abare–brs report 10data.daff.gov.au/brs/data/warehouse/pe_abarebrs99001757/rr10.11… · computer...
Post on 21-Oct-2020
5 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
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 info@abare-brs.gov.au 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.
-
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
-
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
-
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
-
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
-
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
-
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
-
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
-
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
-
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
.
-
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
.
-
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
.
-
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
.
-
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
Australian dairy industry: technology and management practices, 2008–09 ABARE–BRS 10.11
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
top related