary replacement of cows is required each year to bring more profitable, genetically superior animals into the herd, there is considerable room for efficiency gains because most of the 21% of adult cows ( 2 years old) removed annually are for involuntary reasons. On-farm deaths average 2% p.a. and approx % of cows are culled into the dairy beef supply chain because of health or fertility-related reasons, as are many of the 3.5% of cows sold each year. Unsurprisingly, reproductive failure (i.e. empty cows or late calvers) is the largest cause of involuntary culling, accounting for over a third of adult cow removals; however, a significant number of cows are also removed for health-related reasons such as poor udder health, lameness, various other diseases, and calving-related disorders. Furthermore, a proportion of reproductive failure removals is likely caused by underlying health issues. Economic modelling indicates that cow wastage caused by on-farm deaths and culling for involuntary, nonproduction reasons costs the industry in excess of $1 billion per annum. Solutions to address the high cost of 13

16 reproductive failure are being addressed by the Fertility research programme, but targeting other causes of animal removal is also of significant benefit to the dairy industry. For example, reducing the rate of health-related culling by 25% is estimated to be worth $200 million p.a., and would increase cow productive life from an average age of 6.5 years to 7.2 years. In addition, reducing the average on-farm mortality rate from 2% down to the same level as the top 25% of operators ( 1.2% mortality) could be worth $130 million p.a. Successful implementation of solutions to improve the various health disorders underpinning cow wastage will also result in additional productivity and financial gains, and better animal welfare. This is because the clinical and subclinical incidences and effects of these health issues are typically greater than the associated rate of culling and on-farm deaths. Strategies to improve cow lifetime productivity Genetics: One strategy to increase the productive lifetime of dairy cows is to breed animals that are inherently healthier, more fertile, and last longer in the herd. We are currently developing new methods to evaluate a functional survival trait to accelerate genetic gain in dairy cow health and longevity, in conjunction with AbacusBio and NZ Animal Evaluation Ltd. Management: Collectively, results indicate that improving animal health during the 3 to 4 weeks after calving is a key approach to improve cow health and longevity. The risk of on-farm death is significantly greater during the first month post-calving compared with other times of the year, particularly for mature cows (aged 5 years and older). Furthermore, many culls originate from issues experienced following calving, such as mastitis and uterine infection/inflammation. Even if affected animals are not removed from the herd, the negative effects of health disorders on their well-being, milk production and reproduction, and the cost of treatments contribute significantly to lower lifetime productivity and farm profits. Therefore, the second phase of the programme is focussing on developing practical strategies that prevent or treat sick and at-risk animals during early lactation. Areas being researched in the second phase include: managing cows with high blood ketone concentrations (hyperketonaemia); improving immune dys regulation and reducing chronic inflammation associated with poor transitioning from late pregnancy to lactation; and evaluating potential markers to identify sick and at-risk animals for targeted interventions. Importance of calving BCS and pre-calving feeding levels This new work builds upon the recent Transition Cow Welfare research programme, which confirmed the importance of reaching body condition score (BCS) targets at calving. Mixed-aged cows should calve at a 5.0, while 2 and 3 year olds should calve at a 5.5 to optimise milk production and maximise reproduction and health. If thinner than target BCS, cows have poorer immune function and a greater risk of uterine infections. However, if fatter than target BCS, they are at an increased risk of metabolic diseases, especially if they are consuming more than their metabolisable energy (ME) requirements in the 2-3 weeks pre-calving. The occurrence of metabolic diseases also increases the risk of uterine infections and mastitis in these overweight cows. Planning for a successful transition from late pregnancy to lactation should begin months earlier to ensure that cows reach BCS targets one month prior to calving. Research indicates that it does not matter if the body condition is gained slowly or quickly during the late lactation/early dry period. Recommendations are to feed cows that are above target BCS at 90% of ME requirements for 2 3 weeks prior to calving. This equates to approximately 85, 100 and 115 MJ ME (down the throat) for a 400, 500, and 600 kg cow, respectively. If cows are thinner than 14

17 the target one month out from calving, feed intake should not be restricted; however, there will be minimal gain in BCS during the month prior to calving due to the high demands of the growing calf. Notes 15

18 Looking for cows that are the most efficient feed converters Mark Camara Can we breed cows that are more efficient at making you profit from what they eat? What does it take to select for efficient feed converters and how are we doing this? DairyNZ and LIC research have already demonstrated that feed conversion efficiency is under genetic control, making it is possible to select animals that are more efficient at using feed for growth, body maintenance or milksolids production. DairyNZ and the breeding companies are well on their way to generating a breeding value that measures how efficient a cow is at converting feed into production. If the breeding value can be implemented, it could save farmers money in feed costs. This potential breeding value is for residual feed intake (RFI), which is a measure of feed use efficiency measured as the difference between predicted feed intake and actual feed intake on a daily basis. It s all about an animal generating the maximum performance out of a unit of feed consumed. Economic value If a cow consumes 1 kg DM (dry matter) less per day for the same level of milksolids production, this saves farmers $85 per year in feed costs for a single cow. d thermography Infra-red thermography 1 eye 2 corner of eye 3 cheek 4 muzzle 16

19 Where this might lead Young elite bulls undergoing routine RFI performance tests Taking thermal images of cows/bulls RFI breeding value for all animals; add to BW 17

20 Further information *The Pillars of a Sustainable Dairy System is a seven-year programme of research to improve cow fertility and lifetime productivity. DairyNZ and breeding companies are well on their way to generating a breeding value that measures how efficient a cow is at using feed for body maintenance or milksolids production (feed conversion efficiency). Berg, D Research finds most pregnancy losses occur in first week. DairyNZ Technical Series 31: Notes 18

21 Session 3: Saving nutrients In 2011, the New Zealand Government released its National Policy Statement on Freshwater Quality, aimed at improving long-term water quality throughout the country. This triggered Regional Council planning processes to develop and implement policies to achieve the intended water quality targets. In many regions dairy farmers will need to reduce the amount of nitrogen (N) leached from their farm systems to comply with nutrient limits set out in these policy plans. In areas susceptible to overland flow or erosion, the risk of phosphorus (P) and sediment losses into streams must also be addressed. In 2013, the dairy sector launched the Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord. This accord described the dairy industry s commitment to improving New Zealand s water quality, including targeted riparian planting plans, effluent management, comprehensive standards for new dairy farms and measures to improve the efficiency of water and nutrient use on farms. This session sets out the water quality status in the Horizons region and how far the dairy industry has come in three years of the Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord. The latest information will be presented on options for farmers to reduce phosphorus, sediment and Escherichia coli contamination of surface water, and nitrate leaching impacting on groundwater and surface water quality. Saving nutrients is not only beneficial to the environment, in many cases efficiency improvements are also good for the farm bottom line. Water quality, what is the problem? Adam Duker Prior to release of the NPS-FW, Horizons had already completed their regional plan - known widely as Horizons One Plan and which is now operative. The majority (but not all) of the requirements set out in the NPS-FW are addressed under the Horizons One Plan. Horizons One Plan has identified four key environmental issues for the region: Surface water quality degradation Increasing water demand Unsustainable hill country use Threatening indigenous biological diversity Horizons One Plan defines a targeted approach to address these four key issues through a mix of regulated (rules requiring action) and non-regulated (encouraging) initiatives.. 19

22 Surface water quality degradation Figure 1: Non-point source management. Target zones were identified where Horizons Land Use consents are required for intensive land uses (including dairy farming). Source: Horizons (2008), Framework for Managing Non-Point Source and Point Source Nutrient Contributions to Water Quality The spotlight is on the dairy industry when it comes to water quality in all regions of New Zealand. There is no argument the dairy industry has a footprint which we must address, but not enough credit is given for all the great environmental work which has already been completed by dairy farmers. Despite stories of the continued decline in water quality, in the Horizons region there are signs of improvement. Water quality in general is reported using two measures: state and trend. Figure 2 shows improving trends across the Horizons region for 4 water quality parameters E Coli; Total oxidised nitrogen; dissolved reactive phosphorous; and turbidity, with no sites in decline. State analysis however shows in several sites we still have further to go. The good news is we are moving in the right direction. Everyone has access to water quality information. Have a look on LAWA website for the your nearest monitoring site 20

23 Figure 2: 10 years of water quality trends (January 2006-December 2015). Source: nz/hrc/media/media/water/water-info.pdf?ext=.pdf Where to now? In a catchment, the relative contributions can be broken down further into each sector s contribution; this breakdown is often referred to as catchment accounting. The more accurate the information, the more reliable the calculation. From the Farm Environment Plans work, we now have very good information on the relative contribution from dairy farms in the region. Science is needed when water quality requires improvement; it builds understanding of the drivers of in-stream health, ensuring solutions will achieve the desired result and will be as cost effective as possible. Catchment accounting and science are key in exploring targeted approaches and forecasting outcomes (figure 3). Figure 3: Diagram depicting the process for identifying catchment scale solutions. Source: Horizons water science presentation Dr Jon Roygard. 21

24 Notes 22

25 Reducing sediment, phosphorus and E. coli losses from winter grazed paddocks Logan Bowler (DairyNZ) Why is this important? On dairy farms there is potential for large losses of sediment, phosphorus and faecal microorganisms, which may impact water quality in streams and rivers. The effects can be addressed through implementing good environmental management practices (GMP) on-farm. Implementing good management practices on your farm will reduce your environmental and business risk and result in a more sustainable farm and healthier environment. There are expectations from our consumers and our communities to farm in an environmentally responsible manner and being able to say and prove I farm to good management practice standards is important. On-farm Good management practices Nutrients Nutrients come from multiple sources on farm such as fertiliser, effluent, nitrogen fixation, supplementary feed and irrigation water. Having a good understanding of where nutrients come from and go to on your farm means you will be able to make better decisions, e.g. around purchasing and applying fertiliser. Applying the right amount of fertiliser in the right place, at the right time, will ensure that you get the best possible response and return on investment, and will minimise the risk of losses to water. Effluent Effluent loss to waterways is a major risk to water quality because of the nutrients and faecal bacteria it contains. All milk companies require effluent systems to be fit for purpose, and be able to achieve 365-day compliance with the rules. Ensuring effluent is applied to pastures and crops, at the appropriate depth, rates and times, reduces the risk of nutrient loss through leaching and runoff and maximises the value of effluent in terms of nutrient uptake. Having sufficient effluent storage will allow you to store effluent when soil or weather conditions do no suit application. Waterways Keeping stock out of waterways ensures stock stay safe and waterways stay healthy. Stock, when in waterways, deposit dung and urine which increases nutrient and faecal bacteria levels in the water. The stock also cause erosion and disturbance of stream banks and beds. Stock exclusion is one of the best things you can do to improve water quality. Sediment, faecal bacteria and phosphorus can also enter waterways by overland flow. The use of buffer strips and riparian planting not only reduces overland flow of nutrients and sediment, it also provides shade and habitat for aquatic life. Irrigation Water is arguably the most important resource on farm, even more so on irrigated farms. Often there is limited water available and significant costs may be associated with pumping it around the farm. Water taken for 23

26 farming is removed from the natural cycle and may reduce stream flows or groundwater levels. Ensuring water is not wasted will save money and benefit the environment. A well-designed irrigation system is easier to manage and more reliable. Managing well is key to ensuring the system operates efficiently and that water is applied at the right depth across the farm. This will result in more even pasture growth and easier pasture management. Sediment Land and more specifically the soils are fundamental to a productive dairy farm. Management practices which result in pugging, compaction, extended periods of bare soil and grazing unsuitable land will result in top soil damage, erosion and loss of production. Sediment can be a limiting factor to water quality as it discolours the water and silts up stream beds, thus damaging the aquatic habitat. Nutrients, most notably phosphorus attached to the sediment, can cause undesirable plant and algal growth which also harms aquatic life. Sediment accumulation has downstream impacts on rivers, estuaries and harbours. Storage Infrastructure and Waste Feed and fertiliser are significant financial investments and a major source of nutrients in the farm system. Make sure you are getting maximum value from your investment by ensuring that storage and loading is carried out correctly to avoid wastage and reduce the chances of any nutrients entering and contaminating waterways. Waste, including farm waste, household waste and dead stock, poses the risk of contamination of waterways, groundwater and land. Appropriate management reduces this risk. Winter grazing of crops Winter grazing of dairy stock on forage crops can account for a significant proportion of annual sediment losses from the whole farm system. It has the potential for large losses of sediment, phosphorus and faecal microorganisms, which may impact water quality in streams and rivers. Soil damage and reduced production are additional concerns. Compaction and pugging can seal the soil surface, increasing sediment and nutrient loss. How can you minimise nutrient and sediment losses when grazing winter crops? Strategic grazing management can cost-effectively reduce runoff and sediment loss Protect critical source areas (CSAs) which are the areas that contribute to the greatest losses i.e. gullies, swales and damp areas Select winter grazing paddocks that will minimise nutrient and sediment losses Consider soil, slope, moisture and stock management before sowing a paddock If possible, avoid cultivation and stock grazing in critical source areas Graze least risky areas of paddock first and graze towards more risky areas Start grazing at the top of a slope and move downhill Back-fence regularly to reduce soil treading damage Keep stock away from damp areas of a paddock 24

27 Figure 1. Diagram showing an example of strategic grazing direction (preferred) as well as standard grazing. Note in strategic grazing the critical source area can be left either ungrazed or grazed after the rest of the paddock when soil conditions allow (as dry as possible). Strategic grazing can reduce losses of sediment by 70-80% Strategic grazing reduces soil damage in Critical Source Areas and reduces runoff Think again: Do you really need to use that difficult paddock? Loss of P from land to water Relatively small increases in the amount of P in waterways can have a significant impact on water quality P concentrations in overland flow increase as soil Olsen P levels increase P losses are generally small (less than 100 g/ha/yr) in well structured, well drained soils Greater P losses (up to 2 kg/ha/yr) occur from heavy textured soils because there is potentially more runoff from the compacted surface. Mole pipe drainage also allows greater transfers of dissolved, sediment, and dung-p to surface waters Most of the soil-derived P lost from a catchment is from within 5-10 m of streams, critical source areas or from mole pipe drained soils Application of reactive phosphate rock (RPR) can reduce direct fertiliser losses where P fertiliser is applied in high risk situations 25

28 Figure 2: Graph of Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus (DRP) concentrations in soil drainage with changing Olsen P levels for different soil types. Good Management Practices to minimise the transfer of phosphorus from land to water Maintain Olsen P levels in the target ranges (20-30 for most producers or for high producers) Minimise pugging especially in areas near streams and drains Allow a margin of greater than 10 metres between the fertilised area and open water Fence off waterbodies from stock to exclude dung P and prevent stream bank erosion Don t apply P to saturated soils or before heavy rainfall, or to pugged or compacted soils Fence off a riparian strip on each side of all swamps, drains, streams, rivers and lakes Setup a farm soil fertility monitoring programme o Farms can be broken up into representative areas for soil, slope and grazing management history o Sample in the same month each time, avoid very wet or dry conditions o Maximum advantage from soil analysis will be achieved by repeated testing over a number of years to identify trends, initially every year until a trend is established, then every 2-3 years o Follow the trends and adjust fertiliser input accordingly 26

29 Figure 3. Graph of pasture growth response to changing Olsen P DairyNZ Riparian Planning Tool Creating a riparian management plan to fence, plant and protect waterways is now easy with our new online tool found at The riparian planner: Helps you fulfil supply and consent conditions Works to your budget, goals and farm situation Offers you intuitive mapping, built-in calculators, regional plants Lets you spread budget and tasks over a few years Allows you to update your plan whenever necessary Makes riparian planning easy even if you ve never done it before 27

30 28

31 Infographic of good land and soil management practice (DairyNZ 2016, Good Management Practice Guide). 29

32 Notes 30

33 Reducing nitrate leaching from grazing animals Ina Pinxterhuis Many dairy farmers will need to reduce the amount of nitrogen (N) leaching from their farms to comply with nutrient limits being set by regional councils. Our researchers are seeking solutions to help farmers reach these targets while remaining profitable. This is a core aim of the Forages for Reduced Nitrate Leaching (FRNL) programme, a collaborative study that will benefit the dairy, sheep + beef and the arable sectors. So far, the research in Canterbury and Waikato has found that: A winter-sown cereal catch crop can reduce soil mineral N and reduce N leaching by 22 40% (DairyNZ Technical Series 33: 1-4). Nitrate leaching losses were 25-35% lower under Italian ryegrass based pastures than under other types of pastures due to cool-season N uptake of Italian ryegrass (DairyNZ Technical Series 32: 11-13; Soil Use and Management 30: 58-68). Urine-N concentration of cows grazing plantain was 56% lower than those grazing perennial ryegrass/white clover pastures, and 33% lower for cows grazing 50/50 pasture-plantain (DairyNZ Technical Series 32: 11-13; New Zealand Society of Animal Production 76: 18-21). Further research and co-development with a team of ten monitor farms will establish how farmers can capitalise on the benefits of improved plant/crop N uptake and reduced urine-n concentration to improve farm N use efficiency and reduce nitrate leaching. Farm systems modelling helps researchers estimate the effects of changing farm practices. These modelling tools have played a significant part in developing our understanding of environmental outcomes, such as: The Pastoral 21 Waikato farmlet trial and farm systems modelling have shown that restricting grazing time by standing cows off pasture during autumn and winter can reduce N leaching by >20% (DairyNZ Technical Series 14: 12-16; Romera et al. 2017). Within FRNL, diverse pastures that include plantain were identified as a promising tool for reducing N leaching. Modelling estimated that, at commercial scale, N leaching could be reduced by 10 and 20% when the area of the farm sown in diverse pastures was 20 and 50%, respectively. This was because of lower total urinary N excretion and lower urinary N concentration (Beukes et al. 2014; Romera et al. 2016). The five years of Pastoral 21 farmlet research came to an end in The aim was to decrease N leaching while improving farm productivity, with research being conducted in four regions; Waikato, Manawatu, Canterbury and South Otago. This research demonstrated that: Reducing N inputs in fertiliser and feed, while increasing N use efficiency and conversion of feed to milk, could reduce N leaching by 30-40% relative to current farm practice. However, this outcome required a high standard of pasture and grazing management and was associated with small, but important, reductions in profit. Identification, and targeted management, of critical source areas for phosphorus (P) loss was a successful, simple approach for reducing P movement into waterways. These findings have provided confidence that Regional Council limits on the amounts of N and P that can be emitted from farm systems can be met by changes in farm practice that retain the fundamental principles of lowcost, pasture-based dairying. 31

34 Leap21 is a new project concept, following cessation of Pastoral 21. It is a one-year funded study aiming to create concepts for re-designed dairy systems that will resolve several issues facing the industry in the medium to long term. The project seeks to align the goals and needs of a range of stakeholders, including farmers, customers and the New Zealand public. Further information Note that this document will be made available online, so you can use the links given below to click through to the information. Summaries of regional policy plans for water quality can be found here: Southland: Otago: Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord. Dairy farmers have stepped up and made significant progress on meeting their environmental commitments to New Zealanders. To download the Accord, and view reports, go to: DairyNZ published a comprehensive guide for Good environmental management practices: Dairy farmers play an important role in protecting waterways. There are many things you can do on farm to improve or maintain water quality. Creating a riparian management plan to fence, plant and protect waterways is now easy with our new online tool: Planting plans made easy. Highway et al. 2016, South Island Dairy Event. Made-Easy-Matt-Highway.pdf Guides for good environmental practice of wintering on crops: for_winter.pdf Research into pathways of N, P, sediment and E. coli loss in Southland was published in: Monaghan RM, LC Smith, RW Muirhead (2016) Pathways of contaminant transfers to water from an artificially-drained soil under intensive grazing by dairy cows. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 220: The Fertiliser Association published booklets on good fertiliser management practice: A research paper on the impact of Olsen P on P loss: McDowell RW, RM Monaghan, J Morton (2003), Soil phosphorus concentrations to minimise potential P loss to surface waters in Southland. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 46: / To plan the right dairy effluent systems for your farm, see this guide: Pastoral 21 tested farm systems in the Waikato, Manawatu, Canterbury and Otago to reduce nitrate leaching and maintain milk production. A paper on Pastoral 21 was recently published: Romera Alvaro J., Rogerio Cichota, Pierre C. Beukes, Pablo Gregorini, Val O. Snow and Iris Vogeler (2017) Combining Restricted Grazing and Nitrification Inhibitors to Reduce Nitrogen Leaching on New Zealand Dairy Farms. Journal of Environmental Quality 46: 1: doi: /jeq The six-year programme Forages for Reduced Nitrate Leaching aims to reduce nitrate leaching losses by 20 percent by delivering practical and profitable pasture and forage crop options. Catch crops can increase annual production and have environmental benefits. Malcolm et al. 2017, DairyNZ Technical Series 33: Focus on forages to reduce urine patch N leaching. Edwards & Cameron. 2016, DairyNZ Technical Series 32: Forages for reduced nitrate leaching. Edwards et al. 2015, South Island Dairy Event, pp Modelled effects of diverse pasture on nitrate leaching and productivity: Romera AJ, Doole GJ, Beukes PC, Mason N, Mudge PL (2016) The role and value of diverse sward mixtures in dairy farm systems of New Zealand. Agricultural Systems 152: Beukes PC, Gregorini P, Romera AJ, Woodward SL, Khaembah EN, Chapman DF, Nobilly F, Bryant RH, Edwards GR, Clark DA. The potential of diverse pastures to reduce nitrogen leaching on New Zealand dairy farms. Animal Production Science Nov 19;54(12):

35 Notes 33

36 Session 4 Home-grown feed: now and future High yields of grazed, home-grown feed produced from fertile soils and (mostly) natural rainfall is the competitive advantage that our industry holds over dairy industries in other countries. However, we cannot take this for granted. Other countries find ways of increasing their competitiveness, so we must continue to increase the amount of pasture and crop eaten on farm. In doing so, we have to work within the regulations being brought in across the country to reduce nutrient discharges from farms. This means some of the tools we ve used in the past, such as high rates of nitrogen fertiliser, will be less applicable and some tools we ve discarded in the past, such as alternative pasture species, may come back into contention. It is a moving field, but the fundamental importance of striving for best possible pasture growth and utilisation does not change. In this context, our research in DairyNZ and our partner organisations is founded on four core beliefs, which we will expand on in this session: a. Current plant breeding is delivering gains in ryegrass yield and quality, and potential profit. Our job here is to confirm for you the actual value you can expect from current technology so you can see how and where new plant genetics fits in your farm system. A supplementary, important objective is to send clear signals to plant breeders about the traits that deliver the greatest benefits so they can focus on those and increase rates of gain in them. b. Gains that are being delivered currently won t be realised in all situations for example we recognise that ryegrass can t persist beyond 3-4 years in some situations in northern NZ. Our job here is to identify profitable alternative grazed pasture or crop options while we find out what is causing the problem with ryegrass (it s complicated!) and what can be done to overcome it. c. There are some game-changing pasture plant technologies that are close to deployment. Our job from here is to work with the developers to help get the products into your paddocks as quickly as possible after confirming their value, and incorporating them into the Forage Value Index. d. There are options beyond ryegrass. These will come to the forefront more as environmental regulations take hold. Our job is to identify the options that best balance profit with environmental targets. 34

37 Today s pastures tomorrow: What we have learned in the last five years - David Chapman, DairyNZ Over the past five years, we have set up the machinery required to evaluate the merits of different ryegrass cultivars (perennial and short-term ryegrasses) in $ terms. The machine is the Forage Value Index (FVI), which ranks cultivars by regions according to the benefit (in $/ha per year) farmers could expect from using each cultivar relative to a genetic base of older cultivars. The FVI is a one-stop source of information on cultivars and endophytes developed by DairyNZ in collaboration with the plant breeding companies. Genetic gain in ryegrass breeding Based on dry matter yield alone, the FVI tells us the perennial ryegrass plant breeding is currently delivering between $12 and $20/ha per year to the bottom line of dairy businesses. By comparison, animal breeding is delivering around $30/ha per year. Improved feed quality and persistence benefits of novel endophytes have not yet been estimated (this is a work in progress in the FVI) but are likely to add to those numbers. One of the objectives of the FVI is to close the gap in rates of gain between animal and plant breeding by zeroing-in on the critical plant traits and supporting plant breeding efforts to accelerate gain in those traits. Confirming (or otherwise) rates of gain The $ figures quoted above are the potential gain available to you. The actual gain depends on regrassing rates, and the degree to which the extra yield or quality can be captured in animal production and improved profit. We have initiated two large scale experiments comparing low FVI and high FVI ranking perennial ryegrass cultivars to confirm the latter: one in the Waikato (DairyNZ Newstead, on 40 hectares) measuring the full gamut of pasture, animal and profit; and one in Southland (at the new Southland Research and Demonstration Farm, Makarewa, on 92 hectares) measuring pasture. These will provide critical information to adjust (if required) the FVI, and direct its future development similar to how the animal strain trials in the 1990s and 2000s shaped the national animal breeding objective and the animal evaluation indices. Things we have learnt along the way In building the FVI, we have learned some new things about ryegrass, and confirmed some old (but sometimes forgotten) truths about pasture management and performance. In addition to the information above about rates of genetic gain, here are some other clear messages we can give you: 1. Improvements in yield and quality of new ryegrass cultivars have not been at the expense of the ability of these plants to persist in dairy pastures. In a range of studies and situations, we have found that plants of the new ryegrasses survive under grazing plus environmental stresses just as well as the older types. 2. Where persistence of new ryegrass pastures is an issue (especially in the upper North Island), the environment (e.g. droughts, insect pests often in combination) is having the dominant effect. It can swamp the effects of best practice management, and even best cultivar and endophyte technology in some situations by no means all. Good management remains important everywhere. 3. Clover is valuable not just as a high quality feed or for N fixation, but for total pasture yield. Pastures in which white clover contributes 10-40% of pasture dry matter in summer can grow 1.5 to 3.5 t DM/ha per year more than ryegrass dominant pasture (see Figure 1). This is worth several hundred dollars per hectare. Sixty to eighty percent of the yield benefit comes from the clover itself, the rest from extra grass growth fuelled by the N fixed by clover and taken up by grass (= between 15 and 60 kg N/ha per year). The benefits decline as N fertiliser rates increase because clover content in pasture is reduced by 1% of total dry matter for every: 35

38 13 kg N/ha applied as fertiliser above 100 kg N/ha/year under irrigation / high summer rainfall 19 kg N/ha applied as fertiliser above 50 kg N/ha/year under rainfed/summer dry conditions. 4. Don t be distracted by relatively minor detail when sowing new pastures. Focus on good renovation practices (see DairyNZ booklet), best cultivar choices (FVI), and post-sowing grazing management. A couple of examples of less-important detail: a. what ryegrass sowing rates should I use? It doesn t matter a lot. If paddock preparation is A1 (good seedbed, minimal weeds etc), then rates can possibly be trimmed by 2-4 kg/ha from current recommendations. b. should I mix cultivars, e.g. diploids and tetraploids, different heading dates? From a yield perspective, it doesn t matter. The mixture will yield the average of the individual cultivars. Mixing means you are diluting the yield of the best cultivar. Figure 1: Example of yield benefit from clover: Season = summer; location = Lincoln. Mean of three years. 36

39 Notes 37

40 Tomorrow s pastures tomorrow: Exciting new grasses and legumes from novel breeding methods - Nick Roberts, AgResearch In simple terms, the rate of genetic gain in plant breeding is controlled by four key factors: 1. The heritability of the trait being selected that is, the degree to which the genetic control of the trait is passed on from one generation to the next; 2. The accuracy of selection - that is, the degree to which the plants carrying the desired traits can be identified from among the wider population; 3. The amount of variation available for breeders to work with that is, the band-width of the trait within the target species and the intensity of selection they can apply; and 4. The generation interval that is, how quickly new generations are added to the breeding population, which is a function of their breeding cycle (perennial, annual etc). The science of genetics and breeding has advanced massively over the past 40 years. Forage plant breeding in New Zealand still largely relies on phenotypic screening, selection and crossing methods developed before the new technologies emerged. Thus progress is restricted to the pressure that can be exerted conventionally on the four factors above. The new technologies have the potential to change the game, particularly in 2, 3 and 4, above. Dairy cattle breeding programmes area already using some of the tools, such as markers and genomic selection indices. Some of this potential is close to be realised through plant breeding, leading to come exciting prospects in store for farmers. Here, we highlight the major developments that relate to dairy pasture production. Increasing accuracy: Genetic markers With Pastoral Genomics we are investigating genomic selection in ryegrass and clover with the aim to develop the tools that will permit a trebling of the rate of genetic gain. Successful implementation will allow selection to be based upon the plant genotype rather than phenotype, thereby greatly increasing heritability of traits (largely based upon Forage Value Index). This will result in far greater accuracy in breeding programmes. To date we have developed a prediction model for dry matter yield based on SNP data from genotype-by-sequencing and calculated Genomic Estimated Breeding Values (GEBVs) for individuals from each of five training populations. High GEBV, low GEBV selections, as well as a random selection that ignored GEBV altogether, were made with 12 plants within each of the 15 groups which were crossed together in polycross isolations. Seed from these 15 populations will be sown in autumn 2017, to quantify the effect of genomic selection on genetic gain. Increasing band width: HME ryegrass HME forages contain a GM technology that enhances photosynthesis by 20%, leading to 50% increased plant growth rates. This technology has already been validated in the field in soy bean and in the glasshouse in five plant species. HME forages also contain increased foliar lipids (increased from 3.5% to 7%), leading to 10% increased 38

41 metabolisable energy and improved nutritional quality. The increased ME is carried through during the ensiling process meaning an increased value of silage. The potential benefits of HME forages in a dairy grazing system have been assessed via a multidisciplinary approach using biophysical modelling, various in vitro assays and growth room testing. They include increased farm revenues of $900 per ha, a reduction in the total urinary nitrogen load on pasture of 6-7% (resulting in reduced nitrate leaching and reduced nitrous oxide emissions), and a 15-23% reduction in methane emissions. The plants have a measured 9% increase in water use efficiency which should improve responses to drought. HME ryegrass has enhanced root systems, improved water use efficiency and drought tolerance, therefore farmers on non-irrigated land will have access to a more reliable feed supply reducing reliance on brought in feed. With Dairy NZ, we have embarked on a 5 year overseas (in the USA) field trial and animal nutrition trial programme. Backed by MBIE Endeavour, SSIF, Dairy NZ and seed company funding this programme will test 3-4 HME ryegrass lines over the 5 years and in years 4 and 5 we will conduct animal nutrition and greenhouse gas emissions testing on animals in containment. This research programme will help inform the industry of the potential value beyond the biophysical modelling that has been performed to-date. Increasing band width: Hybrid clover With Pastoral Genomics we are exploring the transfer of novel traits to white clover via interspecific hybridisation. Using hybrids involving white clover, Trifolium occidentale, T. uniflorum the development of breeding populations with improved drought resistance and phosphate utilisation. The development of new interspecific hybrids between white clover and other clover species is also being explored. Decreasing generation interval: Genomic selection (Pastoral Genomics) Successful implementation of genomic selection into ryegrass and white clover breeding programmes will not only improve the rate of genetic gain per generation, but also greatly reduce the time per generation. For example, it should be possible to achieve over 3 months: Sow seed after harvest in late summer in greenhouse in plug-trays that match the plate configurations used for DNA analysis Isolate quality DNA from ryegrass breeding populations Prepare libraries and pooled samples, then undertake genotyping-by-sequencing Use bioinformatics pipeline to detect SNPs and calculate genomic estimated breeding values Select those seedlings for the next generation and vernalise them for polycrossing next summer. With this technology, it should be possible to complete a full generation cycle in one year, rather than the 3-4 years currently required for phenotypic selection in the field. 39

42 Notes 40

43 Re-valuing other pasture species and mixtures: Where do they fit? - Mike Dodd, DairyNZ The advent of Regional Land and Water Plans, and limits on nutrient discharges from farms that are embedded in those plans for many regions, means it is timely to re-appraise the possible role for other pasture species and mixtures besides perennial ryegrass. Many candidate species have been bred and evaluated over the years, but they seldom show clear superiority over ryegrass white clover in total yield, feed quality and ease of management the main attributes that we have traditionally been concerned about. These attributes are still important, but now there is another factor to consider: impacts on the environment. In this regard, ryegrass/white clover pasture typically has crude protein concentrations that supply more protein than animals need to meet their daily requirements. The protein is usually easily digested in the rumen, releasing excess amounts of N in the form of ammonia. This excess is eventually excreted in cow urine in patches that contain a lot more N than the plants growing in the patch can take up. Hence, another N surplus is created. Much of this N surplus can then be carried in the water that drains below the plant root zone and will eventually discharge into sub-surface aquifers, or into surface water in streams and rivers. How can plants help? This sequence of events highlights four ways in which pasture plants could help reduce N leaching: a) Plants with lower protein concentration in leaves could reduce the N surplus in the animal and therefore the amount of N excreted. Of course, leaf protein content must not fall too low otherwise cow protein requirements may not be met; b) Plants containing compounds that affect the water balance in the animal could reduce the concentration of N in the urine, and therefore reduce the surplus of N (above plant requirements) in the urine patch; c) Plants that have deep roots to capture N further down the soil profile and/or fast growth rates and therefore water (and nutrient) uptake in winter when drainage is occurring could capture more of the N in the urine patch. Screening for beneficial species Because we have previously focussed on pasture production, relatively little is known about the variation among pasture plants in the three factors listed above. However, in the past 5+ years, a number of animal experiments comparing diverse pasture mixtures with conventional ryegrass/clover pastures have been conducted. These have all shown a reduction in urinary N excretion and/or concentration of N in the urine compared with ryegrass/ clover. Some experiments have also shown increased milk production, but this is not consistent. The species included in the diverse pasture treatments have included chicory, plantain, lucerne and lotus. More recently, research has focussed on plantain as a key species because of its apparent diuretic effect which dilutes the N concentration in urine. One recent study at Lincoln found a 56% reduction in urine N concentration when cows grazed pure plantain compared with ryegrass/clover. Simultaneously, deeper rooted grass species such as tall fescue have shown potential to reduce N leaching in lysimeter studies carried out in Waikato. 41

44 What more do we need to know? Two key questions flow from this: a) What proportion of beneficial species such as plantain is required in the diet of cows to deliver a substantial reduction in urine N concentration? A supplementary question here is: what is the best way to achieve the required intake of plantain in a mixture with grass on all or part of the farm, or as a monoculture on part of the farm.? b) Can plantain be combined with species like tall fescue to get the best of both worlds lower urine N and better plant uptake of N from deeper soil horizons? A supplementary question here is: what is the dry matter and milk production potential of such a mixture compared with ryegrass plus legume. Results of a large grazing experiment To help answer these questions, an experiment comparing perennial ryegrass vs. tall fescue as base pasture grasses, each sown with a legume or a legume plus plantain was sown at the DairyNZ Scott Farm in spring 2015, and rotationally grazed by dairy cows. Dry matter yield and pasture species composition as measured continuously, while milk production and urinary N excretion was measured on two occasions: mid-summer 2016 (mid lactation), and spring 2016 (early lactation). The key findings are as follows: a) there was little difference in the total herbage accumulation of the ryegrass and fescue-based pastures. However, the paddocks with plantain grew on average 3200 kg DM/ha (for ryegrass-based pastures) or 2100 kg DM/ha (for fescue-based pastures) more feed in total than those without plantain b) there was no difference in milk production (milk solids per cow per day) between the treatments in mid or early lactation c) the urine N concentration of cows grazing pastures with plantain was 39% and 21% less than those grazing non-plantain pastures in late lactation and early lactation respectively. Conclusions While the inclusion of plantain in pasture mixtures had a positive effect on herbage production and urinary N concentration, it appears the content of plantain in the offered pasture must be above a critical level (~25%). A key information gap that remains is how to establish and manage pastures containing plantain to achieve this desired level in the diet, and whether this applies to the whole year or just the periods of high risk for nitrogen leaching. This will be the subject of ongoing research in the FRNL programme. 42

45 Further information Investing in pasture renewal will improve the production and performance of your land and livestock. pasture-renewal/ The Forage Value Index (FVI) tool allows you to objectively select the most suitable endophyte and ryegrass cultivar combination for your farm. The Forage Value Index handbook explains how the FVI works Cosgrove & McCullough White clover: the forgotten component of high producing pastures? DairyNZ Technical Series 32:1-3. Crush & Faville How do ryegrass plants change as a dairy pasture ages? DairyNZ Technical Series 32: Chapman et al Good clover-ryegrass mix - vital for a productive pasture. DairyNZ Technical Series 31: 1-4. Tozer & King Pasture renewal on Bay of Plenty and Waikato dairy farms: impacts on pasture performance post-establishment. DairyNZ Technical Series 28: 4-6. Bryan & Roberts Forages with enhanced growth and energy and the potential of genetic modification. DairyNZ Technical Series 30: Dalley The foibles of fodder beet and other forage crops animal and environmental considerations for successfully feeding forage crops. South Island Dairy Event, 20 pages. Other-Forage-Crops.pdf Critical source area protection during winter crop grazing ( ). DairyNZ pasture renewal guide. Your guide to the management of persistent, productive pastures. 43

46 Notes 44

47 Dairy 4 - innovation in large scale dairying Dairy 4 is the largest of the two dairy farms owned by Massey University. It is managed as a profitable, large scale, commercial seasonal supply dairy farm. It is used primarily to study the problems inherent to large-scale dairying and to provide a teaching resource for undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Its facilities are also used for research and extension into innovative pastoral dairy technology systems. Dairy 4 Farm platform Profitability from increasing milksolids (MS) production is determined by the cost of the additional MS (i.e., the marginal MS) and NOT the average cost of all MS produced; Area 250 hectares, 225 effective Soils Predominately Tokomaru Silt Loam. Compact clay loams with compact subsoil, poor natural drainage and with a tendancy to dry out in summer. Moderate natural fertility. Some Ohakea Silt Loam soils % of the farm is mole and tile drained. Cows 600 cows. Heifer calves, yearling heifers. Cows wintered off (200 cows for six weeks) Forage predominantly perennial ryegrass/white clover species Paddocks 99 x 2.3 hectare paddocks, all with race access. Infrastructure 200 cow capacity Freestall Barn. 50 bale rotary cowshed equipped with De Laval alpro system (electronic identification, milk yield, sampling, drafting, in-shed feeding). Two concrete feeding pads with 200 and 100 cow capacities 45

48 Research on Dairy 4 - Pastoral 21 Project leader: Professor Mike Hedley, Massey University Project goal: To develop a practical housing system for the lower North Island region, that combines high production and profit with lower nitrogen (N) leaching and phosphorus (P) loss. Project details: Two dairy systems, one with cows housed part-time in the freestall barn (2.8 cows/ha). This was compared to a more typical management system with a herd grazed-off in winter and a feed pad used on wet days in spring and winter (2.7 cows/ha). Summary: By the 2015/2016 lactation season both the standard and housed systems had met the productivity (1,250kg MS/ha) and environmental targets (N and P loss less than 15kgN/ha/yr and 1.6kg P/ha/yr). This was mainly achieved through improved feed utilisation, longer lactations and lower urine N loads. In 2015/2016, urinary N loads on pasture, which drives N leaching, were on average 19% lower for the house system compared with the standard system. Using autumn housing only, the subsequent N leaching reduction between the standard and house systems averaged 28% between the 2014 and 2015 drainage seasons. Total milk solids production per hectare was on average 8% higher on the house system than the standard system across the trial period. This increased production was not sufficient to cover the costs of the increased capital investment and supplementary feed required by the housed system. In season the breakeven milk prices to cover capital and operating costs for for standard and house systems would need to be $4.45/kg MS and $5.75/kg MS. Dairy 4 history Massey University purchased the property of W.J. Brogden (111.3 ha) in April 1973, and the property of L.L. Lovelock (50.6 ha) later that year. The two properties were amalgamated and developed for a large seasonal supply dairy farm. In 1988, the adjoining property of G.W. Perry (58.24 ha) was added. In early 2012, half the DCRU (Dairy Cattle Research Unit) grazing platform joined Dairy 4, and the remainder of the DCRU land (then organic) was dissolved into the Dairy 4 grazing area in early For further information and contacts on Massey University Dairy 4, visit: 46