IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i4p2098-d500121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Productivity, Profitability and Nitrogen Utilisation Efficiency of Two Pasture-Based Milk Production Systems Differing in the Milking Frequency and Feeding Level

Author

Listed:
  • Martín Correa-Luna

    (School of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand)

  • Daniel Donaghy

    (School of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand)

  • Peter Kemp

    (School of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand)

  • Laurence Shalloo

    (Teagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, P61 P302 Co. Cork, Ireland)

  • Elodie Ruelle

    (Teagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, P61 P302 Co. Cork, Ireland)

  • Deirdre Hennessy

    (Teagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, P61 P302 Co. Cork, Ireland)

  • Nicolás López-Villalobos

    (School of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to model the productivity, profitability and the nitrogen (N) utilisation efficiency (NUE) of two spring-calving pasture-based milk production systems differing in milking frequency and intensification levels in New Zealand. For this purpose, physical performance data from a low-intensity production system where cows were milked once per day (OAD-LI) and from a high-intensity production system where cows were milked twice per day (TAD-HI) were employed. OAD-LI cows were milked once-daily with a stocking rate (SR) of 2.1 cows/ha and fed diets with low supplementation (304 kg pasture silage/cow) with applications of 134 kg N fertiliser/ha and TAD-HI cows were milked twice-daily with a SR of 2.8 cows/ha and fed diets of higher supplementation (429 kg pasture silage and 1695 kg concentrate/cow) with applications of 87 kg N fertiliser/ha. The Moorepark Dairy System Model was used to evaluate production, economic performance and N balance on an annual basis. Despite the higher feed costs of TAD-HI as more supplementation was utilised, profitability per hectare was 16% higher because more cows were milked with a higher milk yield per cow (milking frequency) when compared to OAD-LI. At the cow level, the NUE was higher in TAD-HI (30% vs. 27%) reflecting the better balanced diet for energy and crude protein and higher milk yields as a result of milking frequency. At the farm scale the NUE was higher (38% vs. 26%) in the TAD-HI due to the losses associated with the imported feed being excluded and higher N captured in milk. These results suggest that milking frequency, the use of feed supplementation and application of N fertiliser as management tools on grazing dairy systems affect productivity, profitability and N balance. Further studies are required to find optimal stocking rates in combination with the use of supplementary feed and N fertiliser application that maximize milk production and profitability for OAD and TAD milking production systems but minimize N losses.

Suggested Citation

  • Martín Correa-Luna & Daniel Donaghy & Peter Kemp & Laurence Shalloo & Elodie Ruelle & Deirdre Hennessy & Nicolás López-Villalobos, 2021. "Productivity, Profitability and Nitrogen Utilisation Efficiency of Two Pasture-Based Milk Production Systems Differing in the Milking Frequency and Feeding Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-15, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:2098-:d:500121
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/2098/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/2098/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shadbolt, Nicola M., 2012. "Competitive strategy analysis of New Zealand pastoral dairy farming systems," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 1(3), pages 1-9.
    2. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    2. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Shen Yuan & Shaobing Peng, 2017. "Exploring the Trends in Nitrogen Input and Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Agricultural Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    4. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Hualin Xie & Yingqian Huang & Qianru Chen & Yanwei Zhang & Qing Wu, 2019. "Prospects for Agricultural Sustainable Intensification: A Review of Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, October.
    7. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    8. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    9. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    10. Diriba Shiferaw G., 2017. "Water-Nutrients Interaction: Exploring the Effects of Water as a Central Role for Availability & Use Efficiency of Nutrients by Shallow Rooted Vegetable Crops - A Review," Journal of Agriculture and Crops, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 3(10), pages 78-93, 10-2017.
    11. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    12. Seufert, Verena & Ramankutty, Navin & Mayerhofer, Tabea, 2017. "What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 10-20.
    13. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Nikolaidis, Nikolaos P. & Giannakis, Georgios V., 2019. "Tools for Sustainable Soil Management: Soil Ecosystem Services, EROI and Economic Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 109-119.
    14. Kataki, Sampriti & West, Helen & Clarke, Michèle & Baruah, D.C., 2016. "Phosphorus recovery as struvite: Recent concerns for use of seed, alternative Mg source, nitrogen conservation and fertilizer potential," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 142-156.
    15. Ashley E. Larsen & Steven D. Gaines & Olivier Deschênes, 2017. "Agricultural pesticide use and adverse birth outcomes in the San Joaquin Valley of California," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    16. Carpentier, A. & Reboud, X., 2018. "Why farmers consider pesticides the ultimate in crop protection: economic and behavioral insights," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277528, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Tiziano Gomiero, 2016. "Soil Degradation, Land Scarcity and Food Security: Reviewing a Complex Challenge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-41, March.
    18. Alexander D. Chapman & Stephen E. Darby & Hoàng M. Hồng & Emma L. Tompkins & Tri P. D. Van, 2016. "Adaptation and development trade-offs: fluvial sediment deposition and the sustainability of rice-cropping in An Giang Province, Mekong Delta," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 137(3), pages 593-608, August.
    19. Rosa, R.D. & Ramos, T.B. & Pereira, L.S., 2016. "The dual Kc approach to assess maize and sweet sorghum transpiration and soil evaporation under saline conditions: Application of the SIMDualKc model," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 77-94.
    20. Hristov, Jordan & Clough, Yann & Sahlin, Ullrika & Smith, Henrik G. & Stjernman, Martin & Olsson, Ola & Sahrbacher, Amanda & Brady, Mark V., 2020. "Impacts of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy “Greening” reform on agricultural development, biodiversity, and ecosystem services," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 42(4), pages 716-738.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:2098-:d:500121. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.