Search

This perspective paper provides industry leaders, researchers and policy developers strategic approaches to ensure that the welfare of dairy cattle is protected at the same time as the industry increases its resilience to climate change. Farm systems and practices will evolve in response to the direct impacts of climate change and/or from responses to climate change, such as mitigation strategies to reduce dairy's greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. The five domains framework (nutrition, physical environment, health, behaviour, mental state) was used to assess the potential impacts on animal welfare and strategies to minimise these impacts are outlined. Given that the future climate cannot be certain these approaches can be applied under a range of emissions pathways to (1) ensure that the effects of GHG mitigations on animal welfare are considered during their development, (2) engage with end users and the public to ensure solutions to the effects of climate change and weather variability are accepted by consumers and communities, (3) identify and measure the areas where improved animal health can contribute to reducing GHG emissions from dairy production, (4) ensure those supporting farmers to develop and manage their farm systems understand what constitutes a good quality of life for dairy cattle, (5) ensure effective surveillance of animal disease and monitoring of welfare outcomes and farm-system performance in response to climate change and GHG mitigations. Overall, these strategies require a multidisciplinary co-development approach to ensure that the welfare of dairy cattle is protected at the same time as the industry increases its resilience to the wider impacts of a changing climate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Future development pathways for irrigated dairy farms in Canterbury operating under stricter nitrogen (N) loss limits were compared in two farmlets over four years. One represented the traditional pathway of intensification via higher inputs of N fertiliser and supplementary feed ('higher input-high efficiency', HI-HE), while the other represented a lower input pathway using half the amount of N fertiliser and one quarter the amount of supplementary feed ('lower input-high efficiency', LI-HE). The stocking rate of both systems was matched to feed supply to achieve high utilisation (∼90%) of the pasture grown. Mean total annual N surplus and estimated nitrate-N leaching were lower in LI-HE than HI-HE, by 46% and 25% respectively. Milk production was lower for LI-HE (1,700 kg versus 2,240 kg milk fat + protein per ha/year). Estimated profit was the same for both systems at a milk price of $6.46/kg fat + protein, below which LI-HE was more profitable than HI-HE and vice-versa. Compared with the benchmark high-performing Lincoln University Demonstration Dairy Farm (LUDF) through the same period, LI-HE was 2% less profitable, but estimated N leaching was ∼30% lower. Subsequent adoption of the LI-HE system by LUDF demonstrated that the system is scalable, and profitable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A short-term, dairy cow, grazing experiment was conducted in late-lactation (autumn) to determine the effect of fodder beet (FB) and maize silage supplementation on dry matter and nitrogen (N) intake, urinary N excretion and milk solids (MS; milk fat + milk protein) production. Seventy-two multiparous, lactating (224 ± 20.0 DIM; mean ± SD) Holstein-Friesian cows were randomly assigned (n = 24 per treatment; 8 per replicate) to one of three groups. Control animals were offered pasture (11 kg DM/cow/day) with maize silage (4 kg DM/cow/day; 'Maize'). The other two groups were either offered pasture (11 kg DM/cow/day) with 25% FB (4 kg DM/cow/day; 'FB25') or pasture (9 kg DM/cow/day) with 40% FB (6 kg DM/cow/day; 'FB40'). At the same supplement DM intake, diets containing maize silage or grazed FB had similar urinary nitrogen (UN) concentrations, but FB increased milk solids (MS) production. At 40% FB inclusion UN excretion was reduced but this came at the expense of MS production. Farmers need to exhibit caution when feeding fodder beet to lactating dairy cows to minimise the risk of adverse animal health effects. Feeding fodder beet allocations high enough to achieve significant environmental benefit is likely to compromise animal health and milk production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two short-term dairy cow grazing experiments in mid-lactation (late spring) and late-lactation (late summer), were conducted in the Waikato region of New Zealand, to determine the effect of pasture species mixtures on urinary nitrogen (N) concentration and milk solids production. The mixtures included perennial ryegrass, tall fescue, lucerne and narrow-leaved plantain (cv. Tonic), structured to compare the two grass species, both with and without plantain. With plantain, apparent intake of plantain was 46%–70% of dry matter intake and estimated water intake was increased by 8%–21% over grass-lucerne swards. This led to significantly lower N concentrations of spot-sampled urine, by 38% in summer and 21% in spring, but no difference in milk production. A decline in apparent N intake was also implicated in summer. The effect of relatively high levels of plantain intake on reducing urinary N concentration is likely to be positive for reducing N leaching risk, particularly in late-lactation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nitrate leaching from soil is a major problem in New Zealand pastoral systems, requiring development of practical methods to manage accumulation of nitrates. Nine feed trials were carried out in the Waikato (n = 3) and in Canterbury (n = 6) between 2013 and 2016; from which 424 samples were selected for forage quality testing. Only tick beans and forage rape met the lactating feed criteria for adequate crude protein (CP; > 16% DM) and soluble sugars and starch (SSS; > 25% DM). When an 'environmental' criterion was added to a feed value for lactating cows this reduced the options to fodder beet only. However, the CP measurements for fodder beet were suboptimal for milk production, requiring the fodder beet to be mixed with high protein feeds such as pasture or pasture silage. The lower protein requirements for non-lactating cows, including an additive environmental criterion enabled a wider range of feeds to be considered e.g. kale, sunflowers and swedes in Canterbury (12 entries) and fodder beet and rape in the Waikato (21 entries). Addition or restriction of nitrogen fertiliser was the only agronomic management intervention that consistently altered animal feed quality and potentially changed N excretion. Crop choice was likely to have the greatest impact at the farm level. By limiting feed quality assessment to CP, SSS and their ratio (SSS:CP) we were able to define a selection/feed monitoring method to minimise N content of feed, maximise SSS feed value and limit excess N intake to reduce the nitrate leaching risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]