Management and Economic Implications of Intensive Grazing on Dairy Farms in the Northeastern States

Parker, W. J.; Muller, L.D.; Buckmaster, Dennis R.

doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(92)78021-7

Cited by 58 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This was supported by previous studies evaluating economic viability of maintaining cows on pasture over winter (Adams et al, 1994;Anderson et al, 2005). Moderate to intensive grazing management improves the economic viability of grass-based cattle operations (Hanson et al, 1998;Parker et al, 1992;Swain et al, 2007). In these scenarios, if the grazing season could be extended or more R-IF could be afforded in the diet, the environmental impact tended to decrease.…”

Section: Trends In Precipitation Impacts Across Regionssupporting

confidence: 55%

“…Although this scenario also decreased GHG emissions by 1.3% as a result of reduced enteric CH 4 emissions related to increased pasture digestibility, the environmental benefits were at the expense of a 3.2% increase in water use. The benefits of improved forage yield and land use efficiency under management intensive grazing practices have been well documented (Gammon, 1978;Oates et al, 2011;Parker et al, 1992). Pasture yields typically increase with irrigation (Waldron et al, 2002) or fertilization (Monaghan et al, 2005).…”

Section: Land Usementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production

White

Brady

Capper³

et al. 2014

Agricultural Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tSystem sustainability balances environmental impact, economic viability and social acceptability. Assessment methods to investigate impacts of enterprise management and consumer decisions on sustainability of beef cattle operations are critically needed. Tools of this nature are especially important given the predictions of climate variability and the dependence of beef production systems on forage availability. A model optimizing nutritional and pasture management was created to examine the environmental impact of beef production. The model integrated modules calculating cradle-to-farm gate environmental impact, diet cost, pasture growth and willingness to pay (WTP). Least-cost diet and pasture management options served as a baseline to which environmental-impact reducing scenarios were compared. Economic viability was ensured by a constraint limiting change in diet cost to less than consumer WTP. Increased WTP was associated with improved social acceptability. Model outputs were evaluated by comparing to published data. Sensitivity analysis of the WTP constraint was conducted. A series of scenarios then examined how forecasted changes in precipitation patterns might alter forage supply and opportunities to reduce environmental impact in three regions in the United States. On a national scale, single-objective optimization indicated individual reductions in greenhouse gases (GHG), land use and water use of 3.6%, 5.4% and 4.3% were possible by changing diets. Multi-objective optimization demonstrated that GHG, land and water use could be simultaneously reduced by 2.3%. To achieve this change, cow-calf diets relied on grass hay, continuously-or rotationally-grazed irrigated and fertilized pasture as well as rotationally-grazed pasture. Stocker diets used rotationally-grazed, irrigated and fertilized pasture and feedlot diets used grass hay as a forage source. The model was sensitive to consumer WTP. When alternative precipitation patterns were simulated, opportunities to decrease the environmental impact of beef production in the Pacific Northwest and Texas were reduced by precipitation changes; whereas opportunities in the Midwest improved. Economic viability, rather than biological limitations, reduced the potential to improve environmental impact under future precipitation scenarios. Decreased spring rainfall resulted in lower pasture yields and required greater use of stored forages. Related increases in diet cost reduced opportunities to appropriate funds toward investment in environmental-impact reducing pasture management strategies. The model developed in this study is a robust tool that can be used to assess the impacts of enterprise management and consumer decisions on beef production sustainability.

show abstract

Section: Trends In Precipitation Impacts Across Regionssupporting

confidence: 55%

Section: Land Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production

White

Brady

Capper³

et al. 2014

Agricultural Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A major drawback of intensive grazing is the likelihood of achieving slightly lower milk production than with confinement feeding, however net returns under managed intensive grazing are greater because of lower feeding costs associated with pasture forages (Parker et al 1992;Hanson et al 1998;Dartt et al 1999). The use of pasture reduces the need for growing, harvesting, and preserving forages on farm.…”

Section: Grazing Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: Update review

Boadi¹,

Benchaar²,

Chiquette³

et al. 2004

Can. J. Anim. Sci.

400

296

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. 2004. Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: Update review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84: 319-335. Enteric methane (CH 4 ) emission is a major contributor to Canadian greenhouse gas emissions, and also a loss of feed energy during production. The objective of this paper is to provide an update on current management practices and new dietary strategies recently proposed to reduce CH 4 emissions from ruminants. Existing mitigation strategies for dairy, e.g., the addition of ionophores, fats, use of high-quality forages, and increased use of grains, have been well researched and applied. These nutritional changes reduce CH 4 emissions by manipulating ruminal fermentation, directly inhibiting methanogens and protozoa, or by diverting hydrogen ions away from methanogens. Current literature has identified new CH 4 mitigation options. These include the addition of probiotics, acetogens, bacteriocins, archaeal viruses, organic acids, plant extracts (e.g., essential oils) to the diet, as well as immunization, and genetic selection of cows. These new strategies are promising, but more research is needed to validate these approaches and to assess in vivo their effectiveness in reducing CH 4 production by dairy cows. It is also important to evaluate CH 4 mitigation strategies in terms of the total greenhouse gas budget and to consider the cost associated with the various strategies. More basic understanding of the natural differences in digestion efficiencies among animals as well as a better knowledge of methanogens and their interaction with other organisms in the rumen would enable us to exploit the potential of some of the new CH 4 mitigation strategies for dairy cattle production. Key words: Enteric methane, dairy cattle, mitigationBoadi, D., Benchaar, C., Chiquette, J. et Massé, D. 2004. Stratégies visant à réduire les dégagements de méthane entérique des vaches laitières: bilan. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84: 319-335. Le méthane (CH 4 ) d'origine entérique contribue dans une large mesure aux émissions canadiennes de gaz à effet de serre et entraîne une perte de l'énergie tirée des aliments durant la production. Le présent article fait le point sur les pratiques de zootechnie actuelles et sur les stratégies d'engraissement récemment proposées pour réduire les dégagements de CH 4 des ruminants. Les stratégies d'atténuation existantes (addition d'ionophores, matière grasse, utilisation de fourrages de grande qualité, plus grande utilisation de grains) ont fait l'objet de maintes recherches et sont désormais bien appliquées. Les changements nutritionnels qu'elles introduisent diminuent les émissions de CH 4 en modifiant la fermentation dans le rumen, en inhibant directement la production de méthanogènes et la population de protozoaires ainsi qu'en détournant les ions hydrogène des méthanogènes. La documentation scientifique mentionne de nouvelles méthodes pour atténuer la libération de CH 4 . Ces méthodes comprennent l'ajout de probiotiques, d'acétogènes, de bactériocine, de virus archaïques, d'aci...

show abstract

“…MIG attempts to optimize pasture productivity by rotational stocking of pastures on the basis of target sward entrance and exit heights (Murphy, 1998). Pasture is an important crop in Atlantic Canada (Papadopolous et al, 1993) and while an increasing body of research suggests dairy farm net returns and economic performance may be improved through MIG (Fredeen et al, 2002;Hanson et al, 1998;Parker et al, 1992) its adoption remains low among dairy farms in eastern Canada (Clark et al, 1993).…”

Section: Volume Is Number 3 2003mentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the nutrient status of a commercial dairy farm: An integrated approach

Lynch

Jannasch

Fredeen³

2003

Am J Alt Ag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Minimizing nutrient surpluses and improving efficiency of nutrient use are key challenges for all dairy farming production systems, driven by economic, environmental and increasing regulatory constraints. Our study examined the efficiency of N, P and K use on a commercial dairy farm through an integrated approach that evaluated the nutrient status of all aspects of the production system of the case-study farm, a 75 lactating Holstein cow dairy in Kings County, Nova Scotia, Canada. During the decade after 1988, the farm owner implemented a series of changes in production practices, including diversification of the crop rotation, implementation of a management intensive grazing (MIG) regime and adoption of a systematic approach to soil and nutrient management. Milk production, and associated farm exports of N, P and K, increased by 666 kg cow' 1 between 1990 and 2000. Purchases of N-P-K fertilizers were eliminated in 1990 and feed nutrient imports were dramatically reduced. Feed costs per liter of milk declined from 14.3 cents (CDN) liter' 1 in 1990-92 to 11.6 cents liter' 1 in 1998-2000, even as feed prices increased regionally by 10-20% over the same period. Modeling of current whole farm mass N, P and K balance indicated that 25.0% of all N inputs are recovered inform products, milk and meat. Non-legume-derived field N input (67 kg Nha' 1 before losses) was close to optimum for the predominantly legume/grass-based forage cropping system. Model-determined annual farm nutrient surpluses (outputs-inputs) for P (9.0kgha~' yr~') and K (8.2 kg ha' 1 yr~') were significantly lower than those previously reported for regional confinement-based dairy farms, which were more reliant on corn production. However, data from 16 years of soil analysis (1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001) indicated an increase in soil-test P levels of approximately 2 mg kg~' yr~'. Recent refinements in dairy animal dietary P levels have further reduced the farm P surplus (2.6 kg ha' 1 in year 2001) and are shown as key to a strategy for reversal of the trend in soil-test P levels. In summary, the combined approach of wholefarm system nutrient management, crop diversification and MIG increased milk production and minimized costs while reducing farm nutrient inputs. The study demonstrates how an approach to dairy farm nutrient management which integrates livestock and crop nutrient requirements may reduce dairy farm nutrient loading while maintaining productivity.

show abstract

Management and Economic Implications of Intensive Grazing on Dairy Farms in the Northeastern States

Cited by 58 publications

References 8 publications

Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production

Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production

Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: Update review

Improving the nutrient status of a commercial dairy farm: An integrated approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About