Outlook for dairyfanning

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32459, 20 November 1970, Page 9

Outlook for dairyfanning

. Earlier this month a dairy field day was held on the property of Messrs E. and D. Glass at Methven. Although it was a wet dismal day well in excess of 100 people turned out to hear about general dairying prospects.

The aim of the day was to provide farmers with data to relate other farming enterprises to dairying. For this reason a large number of those present were not dairy farmers and their presence helped to broaden the scope of the discussion that took place. The morning session was mainly devoted to New Zealand's dairy situation and the E.E.C. Mr H. S. Blackmore, an economist with the Dairy Board, gave his views

on the likely effect of Britain Joining the E.E.C. It was often forgotten that European and American dairy farmers were receiving more than double for the same product that New Zealand dairy farmers produced, said Mr Black- 1 more. Support prices were costing these countries large amounts each year. He also pointed out that the present surplus of butter in Europe could be eliminated by a small decrease in milk production there—less than 5 per cent on present levels in fact. These were among the reasons Mr Blackmore gave why people should have confidence in the dairy industry and should look to the future with cautious optimism. Mr H. R. Evans of the Department of Agriculture, Ashburton, set the stage for the remainder of the day with a gi-oss margin outline of the various avenues of farming open to Canter-' bury landholders. In making his comment: Mr Evans pointed out tha even though one field o farming might be mon profitable, it might not b< the right one for any par ticular individual. "If yoi do not like cows," said Mi Evans, “then the extra profiavailable will not interes you.” Under present day prices dairying, beef, mixed crop ping and sheep would bi the relative order o profitability. The afternoon’s *sessior was spent looking at th( principles of high per acrt production for maximum profitability. The discus sion centred round the host farm (that of Messrs E. ant D. Glass) and a neighbour ing property farmed by Mi H. P. Amberger. The 182 acres of Mi Amberger’s property pro duced 39,2501 b of butterfa: last season from 145 cows While this production—--2151b per acre—is not th< highest about, it was mos interesting to hear how h< achieved it. The propertj is run with minimum effor and expense. Mr Amberge only irrigated last seasoi for one week; his grazin; management is not compli cated—generally the fam is divided in to two fo grazing, half for the nigh and half for the daytime. For his system of “mini mum effort” farming, M: Amberger’s stocking rate ii high. For .this reason hii

production returns are above average. The dairy unit on the Glass Bros property last season consisted of 59 acres on which 80 cows produced 20,0001 b butterfat and reared 90 calves until February. Mr Edwin Glass outlined their farm system and suggested several areas for improvement. One point, for example, was subdivision. Last season the block con-

sisted of eight paddocks—far from the ideal of round 25. Problems to be overcome to attain high . stocking rates and high subsequent returns were also discussed. The major point brought out Was the need to emphasise pasture management and utilisation rather than putting most emphasis on high production per cow. In simple terms 2001 b per cow is wasting cow potential; 5001 b per cow is poor pasture utilisation. Bigger herds will result from increased stocking rates. To manage these herds, more and possibly

better labour will be required. Herringbone, or possibly rotary sheds, will become a necessity. Further subdivision and provision for stock water will be necessary. As an indication of possible trends, Mr Edwin

Glass outlined what he and his brother Derek proposed for 150 acres of their property. Mr Glass said their aim was maximum profit to them. In reply to a questioner who put strawberries forward as a proposition, Mr Glass also pointed out that they wanted this 150 acres to be operated by one man. For the first season they proposed carrying 110 dairy cows and rearing 120 calves

(some bought in). All calves surplus to dairying requirement would be taken to killable weights, the aim being to sell them all at carcase weights in excess of 4001 b before their second winter. This is a relatively heavy stocking rate and the gross margin presented reflected this. A figure of well in excess of $lOO per acre (as a gross margin) was shown to be quite feasible. These figures provoked some interesting discussion on the relative profitability of dairying and mixed cropping. It was good to hear the audience taking part in discussion in this way. For this reason I am sure that most of the audience went away with a little more than damp clothes. Most, I imagine, will have a little extra to think about while they are mowing hay this month.

This item on a recent field day at Methven has been written by Mr P. I. Ballinger, New Zealand Dairy Board consulting officer for Canterbury, Otago and Southland.