Water-use efficiency on irrigated dairy farms in northern Victoria and southern New South Wales

Armstrong, Dan P.; Knee, J. E.; Doyle, P. T.; Pritchard, K. E.; Gyles, Oliver

doi:10.1071/ea99132

Cited by 59 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Water footprint of two beef stocker grazing treatment systems with respect to total (observed from grazing plus predicted from hay) liveweight gain based on three rainfall inputs with irrigation. amount of milk by the sum of irrigation and effective rainfall (Armstrong et al, 2000). Martin and Gilley (1993) and assumptions from Risinger and Carver (1987).…”

Section: Relevance To Sustainability Of Beef Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stocker Beef Production on Low‐Water‐Input Systems in Response to Legume Inclusion: II. Water Footprint

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information on the water footprint of pasture‐based beef production is useful for optimizing the allocation of groundwater to crop and livestock production. The objective of this research was to determine the effect of including legumes on three water footprints of grass‐based, beef stocker grazing systems with respect to observed and total (observed plus predicted from hay production) liveweight gain (LWG). Water inputs for the calculations included total or effective rainfall, total or corrected drip irrigation, and water directly consumed by the steers. When including rainfall in the calculation, water footprints were 16.2 to 40.5 vs. 1.7 to 8.6 m3 kg−1 LWG when including groundwater only. Inclusion of legumes into the system reduced each water footprint with respect to observed LWG in all years (P ≤ 0.01). When total LWG was considered, the water footprint was lower in the grass‐legume system if rainfall (total or effective) was included (P < 0.01) but greater if the evaluation was restricted to irrigation and drinking water as inputs (P < 0.01). Overall, including legumes reduced the water footprint of beef LWG, largely because of greater rates of gain from the greater quality forages. Quantifying water use in the stocker phase adds a missing component in evaluating limited resources in the beef production life cycle. Managing legumes in mixture with warm‐season grasses and as a protein bank can increase the efficiency of beef grazing systems, resulting in an overall lower water footprint for animal weight gain.

show abstract

Section: Relevance To Sustainability Of Beef Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stocker Beef Production on Low‐Water‐Input Systems in Response to Legume Inclusion: II. Water Footprint

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…, 1995) and without (Stockdale and King, 1980; Holmes and Parker, 1992; Macdonald et al. , 2008), as well as on commercial farms (Armstrong et al. , 2000; Kellaway and Harrington, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pasture‐based dairy farm systems increasing milk production through stocking rate or milk yield per cow: pasture and animal responses

Fariña

García

Fulkerson

et al. 2011

Grass and Forage Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A 2-year whole-farm study compared pasture-based systems increasing milk production per ha by increasing either stocking rate (from 2AE5 to 3AE8 cows ha )1 ) or milk yield per cow (from 6000 to 9000 kg cow )1 lactation )1 ) or both. Four treatments (systems), comprising 30 cows each, were compared under the same management and grazing decision rules. The diet was based on grazed pasture, whereas pellets and conserved fodder were fed when deemed necessary. Milk production per ha increased by 0AE49, 0AE1 and 0AE66 in the systems that increased either stocking rate, milk yield per cow or both respectively. Cows in the 'high milk yield per cow' systems had a significantly higher body condition score throughout the lactation, but reproductive performance was similar among all groups. Total pasture utilized (11 t DM ha )1 year )1 ) and pasture nutritive value were similar across all systems. This was associated with the grazing rules applied and the ability of accurately supplementing to meet deficits in available pasture. At the whole-system level, there was a higher marginal efficiency of supplement use when increasing stocking rate than when increasing milk yield per cow or increasing both (0AE18, 0AE07 and 0AE12 kg milk MJ )1 of metabolizable energy of supplements respectively).

show abstract

“…The amount of milk produced (measured in kg milk solids (MS)) from pasture per megalitre of water applied by irrigation plus effective rainfall [20] Water productivity WP kg DM/ha.mm or t DM/ML…”

Section: Deficit Irrigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These factors impact farm management practices and determine irrigation strategies (such as when to use irrigation water), forage selection (what species to grow), and the grazing/management strategies applied to forages. A survey of irrigated dairy farms in the region conducted about 20 years ago [20] found that there was a large range of water use efficiencies (WUE) ( Table 1) between farms (25-115 kg milk fat plus protein/ML water). This suggested that there was scope for many farms to increase efficiency and productivity by modifying farm management practices depending on the input variables.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forage Options for Dairy Farms with Reduced Water Availability in the Southern Murray Darling Basin of Australia

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The dairy industry in the southern Murray Darling Basin region of Australia is a major consumer of irrigation water because rainfall is low relative to evapotranspiration and the industrys relies heavily on irrigated temperate pastures and fodder crops. Water reforms, and potential climate change scenarios for this region suggest that there will be an overall decline in rainfall and water available for irrigation in the future. For the irrigated dairy industry to remain economically viable, there is a need for dairy farmers to improve the water productivity (WP) of their forage systems and to be able to respond to year-to-year, and within year, variation in water availability. Researchers and dairy farmers are evaluating strategies to increase WP. These include: (i) selecting better-adapted species for current and predicted climatic conditions; (ii) using species that can survive and still be productive under reduced irrigation and then recover when full irrigation is restored; (iii) modifying irrigation strategies to reduce water use whilst maintaining WP; and (iv) grazing management strategies that facilitate the survival during, and recovery after, periods of moisture stress. This review will examine these strategies and discusses their potential to optimise forage production from irrigation water inputs so that the dairy industry in the southern Murray Darling Basin remains viable in the future.

show abstract

Water-use efficiency on irrigated dairy farms in northern Victoria and southern New South Wales

Cited by 59 publications

References 6 publications

Stocker Beef Production on Low‐Water‐Input Systems in Response to Legume Inclusion: II. Water Footprint

Stocker Beef Production on Low‐Water‐Input Systems in Response to Legume Inclusion: II. Water Footprint

Pasture‐based dairy farm systems increasing milk production through stocking rate or milk yield per cow: pasture and animal responses

Forage Options for Dairy Farms with Reduced Water Availability in the Southern Murray Darling Basin of Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About