Increasing milk production from forage: production systems and extension service preferences of the northern Australian dairy industry

Chataway, R. G.; Barber, David G.; Callow, M. N.

doi:10.1071/an09228

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Levels of pasture utilization in the current study may have been overestimated due to the use of pre‐grazing calibration equations to determine post‐grazing pasture mass as a result of differences in sward structure (Stockdale, ); however, levels of overestimation would be expected to be minimal, particularly for comparison between systems as error would exist in both. Despite this, levels of pasture consumption for all systems were double the 7 t DM ha −1 of perennial ryegrass consumed by livestock on commercial dairy farms in Victoria (DIFMP, ) and well in excess of the 3–4 t DM ha −1 reported for kikuyu grass and annual forage crops on commercial farms in Queensland (Chataway et al ., ; Garcia et al ., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

A comparison of conventional and automatic milking system pasture utilization and pre‐ and post‐grazing pasture mass

Clark

Fariña

García

et al. 2015

Grass and Forage Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Automatic milking systems (AMS) present an opportunity for dairy farmers to not only improve their lifestyle and conditions of work, but also save on labour costs and/or increase the time available to focus on overall farm management. However, the viability of AMS will rely on achieving high levels of pasture utilization. Well‐established pasture management principles are implemented on many conventional milking system (CMS) farms and high levels of pasture utilization are achieved; however, the ability to follow these same principles on AMS is unknown. This study compared levels of pasture utilization and pre‐ and post‐grazing pasture mass between AMS and CMS farms at the same site when managed by the same pasture management principles. From 1 March 2007 to 29 February 2008, pre‐ and post‐grazing compressed height, milk yield and milk composition data were collected for two CMS farms and one AMS farm at the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute, Camden, Australia. Despite differences in pre‐ and post‐ grazing pasture mass between milking systems, pre‐grazing mass was predominantly maintained within the bounds of 2200 and 2500 kg DM ha−1 and post‐grazing mass between 1400 and 1500 kg DM ha−1 (5–6 cm height). Similar levels of pasture utilization (mean 13 500 kg DM ha−1 year−1) were recorded between AMS and CMS farms. These findings highlight the ability to follow established grazing management principles and achieve high levels of pasture utilization on pasture‐based AMS farms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

A comparison of conventional and automatic milking system pasture utilization and pre‐ and post‐grazing pasture mass

Clark

Fariña

García

et al. 2015

Grass and Forage Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the central Darling Downs region alone, ~180 000 ha of forage crops are planted annually (Harris et al 1999). Second, for the national dairy industry, there is increasing interest in forage-crop production across regions to improve water-use efficiencies, increase biomass yields and reduce exposure to climatic variability (Chapman et al 2008;Garcia et al 2008;Chataway et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of tillage, fertiliser and forage species in sustaining dairying based on crops in southern Queensland 1. Winter-dominant forage systems

Chataway

Orr

Cooper³

et al. 2011

Anim. Prod. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field studies were conducted over 5 years on two dairy farms in southern Queensland to evaluate the impacts of zero-tillage, nitrogen (N) fertiliser and legumes on a winter-dominant forage system based on raingrown oats. Oats was able to be successfully established using zero-tillage methods, with no yield penalties and potential benefits in stubble retention over the summer fallow. N fertiliser, applied at above industry-standard rates (140 vs. 55 kg/ha.crop) in the first 3 years, increased forage N concentration significantly and had residual effects on soil nitrate-N at both sites. At one site, crop yield was increased by 10 kg DM/ha.kg fertiliser N applied above industry-standard rates. The difference between sites in fertiliser response reflected contrasting soil and fertiliser history. There was no evidence that modifications to oats cropping practices (zero-tillage and increased N fertiliser) increased surface soil organic carbon (0–10 cm) in the time frame of the present study. When oats was substituted with annual legumes, there were benefits in improved forage N content of the oat crop immediately following, but legume yield was significantly inferior to oats. In contrast, the perennial legume Medicago sativa was competitive in biomass production and forage quality with oats at both sites and increased soil nitrate-N levels following termination. However, its contribution to winter forage was low at 10% of total production, compared with 40% for oats, and soil water reserves were significantly reduced at one site, which had an impact on the following oat production. The study demonstrated that productive grazed oat crops can be grown using zero tillage and that increased N fertiliser is more consistent in its effect on N concentration than on forage yield. A lucerne ley provides a strategy for raising soil nitrate-N concentration and increasing overall forage productivity, although winter forage production is reduced.

show abstract

“…Traditionally only grown for grain production, dairy farmers took particular interest in the research and innovation of WGS grown for silage and the benefits it provided during periods of tighter margins. Complimenting the research and demonstration studies, a range of extension methods was considered by the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (QDAF) dairy team Chataway et al (2010), including participatory technology development, facilitated groups, information provision, e-extension and consulting. These methods informed ongoing research and stimulated widespread farmer adoption of WGS as a lower-risk silage option.…”

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting methods of agricultural extension to support diverse adoption pathways: a review and case studies

Nettle

Major²,

Turner³

et al. 2022

Anim. Prod. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents results from a review of methods of agricultural extension, including the evidence for the effectiveness of methods in supporting farm practice change, how they affect the change process, and the critical success factors involved. Agricultural scientists face challenges in aligning their research outputs to the change process on farm. These challenges are exacerbated by the funding environment for research, development, and extension (RD&E), the complexity of the adoption process and the privatisation and commercialisation of advisory and extension services. To assist scientists in navigating these challenges, a structured literature review of extension methods was conducted, examining the following: group-learning/peer-topeer; technology development; training; information provision; one-on-one advice/coaching; e-extension; co-innovation; best management practice; and social marketing. In addition, two case studies outlining the application of combinations of extension methods in the context of feeding system challenges in the Australian dairy industry, and their effects, are described. While the evidence across the studies reviewed was strongest for the effect on adoption of small group-learning and one to one consulting, it was combinations of methods that resulted in larger effects (for example, in practice change or profitability), which was credited to how they addressed the human and social dimensions of the adoption process. Case studies of adoption in the dairy sector found that scientists influenced adoption by collaborating with the private sector, being directly involved with on-farm trials and demonstrations, and supporting grouplearning approaches to help the adoption of past research. This role for scientists in adoption was enabled by investment in programs of RD&E rather than discreet research experiments, and research designs and methods that incorporated the social dimensions of adoption. This synthesis demonstrates the need for scientists to be proactive in providing guidance for farmers on where to access and source information related to their work, engage with a broad range of advisor types associated with their research field, champion in-field trials and/or demonstrations and be active participants in collaborative approaches to RD&E.

show abstract

Increasing milk production from forage: production systems and extension service preferences of the northern Australian dairy industry

Cited by 5 publications

References 9 publications

A comparison of conventional and automatic milking system pasture utilization and pre‐ and post‐grazing pasture mass

A comparison of conventional and automatic milking system pasture utilization and pre‐ and post‐grazing pasture mass

The role of tillage, fertiliser and forage species in sustaining dairying based on crops in southern Queensland 1. Winter-dominant forage systems

Selecting methods of agricultural extension to support diverse adoption pathways: a review and case studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About