IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Pasture and forage crop systems for non-irrigated dairy farms in southern Australia: 3. Estimated economic value of additional home-grown feed

Listed author(s):
  • Chapman, D.F.
  • Kenny, S.N.
  • Lane, N.
Registered author(s):

    Dairy systems in southern Australia rely on grazed feed from pasture to supply between 50% and 70% of total herd feed requirements on an annual basis. However, the dominant pasture type in the region, which is based on perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), commonly results in feed deficits in summer which must be filled with supplements purchased off-farm, and feed surpluses in spring which must be conserved. Both of these strictures impose costs on farm businesses. It is likely, therefore, that additional grazeable feed available to dairy herds in southern Australia may have different economic value when interactions between season, stocking rate, calving date, and locality are taken into account. The analysis reported in this paper aimed to estimate, using the farm systems simulation model UDDER, the effect of these interactions on the efficiency with which extra feed can be converted to extra milk production, and therefore the possible gross economic value of the additional feed. 'Base' farm simulations for 'average' and 'top 10%' farms (ranked according to farm profitability) in two localities (Terang: average annual rainfall 796Â mm, 8Â month growing season; and Ellinbank: average annual rainfall 1085Â mm, 9-10Â month growing season) were created to mimic the physical production and profitability of these farms as seen in regional farm benchmark datasets. These simulations were then altered to add the equivalent of 10% of the total annual herbage accumulation used in the Base simulation either on a pro-rata basis all year round, or in autumn only, in winter only, in spring only, or in summer only. The additional feed amounted to 620 and 780Â kg DM/ha for Terang average and top 10% farms respectively, and 735 and 905Â kg DM/ha for Ellinbank average and top 10% farms respectively. The management policies used in the Base simulations were then adjusted to harvest as much of the extra feed as possible, either by direct grazing or through silage conservation, while keeping the key system state indicators of cow condition score and average farm pasture cover within the limits known to result in long-term sustainable production. The efficiency with which extra feed was utilised was greatest in summer in all scenarios (80-100% of the extra feed supplied was harvested, all by direct grazing). This translated into consistently high gross economic returns of between $0.26 and $0.34Â per kg DM of extra feed added to the model. Utilisation efficiency was lower in all other seasons and/or required marked increases in silage conservation, both of which resulted in lower gross economic returns per kg DM of additional feed. The impact of interactions between locality, season, stocking rate (higher in top 10% farm simulations than average farm simulations) and calving date (earlier at Terang than at Ellinbank) were clearly captured in the model. These interactions have very large effects on the profitability of growing extra feed at different times of the year. Agronomic research for the southern Australia dairy industry should focus on low-cost ways for supplying additional grazeable feed in summer, since current forage species options for this time of year are limited.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Agricultural Systems.

    Volume (Year): 104 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 8 (October)
    Pages: 589-599

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:104:y:2011:i:8:p:589-599
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:104:y:2011:i:8:p:589-599. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.