Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:51:59.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dairy farm feeding and income effects of using Voisin grazing management of permanent pastures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2009

William M. Murphy ,
John R. Rice  and
David T. Dugdale
William M. Murphy
Affiliation:
Professor of Agronomy, Department of Plant and Soil Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405.
John R. Rice
Affiliation:
County Extension Agent, University of Vermont Extension Service, 48 Lower Newton Street, St. Albans, VT 05478.
David T. Dugdale
Affiliation:
Research Technician, Department of Plant and Soil Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405.
Get access

Abstract

Permanent pastures produce far below their potential, as they are usually managed in the northcentral and northeastern United States. Dairy farmers in these regions generally feed their cattle year-round from stored forage and purchased concentrates, and use permanent pastures as mere holding or exercise areas, grazing them continuously. This practice involves high operating costs that, combined with lower milk prices, have resulted in greatly reduced profit margins. Farming practices that return more net income are needed. The Voisin system of rotational grazing management, which applies intensive management to forage crops on pastureland, is widely used on dairy and sheep farms in New Zealand. Farmers using the Voisin system there have low operating costs and obtain high yields of excellent quality forage over long grazing periods; increased net income results Between 1 May and 1 October 1984, 497 forage samples were taken and analyzed from permanent pastures grazed according to the Voisin management system on six Vermont dairy farms. This was done to provide farmers with current estimates of forage feeding value so that they could balance their cows' rations accordingly throughout the season, and determine if they could improve the profitability of their farms by using Voisin grazing management. Average grazingseason analyses (dry weight) were: 22.5% dry matter, 22.4% crude protein, 20.8% available protein, 28.4% acid detergent fiber, 1.18% calcium, .48% phosphorus, 1.60% potassium, .22% magnesium, and 1.58 Mcal/kg net energy lactation. Average dry forage yield was 8.9 metric tons/ha. Dry matter intake was adequate for milk production up to 36 kg/cow/day. Forage protein and energy contents were sufficient for at least 25 and 18 kg milk/day, respectively. On three farms where economic factors were calculated, net profits per cow averaged $67 more during the 5-month period from using Voisin grazing management, compared to continuous grazing of the same pastureland in the year before Voisin management was used. This profit resulted mainly from feed savings and a more favorable milk:concentrate ratio of 4.1:1 obtained with Voisin management, compared to 2.7:1 with continuous grazing and more feeding of stored or machine-harvested forage. Voisin-managed pastures can produce high yields of excellent-quality forage that can be incorporated into dairy feeding programs, thereby reducing feed costs and increasing profitability of the farming operations.

Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , Fall 1986 , pp. 147 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Hancock, J. 1950. Studies in monozygotic cattle twins. IV. Uniformity trials: grazing behaviour. New Zealand J. Sci. Tech. 2(32):22–59.Google Scholar
2.Hancock, Jr., 1952. Grazing behaviour of identical twins in relation to pasture type, intake, and production of dairy cattle. Proc. 6th Int. Grassld. Cong, pp. 1399–1407.Google Scholar
3.Jagusch, K. T. 1973. Livestock production from pasture. In Langer, R. H. M. (ed.) Pastures and pasture plants. A. H. & A. W. Reed, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 229–257.Google Scholar
4.Jones, V. 1984. Reducing the cost of producing milk, meat and wool. Gallagher Group of Companies, Frankton, Hamilton, New Zealand. Mimeo. 8 p.Google Scholar
5.M.R.B. Inc. 1979. Marshall's ration balancer. 208 Burgundy St., Lake Saint Louis, Missouri.Google Scholar
6.Marten, G. C. 1985. Alfalfa hay seen in new light. Agric. Res. 33(8):6–9.Google Scholar
7.Martin, N. P. and Linn, J. G.. 1985. Use of NIRS in extension educational programs. Amer. Soc. Agron. Ann. Mtgs., Chicago. December 1–6. Abstracts, p. 127.Google Scholar
8.Matches, A. G., and Burns, J. C.. 1985. Systems of grazing management. In: Heath, M. E., Barnes, R. F., and Metcalf, D. S. (eds.) Forages: the science of grassland agriculture. Iowa State University Press, Ames. 4th ed. pp. 537–547.Google Scholar
9.Meyer, D. W. 1985. Use of NIRS in a commercial testing laboratory. Amer. Soc. Agron. Ann. Mtgs., Chicago. December 1–6. Abstracts, p. 127.Google Scholar
10.National Research Council. 1978. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
11.Schmidt, J., Mehner, A., and Piel, H.. 1951. Enquiry into the yield of pastures of two crops and the quantities of grass harvested by in-milk cows of three breeds with their yields. Zuchtungskunde. 23:110–122.Google Scholar
12.Semple, A. T. 1970. Grassland improvement. Leonard Hill Books, London. 400 p.Google Scholar
13.Smetham, M. L. 1973. Grazing management. In Langer, R. H. M. (ed.) Pastures and Pasture plants. A. H. & A. W. Reed, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 179–228.Google Scholar
14.Voisin, A. 1959. Grass productivity. Philosophical Library Inc., New York. 353 p.Google Scholar
15.Welch, J. G., Smith, A. M., and Gibson, K. S.. 1970. Rumination time in four breeds of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 53:89–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Welch, J. G., Palmer, R. H., and Gilman, B. E.. 1983. Rumination in Scotch Highland and dairy cattle. J. Animal Sci. Supplement 1. 57:169.Google Scholar