Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Nitrate leaching from animal urine is perceived to be a serious consequence of dairy farming. Previous results suggested that nil and restricted grazing systems could reduce nitrate leaching by up to 50%. It is likely that such systems may also increase pasture production. However, potential disadvantages include reduction in the clover content of pastures and increase in capital and/or operating costs. This paper examines the economic implications of nil and restricted grazing systems based on data from an average New Zealand dairy farm and from a long‐term farmlet study. The analyses suggested that pasture production increased by about 20% and 2–8%, respectively, compared with a conventional grazing system. Based on the average New Zealand dairy farm, the costs/benefit analysis of the nil grazing system suggested a negative return on capital of about ‐10%. For the restricted grazing system, the average return on capital was about 9% (range: ‐4 to 25%) and depended largely on the efficiency of animal excreta use. On farms where an effluent application system is already in place, the average return on capital was 17% (range: 2 to 50%). Based on the farmlet study, the cost/benefit analysis of both grazing systems suggested a small negative return on capital, except when the costs of an effluent application system were excluded. It is concluded that a restricted grazing system for the average New Zealand dairy farm is likely to be economically viable, on farms where an effluent application system or a feed pad is already in place.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cecile A. M. de Klein (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: