Jacobus Christiaan Kok, Penelope Chapman, H. Hague, Jeffery M. Curtis, O. Al-Marashdeh, P. Beukes, P. Amer, R. Bryant
{"title":"低投入奶制品系统能否在经济和环境上可持续?农场研究结果","authors":"Jacobus Christiaan Kok, Penelope Chapman, H. Hague, Jeffery M. Curtis, O. Al-Marashdeh, P. Beukes, P. Amer, R. Bryant","doi":"10.33584/jnzg.2022.84.3567","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A two-year dairy study was conducted under irrigation at Lincoln, Canterbury, comparing 1. Moderate stocking rate (MSR, 3.9 cows/ha; comparative stocking rate (CSR) of 89 kg live weight (LWT)/t DM (dry matter) offered; 150 kg nitrogen (N) fertiliser/ha/year; grain supplementation of 0.55 t DM/cow/year; wintering cows off- farm); or 2. Low stocking rate (LSR, 2.9 cows/ha; CSR of 91 kg LWT/t DM offered; grazing diverse pasture (Italian ryegrass, plantain, red- and white clover); 103 kg N fertiliser/ha/year; wintering cows on-farm). The Lincoln University Dairy Farm (LUDF; 3.4 cows/ha; CSR of 76 kg LWT/t DM offered; 169 kg N fertiliser/ha/year) was the benchmark. Milk yield, pasture production and quality data were modelled in FARMAX and OverseerFM to estimate financial and environmental performance of each farm. Performance was similar for MSR and LUDF. LSR gave the best environmental outcome across 2018/19 and 2019/20, leaching approximately 31% less N compared with MSR and LUDF. However, annual milk solids per ha were 28% less for LSR relative to MSR and LUDF. Correspondingly, the annual operating profit per ha was 35% less for LSR compared with LUDF. These financial losses can be mitigated in an LSR system if the farmer adopts more complex pasture management.","PeriodicalId":36573,"journal":{"name":"Journal of New Zealand Grasslands","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can low input dairy systems be economically and environmentally sustainable? Results from a farmlet study\",\"authors\":\"Jacobus Christiaan Kok, Penelope Chapman, H. Hague, Jeffery M. Curtis, O. Al-Marashdeh, P. Beukes, P. Amer, R. Bryant\",\"doi\":\"10.33584/jnzg.2022.84.3567\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A two-year dairy study was conducted under irrigation at Lincoln, Canterbury, comparing 1. Moderate stocking rate (MSR, 3.9 cows/ha; comparative stocking rate (CSR) of 89 kg live weight (LWT)/t DM (dry matter) offered; 150 kg nitrogen (N) fertiliser/ha/year; grain supplementation of 0.55 t DM/cow/year; wintering cows off- farm); or 2. Low stocking rate (LSR, 2.9 cows/ha; CSR of 91 kg LWT/t DM offered; grazing diverse pasture (Italian ryegrass, plantain, red- and white clover); 103 kg N fertiliser/ha/year; wintering cows on-farm). The Lincoln University Dairy Farm (LUDF; 3.4 cows/ha; CSR of 76 kg LWT/t DM offered; 169 kg N fertiliser/ha/year) was the benchmark. Milk yield, pasture production and quality data were modelled in FARMAX and OverseerFM to estimate financial and environmental performance of each farm. Performance was similar for MSR and LUDF. LSR gave the best environmental outcome across 2018/19 and 2019/20, leaching approximately 31% less N compared with MSR and LUDF. However, annual milk solids per ha were 28% less for LSR relative to MSR and LUDF. Correspondingly, the annual operating profit per ha was 35% less for LSR compared with LUDF. These financial losses can be mitigated in an LSR system if the farmer adopts more complex pasture management.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36573,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of New Zealand Grasslands\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-03\",\"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.2022.84.3567\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Environmental Science\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of New Zealand Grasslands","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33584/jnzg.2022.84.3567","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
摘要
一项为期两年的奶制品研究在坎特伯雷林肯的灌溉下进行,比较了1。中等放养率(MSR, 3.9头/公顷);提供89 kg活重/t干物质的比较放养率(CSR);150公斤氮肥/公顷/年;饲粮添加量为0.55 t DM/奶牛/年;越冬奶牛(农场外);或2。放养率低(LSR, 2.9头/公顷);提供91 kg LWT/t DM的CSR;放牧多种牧草(意大利黑麦草、车前草、红白三叶草);103公斤氮肥/公顷/年;农场里的越冬奶牛)。林肯大学奶牛场(LUDF;3.4牛/公顷;提供76 kg LWT/t DM的CSR;169公斤氮肥/公顷/年)为基准。在FARMAX和OverseerFM中对产奶量、牧草产量和质量数据进行建模,以估计每个农场的财务和环境绩效。MSR和LUDF的性能相似。LSR在2018/19和2019/20年度的环境效果最好,与MSR和LUDF相比,氮的淋失量减少了约31%。然而,相对于MSR和LUDF, LSR每年每公顷的乳固体较少28%。相应的,LSR每公顷的年营业利润比LUDF少35%。如果农民采用更复杂的牧场管理,LSR系统可以减轻这些经济损失。
Can low input dairy systems be economically and environmentally sustainable? Results from a farmlet study
A two-year dairy study was conducted under irrigation at Lincoln, Canterbury, comparing 1. Moderate stocking rate (MSR, 3.9 cows/ha; comparative stocking rate (CSR) of 89 kg live weight (LWT)/t DM (dry matter) offered; 150 kg nitrogen (N) fertiliser/ha/year; grain supplementation of 0.55 t DM/cow/year; wintering cows off- farm); or 2. Low stocking rate (LSR, 2.9 cows/ha; CSR of 91 kg LWT/t DM offered; grazing diverse pasture (Italian ryegrass, plantain, red- and white clover); 103 kg N fertiliser/ha/year; wintering cows on-farm). The Lincoln University Dairy Farm (LUDF; 3.4 cows/ha; CSR of 76 kg LWT/t DM offered; 169 kg N fertiliser/ha/year) was the benchmark. Milk yield, pasture production and quality data were modelled in FARMAX and OverseerFM to estimate financial and environmental performance of each farm. Performance was similar for MSR and LUDF. LSR gave the best environmental outcome across 2018/19 and 2019/20, leaching approximately 31% less N compared with MSR and LUDF. However, annual milk solids per ha were 28% less for LSR relative to MSR and LUDF. Correspondingly, the annual operating profit per ha was 35% less for LSR compared with LUDF. These financial losses can be mitigated in an LSR system if the farmer adopts more complex pasture management.