FutureDairy: a national, multidisciplinary project to assist dairy farmers to manage future challenges - methods and early findings

Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci

Clark

et al. 2015

One of the challenges to increase milk production in a large pasture-based herd with an automatic milking system (AMS) is to grow forages within a 1-km radius, as increases in walking distance increases milking interval and reduces yield. The main objective of this study was to explore sustainable forage option technologies that can supply high amount of grazeable forages for AMS herds using the Agricultural Production Systems Simulator (APSIM) model. Three different basic simulation scenarios (with irrigation) were carried out using forage crops (namely maize, soybean and sorghum) for the spring-summer period. Subsequent crops in the three scenarios were forage rape over-sown with ryegrass. Each individual simulation was run using actual climatic records for the period from 1900 to 2010. Simulated highest forage yields in maize, soybean and sorghum- (each followed by forage rape-ryegrass) based rotations were 28.2, 22.9, and 19.3 t dry matter/ha, respectively. The simulations suggested that the irrigation requirement could increase by up to 18%, 16%, and 17% respectively in those rotations in El-Niño years compared to neutral years. On the other hand, irrigation requirement could increase by up to 25%, 23%, and 32% in maize, soybean and sorghum based rotations in El-Nino years compared to La-Nina years. However, irrigation requirement could decrease by up to 8%, 7%, and 13% in maize, soybean and sorghum based rotations in La-Nina years compared to neutral years. The major implication of this study is that APSIM models have potentials in devising preferred forage options to maximise grazeable forage yield which may create the opportunity to grow more forage in small areas around the AMS which in turn will minimise walking distance and milking interval and thus increase milk production. Our analyses also suggest that simulation analysis may provide decision support during climatic uncertainty.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling Pasture-based Automatic Milking System Herds: Grazeable Forage Options

Islam

Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci

Clark

et al. 2015

“…Pasture systems are limited in terms of their ability to supply high amounts of quality forages to support the requirements of dairy cows throughout the year. Therefore, there is a need to consider alternative forage production systems such as complementary forage rotation (CFR) systems (Garcia and Fulkerson, 2005, Garcia et al. , 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of sowing date and nitrogen fertilizer on forage yield, nitrogen‐ and water‐use efficiency and nutritive value of an annual triple‐crop complementary forage rotation

Islam

Grass and Forage Science

2011

Complementary forage rotation (CFR) systems based on non-limiting inputs of fertilizer nitrogen (N) (600 kg N ha )1 ) are perceived as uneconomic. An experiment was carried out in Australia to investigate the effects of rates and timing of N fertilizer and sowing date on yield, nutrient-use efficiency and nutritive value of a triple-crop (maize, forage rape, field peas) CFR system. Treatments were early-and late-sown maize grown with 0 or 135 kg fertilizer N ha )1 pre-sowing (N1) and 0, 79 or 158 kg N ha )1 post-sowing (N2). Forage rape was sown with 0 or 230 kg N ha )1 (N3) and field peas without N. Application of fertilizer N at N1, N2 and N3 increased CFR yield from 28AE5 to 48AE8 t dry matter (DM) ha )1 and irrigation water-use efficiency (IWUE) from 3AE4 to 6AE1 t DM per megalitre. Increase in yield and IWUE of CFR occurs at the expense of nitrogen-use efficiency (NUE) as applications of N at N1, N2 and N3 decreased NUE of CFR from 524 to 91 kg DM kg )1 N. Nutritive value, particularly metabolizable energy content of all forages, was similar among N treatments, and interactions between treatments were minimal. Results indicate that increase in NUE of CFR may occur at the expense of reduced yield, but increased IWUE need not compromise the yield of this CFR system.

“…This particularly relates to the use of inorganic fertilizers and the risks of contaminating underground water courses by leaching of nutrients. Consequently, there is a need to investigate new production systems that can accommodate substantial gains in the productivity of dairy cows to take advantage of current upward trends in dairy commodity prices with minimum or no adverse effects on the environment (Garcia et al. , 2007a,b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To test this hypothesis, an experiment was conducted in Australia for three consecutive years to compare DM production, nutritive value of DM produced and nutrient‐ and water‐use efficiency of a CFR system with a grass pasture system. This experiment is part of a major research programme, FutureDairy, which includes extension, development and social research (Garcia et al. , 2007a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dry matter production, nutritive value and efficiency of nutrient utilization of a complementary forage rotation compared to a grass pasture system

Grass and Forage Science

Fulkerson

Brookes

2008

In pasture-based dairy farming, new sustainable systems that involve the annual dry matter (DM) production of grazed and conserved forage beyond the potential of grazed pasture alone are being sought. The objective of this experiment conducted in Australia was to compare a complementary forage rotation (CFR) for conservation and grazing, comprising an annual sequence of three crops, namely maize (Zea mays L), forage rape (Brassica napus L) and a legume (Persian clover, Trifolium repesinatum L or maple pea, Pisum sativum L), with a pasture [kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) over-sown with short-rotation ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum L)] as a pasture control treatment. The experiment was a complete randomized block design with four replicates (0AE7 ha each). Annual dry-matter (DM) yield over the 3 years averaged >42 t ha )1 year )1 for the CFR treatment and >17 t ha )1 year )1 for the pasture treatment. The high DM yield of the CFR treatment resulted from >27 t ha )1 year )1 from maize harvested for silage and >15 t DM ha )1 year )1 utilized by grazing the forage rape and legumes. Total input of nitrogen (N) and water were similar for both treatments, resulting in higher Nand water-use efficiency for the CFR treatment, which was more than twice that for the pasture treatment. Overall, the nutritive value of the pasture treatment was slightly higher than the mean for that of the CFR treatment. The implications of these results are that a highly productive system based on the CFR treatment in conjunction with the use of pasture is achievable. Such a dairy production system in Australia could increase the total supply of feed resources grown onfarm and the efficiency of use of key resources such as N and water.