abare–brs report 10data.daff.gov.au/brs/data/warehouse/pe_abarebrs99001757/rr10.11… · computer...

Daniel Mackinnon, Mark Oliver and Dale Ashton

November 2010

Australian dairy industry: technology and management

practices, 2008–09

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics – Bureau of Rural Sciences

Australian Government

www.aba re -b r s . gov. auS c i e n c e a n d e c o n o m i c s f o r d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s

ABARE–BRS report 10.11

ii

© Commonwealth of Australia 2010

This work is copyright. The Copyright Act 1968 permits fair dealing for study, research, news reporting, criticism or review. Selected passages, tables or diagrams may be reproduced for such purposes provided acknowledgment of the source is included. Major extracts or the entire docu-ment may not be reproduced by any process without the written permission of the Executive Director, ABARE–BRS.

The Australian Government acting through the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics – Bureau of Rural Sciences has exercised due care and skill in the preparation and compilation of the information and data set out in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics – Bureau of Rural Sciences, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including liability for negligence, for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying on any of the information or data set out in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.

ISBN 978-1-921192-66-1 ISSN 1447-8358 Mackinnon, D, Oliver, M and Ashton, D 2010, Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09, ABARE–BRS research report 10.11, Canberra, November.

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics – Bureau of Rural Sciences Postal address GPO Box 1563 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia Switchboard and61 2 6272 2010 Facsimile and61 2 6272 2001 Email [email protected] Web abare-brs.gov.au

ABARE–BRS project 43010

On 1 July 2010, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) and the Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS) merged to form ABARE–BRS.

AcknowledgmentsABARE–BRS gratefully acknowledges the cooperation of survey respondents. Participation in ABARE–BRS farm surveys is voluntary. The success of the surveys depends on the cooperation of farmers in providing data and information on farm operations.

The assistance and contribution of David Barrett is also gratefully acknowledged.

This project was funded by Dairy Australia, which also provided financial assistance for the Australian dairy industry survey.

iii

Foreword

On behalf of Dairy Australia, ABARE–BRS (formerly ABARE) has conducted biennial surveys since 1991–92 on the use of technology and management practices on Australian dairy farms. This report presents findings from the latest survey, which covers the 2008–09 financial year.

Changes in farm management practices and the adoption of new technologies have been critical in improving productivity in the Australian dairy industry over the past 20 years.

In this report, survey data show that dairy farmers have increased their use of feed concentrates and higher capacity milk vats to improve productivity. The rate of adoption of management practices such as soil testing, sources of fertiliser advice and disease prevention are also examined.

The insights gained from this research are useful for an improved understanding of the uptake of new technologies and better farm management practices. This information is valuable in helping to target research and development initiatives in the dairy industry.

Phillip Glyde Executive Director November 2010

iv

Contents1 Introduction 1

2 Overview of Australia’s dairy industry 2Farm incomes 2Farm numbers and milk production 2New investment 2

3 Technology and management practices 5Feed management 5Soil testing and fertiliser management 9Herd health 9Dairy sheds 10Milk vats 13Training, sources of information and management practices 14Computer use 15Future intentions 16

4 Regional comparisons 2008–09 19

Appendix A Survey results tables 24

B Survey methodology and definitions 33

References 40

Figuresa Farm cash income, Australian dairy farms 2

b Number of Australian dairy farms and total milk production 3

c Non-land capital investment, dairy farms 4

d Capital additions, dairy farms 4

e Dairy farm areas operated and stocking rates 5

f Grazing systems used, 2008–09 6

g Hay and silage purchased and made on-farm 6

h Concentrates, grain and by-products fed per cow 7

i Laboratory analysis of feedstuffs, 2008–09 8

j Farms conducting soil testing 9

k Sources of fertiliser advice 9

v

Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11

l Vaccination against leptospirosis, by stock type 10

m Dairy shed type 10

n Automation by shed type, 2008–09 12

o Average bulk milk vat capacity 13

p Trends in bulk vat capacity 13

q Provider of farm management advice, 2008–09 14

r Participation and rating of activities, 2008–09 15

s Purposes for computer use, 2008–09 15

t Training courses to be undertaken in the next 12 months 16

u Likely farm management/technology changes in the next 12 months, 2008–09 17

v Factors limiting farm management/technology changes 17

w Factors limiting farm management/technology changes, by shed type 18

Tables1 Feeding intensity, by calving pattern, 2008–09 7

2 Dairy characteristics, by shed type, 2008–09 11

3 Physical and financial performance, by shed type, 2008–09 13

4 Selected estimates for dairy farms, by region, 2008–09 20

5 Milking pattern and feed systems, by region, 2008–09 20

6 Sharefarming, by region, 2008–09 21

7 Herd health and breeding, by region, 2008–09 22

8 Dairy sheds and equipment, by region, 2008–09 22

9 Sources of farm management advice, by region, 2008–09 23

10 Participation and involvement in activities, by region, 2008–09 23

A1 Key physical indicators, Australian dairy industry 24

A2 Dairy characteristics, Australian dairy industry 25

A3 Walkthrough dairy characteristics, Australian dairy industry 26

A4 Double herringbone dairy characteristics, Australian dairy industry 27

A5 Swingover herringbone dairy characteristics, Australian dairy industry 28

A6 Rotary dairy characteristics, Australian dairy industry 29

A7 Supplementary concentrate/grain/by-product feeding, Australian dairy industry 30

A8 Hay and silage, Australian dairy industry 31

A9 Herd information, Australian dairy industry 32

Maps 1 Dairy farming regions 19

1

1Since 1991–92, ABARE–BRS (formerly ABARE) has conducted biennial surveys of the use of technology and management practices on Australian dairy farms, in conjunction with the annual Australian dairy industry survey. By combining data from these surveys it is possible to observe any linkages between the take-up of new technology and management practices and the physical and financial performance of farms.

This report provides a summary of results from the most recent survey of technology and management practices, which covers the 2008–09 financial year.

The survey obtained information from dairy farmers on a range of technologies and management practices, including: milking shed set-up and management; herd and farm management; feeding regimes; fodder conservation; soil testing; participation in training courses, workshops and extension projects; and intended changes in farm management.

The survey results are presented at both the national and dairy industry regional level.

Introduction

2

2Farm incomesAustralian dairy farm incomes have fluctuated since 1999–2000 (figure a), reflecting changes in world prices for traded dairy products and the effect of drought on milk production.

Nationally, average farm cash income for dairy industry farms fell from $129 300 a farm in 2007–08 to $88 000 a farm in 2008–09, as a result of lower farm-gate milk prices and an increase in average total cash costs. Purchases of fodder remained high, with many dairy farms in southern New South Wales and northern Victoria increasing fodder purchases in response to continued dry seasonal conditions and low availability of irrigation water.

Despite some improvement in seasonal conditions in 2009–10, which led to increased availability of irrigation water and lower fodder prices, a further reduction in farm-gate milk prices, particularly in southern Australian regions, resulted in lower overall milk

production in Australia. As a consequence, average farm cash income for dairy industry farms is estimated to have declined further to around $50 000 a farm in 2009–10.

Farm numbers and milk productionBetween 1991–92 and 2008–09, the number of dairy farms in Australia declined by around one-third (figure b). Total milk production reached a peak of 11.3 billion litres in 2001–02, before declining to 9.4 billion litres in 2008–09. Despite this decline in farm numbers and milk production, there have been increases in the proportion of larger milking herds on Australian dairy farms, resulting in an increase in average dairy herd size.

New investmentNew investments are an important means of boosting farm productivity and incomes, with productivity growth providing better prospects for farm business viability in the longer term. New investment by dairy farms was historically high in 2007–08 and 2008–09. Investment

Overview of Australia’s dairy industry

Farm cash income, Australian dairy farms average per farma

2009–10$’000

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2009–10

2006–07

2003–04

2000–01

1997–98

1994–95

1991–92

1988–89

Source: Australia dairy industry survey.


3

is likely to have been driven by a combination of: high farm profits in 2007–08; low interest rates and investment incentives provided by the Australian Government through its grants to irrigators in the Murray–Darling Basin; and the investment allowance offered to businesses between December 2008 and December 2009 as part of the government’s stimulus package in response to the global financial crisis.

Investment in non-land capital, including vehicles, plant, machinery and farm improvements, more than doubled for dairy farms in 2008–09, reaching the highest level recorded in more than 20 years (figure c). Some of this investment may have been brought forward by government incentives, so investment may be lower over the next few years. In addition, the proportion of dairy farms acquiring additional land reached almost 11 per cent in 2008–09, the highest since 2002–03.

The survey results indicate that the largest category of new capital expenditure on dairy farms in 2008–09 was tractors, followed by dairy sheds and equipment. Vehicles and crop harvesting and handling machinery were also other major items of expenditure in 2008–09 (figure d).

Number of Australian dairy farms and total milk productionb

milk production

number of dairy farms (right axis)

GL

Source: Dairy Australia.

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2

‘000

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2008–09

2006–07

2004–05

2002–03

2000–01

1998–99

1996–97

1994–95

1992–93

4


Non-land capital investment, dairy farmsaverage per farmc

2009–10$‘000

20406080

100120140160180200

2008–09

2006–07

2004–05

2002–03

2000–01

1998–99

1996–97

1994–95

1992–93

1990–91

Capital additions, dairy farmsaverage per farmd

$’000 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Other plant and equipment

Livestock handling facilities

Irrigation and water supply

Dairy shed and equipment

Farm buildings - other

Hay sheds

Grain silos / grain storage sheds

Houses and accommodation

Crop harvesting and handling equipment

Cultivation, sowing, fertiliser, spraying equipment

Vehicles

Tractors

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

5

3Feed managementIn 2008–09, the average area operated by Australian dairy farms was estimated to be 264 hectares. This was an almost 50 per cent increase on the average area of 178 hectares recorded in 1991–92 (figure e). Over the same period there has also been a moderate upward trend in average stocking rates.

Grazing practicesOn average, around 70 per cent of the pasture area on dairy farms was planted to perennial species. The remaining 30 per cent of pasture area consisted of either annual or annual/perennial mix species.

The most common grazing system used in 2008–09 was a combination of rotational grazing and movable electric fences (figure f ). Around 50 per cent of farms used this system, with rotational grazing being the next most used system (33 per cent).

Hay and silage are important components in dairy and other livestock grazing management systems. In the past two surveys (2006–07 and 2008–09), the proportion of total hay and silage that was made on-farm declined relative to the longer term averages (figure g). Reflecting generally poorer seasonal conditions in these two years, many dairy farms had insufficient

Technology and management practices

Dairy farm areas operated and stocking ratese

area operated

stocking rate (right axis)

Ha head/ha

60

120

180

240

300

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

2008–09

2006–07

2004–05

2001–02

1999–2000

1997–98

1995–96

1993–94

1991–92

6


pasture or crop to produce sufficient hay and silage. They therefore had to purchase requirements, resulting in an increase in the proportion of hay and silage purchased.

Of the total volume of hay and silage purchased by dairy farms in 2008–09, hay accounted for around 73 per cent of total purchases (average of 190 tonnes a farm) and silage accounted for 27 per cent (average of 72 tonnes a farm). Conversely, of the total hay/silage produced on-farm, it was silage that accounted for the greater proportion (75 per cent of the total), and hay made up 25 per cent.

A majority of Australian dairy farmers supplement pasture-based production by feeding grains, concentrates and by-products to cattle. In 2008–09, around 98 per cent of farms used these supplementary feedstuffs. Since 1991–92, there has been a gradual upward trend in the quantity of concentrates, grain and by-products fed per cow (figure h).

Grazing systems used, 2008–09per cent of farmsf

temporaryelectric fences

9%block or continuous

grazing9%

rotationalgrazing

33%

electric fencesand rotationalgrazing 49%

Hay and silage purchased and made on-farmg

hay/silage purchased

% o

f tot

al h

ay/s

ilage

ava

ilabl

e

hay/silage made

2008–09

2006–07

2004–05

2001–02

1999–2000

1997–98

1995–96

1993–94

1991–92

10

0

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


7

Feeding intensitySince the early 1990s there has been a trend of increasing milk production per cow. Milk production increased from an average of 3811 litres a cow in 1991–92 to 5681 litres a cow in 2008–09. A major contributor to increasing milk production has been improved feed management practices, including more use of feeding grains, concentrates and by-products.

Table 1 provides a comparison of farms using a high-intensity feeding approach versus a low-intensity approach. Feeding intensity refers to the amount of grain and concentrates fed per cow.

High-intensity farms were defined as those farms feeding more than 1500 kilograms of grain/concentrate/by-products a cow in 2008–09, whereas low-intensity farms fed less than 1500 kilograms a cow. These two groups of farms were further divided according to milk production pattern—either seasonal milk producers or year-round milk producers.

Concentrates, grain and by-productsfed per cowh

tonnes/cow

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2008–09

2006–07

2004–05

2001–02

1999–2000

1997–98

1995–96

1993–94

1991–92

1 Feeding intensity, by calving pattern, 2008–09 average per farm seasonal producers a year-round producers

low feeding high feeding low feeding high feeding intensity b intensity c intensity b intensity cDairy cows milked for more than 3 months no. 188 (9) 280 (6) 174 (25) 219 (7)Milk yield per cow L 5 108 (6) 6 271 (3) 4 729 (5) 6 322 (3)Stocking rate no./ha 1.8 (6) 1.6 (8) 1.0 (19) 1.2 (9)Grain/concentrates/ by-products per cow d t 0.9 (7) 2.2 (5) 1.1 (7) 2.8 (6)Milk production per effective hectare L 9 529 (7) 12 612 (6) 6 982 (14) 10 034 (15)

Purchased feed $ 102 654 (13) 282 600 (9) 126 736 (30) 269 550 (12)– grain/concentrates/by-products $ 80 139 (12) 244 404 (10) 90 447 (34) 192 475 (17)– hay and silage $ 22 515 (32) 38 197 (15) 33 581 (37) 73 464 (9)Feed costs per cow $ 537 (9) 982 (6) 682 (17) 1 175 (7)

Farm cash income $ 64 997 (30) 112 130 (23) 77 263 (33) 110 629 (18)Farm business profit $ –8 377 (99) 24 861 (99) 5 736 (99) 15 354 (99)

Rate of return excl. capital appreciation % 1.6 (42) 2.6 (19) 1.5 (42) 1.9 (21)

a Includes split calving pattern farms. b Low feeding intensity is less than 1.5 tonnes of grain/concentrate/by-products fed per cow. c High feeding intensity is more than 1.5 tonnes of grain/concentrate/by-products fed per cow. d Farms feeding concentrates/grain/by-products. Note: Figures in parentheses are standard errors, expressed as a percentage of the estimates provided.

8


The survey results indicate that, in 2008–09, both groups of high-intensity farms recorded higher performance in almost all measures than farms in the low-intensity groups. High-intensity farms milked more cows, produced more milk per hectare and produced higher milk yields per cow than low-intensity farms. Despite much higher feed costs, high-intensity farms were able to outperform low-intensity farms in the key financial performance measures of farm cash income, farm business profit and rate of return.

Analysis of feedstuffsFarmers can have feedstuffs analysed by independent testing laboratories. A wide range of tests can be performed, including dry matter percentages, protein and digestibility levels, and the presence of any toxins.

In 2008–09, a majority of farms reported that they always used feed analysis reports when making feed purchase decisions (figure i). Silage was the most common feed stuff to always be tested, followed by grain and hay. The relatively higher use of tests for purchased silage is possibly related to concerns about greater potential for variability in protein content.

Laboratory analysis of feedstu�s, 2008–09i

Hay

Silage

Grain

Other

always often sometimes never

% of farms 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


9

Soil testing and fertiliser managementSoil testing enables farmers to determine the nutrient status of soils and therefore the type and amount of any fertiliser needed. Matching fertiliser with plant needs also helps to address run-off of excess nutrients. An estimated 57 per cent of dairy farmers conducted soil tests in 2008–09 (figure j). The decline compared with previous years may reflect a tendency to use less fertiliser in drier seasonal conditions.

Of those farms that conducted soil tests in 2008–09, almost 80 per cent used the results to make changes to fertiliser management practices. The two main sources of fertiliser advice were representatives from fertiliser companies and consultants (figure k). State departments of agriculture now play a minor role as fertiliser advice providers, reflecting declining resources and a shift away from providing individual farm extension services.

Herd healthIncidences of clinical mastitis in dairy herds can cause substantial production losses by reducing milk quality and quantity. An estimated 51 per cent of dairy farms had a defined mastitis program in 2008–09. Of the dairy farms that had a defined mastitis program, around 43 per cent implemented the program before 1990, 40 per cent between 1990 and 2000, and the remainder

Farms conducting soil testingj

% offarms

20

40

60

80

100

2008–09

2006–07

2004–05

2001–02

1999–2000

1997–98

1995–96

1993–94

1991–92

Sources of fertiliser advice ak

% offarms

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2008–09

2006–07

2004–05

2001–02

1999–2000

1997–98

1995–96

1993–94

1991–92

fertiliser company representative

consultant

Department of agriculture

a Estimates presented as best-fit trend lines.

10


after 2000.

Leptospirosis is a potentially serious infectious disease that affects the health and production of dairy cattle. Leptospirosis is a zoonosis (that is, transmissible from animals to humans) and can also produce severe ill health in humans. Since 1991–92, there has been a general upward trend in the proportion of farms vaccinating all dairy stock types against this disease (figure l).

Dairy shedsSince the early 1990s there has been a general trend toward installing or improving milking sheds and equipment to improve labour use efficiency and to cater for larger

scales of milk production. In 2008–09, Australian dairy farms invested an average of more than $13 000 a farm on dairy shed capital improvements, significantly more than reported in the two previous surveys.

The main milking shed types used in Australia are walkthrough sheds, herringbone swingover sheds, herringbone double sheds, and rotary sheds.

Since 1991–92, herringbone milking sheds, particularly swingover units, have been the most common type of shed on Australian dairy farms (figure m). In 2008–09, swingover herringbone sheds accounted for slightly more than half of all sheds used and double herringbone comprised 27 per cent of sheds. The proportion of dairy farms with walkthrough sheds has generally declined, while there has been a small, though gradual, increase in rotary sheds.

The average year of manufacture for dairy sheds was more recent for rotary sheds and oldest for walkthrough sheds (table 2). On average, rotary dairies had the highest number of milking bails per shed and

were most likely to use a two-pond shed effluent disposal system. Farms with rotary sheds also milked the most cows at peak season (average of 394 a farm) and recorded the best performance in terms of cow numbers milked per hour and per operator.

Vaccination against leptospirosis,by stock typel

% offarms

2008–09

2006–07

2004–05

2001–02

1999–2000

1997–98

1995–96

1993–94

1991–92

heifers

milking cows

dry cows

20

40

60

80

100

Dairy shed typem

% offarms

2008–09

2006–07

2004–05

2001–02

1999–2000

1997–98

1995–96

1993–94

1991–92

swingover herringbone

double herringbone

walkthrough

rotary

10

20

30

40

50

60


11

When compared with double herringbone units, the number of cows milked at peak season and the number milked per hour was higher in swingover sheds. However, the number of cows milked per operator was lower. Swingover sheds had slightly more milking bails than doubles and more commonly used a one-pond effluent disposal system.

Effluent disposal methods have changed significantly across Australia since 1991–92, largely in response to environmental concerns. The proportion of farmers discharging run-off directly into paddocks has fallen from an estimated 52 per cent in 1991–92 to around 5 per cent in 2008–09. The main change in all shed types has been toward the use of ponding systems.

Shed automationA variety of dairy shed operations can be automated to reduce reliance on labour. In 2008–09, automation was highest in the rotary sheds. This shed type had the highest proportion of automatic backing gates, vat cleaning systems, cup removers, teat spraying, drafting gates and milk flow meters (figure n).

Of the herringbone sheds, double units had a higher proportion of automatic backing gates, automatic cup removers and automatic drafting yards. Swingover units in comparison, had a higher proportion of automatic vat cleaning systems, automatic teat sprays and milk flow meters.

2 Dairy characteristics, by shed type, 2008–09 averages and proportion of farms double swingover herringbone herringbone rotary walkthrough

Proportion of sheds % 27 (16) 52 (10) 13 (13) 8 (33)

Shed characteristics Milking shed bails no. 20 (7) 22 (4) 46 (2) 8 (3)Milking time at peak season min. 128 (9) 143 (6) 157 (6) 164 (32)Number of operators at peak season no. 1.4 (7) 1.8 (2) 1.8 (5) 2 (4)Cows milked at peak season no. 165 (10) 196 (4) 394 (5) 86 (5)– per hour no./hr 77 (5) 82 (7) 151 (6) 31 (33)– per operator no./op 119 (7) 109 (4) 216 (5) 47 (3)

Shed effluent disposal system Run-off into paddock % 4 (39) 1 (77) 1 (91) 47 (65)Pump and spray % 24 (20) 15 (25) 17 (24) 9 (39)1 pond % 29 (46) 44 (13) 19 (34) 35 (85)2 ponds % 38 (37) 38 (18) 62 (12) 8 (81)

Note: Figures in parentheses are standard errors, expressed as a percentage of the estimates provided.

12


Physical and financial indicators by shedThe physical and financial performance of dairy farms varied considerably when compared on the basis of shed type (table 3). On average, farms with walkthrough sheds operated the smallest areas and recorded the lowest milk production (both total and per cow). These farms fed the smallest quantity of supplementary grain inputs, averaging 0.6 tonnes a cow. On average, farms with walkthrough sheds recorded the lowest average farm cash income, farm business profit and rate of return excluding capital appreciation of all shed types.

Of the farms with herringbone sheds, those with swingover systems had higher total milk production and per cow milk production than double units, but operated smaller areas at higher stocking rates. Although farms with double herringbone sheds fed a larger quantity of grain inputs per head of dairy cattle, average feed costs per head were about the same, on average.

Dairy farms with rotary dairies tended to be the largest milk producers on average, with both the largest volumes of milk in total and per cow. These farms fed an average of 1.2 tonnes of grain a cow, double the quantity fed by farms with any other shed type. In 2008–09, farms with a rotary shed recorded the highest average farm cash incomes, farm business profits and rate of return.

Automation by shed type, 2008–09n

% of sheds

20 3010 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Backing gates

Vat cleaning

Cup removers

Teat sprays

Drafting gates

Milk meters

swingover herringbone double herringbone rotary


13

Milk vatsIn line with the general trend toward larger capacity milking sheds, the average capacity of milk vats has also increased. The average vat capacity has increased steadily from around 2000 litres in 1991–92 to slightly more than 7000 litres in 2008–09 (figure o). Standard refrigerated bulk vats account for about 95 per cent of bulk vats used on Australian dairy farms.

3 Physical and financial performance, by shed type, 2008–09 average per farm double swingover walkthrough herringbone herringbone rotary

Proportion of sheds % 27 (16) 52 (10) 13 (13) 8 (33)

Area operated ha 161 (22) 285 (11) 207 (6) 489 (8)Dairy herd at 30 June no. 161 (17) 290 (8) 305 (4) 632 (6)Stocking rate no./ha 1.0 (20) 1.0 (10) 1.5 (5) 1.3 (8)Milk production ‘000L 397.2 (13) 1 010.3 (9) 1 151.7 (5) 2 391.5 (6)Milk yield per cow L/cow 4 333 (13) 5 408 (7) 5 779 (3) 5 939 (3)Milk production per labour weeks worked L/wks 3 359 (25) 7 399 (10) 8 454 (4) 11 995 (5)Grain inputs per cow a t/hd 0.6 (18) 2.0 (8) 1.7 (6) 2.0 (13)– concentrates t/hd 0.5 (13) 1.0 (12) 0.9 (14) 0.7 (20)– grain t/hd 0.1 (99) 0.6 (13) 0.6 (15) 1.2 (10)– by-products t/hd 0.0 (99) 0.3 (35) 0.2 (44) 0.1 (99)Feed costs per cow $/hd 239 (27) 841 (5) 831 (6) 1 010 (6)Farm cash income $ 41 242 (35) 78 624 (22) 80 695 (17) 150 040 (21)Farm business profit $ –13 890 (99) 5 405 (99) –6 137 (99) 51 640 (66)Rate of return $ –0.4 (99) 2.0 (20) 1.6 (26) 2.7 (19)

a Farms feeding concentrates or grain. Note: Figures in parentheses are standard errors, expressed as a percentage of the estimates provided.

Average bulk milk vat capacityaverage per farmo

litrescapacity

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

2008–09

2006–07

2004–05

2001–02

1999–2000

1997–98

1995–96

1993–94

1991–92

Trends in bulk vat capacityp

% offarms

2008–09

2006–07

2004–05

2001–02

1999–2000

1997–98

1995–96

1993–94

1991–92

less than 2500 litres

2500 to 5000 litres

5000 to 7500 litresmore than 7500 litres

20

40

60

80

100

14


The proportion of farms with high capacity milk vats has also been increasing. Since 1991–92, the proportion of farms with bulk vats with a capacity of more than 7500 litres has risen from 1 per cent to around 38 per cent in 2008–09 (figure p). Over the same period, the proportion of farms with bulk vats with a capacity of less than 2500 litres has declined from 82 per cent to around 16 per cent.

Training, sources of information and management practicesDairy farmers used a variety of information to make informed business decisions in 2008–09. The most used source was other farmers, family and the media (figure q). On average, advice was obtained from other farmers and family members on seven occasions in 2008–09.

Australian dairy farmers attended a broad range of discussion groups, workshops and programs in 2008–09 (figure r). The highest rates of participation were in farmer discussion groups (49 per cent of farms) and field days run by the private sector (42 per cent of farms).

Farmer discussion groups and field days run by the private sector were also deemed the two most valuable for aiding farm management decisions. Activities with relatively high participation rates but of lesser value to farmers were public field days and industry training sessions.

In 2008–09, more than 70 per cent of dairy farmers reported that outside management advice helped to improve the profitability of their farm business through improved

pasture and/or forage management. A further 61 per cent of farms reported that advice about supplementary feeding and herd nutrition helped improve farm profitability.

Provider of farm managementadvice, 2008–09average per farm

q

number of timesadvice obtained

agriculturaldepartment

staff

privateconsultant

milk company/factory staff

suppliersof inputs

mediasources

other farmers/

family

2

4

6

8


15

Computer useThe proportion of dairy farms using a computer program for herd and financial management has increased in recent years—from 46 per cent of farms in 2004–05 to around 72 per cent in 2008–09. The most common type of internet connection in 2008–09 was dial-up (37 per cent of farms), followed by satellite (32 per cent), wireless (22 per cent) and ADSL connections (7 per cent).

The major use of computer programs was for financial, budgeting and bookkeeping purposes (figure s), with around 91 per cent of farms using computer programs for this purpose in

Participation and rating of activities, 2008–09r

% offarms

10

20

30

40

50

participation

most valuable

Farmer discussion

groups

Privatefield days

Publicfield days

Industrytrainingsessions Farm

researchdays

Environmentalprograms

Farmerpoliticalgroups

Catchmentmanagement

authority RegionalR&D

groups

Purposes for computer use, 2008–09

s

0 20 40 60 80 100

other

financial/budgeting/bookkeeping

emails for herd or farm management

breeding records

milk production records

internet for herd management

microchip tags etc. for livestock identification

pasture/cropping/rotations/irrigation records

per cent of farms

16


2008–09. The next most important use was to send or receive information on herd or farm management via email (nominated by 80 per cent of farms).

Future intentionsWhile more than 50 per cent of dairy farmers in 2008–09 indicated they were unlikely to undertake any training courses/skills development in the next 12 months, the rest planned to attend a wide variety of courses (figure t). The most popular activities were those about pasture management and herd nutrition.

Dairy farmers were also asked if they were likely to change their current technology use or management practices in the next 12 months. Almost 50 per cent of farmers reported they were unlikely to make any significant changes in this time (figure u).

Of those farmers that were intending to make changes, the most nominated categories were about grazing/pasture management (nominated by 26 per cent of farms), upgrading plant/equipment (19 per cent), dairy improvements (19 per cent) and improving supplementary feeding practices (17 per cent).

Training courses to be undertaken in the next 12 months t

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

other

no training likely to be undertaken

pasture management

herd nutrition

concentrate and feed management

soils and fertiliser

computer skills

fodder conservation

herd management

business management

milk quality

people management and employment

per cent of farms


17

However, not all dairy farmers believed they had the ability to implement changes over the coming year. The four major factors limiting change were the viability of the dairy industry (28 per cent), access to funding or potential to increase borrowings (27 per cent), workload or labour issues (22 per cent) and farmer’s age (21 per cent). Twenty-three per cent of farmers reported no factor would hinder their ability to make changes (figure v).

The issue of which factors can limit a farmer’s ability to make changes to technology and farm management techniques was further explored by categorising farms according to shed type (figure w). The most important limiting factor for farms with walkthrough sheds was age (nominated by more than 50 per cent of farms), while for farmers with double herringbone units it was access to borrowed funds (also more than 50 per cent). The most common response from farmers with swingover units was that there was no limiting factor (30 per cent), while farmers with rotary sheds were most concerned with industry viability (30 per cent).

Likely farm management/technology changes in the next 12 months, 2008–09

u

0 10 20 30 40 50

otherno significant changes likely

improved grazing and pasture managementnew plant and equipment

dairy improvementsimproved supplementary feeding

installation of new feed systemirrigation plant and/or layout

increased fertiliser use and planningsoil testing

electronic herd identificationadditional land irrigated

changes to calving patternincreased use of farm management consultant

adoption of automatic milkingincreased grain and concentrate feeding

per cent of farms

Factors limiting farm management/technology changes v

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

other

attitude to industry viability

access to funding to increase borrowings

no factor limiting

workload/labour issues

age

access to support/advice

per cent of farms

18


Factors limiting farm management/technology changes, by shed typew

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

access to borrowed funds

workload or labour issues

attitude to dairy industry viability

age

no factor limiting

double herringbonewalkthrough

rotaryswingover herringbone

per cent of farms

19

4This section provides survey results for the dairy industry regions used by Dairy Australia: northern New South Wales and Queensland, northern Victoria and the Riverina (NSW), Tasmania, Western Australia, South Australia, the Gippsland region (Vic), western Victoria, and southern and central New South Wales (map 1).

There was considerable diversity in the profile of dairy farms in each region (table 4). On average, the largest farms in terms of area operated, dairy cattle numbers and milk production were in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Farms in these three regions were also more diversified than in other regions, running significant numbers of sheep and beef cattle, as well as generally higher crop areas.

Regional comparisons 2008–09

Dairy farming regions

southern and central NSWSouth AustraliaTasmaniaGippslandnorthern Victoria and Riverinanorthern NSW and Queenslandwestern VictoriaWestern Australia

Western Australia

South Australia

Queensland

Northern Territory

New SouthWales

Victoria

Tasmania

Perth

Sydney

Canberra

Hobart

Adelaide

Melbourne

Brisbane

Cairns

Darwin

map 1

20


Conversely, dairy farms in northern New South Wales and Queensland, northern Victoria and Riverina and Gippsland tended to operate relatively smaller areas, had fewer dairy cattle, lower milk production and were less involved in other livestock enterprises.

Year-round milking was the most common system in five of the eight regions, particularly in northern New South Wales and Queensland, southern and central New South Wales and Western Australia (table 5). In western Victoria and Tasmania a seasonal pattern was most common, while farmers in Gippsland mostly used split systems.

4 Selected estimates for dairy farms, by region, 2008–09 average per farm northern southern and northern Vic western NSW and Qld central NSW and Riverina Gippsland Vic SA WA Tas

Area operated ha 263 384 217 176 234 652 603 337Dairy cattle no. 263 394 276 305 388 483 575 486Beef cattle no. 31 88 10 8 15 35 52 138Sheep no. 0 0 0 0 10 107 235 43Crop area ha 60 79 83 48 83 187 238 74

Cows milked for > 3 months no. 144 208 180 206 247 283 255 307Total milk production ‘000 L 805 1 329 1 104 1 200 1 353 1 874 1 746 1 698Litres per cow a L/cow 4 883 6 085 5 880 5 729 5 541 6 319 6 167 5 172

a Based on the number of cows mated.

5 Milking pattern and feed systems, by region, 2008–09 average and proportion of farms northern southern and northern Vic western NSW and Qld central NSW and Riverina Gippsland Vic SA WA TasMilking pattern Seasonal % 4 1 28 42 59 17 0 67Split % 0 0 22 45 34 26 7 18Year-round % 95 99 50 13 7 57 86 14Other % 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grazing system Rotational grazing % 9 11 33 47 34 30 64 28Temporary electric fence % 19 7 3 5 14 16 0 14Rotational and electric fence % 56 72 52 47 40 37 31 35Block or continuous grazing % 5 11 12 1 12 11 5 19

Concentrates/grains/ by-products fed t 490 513 346 294 352 802 565 530

Primary reasons for feeding concentrates/grain/by-products Lift milk production % 69 80 22 18 81 58 77 30Fill gaps in pasture supply % 8 7 52 39 17 20 19 29Assist in pasture management % 2 2 22 43 2 7 0 16Enable increased stocking rate % 5 1 0 0 0 6 2 11Other % 17 10 4 0 0 8 2 14


21

The grazing system used by most farmers in seven of the regions was rotational grazing using electric fencing. A stand-alone rotational grazing system was the most preferred system in Western Australia (used by 67 per cent of farms) and equal most common system in Gippsland (along with rotational using electric fencing). Stand-alone rotational grazing was the second most reported system in five of the eight regions.

The average quantity of concentrates/grain/by-products fed per farm was highest in South Australia (802 tonnes) and lowest in Gippsland (294 tonnes).

In most regions, but particularly in northern New South Wales and Queensland, southern and central New South Wales, western Victoria and Western Australia, the most reported reason for using concentrates/grain/by-products was to increase milk production. A majority of dairy farmers in the northern Victoria and Riverina region used supplementary feeding to fill gaps in their pasture supply, probably reflecting low water allocations.

The proportion of dairy farmers engaged in on-farm sharefarming agreements was highest in western Victoria (table 6). Around one-quarter of farms were sharefarming in this region, compared with 13 per cent in Tasmania and 10 per cent in both South Australia and Gippsland.

While no farms surveyed in northern New South Wales and Queensland had on-farm sharefarming agreements in 2008–09, 4 per cent were engaged in off-farm sharefarming (undertaking dairying activities on someone else’s farm as well as their own).

The proportion of farms vaccinating against leptospirosis was highest in the Gippsland, Tasmania and northern Victoria and Riverina regions—more than 90 per cent for heifers, milking cows and dry stock (table 7). Vaccination rates tended to be the lowest in Western Australia and South Australia.

The most common dairy shed type in six regions was the swingover herringbone—ranging from 82 per cent in Gippsland to 42 per cent in Tasmania (table 8). In the other two regions (South Australia and Western Australia), the double herringbone units were the most common shed type.

The highest proportions of farms with rotary sheds were in western Victoria (27 per cent of farms), South Australia (26 per cent) and Western Australia (22 per cent).

6 Sharefarming, by region, 2008–09 proportion of farms northern southern and northern Vic western NSW and Qld central NSW and Riverina Gippsland Vic SA WA TasFarms with On-farm sharefarming a % 0 2 6 9 24 10 2 13Off-farm sharefarming b % 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

a Based on farms with payments to sharefarmers. b Based on farms receiving off-farm sharefarming receipts.

22


The three main sources of farm management advice for dairy farmers in almost all regions were other farmers and family, input suppliers (for example, fertiliser company representatives) and private consultants (table 9). Milk companies and factories were the least used sources of advice in all regions.

8 Dairy sheds and equipment, by region, 2008–09 proportion of farms northern southern and northern Vic western NSW and Qld central NSW and Riverina Gippsland Vic SA WA TasFarms with Walkthrough % 12 17 0 0 24 0 10 13Double herringbone % 35 21 43 16 2 61 49 33Swingover herringbone % 51 52 44 82 50 14 21 42Rotary % 2 13 13 3 27 26 22 18

Farms with automated Backing gates % 16 30 63 20 48 51 85 38Vat/milking plant cleaning systems % 55 79 47 54 73 85 82 41Cup removers % 32 49 29 34 41 76 46 25Teat disinfectant spray system % 32 44 66 34 65 63 67 26Drafting gates % 10 17 30 9 49 51 13 19Milk meters % 19 18 4 15 18 21 13 8

7 Herd health and breeding, by region, 2008–09 average or proportion of farms northern southern and northern Vic western NSW and Qld central NSW and Riverina Gippsland Vic SA WA TasHave mastitis control program % 27 46 59 53 61 45 30 43

Year mastitis control program started – before 1990 % 23 46 60 44 25 32 59 55– 1990 to 2000 % 47 18 34 56 42 39 6 18– after 2000 % 30 36 7 0 33 30 34 27

Vaccinate against leptospirosis – heifers % 72 83 91 100 77 59 61 96– milking cows % 59 75 93 98 56 53 52 98– dry stock % 59 75 91 98 43 48 46 94


23

Activities with the highest participation rates were farmer discussion groups and private sector field days (table 10). Both activities had either the highest or second highest participation rates in six of the eight regions.

Public sector sponsored field days were most important in Gippsland and western Victoria, while farmers in South Australia and Tasmania were much more likely to participate in farmer political/representative groups and regional R&D groups.

9 Sources of farm management advice, by region, 2008–09 proportion of farms northern southern and northern Vic western NSW and Qld central NSW and Riverina Gippsland Vic SA WA Tas

Other farmers/family % 76 40 70 28 37 61 63 55Media sources % 24 10 36 17 14 35 16 31Suppliers of inputs % 72 43 48 51 49 67 62 46Milk company/factory staff % 5 3 4 3 2 2 2 1Private consultant % 32 39 36 31 37 61 56 37Agricultural department staff % 22 35 29 24 27 4 29 40

10 Participation and involvement in activities, by region, 2008–09 proportion of farms northern southern and northern Vic western NSW and Qld central NSW and Riverina Gippsland Vic SA WA Tas

Farmer discussion groups % 65 44 72 23 35 71 66 63Farm research days/workshops % 26 14 15 11 34 31 23 42Industry training sessions % 34 39 36 20 29 58 36 30Public sector field days % 35 35 33 43 47 8 16 31Private sector field days % 51 52 44 32 42 50 48 34Farmer political/ representative groups % 15 8 6 22 7 33 16 37Regional R&D groups % 11 7 0 4 9 14 5 20Catchment management authority committees/boards % 15 17 12 0 2 28 16 15Environmental programs % 25 15 19 10 14 13 14 19

2424

appe

ndixASurvey results tables

A1

Key

phys

ical

indi

cato

rs, A

ustr

alia

n da

iry

indu

stry

av

erag

e p

er fa

rm

1991

–92

19

93–9

4

1995

–96

199

7–98

1999

–200

0 2

001–

02

200

4–05

2006

–07

20

08–0

9

Are

a op

erat

ed

ha

17

8 (4

)

189

(4)

21

4 (5

)

214

(4)

21

7 (4

)

257

(5)

22

5 (5

)

244

(6)

26

4 (5

)

Are

a ut

ilise

d b

y

milk

ing

cow

s ha

na

na

na

na

na

11

2 (4

)

112

(3)

12

2 (5

)

125

(5)

Are

a ut

ilise

d b

y ot

her

l

ives

tock

ha

na

na

na

na

na

12

7 (1

0)

98

(9

)

106

(10)

122

(7)

Dai

ry c

attl

e at

30

June

no

.

182

(3)

19

5 (2

)

227

(3)

24

2 (2

)

256

(3)

31

0 (2

)

293

(3)

31

0 (3

)

342

(3)

Milk

ing

cow

s no

.

124

(3)

12

7 (2

)

143

(3)

16

0 (2

)

168

(3)

20

4 (3

)

196

(3)

21

1 (3

)

220

(3)

Stoc

king

rat

e no

./ha

1.

03

(4)

1.03

(4

) 1.

06

(5)

1.14

(5

) 1.

18

(5)

1.20

(5

) 1.

30

(5)

1.27

(5

) 1.

30

(4)

Milk

pro

duc

tion

L

472

254

(4

) 5

41 2

58

(2)

617

813

(4)

659

792

(3

) 8

05 1

77

(4)

994

404

(4

) 97

5 07

9 (4

) 1

044

473

(3) 1

247

346

(4

)

Milk

yie

ld p

er c

ow

L/co

w

3 8

11

(2)

4 2

54

(2)

4 3

09

(2)

4 1

15

(2)

4 8

05

(2)

4 8

81

(3)

4 9

79

(2)

4 9

49

(2)

5 6

81

(2)

Milk

pro

duc

tion

per

lab

our

unit

a

L/un

it

na

na

1

70 8

60

(4)

188

091

(3

) 2

21 2

50

(4)

277

637

(4

) 30

8 10

1 (4

) 3

20 5

09

(4)

367

403

(3

)

Milk

ing

cow

s p

er

la

bou

r un

it a

no

./un

it

na

na

40

(3

)

46

(3)

46

(3

)

57

(3)

62

(4

)

65

(3)

65

(3

)

Milk

pro

duc

tion

per

effe

ctiv

e he

ctar

e L/

ha

na

na

na

na

na

8

863

(5

) 8

721

(4

) 8

560

(5

) 9

999

(4

)

a Ba

sed

on a

40-

hour

wee

k. T

his

mea

ns th

at a

farm

er th

at w

orks

a 6

0-ho

ur w

eek

is c

ount

ed a

s 1.

5 la

bou

r uni

ts.

Not

e: F

igur

es in

par

enth

eses

are

sta

ndar

d er

rors

, exp

ress

ed a

s a

per

cent

age

of th

e es

timat

es p

rovi

ded

.


25

A2

Dai

ry c

hara

cter

istic

s, A

ustr

alia

n da

iry

indu

stry

av

erag

e p

er fa

rm

1991

–92

19

93–9

4

1995

–96

199

7–98

1999

–200

0 2

001–

02

200

4–05

2006

–07

20

08–0

9 Sh

ed ty

pe

W

alkt

hrou

gh

%

19

(13)

23

(1

3)

18

(16)

18

(17

) 14

(19

) 10

(19)

5

(27)

9

(38)

8

(33)

Dou

ble

her

ring

bon

e %

37

(9

) 27

(1

2)

25

(17)

21

(15

) 28

(13

) 24

(14)

29

(13

) 29

(1

7)

27

(16)

Swin

gov

er h

erri

ngb

one

%

41

(9)

47

(7)

52

(8)

54

(8)

51

(8)

56

(7)

56

(6)

49

(12)

52

(1

0)

Rota

ry

%

3 (3

5)

4 (2

6)

5 (2

3)

7 (2

3)

6 (2

7)

10 (1

7)

10 (

21)

13

(13)

13

(1

3)

Shed

cha

ract

eris

tics

M

ilkin

g s

hed

bai

ls

no.

15

(3)

16

(3)

19

(4)

20

(4)

21

(3)

24

(3)

23

(4)

26

(4)

24

(3)

Milk

ing

tim

e at

pea

k se

ason

m

ins

129

(2)

132

(2)

135

(2)

138

(2)

139

(2)

140

(2)

135

(3)

129

(2)

143

(4)

Num

ber

of o

per

ator

s at

pea

k se

ason

no

. 1.

6 (3

) 1.

6 (2

) 1.

6 (3

) 1.

7 (3

) 1.

6 (3

) 1.

6 (2

) 1.

6 (3

) 1.

6 (4

) 1.

7 (3

)

Cow

s m

ilked

at

pea

k se

ason

hd

11

2 (2

) 11

7 (2

) 13

1 (3

) 14

2 (2

) 15

5 (3

) 19

0 (3

) 18

3 (3

) 20

7 (9

) 20

5 (3

)

– p

er h

our

hd/h

r 52

(3

) 53

(2

) 58

(3

) 62

(3

) 67

(3

) 81

(3

) 81

(4

) 97

(9

) 86

(5

)

– p

er o

per

ator

hd

/op

70

(3

) 73

(3

) 81

(4

) 86

(3

) 95

(3

) 11

7 (3

) 11

5 (4

) 12

8 (1

0)

121

(4)

Shed

s w

ith

auto

mat

ic

cu

p re

mov

ers

%

14

(17)

13

(1

4)

12

(24)

11

(15

) 14

(18

) 16

(15)

25

(15

) 23

(1

6)

36

(10)

Shed

effl

uent

dis

posa

l sys

tem

Run-

off i

nto

pad

doc

k %

52

(8

) 44

(8

) 40

(1

0)

37 (

10)

24 (

13)

21 (1

5)

10 (

26)

19

(24)

5

(47)

Pum

p a

nd s

pra

y %

17

(1

8)

15

(14)

12

(1

9)

17 (

17)

19 (

17)

18 (1

5)

22 (

15)

11

(15)

17

(1

4)

1 p

ond

%

18

(1

9)

24

(13)

29

(1

3)

25 (

12)

32 (

11)

32 (1

1)

38 (

11)

36

(15)

36

(1

5)

2 p

ond

s %

8

(24)

12

(1

7)

14

(16)

18

(17

) 22

(13

) 26

(12)

25

(14

) 26

(1

4)

39

(14)

Oth

er s

yste

ms

%

4 (4

1)

5 (3

0)

5 (3

5)

4 (4

0)

3 (4

1)

3 (4

8)

4 (3

3)

7 (2

7)

2 (4

2)

Not

e: F

igur

es in

par

enth

eses

are

sta

ndar

d er

rors

, exp

ress

ed a

s a

per

cent

age

of th

e es

timat

es p

rovi

ded

.

26


A3

Wal

kthr

ough

dai

ry c

hara

cter

istic

s, A

ustr

alia

n da

iry

indu

stry

av

erag

e p

er fa

rm

1991

–92

19

93–9

4

1995

–96

199

7–98

1999

–200

0 2

001–

02

200

4–05

2006

–07

20

08–0

9 Sh

ed c

hara

cter

istic

s

Milk

ing

she

d b

ails

no

. 7

(8)

7 (7

) 7

(10)

8

(5)

7 (1

1)

9 (4

4)

7 (4

) 8

(8)

8 (3

)

Milk

ing

tim

e at

pea

k se

ason

min

s 12

7 (4

) 13

4 (5

) 13

2 (6

) 13

2 (4

) 13

1 (5

) 12

9 (9

) 15

7 (1

4)

136

(3)

164

(32)

Num

ber

of o

per

ator

s at

pea

k se

ason

no

. 1.

4 (6

) 1.

6 (6

) 1.

7 (4

) 1.

7 (5

) 1.

8 (3

) 1.

5 (8

) 1.

9 (4

) 1.

9 (0

) 1.

8 (4

)

Cow

s m

ilked

at

pea

k se

ason

hd

66

(6

) 70

(6

) 77

(1

2)

77

(9)

88

(10)

82

(2

3)

76

(13)

85

(4

9)

86

(5)

– p

er h

our

hd/h

r 31

(7

) 31

(8

) 35

(9

) 35

(9

) 40

(1

0)

38

(25)

29

(1

0)

38

(49)

31

(3

3)

– p

er o

per

ator

hd

/op

47

(8

) 45

(6

) 45

(1

2)

44

(10)

50

(1

1)

54

(23)

40

(1

2)

44

(49)

47

(3

)

Shed

s w

ith

auto

mat

ic

c

up re

mov

ers

%

9 (4

7)

6 (4

5)

6 (4

4)

13

(44)

10

(5

7)

8 (7

2)

15

(71)

15

(1

33)

5 (1

27)

Shed

effl

uent

dis

posa

l sys

tem

Run-

off i

nto

pad

doc

k %

78

(8

) 54

(1

9)

69

(13)

75

(9

) 56

(2

0)

54

(19)

20

(7

8)

59

(36)

47

(6

5)

Pum

p a

nd s

pra

y %

12

(3

0)

11

(33)

13

(3

7)

7 (5

2)

20

(47)

6

(62)

11

(5

0)

7 (7

3)

9 (3

9)

1 p

ond

%

7

(74)

26

(3

3)

9 (7

1)

12

(48)

16

(5

0)

30

(25)

38

(2

2)

17

(99)

35

(8

5)

2 p

ond

s %

0

3

(91)

7

(71)

3

(62)

8

(52)

5

(99)

0

6

(99)

8

(81)

Oth

er s

yste

ms

%

4 (6

2)

6 (9

2)

2 (1

01)

2 (1

01)

0 (9

9)

6 (8

8)

32

(57)

10

(2

2)

0

No.

te: F

igur

es in

par

enth

eses

are

sta

ndar

d er

rors

, exp

ress

ed a

s a

per

cent

age

of th

e es

timat

es p

rovi

ded

.


27

A4

Dou

ble

herr

ingb

one

dair

y ch

arac

teris

tics,

Aus

tral

ian

dair

y in

dust

ry

av

erag

e p

er fa

rm

1991

–92

19

93–9

4

1995

–96

199

7–98

1999

–200

0 2

001–

02

200

4–05

2006

–07

20

08–0

9 Sh

ed c

hara

cter

istic

s

Milk

ing

she

d b

ails

no

. 15

(4

) 15

(6

) 17

(9

) 18

(1

0)

18

(6)

21

(8)

19

(7)

21

(6)

20

(7)

Milk

ing

tim

e at

pea

k

se

ason

m

ins

127

(4)

137

(3)

139

(5)

148

(4)

138

(7)

140

(4)

154

(6)

132

(5)

128

(9)

Num

ber

of o

per

ator

s at

pea

k se

ason

no

. 1.

5 (5

) 1.

5 (4

) 1.

5 (8

) 1.

7 (7

) 1.

5 (4

) 1.

5 (5

) 1.

7 (7

) 1.

7 (7

) 1.

4 (7

)

Cow

s m

ilked

at

pea

k se

ason

hd

10

8 (4

) 11

9 (5

) 12

7 (7

) 14

9 (7

) 14

2 (5

) 16

5 (6

) 15

4 (7

) 15

0 (6

) 16

5 (1

0)

– p

er h

our

hd/h

r 51

(4

) 52

(5

) 55

(7

) 60

(8

) 62

(7

) 71

(4

) 60

(7

) 68

(8

) 77

(5

)

– p

er o

per

ator

hd

/op

70

(5

) 81

(5

) 82

(5

) 85

(9

) 92

(6

) 10

8 (7

) 92

(1

1)

89

(11)

11

9 (7

)

Shed

s w

ith

auto

mat

ic

cu

p re

mov

ers

%

16

(19)

21

(1

9)

26

(36)

14

(2

2)

22

(23)

34

(2

0)

31

(23)

30

(3

1)

44

(17)

Shed

effl

uent

dis

posa

l sys

tem

Run-

off i

nto

pad

doc

k %

43

(2

0)

44

(11)

30

(3

4)

18

(19)

27

(1

8)

33

(28)

8

(45)

27

(3

1)

4 (3

9)

Pum

p a

nd s

pra

y %

19

(2

6)

12

(38)

12

(3

0)

23

(34)

18

(2

9)

15

(35)

25

(1

9)

12

(26)

24

(2

0)

1 p

ond

%

26

(3

1)

27

(23)

37

(2

9)

33

(18)

27

(2

5)

40

(23)

45

(1

9)

39

(25)

29

(4

6)

2 p

ond

s %

5

(32)

9

(40)

7

(39)

12

(5

0)

19

(30)

12

(3

9)

20

(37)

16

(3

5)

38

(37)

Oth

er s

yste

ms

%

7 (6

6)

7 (3

8)

14

(43)

14

(4

4)

8 (5

7)

1 (5

8)

2 (5

3)

5 (5

4)

1 (6

4)

Not

e: F

igur

es in

par

enth

eses

are

sta

ndar

d er

rors

, exp

ress

ed a

s a

per

cent

age

of th

e es

timat

es p

rovi

ded

.

28


A5

Swin

gove

r her

ringb

one

dair

y ch

arac

teris

tics,

Aus

tral

ian

dair

y in

dust

ry

aver

age

per

farm

1991

–92

19

93–9

4

1995

–96

199

7–98

1999

–200

0 2

001–

02

200

4–05

2006

–07

20

08–0

9 Sh

ed c

hara

cter

istic

s

Milk

ing

she

d b

ails

no

. 17

(6

) 20

(4

) 21

(4

) 22

(4

) 24

(3

) 24

(4

) 22

(5

) 27

(6

) 22

(4

)

Milk

ing

tim

e at

pea

k se

ason

m

ins

131

(4)

128

(2)

136

(3)

138

(4)

140

(3)

142

(2)

128

(4)

125

(4)

143

(6)

Num

ber

of o

per

ator

s at

pea

k se

ason

no

. 1.

7 (6

) 1.

7 (3

) 1.

6 (4

) 1.

6 (4

) 1.

6 (3

) 1.

6 (4

) 1.

5 (4

) 1.

4 (5

) 1.

8 (2

)

Cow

s m

ilked

at

pea

k se

ason

hd

12

6 (4

) 12

7 (3

) 13

4 (3

) 13

9 (3

) 15

7 (2

) 17

5 (2

) 17

3 (4

) 21

3 (1

7)

196

(4)

– p

er h

our

hd/h

r 58

(4

) 59

(3

) 59

(3

) 60

(4

) 67

(4

) 74

(3

) 81

(5

) 10

3 (1

8)

82

(7)

– p

er o

per

ator

hd

/op

74

(5

) 76

(4

) 85

(6

) 89

(4

) 97

(4

) 10

9 (4

) 11

9 (4

) 14

9 (1

7)

109

(4)

Shed

s w

ith

auto

mat

ic

cu

p re

mov

ers

%

15

(30)

11

(2

3)

6 (2

9)

9 (2

5)

10

(29)

10

(3

0)

22

(25)

19

(2

9)

33

(16)

Shed

effl

uent

dis

posa

l sys

tem

Run-

off i

nto

pad

doc

k %

52

(1

4)

41

(13)

39

(1

5)

34

(15)

17

(2

0)

13

(24)

11

(3

7)

13

(45)

1

(77)

Pum

p a

nd s

pra

y %

16

(3

7)

18

(19)

12

(3

9)

16

(21)

15

(2

1)

22

(18)

21

(2

3)

11

(21)

15

(2

5)

1 p

ond

%

18

(2

4)

23

(20)

31

(1

6)

27

(19)

42

(1

2)

33

(15)

38

(1

5)

39

(21)

44

(1

3)

2 p

ond

s %

13

(3

5)

15

(23)

17

(1

9)

21

(23)

25

(1

8)

27

(16)

27

(1

9)

29

(24)

38

(1

8)

Oth

er s

yste

ms

%

2 (5

8)

4 (4

3)

2 (3

6)

1 (5

2)

1 (5

9)

3 (6

8)

3 (5

9)

9 (4

4)

3 (4

3)

Not

e: F

igur

es in

par

enth

eses

are

sta

ndar

d er

rors

, exp

ress

ed a

s a

per

cent

age

of th

e es

timat

es p

rovi

ded

.


29

A6

Rota

ry d

airy

cha

ract

eris

tics,

Aus

tral

ian

dair

y in

dust

ry

aver

age

per

farm

1991

–92

19

93–9

4

1995

–96

199

7–98

1999

–200

0 2

001–

02

200

4–05

2006

–07

20

08–0

9 Sh

ed c

hara

cter

istic

s

Milk

ing

she

d b

ails

no

. 39

(9

) 39

(8

) 39

(5

) 44

(3

) 42

(9

) 46

(4

) 47

(4

) 44

(3

) 46

(2

)

Milk

ing

tim

e at

pea

k se

ason

m

ins

130

(11)

13

1 (8

) 12

5 (6

) 12

7 (8

) 14

4 (6

) 13

7 (6

) 11

1 (6

) 13

1 (6

) 15

7 (6

)

Num

ber

of o

per

ator

s at

pea

k se

ason

no

. 2.

0 (7

) 2.

1 (2

) 2.

1 (4

) 1.

9 (5

) 1.

9 (5

) 2.

0 (3

) 2.

0 (2

) 2.

0 (3

) 1.

8 (5

)

Cow

s m

ilked

at

pea

k se

ason

hd

26

7 (1

7)

271

(15)

30

0 (8

) 32

7 (8

) 37

7 (1

2)

429

(7)

375

(6)

393

(4)

394

(5)

– p

er h

our

hd/h

r 12

3 (1

3)

124

(15)

14

4 (8

) 15

5 (1

0)

157

(11)

18

7 (7

) 20

3 (6

) 18

0 (6

) 15

1 (6

)

– p

er o

per

ator

hd

/op

13

6 (1

4)

130

(15)

14

1 (1

0)

172

(5)

196

(10)

21

4 (7

) 18

6 (6

) 19

8 (5

) 21

6 (5

)

Shed

s w

ith

auto

mat

ic

cup

rem

over

s %

11

(6

7)

11

(60)

12

(6

3)

16

(60)

16

(5

7)

20

(39)

31

(3

3)

25

(18)

56

(1

4)

Shed

effl

uent

dis

posa

l sys

tem

Run-

off i

nto

pad

doc

k %

11

(8

8)

20

(63)

6

(79)

11

(8

6)

1 (9

7)

1 (9

9)

6 (8

4)

0 (6

3)

1 (9

1)

Pum

p a

nd s

pra

y %

32

(5

8)

27

(41)

16

(3

4)

23

(43)

24

(4

7)

16

(45)

22

(4

3)

12

(31)

17

(2

4)

1 p

ond

%

13

(6

6)

10

(35)

38

(2

9)

24

(35)

22

(4

4)

12

(57)

21

(4

8)

26

(27)

19

(3

4)

2 p

ond

s %

42

(4

8)

44

(18)

40

(2

8)

41

(21)

49

(3

1)

70

(14)

44

(2

7)

55

(15)

62

(1

2)

Oth

er s

yste

ms

%

3 (9

9)

0

0

1 (9

9)

4 (6

3)

2 (5

5)

7 (8

8)

5 (4

6)

1 (5

3)

Not

e: F

igur

es in

par

enth

eses

are

sta

ndar

d er

rors

, exp

ress

ed a

s a

per

cent

age

of th

e es

timat

es p

rovi

ded

30


A7 Su

pple

men

tary

con

cent

rate

/gra

in/b

y-pr

oduc

t fee

ding

, Aus

tral

ian

dair

y in

dust

ry

aver

age

per

farm

or p

rop

ortio

n of

farm

s

1991

–92

19

93–9

4

1995

–96

199

7–98

1999

–200

0 2

001–

02

200

4–05

2006

–07

20

08–0

9 Fa

rms

feed

ing

con

cent

rate

s/

gr

ain/

by-

pro

duc

ts

%

80

(5)

85

(3)

89

(3)

90

(4)

91

(3)

89

(3)

91

(3)

88

(4)

98

(1)

Qua

ntity

of c

once

ntra

tes/

grai

n/by

-pro

duct

s fe

d a

Self

mix

con

cent

rate

s t

11

(20)

13

(2

2)

6 (2

8)

16

(44)

15

(1

8)

22

(32)

46

(2

2)

41

(37)

21

(1

9)

Purc

hase

d c

once

ntra

tes

t 38

(1

3)

46

(8)

57

(11)

60

(1

0)

64

(10)

13

8 (9

) 10

6 (1

1)

149

(9)

172

(10)

Gra

in

t 51

(1

1)

61

(8)

62

(10)

91

(9

) 11

4 (9

) 10

8 (1

0)

86

(11)

13

8 (9

) 16

4 (9

)

By-p

rod

ucts

t

6 (3

1)

11

(62)

9

(27)

20

(2

5)

24

(30)

26

(2

9)

23

(45)

39

(2

6)

39

(24)

Tota

l t

106

(6)

130

(7)

134

(5)

187

(6)

217

(6)

293

(5)

262

(6)

366

(6)

396

(5)

Qua

ntity

of c

once

ntra

tes/

grai

n/by

-pro

duct

s fe

d a

Self

mix

con

cent

rate

s t/

cow

0.

1 (2

1)

0.1

(22)

0.

0 (2

8)

0.1

(44)

0.

1 (1

9)

0.1

(31)

0.

2 (2

1)

0.2

(37)

0.

1 (1

9)

Purc

hase

d c

once

ntra

tes

t/co

w

0.3

(13)

0.

4 (8

) 0.

4 (1

2)

0.4

(10)

0.

4 (9

) 0.

6 (9

) 0.

5 (1

1)

0.7

(9)

0.8

(9)

Gra

in

t/co

w

0.4

(10)

0.

5 (8

) 0.

4 (1

0)

0.6

(8)

0.7

(8)

0.5

(10)

0.

4 (1

2)

0.6

(8)

0.7

(8)

By-p

rod

ucts

t/

cow

0.

1 (3

1)

0.1

(62)

0.

1 (2

7)

0.1

(25)

0.

1 (3

0)

0.1

(29)

0.

1 (4

5)

0.2

(26)

0.

2 (2

4)

Tota

l t/

cow

0.

8 (5

) 1.

0 (7

) 0.

9 (5

) 1.

1 (6

) 1.

3 (6

) 1.

4 (5

) 1.

3 (5

) 1.

7 (5

) 1.

8 (4

)

Fod

der

& fe

edgr

ain

cost

s $/

cow

19

1 (4

) 20

8 (3

) 27

8 (4

) 26

6 (4

) 27

9 (5

) 38

9 (5

) 39

2 (5

) 67

9 (4

) 84

7 (4

)

Prim

ary

reas

on fo

r fee

ding

conc

entr

ates

/gra

in/b

y-pr

oduc

ts a

Gen

eral

lift

in m

ilk p

rod

ucti

on

%

52

(8)

53

(7)

52

(6)

61

(6)

73

(4)

70

(5)

52

(9)

38

(12)

46

(7

)

Fills

gap

s in

pas

ture

sup

ply

%

32

(1

2)

30

(13)

31

(9

) 23

(1

4)

22

(14)

19

(1

6)

18

(17)

21

(2

0)

30

(16)

Ass

ist

in p

astu

re m

anag

emen

t %

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

(30)

13

(2

6)

18

(21)

Perf

orm

ance

feed

ing

on

ind

ivid

ual c

ow p

rod

ucti

on

%

7 (3

4)

2 (4

0)

5 (4

4)

2 (2

6)

1 (4

1)

1 (4

1)

3 (5

3)

3 (4

9)

1 (3

4)

Enab

le in

crea

sed

sto

ckin

g r

ate

%

0

0

0

0

0

0

8 (3

0)

8 (4

2)

1 (2

6)

Seas

onal

, for

win

ter

or o

ther

ince

ntiv

e p

aym

ents

%

5

(30)

10

(2

3)

6 (3

3)

4 (4

8)

2 (3

4)

4 (3

7)

1 (7

7)

0 (8

1)

0 (7

1)

Oth

er

%

5 (3

5)

6 (2

3)

5 (2

0)

10

(26)

3

(58)

7

(35)

8

(31)

15

(2

9)

3 (3

7)

a Fa

rms

feed

ing

conc

entr

ates

/gra

ins/

by-

pro

duct

s.

Not

e: F

igur

es in

par

enth

eses

are

sta

ndar

d er

rors

, exp

ress

ed a

s a

per

cent

age

of th

e es

timat

es p

rovi

ded

.


31

A8

Hay

and

sila

ge, A

ustr

alia

n da

iry

indu

stry

av

erag

e p

er fa

rm o

r pro

por

tion

of fa

rms

1991

–92

19

93–9

4

1995

–96

199

7–98

1999

–200

0 2

001–

02

200

4–05

2006

–07

20

08–0

9

Farm

s p

urch

asin

g h

ay o

r si

lag

e %

52

(8

) 49

(8

) 50

(9

) 54

(9

) 53

(7

) 54

(7

) 52

(8

) 68

(6

) 71

(6

)

Qua

ntity

of h

ay &

sila

ge p

urch

ased

aPa

stur

e ha

y t

55

(17)

44

(1

1)

63

(12)

59

(1

3)

60

(13)

58

(1

2)

57

(18)

42

(1

9)

51

(21)

Oth

er h

ay

t 11

(2

1)

28

(28)

19

(2

4)

31

(28)

49

(2

0)

26

(21)

31

(2

8)

51

(29)

13

9 (1

2)

Past

ure

sila

ge

t na

na

na

na

na

17

(27)

5

(40)

8

(33)

34

(2

8)

Oth

er s

ilag

e t

na

na

na

na

na

18

(3

3)

8 (3

3)

23

(28)

38

(2

4)

On-

farm

pro

duct

ion

Past

ure

hay

t 12

7 (8

) 12

7 (6

) 15

8 (8

) 20

4 (8

) 20

8 (8

) 10

6 (8

) 10

8 (1

0)

40

(19)

52

(1

4)

Oth

er h

ay

t 35

(2

0)

41

(20)

39

(1

5)

47

(21)

57

(1

8)

29

(19)

27

(1

9)

14

(40)

21

(2

4)

Past

ure

sila

ge

t na

na

na

na

na

150

(11)

11

0 (1

1)

86

(15)

15

9 (1

1)

Oth

er s

ilag

e t

na

na

na

na

na

44

(2

7)

41

(20)

49

(1

8)

65

(17)

a Fa

rms

pur

chas

ing

hay

or s

ilag

e.

N

ote:

Fig

ures

in p

aren

thes

es a

re s

tand

ard

erro

rs, e

xpre

ssed

as

a p

erce

ntag

e of

the

estim

ates

pro

vid

ed.

32


A9 H

erd

info

rmat

ion,

Aus

tral

ian

dair

y in

dust

ry

aver

age

per

farm

or

pro

por

tion

of f

arm

s

19

91–9

2 19

93–9

4 19

95–9

6 19

97–9

8 19

99–2

000

2001

–02

2004

–05

2006

–07

2008

–09

Dai

ry h

erd

at

30 J

une

no.

180

(2)

196

(2)

227

(3)

225

(2)

262

(3)

312

(2)

293

(3)

310

(3)

342

(3)

Dai

ry c

ows

no.

121

(2)

128

(2)

143

(3)

149

(2)

168

(3)

205

(3)

196

(3)

211

(3)

220

(3)

Cow

s ca

lved

to

arti

ficia

l

inse

min

atio

n no

. 61

(6

) 65

(5

) 79

(6

) 78

(5

) 90

(5

) 10

9 (5

) 97

(6

) 12

0 (5

) 11

8 (6

)

– as

a p

rop

orti

on o

f dai

ry c

ows

%

50

(5)

51

(4)

55

(4)

52

(4)

53

(4)

53

(4)

49

(5)

57

(4)

54

(4)

Farm

s b

reed

ing

rep

lace

men

t

he

ifers

%

93

(3

) 98

(2

) 99

(1

) 97

(2

) 95

(3

) 98

(1

) 93

(3

) 93

(4

) 98

(1

)

Rep

lace

men

t he

ifer

calv

ing

ag

e a

mon

ths

24

(3)

25

(2)

25

(1)

25

(2)

25

(3)

25

(2)

24

(3)

23

(5)

24

(1)

Farm

s w

ith

mas

titi

s

co

ntro

l pro

gram

%

58

(6

) 69

(5

) 8

abare–brs report 10data.daff.gov.au/brs/data/warehouse/pe_abarebrs99001757/rr10.11… · computer...

Documents