scholarly journals Organic Dairy Production Systems in Pennsylvania: A Case Study Evaluation

2007 ◽  
Vol 90 (8) ◽  
pp. 3961-3979 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.A. Rotz ◽  
G.H. Kamphuis ◽  
H.D. Karsten ◽  
R.D. Weaver
2017 ◽  
pp. 115-126
Author(s):  
C. A. Daley ◽  
B. J. Heins ◽  
K. J. Soder ◽  
U. Sorge ◽  
A. F. Brito ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 51 (6) ◽  
pp. 570 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. A. Wainewright ◽  
A. J. Parker ◽  
W. E. Holmes ◽  
H. Zerby ◽  
L. A. Fitzpatrick

Assessing the differences in gross margins for a north-western Queensland beef-production system was undertaken using herd-budgeting software. The analysis reviewed the viability of producing beef for the domestic market from either a steer or bull production system. A hypothetical herd of 1200 breeders was created for the case study evaluation. An integrated beef production system from breeding to feedlot finishing was found to be less profitable for bull beef production than for steers at the current market prices. Although bull production was more profitable than steer production during the feedlot phase, the production of bulls in this phase failed to compensate for the earlier economic losses in the weaning phase of –AU$24.04 per adult equivalent for bulls. During the feedlot phase, bull production systems had lower break-even sale prices than did steer production systems. In reviewing two pricing scenarios for bulls, it was found that marketing bulls at the same price as steers was the most profitable production system. We conclude that the production of bull beef from a north-western Queensland production system can be profitable only if bulls can be sold without discount relative to steers.


Soil Research ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 55 (6) ◽  
pp. 479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecile A. M. de Klein ◽  
Ross M. Monaghan ◽  
Marta Alfaro ◽  
Cameron J. P. Gourley ◽  
Oene Oenema ◽  
...  

Nitrogen (N) is invaluable for maintaining agricultural production, but its use, and particularly inefficient use, can lead to environmental losses. This paper reviews N use efficiency (NUE) and N surplus indicators for dairy production systems to assess their utility for optimising N use outcomes and minimising environmental N losses. Using case-study examples, we also assess realistic goals for these indicators and discuss key issues associated with their use. Published whole-farm NUE and whole-farm N surplus values ranged within 10–65% and 40–700 kg N ha–1 year–1 respectively. In a study of five catchments across New Zealand, whole-farm NUE was more strongly affected by catchment differences in soil and climatic conditions than by differences in management. In contrast, whole-farm N surplus differed both between- and within-catchments and was a good indicator of N losses to water. Realistic goals for both NUE and N surplus thus depend on the agro-climatic context of the dairy system and on its economic and environmental goals. Crop and animal NUE values can be valuable indicators for optimising fertiliser and feed use and minimising N losses. However, global or national whole-farm NUE values appear of limited value if the ultimate goal for setting targets is to reduce the environmental impact of N use; whole-farm level targets based on N surplus would be a more useful indicator for this purpose. Our review also reinforces the importance of standardising the variables that should be used to estimate NUE and N surplus values, to ensure equitable comparisons between different systems. Finally, NUE and N surplus targets should also be set in the context of other agro-environmental considerations.


2004 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisbeth Mogensen ◽  
Klaus L. Ingvartsen ◽  
Troels Kristensen ◽  
Susanne Seested ◽  
Stig M. Thamsborg

2020 ◽  
Vol 182 ◽  
pp. 102841
Author(s):  
Paula Toro-Mujica ◽  
Raúl Vera ◽  
Pablo Pinedo ◽  
Fernando Bas ◽  
Daniel Enríquez-Hidalgo ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document