Comparing a covered stand-off pad for on/off grazing during winter with conventional winter block grazing 2017-19 at DTT Stratford Demonstration farm

Q3 Environmental Science Journal of New Zealand Grasslands Pub Date : 2022-02-02 DOI:10.33584/jnzg.2021.83.3489
G. Pitman
{"title":"Comparing a covered stand-off pad for on/off grazing during winter with conventional winter block grazing 2017-19 at DTT Stratford Demonstration farm","authors":"G. Pitman","doi":"10.33584/jnzg.2021.83.3489","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT \nA two-herd farmlet comparison was carried out on the DTT Stratford Demonstration Farm in Central Taranaki examined the profitability, environmental outcomes, animal welfare benefits and practicality of using a covered woodchip stand-off feed pad for wintering cows (Pad.) compared with wintering cows with no removal from pasture (Control). The two farmlets were set up and managed similarly in all aspects except that the non-lactating cows of one herd used the pad every night through the winter and over calving. \nUse of the covered pad limited winter pugging damage of pasture to minimal levels while the control farmlet had 6% of the area requiring rolling and some re-seeding. Pasture growth on these pugged areas was 24 to 30% lower than non-pugged areas over the spring to early summer period while estimated annual pasture growth was 2.2% higher on the Pad farmlet compared to the control over the two years. The mean difference in milksolids production across two years was 3%, (range :<1%- 5%) in favour of the Pad herd. Nutrient losses calculated using OverseerFM calculated a 9% reduction in nitrogen leached from the use of the covered pad. \nA cost benefit analysis suggests that at best the use of the covered stand-off in winter covered the annual operating cost of the stand-off pad but failed to contribute to the capital cost of providing this facility. \nKeywords –Pasture growth, pasture pugging, milksolids production, profit, Labour input, nitrogen leaching","PeriodicalId":36573,"journal":{"name":"Journal of New Zealand Grasslands","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of New Zealand Grasslands","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33584/jnzg.2021.83.3489","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT A two-herd farmlet comparison was carried out on the DTT Stratford Demonstration Farm in Central Taranaki examined the profitability, environmental outcomes, animal welfare benefits and practicality of using a covered woodchip stand-off feed pad for wintering cows (Pad.) compared with wintering cows with no removal from pasture (Control). The two farmlets were set up and managed similarly in all aspects except that the non-lactating cows of one herd used the pad every night through the winter and over calving. Use of the covered pad limited winter pugging damage of pasture to minimal levels while the control farmlet had 6% of the area requiring rolling and some re-seeding. Pasture growth on these pugged areas was 24 to 30% lower than non-pugged areas over the spring to early summer period while estimated annual pasture growth was 2.2% higher on the Pad farmlet compared to the control over the two years. The mean difference in milksolids production across two years was 3%, (range :<1%- 5%) in favour of the Pad herd. Nutrient losses calculated using OverseerFM calculated a 9% reduction in nitrogen leached from the use of the covered pad. A cost benefit analysis suggests that at best the use of the covered stand-off in winter covered the annual operating cost of the stand-off pad but failed to contribute to the capital cost of providing this facility. Keywords –Pasture growth, pasture pugging, milksolids production, profit, Labour input, nitrogen leaching
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2017-19年DTT Stratford示范农场冬季分/分放牧的有盖隔离垫与传统冬季分块放牧的比较
摘要在塔兰纳基中部的DTT斯特拉特福德示范农场进行了两群农场的比较,研究了越冬奶牛使用有盖木片隔离饲料垫(pad)与不离开牧场的越冬奶牛(Control)的盈利能力、环境结果、动物福利效益和实用性。两个农场的设置和管理各方面相似,只是其中一个牛群的非泌乳奶牛在整个冬季和产犊期间每天晚上使用垫子。使用有盖护垫将冬季放牧对牧场的损害限制在最低水平,而对照农场有6%的面积需要滚动和重新播种。在春季到初夏期间,这些哈巴狗牧场的牧草生长比未哈巴狗牧场的牧草生长低24%到30%,而在两年内,与对照相比,估计每年的牧场生长要高出2.2%。两年内乳固体产量的平均差异为3%,(范围:<1%- 5%)有利于Pad群。利用OverseerFM计算出的养分损失计算结果显示,使用覆盖垫可以减少9%的氮浸出。一项成本效益分析表明,在冬季使用有盖哨所最多只能支付哨所场址的年度业务费用,但不能为提供这一设施的基本建设费用作出贡献。关键词:牧草生长,放牧,乳固体生产,利润,劳动力投入,氮淋溶
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of New Zealand Grasslands
Journal of New Zealand Grasslands Environmental Science-Nature and Landscape Conservation
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
Legume yield and persistence when sown in grass and herb pasture mixes in Lees Valley, South Island High Country Māori cultural values and soil fertility management – an exploratory study An assessment of the agronomic effectiveness of N‐(n‐butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (nBTPT) - treated urea on the production of clover-based pastures, pastures, grasses and crops. Using leaf regrowth stage to define defoliation interval for diverse pastures of complementary species (Lolium perenne L., Bromus valdivianus Phil., Dactylis glomerata L. and Trifolium repens L.) Five-year old diversified pasture delivers greater lamb liveweight gain than a standard perennial ryegrass-white clover pasture
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1