Adoption of Alternative Forage Crops in the Irrigated Dairy Industry
Our Rural Landscapes Key Project 2
Sub-project 2.5 Future Farming Systems;
Optimising Production and Environmental Outcomes
Milestone Report 2005
Executive Summary
The Victorian dairy industry is extremely important to the State’s economic, social and environmental prosperity. The northern Victorian region’s milk production is supplied by approximately 2800 dairy farms. Milk production in the region is based predominantly on a pasture feed system comprising approximately two-thirds perennial pasture and one-third annual pasture crop.
The current scarcity of water and competing demands for the resource - by various users such as the environment, recreation and other industries – has compelled the dairy industry to continue to seek new opportunities to improve the efficiency of water use. Research suggests that some alternative fodder crops may provide higher dry matter yields per ML of water than perennial pasture. A social research study was commissioned to aid in the understanding of the drivers and barriers to the adoption of alternative forage crops as a feed source.
The study was conduced in the Shepparton Irrigation Region (SIR) of the Goulburn Valley, Victoria. Twenty-four personal interviews were conducted with dairy farmers across the SIR. The aims of this social research study, relating to alternative forage crops utilisation in the irrigated dairy industry, were to:
- identify the drivers and barriers to adoption;
- develop an understanding of the likelihood of adoption and;
- recommend strategies to increase the rate of adoption.
During interviews it become apparent that dairy farmers followed one of two different strategies for the use of alternative forages depending on the degree to which they relied on perennial pastures. Consequently, we classified dairy farmers into two segments based on their strategies. These segments were:
- Pasture based dairy farmers
- Cropping based dairy farmers
Farmers in the first segment use a strategy based on the direct grazing of perennial pasture as the main feed source and using alternative forages as supplements to fill feed gaps at certain times of the year. Farmers that employ this strategy experiment with different alternative forages, but not at the expense of reducing the area planted to perennial pasture. Hence farmers that use this strategy are more likely to substitute one alternative forage for another rather than increase the area sown to alternative forages on their farms.
Farmers in the second segment use a strategy that is less reliant on grazing of perennial pasture. They rely more on transporting feed to the cow. This system is termed ‘cut and carry’. The use of this strategy gives greater flexibility as to where alternative forages can be grown because this strategy does not depend on cows directly grazing forage. With this strategy, perennial pasture is seen as just one of a number of feed sources that can be used.
The decision to cut and carry requires substantial investment in plant and machinery and usually accompanies a decision to expand the farm business and increase herd size. The decision to move to a ‘cut and carry’ system also requires new skills and the move may have social implications. Therefore, the decision to shift to ‘cut & carry’ is not taken lightly and changes that are necessary to operate the farm system may be implemented over an extended period of time.
A more extensive market research project is required to quantify these two segments, to understand the differences in demand for alternative forages between the two segments, and to ensure accurate targeting of extension messages to each segment.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
2. METHODOLOGY
3. RESULTS
- PASTURE BASED DAIRY FARMERS
- CROPPING BASED DAIRY FARMERS
4. DISCUSSION
- CHANGING SEGMENTS
5. CONCLUSION
- FUTURE WORK
6. REFERENCES
1. Introduction
The Victorian dairy industry is extremely important to the State’s economic, social and environmental prosperity. The Victorian industry exports food products worth more than $2.3 billion, making it Australia’s largest food exporter (Department of Primary Industries 2004a). The industry also provides nearly 70% of the total employment in the Victorian primary industry and processing sectors (Department of Primary Industries 2004b). One of the areas that contributes significantly to this prosperity is the irrigated region in northern Victoria. This area produces more than one-quarter of Australia’s total milk production (Fulkerson and Doyle 2001).
The northern Victorian region’s milk production is supplied by approximately 2800 dairy farms (Linehan et. al 2001). A typical dairy farm in this region consists of 160 cows producing 2000 litres of milk/ha from a land size of 81ha (Bethune and Armstrong 2004, Linehan et. al 2001). The milk is produced predominantly on a pasture based feed system comprising approximately two-thirds perennial pasture and one-third annual pasture crop (Linehan et. al 2001). The reliance on perennial pastures as the major feed source means that large quantities of irrigation water are utilised by dairy farmers as perennial pastures typically requires 8-10ML of water per hectare (Armstrong et. al 1998). This substantial water requirement makes the Victorian irrigated dairy industry the highest consumer of water, in terms of agricultural production (Linehan et. al 2004, Pomfret 2000).
There is increasing pressure on the irrigated dairy industry to be more efficient because issues relating to the sustainability of natural resources such as water have become important priorities for Government, communities and industry (Department of Sustainabilty and Environment 2004). The current scarcity of water and competing demands for the resource - by various users such as the environment, recreation and other industries – compels the dairy industry to continue to seek new opportunities for greater water use efficient systems. This is despite the fact that dairy farmers have already embraced technologies that increase water use efficiency, such as laser grading and/or improving farm water distribution infrastructure.
To assist the irrigated dairy industry in achieving greater on-farm water use efficiency the Department of Primary Industry (DPI) has invested in various research and extension projects. One particular research project aims to understand the feasibility of altering the pasture mix currently employed on dairy farms (Lawson et. al 2004). Research suggests that some alternative plant systems may provide higher dry matter yields per ML of water (or per ha) than perennial pasture (Doyle et. al 2000, Greenwood et. al 2003). However, adoption of these alternative crops has not been widespread (Armstrong et. al 1998). To aid in the understanding of the drivers and barriers to the adoption of alternative forage crops as a feed source a social research study has been commissioned.
The aims of this social research study, relating to alternative forage crops utilisation in the irrigated dairy industry, were to:
- identify the drivers and barriers to adoption;
- develop an understanding of the likelihood of adoption and;
- recommend strategies to increase the rate of adoption.
2. Methodology
Scope of study
 |
| Figure 1. Distribution of interviewed properties across the study region. |
The study was conduced in the Shepparton Irrigation Region (SIR) of the Goulburn Valley, Victoria (Figure 1). The study area extended from Strathmerton, north of Shepparton to Stanhope, west of Shepparton. The study area also extended from Murchison, south of Shepparton and East Shepparton.
Data collection and analysis
Twenty-four personal interviews were conducted with dairy farmers across the SIR (figure 1). During the interviews we were determining the reasons dairy farmers used alternative forages in their farming system. For the purpose of this study the definition of alternative forage crops refers to those that interviewed growers considered as being alternative. These interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview process (Dick 1998) and used standard laddering techniques (Grunert and Grunert 1995). Laddering is a process used to understand the rationale underlying interviewee reasoning (Grunert & Grunert 1995).
Predetermination of the numbers of interviews to be conducted was not possible. Rather, for the sample to be sufficient, consistency or ‘subject saturation’ needs to be achieved (Sarantakos, 1998). ‘Subject saturation’ or consistency occurs when no new relevant information is forthcoming from interviews. We believe this was achieved within the number of interviews we conducted.
As the nature of the interviews was exploratory rather than confirmative, a strategic sampling approach was used to ensure the dairy farmers selected were from a range of farm contexts, with a range of farm size, herd size and location. All information was collected and treated according to the Information Privacy Act 2000 (Department of Primary Industries 2005).
Interview responses were recorded manually by two interviewers. They were transcribed and analysed using case and cross-case analysis (Patton 1990), and then categorised using project objectives.
3. Results
During the interview process it become apparent that dairy farmers followed one of two different approaches to the use of alternative forages depending on the degree to which they relied on perennial. Consequently, we classified dairy farmers into 2 segments, these were:
- Pasture based dairy farmers
- Cropping based dairy farmers
Pasture based dairy farmers
Farmers in this segment used perennial pasture as the primary feed source to feed dairy cows on their farm. Farmers in this segment predominantly used the perennial pasture by allowing dairy cows to directly graze. These farmers conserved excess perennial pasture to feed the herd when seasonal conditions meant perennial pasture was limited. Consequently they had a high ratio of area sown to perennial pasture compared to alternative forages, ie in the order of 3:1. These farmers believed perennial pasture to be the cheapest feed source and they felt their management of the perennial pasture gave them predicability over the season. These farmers were likely to use alternative forages as well as buy in fodder such as grain, hay or silage as a supplementary feed rather than a core feed source.
While the dairy farmers who employ this strategy seem to have similar views to others in this segment on the use of perennial pastures, their reason for incorporating alternative forage crops in their system varied. Some use alternative forage crops because they have insufficient irrigation water right to incorporate more perennial pasture into their farming system. Others milk over the winter period and therefore require a greater feed source than is available through perennial pasture alone at this time of year. Alternative forages such as sub clover can be directly grazed while conserved feed such as maize can be fed out. However, farmers in this segment were unlikely to have an elaborate facility to feed conserved feeds, therefore feeding was likely to take place in laneways as dairy cows came to or from the dairy or fed out over existing perennial pasture paddocks.
Alternative forages were grown either on the home farm or on outblocks. The area sown to alternative forages depended on the availability of irrigation water in excess of what is required to irrigate perennial pasture, as farmers are unlikely to irrigate alternative crops at the expense of perennial pasture.
Outblocks are often used, by these farmers, as risk management strategy to cope with a current or potential feed gap. Dairy farmers in this segment will use the outblock to grow forage or run young stock depending on the seasonal irrigation water allocation but were more likely to transfer the irrigation water from the outblock to the home property to irrigate perennial pasture if the water allocation was significantly reduced. However, this does not prevent these farmers from buying additional irrigation water to irrigate alternative forages if required.
As well as not irrigating alternative forages at the expensive of existing perennial pasture, these farmers were also unlikely to sow alternative forages by reducing the amount of existing perennial pasture on their farm. Any alternative forage crops sown are likely to be a replacement for a previously sown alternative crop. This is not to suggest that these dairy farmers do not replace their alternative crop types. On the contrary these farmers mentioned various alternative crops that they currently use, have trialed or intend to use. There appears to be no difference in the type of alternative forages used or trialed by either segment.
Dairy farmers in the predominantly pasture based segment mentioned they had various experiences with different forages. Some were pleased with the results they achieved, others were disappointed. There did not appear to be any pattern as to which alternative forage was best for the area, as for every dairy farmer interviewed who had success with one forage, another was unsatisfied with its performance.
Dairy farmers in the predominantly pasture based segment are more likely to use subjective measures of performance, such as visual assessment, than any objective measures. Most mentioned that the reduction in water allocation had meant they had to seek alternative crops that gave them a high amount of forage per unit of irrigation water. The types of alternative forages mentioned were maize, lucerne, millet, sorghum, subterranean clover and oats. They selected alternative forage based on their experience, neighbours experience, consultants, national and international literature or extension activities.
All dairy farmers in the predominantly pasture based segment indicated they had the balance between perennial pasture and alternative forages right for their farming system. They suggested that any alteration to their current system would require high capital investment (such as feed pads and/or mixer wagons) and would increase the risk of being an unprofitable dairy farm.
Cropping based dairy farmers
Dairy farmers who were classified in this segment appeared to be less reliant on perennial pasture and did not necessarily believe perennial pasture was the cheapest feed source. At various times of the year, farmers in this segment would use perennial pasture to directly graze but would also feed out forage crops to cows in a feed lot situation. These farmers typically had a more even ratio of area sown to perennial pasture and alternative pasture ie closer to 1:1. Alternative forages were seen as a core part of feeding management rather than a supplementary feed. Consequently, they were willing to reduce the area sown to perennial pasture to alternative forages. In addition dairy farmers in this segment typically believed diversifying would allow them to more adequately cope with seasonal variations such as climate, water allocation and milk price.
Dairy farmers in this segment were more likely, but not always, to have larger land areas (either owned or leased) and higher herd numbers than farmers in the other segment. All farmers in this segment were initially in the previous segment. However due to an increase in herd size and the availability of land, they decided that a strategy involving growing fodder and feeding it to the herd, rather than predominantly directly grazing, was warranted.
Consequently these farmers had often invested in a feed pad which can be described as a specialised feeding system that is designed to both accommodate and feed dairy cows at and for various times of the year.
Similar to the previous segment, alternative crops can be grown either on the home farm or on outblocks. Outblocks used by the dairy farmers in this segment were more likely to be a considerable distance from the dairy. In addition, farms in this segment were more likely to be more fragmented than the previous segment, as bringing the fed to the feed pad rather than having to take the cows to a paddock meant they was less spatially restricted.
Perennial pasture was seen to be replaceable by farmers in this segment. All forages were regarded as an equal feed option and decisions on what to sow and irrigate were based on key factors such as estimated yields, nutritional value and irrigation water requirements. The farmers in this segment were more likely to use objective measures to assist them in their decision-making rather than the more subjective measures used by farmers in the first segment.
The types of alternative forages mentioned were the same as the previous segment, ie maize, lucerne, millet, sorghum, subterranean clover and oats. However, this segment appeared to have a more detailed knowledge of the various alternative crops in terms of the comparisons between estimated yields, nutritional values and irrigation water requirements. They also settled on alternative forages based on experience, neighbours experience, consultants, national and international literature or extension activities.
Unlike the previous segment, all dairy farmers in this segment suggested their crop balance was an evolving process which could significantly change each year depending on factors such as climate, irrigation water availability, milk price and crop price.
Most dairy farmers in this segment seem to have diversified from growing alternative forages solely for their own purposes. Many grow crops to sell to other dairy farmers or contract their time or machinery to increase returns from the investment in plant and machinery.
4. Discussion
From the results it is clear that the reasons for adopting alternative forages is different in each segment. Dairy farmers in the perennial pasture segment use alternative forages to supplement perennial pasture when they believe perennial pasture alone is not adequate. Decisions about alternative forages are typically about the type forage to be sown to fill in feed gaps at certain times of the year. However, they were likely to have, and continued to, trial different alternative forages to meet feed requirements. These dairy farmers seem to be searching for an alternative crop that will produce high nutritional value, high yield and low water use but seem to base there decisions on more subjective measurements.
In contrast, dairy farmers in the cropping based segment are constantly evaluating alternative forages to feed their cows, to sell to neighbours or even to sell on an open market. These dairy farmers see perennial pasture as only one of a number of possible feed sources as alternative forages are seen as a core feed strategy rather than a supplement.
For many in the cropping based segment, alternative forages were a legitimate business in its own right and not just an addition to a traditional dairy farming business. The use of a cut and carry style of farming means that these dairy farmers can either purchase or lease land at greater distances from the home farm.
Dairy farmers in this segment see alternative forages as an integral part of their farming business and are constantly searching for information on forages. However, information sought by these farmers is more likely to be more objective than maybe the case with farmers in the pasture based segment.
Dairy farmers in the cropping based segment appeared satisfied with their decision to diversify as they feel it has given them advantages above and beyond the initial reason for investing in alternative forages. For example, the notion that they would grow and sell alternatives forages to other growers or be contracted to harvest other farmers crops seems to be an additional benefit rather than the primary reason for going down this path.
Changing segments
As all dairy farmers that appear in the cropping segment once belonged in the perennial pasture based segment it is important to understand the factors that lead to the change in segments, that is, to move from a pasture base to a system of cut and carry. It appears that there is a certain point which farmers in the perennial pasture based segment believed that their system would not be able to adequately feed their expanding herd and they have to make a radical change to their management practices. Obviously there are a number of options that a dairy farmer can investigate.
One option is to increase the amount of supplementary feeding. This option basically means that dairy farmers purchase additional feed such as grain, hay or silage to feed the dairy cows. While this is a profitable option for some dairy systems the expense of this option means it is likely to suit relatively small changes in herd size. If a farmer invests in this strategy they are unlikely to invest in the capital required for a cut and carry system.
Another option is to increase the productivity of the existing area sown to perennial pasture. However, it appears that most farmers in the pasture based segment feel the management of their perennial pasture is adequate and only incremental changes can be made. They do not believe they can alter management to grow significantly more perennial pasture from the same land area. Therefore they feel the only real option will be to increase the area of perennial pasture. This obviously requires the availability of land.
If a dairy farmer has additional land available, (eg undeveloped or unproductive land) or the potential to have additional land (eg buying or leasing land from a neighbour), sowing perennial pasture may be an option. However, dairy farmers believe that there is a limit to the distance a dairy cow can walk to the dairy for milking before it has a negative effect either by reduced milk production or increased milking time.
Therefore to change from the perennial pasture based segment to the cropping segment, it appears that a dairy farmer believes that their current system does not sufficiently meet their growing herd needs. Land that is available to be developed for feed tends to be too far from the dairy for it to be practical to support grazing cows, creating a need to shift to a ‘cut and carry’ system. It seems that at this point the farm context changes sufficiently for a dairy farmer to have little alternative but to invest in plant and machinery so as to alter their farming system.
An important message in this is that the decision to cut and carry is a highly involving decision (Kaine and Linehan 2003). The investment in plant and machinery to cut and carry can be seen as risky, requiring new skills, high capital investment and may have significant social impacts. Therefore complex decision making will be evoked (Assael 1998) and change will occur over a period of time.
5. Conclusion
Dairy farmers are constantly searching for alternative forages crops for their farming enterprises. However, the use of alternative forages by dairy farmers in the SIR appears to fall into two main strategies. The first is a strategy based on directly grazing perennial pasture for the main feed source and using alternative forages to fill gaps at certain times of the year. Farmers that employ this strategy continue to experiment with alternative forages, but not at the expense of perennial pasture. Farmers that use this strategy are more likely to substitute alternative forages rather than increase the area sown to perennial pasture on their farms.
The second strategy is less reliant on the dairy cows directly grazing perennial pasture and more reliant on transporting the feed to the cows, ie cut and carry. Use of this strategy gives greater flexibility as to where the alternative forages can be grown, as it is not reliant on the cows having to directly graze any forage. Using this strategy perennial pasture is seen as one of a number of feed sources that can be used. This strategy also gives options to diversify from a purely dairy farm enterprise to a business that can grow, sell and contract its cropping expertise. Farmers who use this strategy are looking for information about alternative forages to meet several needs.
As the trend continues for dairy farms to increase in size -land and herd - it appears likely that more dairy farmers will move to the cropping based segment. Therefore the type and amount of information sought on forage crops by dairy farmers in the future is likely to increase especially in regard to objective measures of yield and nutritional value.
Future work
A more detailed market research project is required to quantify these two segments, to understand the differences in demand for alternative forages between the two segments and to ensure accurate targeting of extension messages to each segment.
6. References
Armstrong D, Knee J, Gyles O, Doyle PT 1998. A survey of water-use efficiency on irrigated dairy farms in northern Victoria and southern New South Wales. Technical Publication of ISIA. DNRE, Kyabram, Victoria. Australia.
Assael H., 1998. ‘Consumer behaviour and marketing action’. South Western, Ohio.USA.
Bethune M and Armstrong D 2004. Overview of the irrigated dairy industry in Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 44, 2:127-129
Department of Primary Industries 2005. Information privacy
Department of Primary Industries. 2004. Fact Sheet- the Victorian Dairy industry.
Department of Primary Industries 2004a. Victoria’s agriculture, forestry and fishing industries – at a glance 2004. Version 1.1, December. Department of Primary Industries. Melbourne. Victoria.
Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004. Securing our water future together: Victorian Government White Paper. Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria. Australia.
Dick B 1998. Convergent interviewing a technique for qualitative data collection
Doyle PT, Stockdale CR, Lawson AR and Cohen DC 2000. Pastures for Dairy Production in Victoria. 2nd edn. Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Kyabram. Victoria.
Fulkerson W and Doyle PT 2001. The Australian dairy industry. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Kyabram. Victoria.
Greenwood K 2003. Opportunities to improve water use efficiency of irrigated forages for dairying in northern Victoria: a review. Department of Primary Industries, Kyabram. Victoria.
Grunert K and Grunert S 1995. Measuring subjective meaning structures by the laddering method: theoretical considerations and methodological problems. International Journal of Research Marketing. 12:209-225
Kaine G and Linehan C.J 2003 The key to reducing the gap between research and application. Paper presented at the National Landcare Conference, Darwin, Northern Territory. Australia.
Lawson A, Greenwood and Kelly K 2004. Water use efficiency of irrigated forage systems in northern Victoria. 4th International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane. Australia.
Linehan C, Armstrong DP, Doyle PT and Johnson F 2004. A survey of water use efficiency on irrigated dairy farms in northern Victoria. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 44:131-136.
Linehan C, Armstrong DP, Knee J, Doyle PT, Johnson F, Bowman K and Gyles O 2001. Changes in water use efficiency on irrigated dairy farms in northern Victoria. Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Tatura and Kyabram, Victoria.
Patton, MQ 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods 2nd edn. Sage Publications: USA
Pomfret S 2000. Sustaining our natural resources. Dairying for tomorrow: a survey of natural resource management on Australian dairy farms. Project report to the Dairy R&D Corporation. IRIS Research. Wollongong, NSW. Australia.
Sarantakos S 1998. Social Research. 2nd Ed. Macmillan Publishers. Victoria. Australia.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to all interviewed dairy farmers who have provided the insight and knowledge that formed the basis of this report. Thanks also to Wendy Hopkins, Ruth Lourey, John Weber, Kevin Kelly, Dr. Kerry Greenwood, Alistair Lawson, Dr. Peter Doyle, Geoff Kaine, Fiona Johnson, and Dr. Mark Krstic who have assisted and supported the Project in various ways.
Authors: Cinzia Ambrosio and Chris Linehan
