ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF MATUA PRAIRIE GRASS
AS A
PASTURE SPECIES ON CANTERBURY SHEEP FARMS
Views expressed i n Agribusiness & Economics Research U n i t
Uiscussion Papers are those o f t h e author and do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y
r e f l e c t t h e views o f t h e D i r e c t o r , o t h e r members o f s t a f f , o r
members o f the Management o r Review Committees
Glen Greer
and
J. E. Chamberlain
Discussion Paper No. 112
September 1987
A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics Research U n i t
L i n c o l n C o l l ege
Canterbury
New Zeal and
ISSN 0110-7720
The Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit (AERU)
operates from Lincoln College providing research expertise for
a wide range of organisations concerned with production,
processing, distribution, finance and marketing.
The AERU operates as a semi-commercial research agency.
Research contracts are carried out for clients on a commercial
basis and University research is supported by the AERU through
sponsorship of postgraduate research programmes. Research
clients include Government Departments, both within New
Zealand and from other countries, international agencies. New
Zealand companies and organisations, individuals and farmers.
Research results are presented through private client reports,
where this is required, and through the publication system
operated by the AERU. Two publication series are supported:
Research Reports and Discussion Papers.
The AERU operates as a research co-ord~natrngbody for the
Agrrcuitural Economlcs and Marketing Department and the
Department of Farm and Property Management, Accountlng and
Valuatloil Thrs means that a total staff of approximately 50
professional people IS potentially available to work on research
projects A wlde dlverslty of expertrse IS therefore available for
rhe AERU
The major research areas supported by the AERU include trade
policy, marketing (both institutional and consumer), accounting,
finance, management, agricultural economics and rural
sociology. In addition to the research activities, the AERU
supports conferences and seminars on topical issues and AERU
staff are involved in a wide range of professional and College
related extension activities.
Founded as the Agricultural Economics Research Unit in 1962
from an annual grant provided by the Department of Scientific
and Industrial Research (DSIR), the AERU has grown to become
an independent, major sourceof business and economic research
expertise. DSIR funding was discontinued in 1986 and from April
1987, in recognition of the development of a wider research
activity in the agribusiness sector, the name of the organisation
was changed to the Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit.
General policy direction is provided by an AERU Review
Committee which meets annually. An AERU Management
Committee comprised of the Principal, the Professors of the two
associated departments, and the AERU Director and Assistant
Director administers the general Unit policy.
AERU REVIEW COMMITTEE
Professor B J Ross, M.Agr.Sc.
(Pr~ncipal,Llncoln College)
Professor R H Juchau, E3.Com., @.Ed.,M.A.
(Professor of Accountlng and Flnance, Llncoln College)
Professor A C Rayner, f33.Com. (Hons), k4.Boe.S~.
(Professor of Agricultural Economrcs, Llncoln College)
P G BushneQB,B.Agr.Sc., M.Agr.Sc., Pk.B.
(Dlrector, Economlcs Division, Mrnlstry of Agriculture and
Flsherles)
B B Chamberlain
(Pres~dent, Federated Farmers of New Zealand)
R B J Clarke, M.Sc., 9h.D.
(Chref Director, Departmenr of Scrent~flcand Industrial
Research)
E J Neilson, C.B.E., B.A., B.Corn., F.C.A., F.C.B.S.
(Lincoln College Councrl)
P J Rankin, U.A., M.P.W.
(Dlrector, New Zealand Planning Counc~l)
P Shificliffe, B.Com., A.C.A.
(Nomrnee of Revlew Commrttee)
J G Pryde, O.B.E., M.A.,F.M.Z.I.M.
(Dlrector, Agrrbus~nessand Economrcs Research Unlt)
(ex offlclo)
R b Sheppard, B.Agr.Sc. (Hons), B.B.S.
(Assistant Dlrector, Agr~buslnessa n d Economlcs
Research Unlt) (ex offlcro)
AERU MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 1987
Professor A C Bywater, B.Sc., Ph.D.
(Professor of Farm Management)
Professor R # Juchau, .B.Com., B.Ed., M.A.
(Professor of Accounting and Finance)
Professor A C Wayner, i?I.Com. (Hons), M.8oc.S~.
(Professor of Agricultural Economics)
Professor A C Zwart, B.Agr.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.B.
(Professor of Marketing)
J G Bryde, O.B.E., M.A., F.M.Z.B.M.
(Director, AERU)
R b Slneppard, B.Agr.Sc. (Wows), B.B.S.
(Assistant Director, AERU)
AERU STAFF 1987
Director
J G Pryde, O.B.E., M.A., F.N.Z.I.M.
Assistant Director
R L Sheppard, 6.Agr.S~.(Hons), B.B.S.
Visiting Research Fellows
G R Griffith, B.Ag.Ec., M.Ec., Ph.D.
Professor L T Wallace, Ph.D.
Senior Research Economist
S K Martin, B.Econ., M.A. (Hons), Ph.D., Dip. Tchg
Research Economists
G Greer, 6.Agr.S~.(Hons)
R G Moffitt, B.Hort.Sc.. N.D.H.
Research Sociologist
J R Fairweather, B.Agr.Sc., B.A., M.A., Ph.D.
Assistant Research Economists
J E Chamberlain, 6.Agr.S~.
T P Grundy, B.Sc. (Hons), M.Com.
J C Robertson, B.Com.Ag., IL4.Com.
Secretary
R Searle
CONTENTS
Page
L i s t o f Tables
(iii)
L i s t o f Figures
(v)
Acknowledgements
(vii)
Preface
(ix)
Summary
(xi)
Section 1
Introduction
Section 2
The Advantages and Disadvantages o f Matua P r a i r i e
Grass
2.1
2.2
Section 3
Section 4
1
Advantages
Disadvantages
Pasture Management
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4.
The Management o f
Winter Management
Spring Management
Summer Management
Autumn Management
t h e Matua Sward
o f Matua
o f Matua
o f Matua
o f Matua
3.2
Management o f t h e Complementary
Kyegrass/Matua System
Grazing T r i a1 s Conducted by Grass1ands D i v i s i o n ,
DSIR
4.1
4.2
4.2.1
Grazing T r i a l Design and Conduct
Economic Analysi s o f Data from Grazi ng
T r i a1 s
Comparison
of
Animal
production
achieved from d r y l a n d Nui f a r m l e t and
f rorn d r y l and Nui /Matua farm1 e t
4.2.2
Net value o f animal production
I r r i g a t e d Nui /Matua farm1 e t s
4.2.3
Feed budgeti ng approach t o eval u a t i o n
o f Matua as a perennial greenfeed i n
d r y l and Canterbury condi t i o n s .
Section 5
O i scussi on
Section 6
Suggestions f o r Future Research
L i s t o f References
Appendix 1 Sheep Gross Margins
Appendix 2
Pasture Establishment and Maintenance Cost
Appendix 3
Production Data from D S I R T r i a l s
Appendix 4
Feed Budgets
Appendix 5
MAF Grazing Demonstration
I
.\
from
L I S T OF TABLES
Table No.
1
C r i t i c a l Management Factors f o r Matua
2
Stocking Rates on Nui/Matua and Nui/Tama
Experimental Farms
3
Gross Margin Summary o f Dryland T r i a l s
4
Animal Production Oata from Oryl and Grazi ng T r i a1 s
5
Gross Margin Summary o f I r r i g a t e d Nui /bIatua T r i a1 s
6
A v a i l a b i l i t y of Dry M a t t e r f o r Grazing on a 100 Hectare
Nui /Matua Farm
7
A v a i l a b i l i t y of Dry M a t t e r f o r Grazing on a 100 Hectare
Nui/Tama/Turnips farm.
8
Gross Margin Summary o f Dryland Greenfeed Feed
A1 t e r n a t i ves
Page
L I S T OF FIGURES
Figure No.
Page
1
Summary o f Grazing P a t t e r n o f Matua
19
2
Dry Matter Production o f Nui and Matua
Under Canterbury Dry1and Conditions
20
Dry Matter A v a i l a b i l i t y and Requirement
on a 100 ha Nui/Matua Dryland farm c a r r y i n g
120 Ewes
Dry Matter Avai 1abi 1 it y and Requi rement
on a 100ha Nui/Tama/Turnips Dryland
Farm Carrying 785 Ewes.
21
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would l i k e t o thank M r Tom Fraser o f Grasslands
t r i a l s and M r
D i v i s i o n f o r t h e p r o v i s i o n o f data from t h e D.S.I.R.
John Greer o f M i n i s t r y o f A g r i c u l t u r e and F i s h e r i e s , L i n c o l n f o r
i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e MAF demonstration f a r m l e t .
Local farmers, Messrs Alec Dunlop and Ross Pearce provided
p r a c t i c a l background i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e management o f Matua from t h e
farmers ' perspective.
Funding f o r t h e study was provided by Grassland D i v i s i o n ,
Department o f S c i e n t i f i c and I n d u s t r i a l Research.
PREFACE
T h i s Ui scussion Paper provides an example o f an economic
e v a l u a t i o n o f a1 t e r n a t i v e farm production and mangement systems.
The
work has been based on s c i e n t i f i c tri a1 s, combined w i t h some on-farm
experience, producing an a n a l y s i s which high1 i g h t s t h e b e n e f i t s t o be
achieved from the use o f a pasture system i n c o r p o r a t i n g Matua P r a i r i e
Grass. The use o f the r e s u l t s o f t h i s work i n the management by
farmers of t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s has the p o t e n t i a l t o l e a d t o s i g n i f i c a n t
increases in farm p r o f it a b i 1it y
.
T h i s type of a n a l y s i s i s recommended f o r a l l new management and
production systems.
Co-operation between s c i e n t i s t s , advisors and
economic analysts w i l l l e a d t o more p o t e n t i a l t o c o n t r i b u t e t o f u r t h e r
useful t r i a l s being conducted. As reported i n t h i s p u b l i c a t i o n , the
t r i a l s c a r r i e d o u t 'had some d e f i c i e n c i e s from an economic analysi s and
management p o i n t o f view. Both these aspects a r e e s s e n t i a l features
f o r farmers i f any new technology i s t o be r e a d i l y accepted.
It i s
t h e r e f o r e s t r o n g l y recommended t h a t there be a wider i n p u t t o the
design and conduct o f experimental tri a1 s w i t h management and economic
data requirements being incorporated i n t o the s c i e n t i f i c a c t i v i t y .
This p u b l i c a t i o n demonstrates the p o t e n t i a l o f t h e new pasture
technology - Matua P r a i r i e Grass. I t a1 so demonstrates t h e need f o r
co-operati on and consul t a t i o n between the various d i s c i p l ines i n v o l v e d
i n t h e development and i n t r o d u c t i o n o f new technology - s c i e n t i s t s ,
management, economic and marketing analysts.
J.G. Pryde
D irector
SUMMARY
Matua p r a i r i e grass c o u l d p l a y a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e on Canterbury
p a s t o r a l farms as a perennial greenfeed. I t should n o t be seen as a
s u b s t i t u t e f o r ryegrass/white c l o v e r pastures o r f o r lucerne stands b u t
r a t h e r as a complement t o both. I n i t s r o l e as a perennial greeenfeed
crop, however, i t competes d i r e c t l y w i t h annual forage crops, cereal
greenfeeds and s p e c i a l i s t ryegrass greenfeeds.
A1 though
Matua
has good
w i n t e r growth
potential
its
s u s c e p t i b i l it y t o tramp1 i n g and b r u i s i n g a t t h i s time means t h a t i t
should n o t be grazed d u r i n g w i n t e r . I t s r o l e i n t h e p r o v i s i o n o f
w i n t e r feed 1 i e s i n t h e f a c t t h a t by u s i n g Matua i n autumn d u r i n g
f l u s h i n g and mating, i t i s p o s s i b l e t o s p e l l ryegrass pastures,
a1 l o w i n g them t o accumulate d r y m a t t e r f o r w i n t e r consumption.
Dry m a t t e r produced by Matua swards i n w i n t e r may be consumed
i n e a r l y s p r i n g d u r i n g lambing, w h i l e l a t e s p r i n g production can be
c a r r i e d forward i n t o t h e summer.
The r a p i d response t o autumn r a i n achieved by Matua makes i t a
more re1 i a b l e source o f feed d u r i n g f l u s h i n g and mating than t h e
ryegrass/whi t e c l over system.
Matua w i l l n o t replace l u c e r n e as a drought r e s i s t a n t p l a n t i n
Canterbury c o n d i t i o n s , b u t w i 11 respond t o any appl i c a t i o n o f moi s t u r e
b e t t e r than ryegrasses.
Because Matua rnust be s p e l l e d between g r a z i ngs u n t i l t h e p l a n t
has regrown t o a t l e a s t 15 centimetres high, and should n o t be grazed
d u r i ng w i n t e r it must be grown in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h ryegrass-based
pastures which c o n t r i b u t e f l e x i b i 1 it y t o t h e g r a z i n g system.
T r i a l s have been s u c c e s s f u l l y conducted i n which 50 p e r c e n t o f
t h e farm area i s sown i n Matua b u t l o c a l farm advisors b e l i e v e t h a t 30
p e r c e n t i s a more s u i t a b l e p r o p o r t i o n . A t t h a t l e v e l t h e g r a z i n g
system i s s u f f i c i e n t l y f l e x i b l e t o
cope w i t h Canterbury drought
c o n d i t i o n s and t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t Matua t o p r o v i d e useful q u a n t i t i e s
o f h i g h q u a l i t y greenfeed a t c r i t i c a l p e r i o d s o f t h e year.
On f e r t i l e s o i l s a farming system w i t h up t o 50 p e r c e n t
Matua-based pastures has been shown t o be more p r o f i t a b l e than a system
based on ryegrass pastures only. There i s a l s o some evidence which
suggests t h a t a system i n c o r p o r a t i n g Matua i s economically s u p e r i o r on
l e s s f e r t i l e s o i l s b u t t h i s has y e t t o be proved.
(xi
1.
I n t r o d u c t i on
'Grass1 ands Matua' p r a i r i e grass was placed on t h e 1is t o f
Acceptable Herbage C u l t i v a r s i n 1975. I t was bred p r i m a r i l y t o p r o v i d e
g r e a t e r cool season p r o d u c t i o n than
o t h e r w i d e l y used perennial
grasses.
Other breeding o b j e c t i v e s
i n c l u d e d g r e a t e r year round
production, r a p i d ti 11e r i ng p e r s i stance and disease r e s i stance.
H i s t o r i c a l l y , t h e r o l e o f Matua has been i n d a i r y pastures, b u t
research has shown t h a t i t has p o t e n t i a l f o r i n c r e a s i n g t h e t o t a l dry
m a t t e r production on Canterbury sheep farms. However, h i g h production
l e v e l s w i l l o n l y be achieved i f c r i t i c a l management p r a c t i c e s are
observed.
I n t h e second s e c t i o n o f t h i s r e p o r t , t h e advantages and
disadvantages o f Matua are discussed and i t s r o l e out1 ined.
Ideal
management p r a c t i c e s f o r Matua per se a r e described i n Section 3.1
and t h e management o f complementary Matua and ryegrass swards i s
o u t l i n e d i n Section 3.2.
Grazing t r i a l s conducted by Grasslands D i v i s i o n , D S I R
described i n S e c t i o n 4 and t h e economic values imputed from them
detai led.
are
are
I n S e c t i o n 5, a feed budgeting approach t o e v a l u a t i o n o f Matua
as a greenfeed i s described and t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e comparisons
d i scussed.
2.
The Advantage and Disadvantages o f Matua P r a i r i e Grass
2.1
Advantages
On Canterbury Sheep farms Matua p r a i r i e grass may be used as a
complement t o ryegrass and as a s u b s t i t u t e f o r t r a d i t i o n a l annual
greenfeed crops.
I n these circumstances t h e r e a r e a number of
advantages and disadvantages associated w i t h t h e i n c l u s i o n o f Matua i n
t h e farming system.
a)
On sheep farms, Matua may be used t o p r o v i d e h i g h
qua1 i t y and q u a n t i t y feed b e f o r e lambing and p r o v i d i n g t h e r e i s
s u f f i c i e n t inoi s t u r e i n autumn, over t h e mating period. During
w i n t e r (May u n t i l August) Matua grows a t l e a s t 50% more d r y
m a t t e r than r y e g rass pastures under dry1 and condi ti ons (MAF
1986). T h i s drymatter i s used as pre-lamb feed, as w i l l be
discussed i n S e c t i o n 3.
b)
Un1 i k e ryegrass, Matua rernai ns
palatable i n
the
reproductive state.
Young stock w i l l consume, and achieve
l i v e w e i g h t g a i n s on, Matua a t t h e seed head stage w h i l e even
a d u l t ewes w i l l n o t r e a d i l y e a t ryegrass a t t h e same stage. I t
t h e r e f o r e p r o v i d e s valuable feed f o r young stock d u r i n g summer.
c ) Matua does n o t c o n t a i n t h e endophyte which causes ryegrass
staggers i n sheep, and i s a l s o r e s i s t a n t t o t h e Argentine Stem
endophyte p r o v i d e s
protection.
Weevi 1 agai n s t which t h e
Ryegrass staggers i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r reduced l e v e l s o f stock
production, increased t i m e t o reach predetermi ned leve1 s of
production
stock.
and,
i n extreme cases, higher death r a t e s
amongst
Although i t i s now p o s s i b l e t o sow low-endophyte
ryegrasses these do n o t have good p e r s i stance i n d r y l a n d
s i tuations.
The i n c l u s i o n of Matua paddocks on t h e farm a l l o w s the
farmer t o continue w i t h more p e r s i s t a n t h i g h endophyte ryegrass
pastures on t h e r e s t o f t h e p r o p e r t y because stock can be
s h i f t e d onto t h e Matua when staggers appears.
More r a p i d growth response t o moisture i n t h e autumn i s
d)
achieved by Matua than by perennial ryegrasses under d r y l a n d
c o n d i t i o n s . However, i n t h e absence o f autumn r a i n t h e r e is no
s i g n i f i c a n t advantage over a ryegrass sward.
Matua a l s o
responds we1 l t o i r r i g a t i o n .
e)
Matua i s very responsive t o n i t r o g e n and b e n e f i t s
rnarkedly f rorn s t r a t e g i c autumn and s p r i ng appl ic a t i ons of
N i trogen f e r t i l iser.
2.2
U i sadvantages
a
D r i l l i n g of Matua i s d i f f i c u l t because o f t h e shape o f
i t s seed and t h e l e n g t h o f i t s awn. A1 though c l i p p i n g o f t h e
seed does a l low s a t i s f a c t o r y d r i 11i n g , broadcasting i s the
sowi ng method usual l y recommended.
b
Matua pastures do n o t e s t a b l i s h as q u i c k l y , o r produce
as much as ryegrasses d u r i n g t h e f i r s t season. The Matua sward
must be l i g h t l y grazed a t t h i s time.
c
Matua should n o t be grazed d u r i n g w i n t e r since t h e
combination o f f r o s t and tramp1 ing b r u i ses and eventual l y k i 11 s
the p l a n t .
d)
Matua i s more l i m i t e d i n i t s grazing f l e x i b i l i t y than
ryegrasses. Although i t i s p o s s i b l e t o graze Matua once b e f o r e
i t has recovered from a previous grazing, a second g r a z i n g
before r o o t reserves have been b u i l t up w i l l k i l l t h e p l a n t .
Regrazi ng should n o t take place u n t i l t h e p l a n t i s 15 - 20
centimetres i n h e i g h t .
e)
The g r a z i n g requirements o f Matua r e q u i r e ' b r e a k ' o r
' s t r i pi f e e d i ng and t h e r e f ore more labour. Addi ti onal f e n c i ng
m a t e r i a l s may a l s o be required.
f)
Matua seed r e q u i r e s treatment f o r head smut b e f o r e
sowing i n o r d e r t o prevent s e e d l i n g death. The disease u s u a l l y
reappears w i t h i n twelve months b u t does n o t appear t o cause
p l a n t o r animal p r o d u c t i o n l o s s . I t can however be a s e r i o u s
problem f o r t h e seed producer. As head smut i s d i f f i c u l t t o
eradicate, t h e c o s t o f c e r t i f i e d seed remains high.
In
p r a c t i c e Matua seed i s taken o n l y i n t h e f i r s t y e a r of
production.
9)
Matua i s more c o s t l y t o e s t a b l i s h than ryegrass. T o t a l
seed c o s t s are between two and t h r e e times as great as t h e c o s t
o f Nui ryegrass since b o t h t h e sowing r a t e and the p r i c e per
k i 1ogram are greater.
h
I f the c r i t i c a l management c o n d i t i o n s in t h e f o l 1owi ng
sections are v i o l a t e d Matua w i l l have very poor persistance.
Despite i t s h i g h d r y m a t t e r production Matua swards [nay
i
look ye1 low, open and g e n e r a l l y u n t h r i f t y . The presence of
head-smut accentuates i t s unfavourable appearance.
However,
t h i s i s o n l y o f importance i f farmers f o r whom Matua has
p o t e n t i a1 advantages a1 1ow themselves t o be d i scouraged by t h e
appearance o f the sward.
Pasture Management
3.1
The Management o f t h e Matua Sward
Although the use o f Matua as a pasture species on d a i r y farms
is we1 1 documented there is comparatively 1ittl e pub1ished materi a1 on
t h e managerrlent o f Matua under sheep-farming conditions. The management
s t r a t e g y o u t l i n e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n has been formulated on t h e b a s i s of
discussions he1d w i t h L i n c o l n based s t a f f o f Grass1ands D i v i s i o n DSIK,
and Advisory Services D i v i s i o n , M.A.F.
and w i t h two l o c a l sheep
farmers who have considerable experience w i t h Matua. Agl ink FPP 30
(MAF, 1986) provides a b r i e f p r a c t i c a l guide f o r farmers t o t h e
management o f Matua.
3.1.1.
Winter Management o f Matua
I d e a l l y t h e l a s t grazing o f Matua on Canterbury farms should be
completed by mid-May b u t i t d e f i n i t e l y should n o t be grazed from t h e
end o f May u n t i l e a r l y t o mid August i f i t s f u l l w i n t e r growth
p o t e n t i a l i s t o be achieved.
Thus Matua pastures p r o v i d e no w i n t e r grazing f o r a p e r i o d
a t l e a s t 60 days.
of
I n August, Matua provides a l a r g e q u a n t i t y o f h i g h q u a l i t y feed
f o r ewes iminedi a t e l y before 1ambi ng s i nce it grows approximately 1.5
times as f a s t i n w i n t e r as does Mui ryegrass (MAF, 1986). The q u a n t i t y
o f feed provided by Matua immediately p r i o r t o and d u r i n g e a r l y lambing
a l l o w s t h e g r a z i n g pressure t o be reduced on ryegrass based pastures,
thereby a1 1owing these pastures t o maximi se s p r i n g growth.
3.1.2.
Spring Management o f Matua
A f t e r t h e prelamb g r a z i n g Matua appears t o experience a p e r i o d
This observation has been made on a farm-level t r i a l
o f slow growth.
c a r r i e d o u t by t h e M i n i s t r y o f A y r i c u l t u r e and F i s h e r i e s on t h e
p r o p e r t y o f M r Alex Dunlop a t Burnham. I t must be noted t h a t i n t h i s
t r i a l 70 per c e n t o f t h e farm area bdas i n Matua and any delays i n
growth would t h e r e f o r e be very obvious. I n a normal farm s i t u a t i o n
where l e s s than 30 per cent o f t o t a l area i s l i k e l y t o be i n Matua such
a slow p e r i o d would probably n o t be detected. Nor would i t be as
important since t h e ryegrass-based pastures
are a t t h e i r
most
p r o d u c t i v e a t t h i s time, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f they are emerging from the
p e r i o d o f reduced grazing pressure made p o s s i b l e by t h e i n c l u s i o n o f
Matua pastures i n t h e farming system.
Because growth a t t h i s time o f y e a r i s slow, Matua pastures
w i l l n o t reach the necessary height, 15-20 cm, f o r grazing u n t i l mid t o
l a t e October. Therefore, a f t e r t h e pre-lamb grazing, they must be shut
up f o r feed conservation o r spel 1ed from g r a z i n g f o r approximately
e i g h t weeks.
3.1.3.
Summer Manaaement o f Matua
During slamrner the g r e a t e s t advantage o f Matua over ryegrass i s
it s apparent1y h i g h e r p a l a t i b i l it y a l though growth r a t e s are a1 so
higher than those o f ryegrass. Even i n i t s r e p r o d u c t i v e s t a t e Matua i s
r e a d i l y consumed by young stock and i t i s , therefore, valuable as lamb
f a t t e n i n g feed. I n summer, as a t a l l times i t i s v i t a l t o ensure t h e
c r i t i c a l grazing h e i g h t o f 15 cm i s achieved b e f o r e grazing i s resumed.
3.1.4.
Autumn Management o f Matua
I n Autumn Matua pastures can be grazed d u r i n g mating w h i l e
ryegrass pastures a r e s p e l l e d t o a l l o w accumulation o f feed t o be
c a r r i e d forward i n t o t h e winter, thereby m i n i m i s i ng the q u a n t i t i e s o f
conserved feed necessary. Matua should n o t be grazed a f t e r the m i d d l e
o f May.
Table 1
C r i ti c i a1 Manaqement F a c t o r s f o r Matua
Grazi ng Management
K o t a t i onal Grazi ng w i t h
break-feeding and back-fencing
Grazi ng P e r i o d
Mot l o n g e r than f o u r days
Grazi ng I n t e r v a l
Sward must n o t be grazed u n t i l
p l a n t h e i g h t i s a t l e a s t 15 cm,
p r e f e r a b l y 20 cm
Grazing Severi t y
Hard ' g r a z i n g ' i e . down t o
ground l e v e l
Winter Period
Minimum June and J u l y .
P r e f e r a b l y mid May u n t i l e a r l y
August
tdanagement o f the Complementary Ryegrass/Matua System
The management o f the complementary ryegrass/matua system
summari sed i n F i g u r e 1.
flock i s
s p e l l ed.
During w i n t e r , from mid/end May u n t i l e a r l y August the
r o t a t e d on the ryegrass pastures w h i l e Matua pastures
is
ewe
are
Immediately before and d u r i n g e a r l y lambing, i.e. frorn e a r l y
August u n t i l t h e beginning o f September, t h e Matua pastures a r e
breakfed w i t h a g r a ~ng
i p e r i o d o f no more than f o u r days. The s p r i n g
f l u s h o f ryegrass pastures i s a t i t s peak d u r i n g September and ewes and
lambs a r e s e t stocked o r r o t a t e d on these u n t i l t h e end o f October.
Some pastures, Matua o r ryegrass, may be shut up f o r hay o r s i l a g e from
e a r l y September.
Over the summer months both Matua and ryegrass pastures can be
i n c l u d e d i n the r o t a t i o n . T y p i c a l l y t h e ewes would be mob-stocked and
r o t a t i o n a l l y grazed t o c o n t r o l ryegrass growth. Lambs and replacement
stock would
be given p r e f e r e n t i a l g r a z i n g
on both
Matua
and
ryegrass-based pastures as w e l l as on lucerne stands i f these were
avai 1able.
I n e a r l y Autumn, the ewe f l o c k w i 11 s t i l l be used t o c o n t r o l
ryegrass pastures, perhaps w i t h t h e addi ti on o f suppl ementary feeds t o
mai n t a i n bodywei yhts.
Provided t h a t t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t moi s t u r e ,
Matua provides an excel l e n t source o f feed over f l u s h i n g and mating.
Grazing o f Matua a t t h i s time
a l l o w s t h e ryegrass pastures t o
accumul a t e d r y m a t t e r f o r the w i n t e r .
4.
Grazing
4.1
T r i a1 s Conducted by Grass1 ands D i v i s i on, OSIR
Grazing T r i a l Design and Conduct
I n 1979 t h e Department o f S c i e n t i f i c and I n d u s t r i a l Research
imp1emented a g r a z i n g t r i a l comparing animal p r o d u c t i v i t y on two
one-hectare f a r m l e t s .
Each f a r m l e t was subdivided i n t o t e n paddocks
and seventy per c e n t o f the area sown i n Mui ryegrass and white c l o v e r .
On one f a r m l e t t h e remaining three paddocks were sown i n Matua and
w h i t e c l o v e r w h i l e on t h e other, 30 p e r cent o f t h e area was sown i n
Tama ryegrass.
Tama paddocks were resown i n November w i t h b a r l e y
intended f o r h a r v e s t as a g r a i n crop.
Each farrnlet was grazed by a f l o c k o f mixed-age Coopworth ewes.
The s t o c k i n g r a t e s supported by t h e f a r m l e t s a r e shown i n Table 2.
Table 2
-Stocki ng
Rates on Nui /Matua and Nui/Tama Experimental Farm1e t s
Year
1979/80
Spring and Summer
20
1980/81
A11 seasons
i981/82
A1 l seasons
20 + 5 hoggets
20
Each autumn t h e ewes were r e a l l o c a t e d i n o r d e r t h a t t h e mean
l i v e w e i g h t p e r ewe was t h e same on each f a r m l e t a t the beginning of t h e
year.
The ewes were mated t o Coopworth rams i n e a r l y A p r i l
ensure t h a t optirnal f e e d i n g l e v e l s were b e i n g mai n t a i ned were
a t r e g u l a r i n t e r v a l s.
and t o
weighed
On b o t h f a r m l e t s , weaning took p l a c e i n e a r l y December, b u t
w h i l e weaned lambs continued t o graze on t h e NuilMatua f a r m l e t u n t i l
e a r l y February, they were removed from t h e Nui/Taina f a r m l e t a t weaning.
Both f arm? e t s were r o t a t i o n a l l y grazed and t h e g r a z i ng p e r i od
o f t h e Matua pastures d i d n o t exceed four days. The Matua pastures
were p a r t i c u l a r l y used f o r g r a z i n g i n l a t e autumn and s p e l l e d d u r i n g
winter.
Lambs, and i n 1981182 t h e hoggets, were break-fed on Matua
paddocks d u r i n g summer. Tama pastures were a l s o s p e l l e d d u r i n g w i n t e r .
Before each paddock was grazed, herbage y i e l d was measured by
A1 1 pastures
c u t t i n g e i g h t 0.25 metre square quadrats t o ground 1eve1
were grazed t o o b t a i n h i g h u t i l i s a t i o n o f herbage.
.
The t r i a l was r a d i c a l l y changed
a f t e r two years animal
p r o d u c t i o n data had been obtained, as t h e Nui/Tama system was no l o n g e r
b e l i e v e d t o be an e c o n ~ m i c a l l yv i a b l e animal p r o d u c t i o n system. I t was
converted t o a d r y l a n d comparison o f a 100 p e r c e n t Nui f a r m l e t w i t h a
f a r m l e t c o n s i s t i n g o f 50 per c e n t Nui-based paddocks and 50 per c e n t
Matua-based paddocks. During t h e ' b r i d g i n g p e r i o d ' o f one y e a r between
these two experiments animal p r o d u c t i o n data Has recorded from t h e
i r r i g a t e d Nui/Matua f a r m l e t a t a s t o c k i n g r a t e o f 20 ewes and 5
hoggets.
140 c o ~ n p a r a t i v e data from a Nui f a r m l e t were recorded as
paddocks were being resown i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h e d r y l a n d t r i a l .
The d r y l a n d comparison o f a 100 p e r c e n t Nui f a r m l e t , w i t h a
f i f t y per c e n t N u i / f i f t y p e r c e n t Matua f a r m l e t was c a r r i e d o u t f o r one
year a t two d i f f e r e n t s t o c k i n g r a t e s ; 13 Ewes/ha and 16 Ewes/ha.
Grazing management p r a c t i c e s were s i m i l a r t o those o u t l i n e d f o r t h e
i r r i g a t e d t r i a l , except t h a t on b o t h f a r m l e t s weaned lambs were c a r r i e d
through t h e summer.
The herbage and animal production data recorded
t r i a l s are presented i n Appendix 3.
frorn
these
Gross margin a n a l y s i s based on the p r o d u c t i o n data obtained
from t h e i r r i g a t e d 70:30 Nui/Matua t r i a l s has been c a r r i e d o u t . It was
not, t h e r e f o r e p o s s i b l e t o use feed budgeting techniques t o estimate
t h e production which would have been achieved on a comparable 100 per
c e n t Nui f a r m l e t . There was no data a v a i l a b l e on herbage p r o d u c t i o n on
s i m i l a r s o i l s and under s i m i l a r c l i m a t i c c o n d i t i o n s .
(References:
Fraser, T.J., 1984, F r a s e r T.J., 1985)
Economic A n a l y s i s o f Data from Grazina T r i a l s
4.2.
4.2.1.
Comparison o f animal p r o d u c t i o n achieved from
d r y l a n d Nui f a r m l e t and from d r y l a n d NuiIMatua
farmlet
D e t a i l e d gross margins based on t h e d r y l a n d t r i a l data are
d e t a i l e d p a s t u r e establishment and
presented i n Appendix 1 and
maintenance c o s t s i n Appendix 2. I n Table 3 t h e c o s t s and revenues
associated w i t h each f a r m l e t are summarised w h i l e t h e animal production
parameters o f each t r i a1 a r e shown i n Table 4.
Table 3
Gross Plarqi n Summary o f Dry1and T r i a1 s
Farm1e t Composi t i on
Stocking Kate
Nui :Matua (50:50)
13 Ewes/ha 16 Ewes/ha
$/ha
$/ha
Rlui
13 Ewes/ha 16 Eweslha
$/ha
$/ha
Gross Revenue (Sheep)
D i r e c t Costs (Sheep
416.87
154.24
523.97
216.65
420.20
154.24
484.13
215.04
Gross Maryi n b e f o r e
Pasture Costs
262.63
307.32
265.96
269.09
56.46
56.46
50.29
50.29
206.17
250.86
215.67
218.80
Revenue from Hay Sales
579.49
-
501.00
-
Gross Margin
I n c l u d i n g Hay Sales
785.66
-
716.67
-
Annual Pasture Mai n t .
and Est. Costs
Gross Margin Net
o f Pasture Costs
-- - - -- - - -
-
Table 4
Animal Production Data from Dry1and Grazing T r i a1 s
Farm1 e t Composi ti on
Stocking Rate
Lambing % S u r v i v a l t o
Sale
Lamb Liveweight (kg)
Wool /Ewe ( kg )*
--
'
k
-- -- - - - - -
h u i :Matua (50:50)
13 Eweslha 16 Ewes/ha
185
25.7
4.0
181
26.8
4.0
Nui
13 Eweslha 16 Eweslha
185
36.0
4.0
169
25.3
4.0
-
Assuliled 4 kg Wool/head as woo1 p r o d u c t i o n n o t measured by USIR
Based on data obtained from t h i s tri a1 , a t t h e 1ower s t o c k i ng
r a t e (13 ewes per hectare) t h e r e i s l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e n e t
v a l ue of animal p r o d u c t i o n under t h e two systems. A t 16 ewes p e r
hectare, t h e Mui/Matua f a r m l e t has generated a markedly h i g h e r n e t
value of production than t h e Nui f a r m l e t . I t should be noted t h a t i n
t h i s t r i a l a l l mobs were provided w i t h supplementary feed i n t h e form
o f hay and barley.
The r a t e p e r ewe o f supplementary feed d i d n o t
d i f f e r between farmlets. Therefore t h e c o s t per hectare was h i g h e r a t
16 ewes per hectare than a t 13 ewes per hectare.
4.2.2.
Net value o f animal production from i r r i g a t e d
Nui/Matua f a r m l e t s
I n 1979 t r i a l s were s t a r t e d t o assess animal p r o d u c t i v i t y on an
i r r i g a t e d fdui/Matua (70 :30) f a r m l e t . Animal p r o d u c t i o n data were
recorded f o r the two f u l l
years 1980181 and 1981182.
Because
replacement hoggets were c a r r i e d i n 1981182 b u t n o t d u r i n g 1980181, t h e
e a r l i e r gross margin has been adjusted t o a l l o w f o r t h e c o s t s of
purchasing rep1acements.
D e t a i l e d gross margins are given i n Appendix 1.
Costs
revenues are sumrnari sed i n Table 5 w h i l e animal p r o d u c t i o n data
presentzd i n Appendix 3.
and
are
Table 5
Gross Margin Summary o f I r r i g a t e d Mui/Matua T r i a l s
Year
Stocking r a t e / h e c t a r e
Gross Revenue
D i r e c t Costs
Gross Margin before
Pasture Costs
Annual Pasture Mai ntenance
and Establishment Costs
Gross' Margin Net o f Pasture
Costs
22 ewes/ha
862.90
216.51
20 ewes 5 hgts/ha
759.02
109.65
646.39
649.37
102.90
102.90
543.49
546.47
These f i g u r e s a r e based on t h e assumption o f an e i g h t y e a r
sward-1 ife f o r Matua arld a f i f t e e n y e a r sward 1 if e f o r Nui
However,
t h e sward-1 i f e of i r r i g a t e d Matua i s n o t y e t known.
I f t h e Matua
pastures must be worked up every s i x years the gross margins w i l l be
reduced t o $539.69 per hectare and $542.76 per hectare r e s p e c t i v e l y .
An increase i n sward l if e t o t e n years increased the gross margins t o
$545.75 p e r hectare and $548.82 p e r hectare.
.
4.2.3.
Feed-budgeting approach t o e v a l u a t i o n o f Matua
as a p e r e n n ~ a l greenfeed i n d r y l a n d
Canterbury condi ti ons
I n t h e dryland s i t u a t i o n Matua may be seen as a perennial
a l t e r n a t i v e t o annual greenfeed crops. I n order t o evaluate Matua i n
t h i s r o l e a feed-budgeting approach
was assumed.
The estimated
s t o c k i n g r a t e on a f a r m l e t comprising 70 per c e n t Mui-based pastures
and 30 p e r c e n t Matua-based pastures was compared w i t h t h e estimated
s t o c k i n g r a t e on a farmlee w i t h 70 per c e n t Nui-based pasture, 15 per
c e n t Tama ryegrass and 15 p e r c e n t t u r n i p s . The estimates were based
on t h e assumption o f 120 p e r c e n t lambing. A lower l e v e l o f stock
performance than t h a t which was achieved i n the D S I R t r i a l s was used i n
t h i s e x e r c i s e since i t was considered t h a t the average d r y l a n d farmer
n e i t h e r achieves nor d e s i r e s almost 200 per cent lambing.
Dry m a t t e r production data f o r both Matua and ryegrass swards
were taken from i y i n i s t r y o f A g r i c u l t u r e and F i s h e r i e s estimates (MAF,
1986). These data are presented i n F i g u r e 2. The Tama crop was
assumed t o y i e l d 5200 kilograms o f d r y m a t t e r per hectare (Douglas,
1980). Seventy per c e n t o f t h i s was u t i l ised by stock. A d r y m a t t e r
y i e l d of 6 tonnes of t u r n i p s p e r hectare ( B a n f i e l d R. Pers. Comm) and
a u t i l i s a t i o n r a t e of 70 p e r c e n t were assumed i n the a n a l y s i s .
.,a
F
0
ClJ
a.
v,
r
nfu cn
C 3 C
3 @ 3
3 o a o
Z>Z>
5
C,
o
I-
Grazing p a t t e r n s f o r both Nui and Matua swards were those
described i n Section 3. The t u r n i p s are f e d d u r i n g May, June and J u l y
Estimates o f dry matter
and t h e Tama froin J u l y u n t i l October.
a v a i l a b l e f o r grazing are presented i n Tables 6 and 7. Paddocks a r e
made a v a i l a b l e f o r grazing i n a manner which a l l o w s t h e optimum grazing
r o u t i n e f o r each species t o be observed as n e a r l y as possible.
However, t h e r e are times when opti~numg r a z i ng cannot be achieved. For
example, on t h e Nui/Turnips/Tama farm Nui cannot be s p e l l e d i n autumn
t o maximise feed c a r r i e d forward since n e i t h e r Tama nor t u r n i p s provide
feed a t t h a t time.
Grazing r e s t r i c t i o n s on Matua have n o t been
v i o l a t e d i n t h i s exercise.
The feed requirements o f stock have been c a l c u l a t e d on t h e
b a s i s o f 120% lambing, weaning i n December and monthly lamb d r a f t s
(40%, 30%, 30%) u n t i l February. Replacement stock are n o t c a r r i e d .
I t i s assumed t h a t there are 100,000 kilograms o f dry matter on
hand a t the beginning and end o f t h e y e a r and t h a t s i l a g e i s made i n
October.
Feed c a r r i e d forward i s assumed t o d e t e r i o r a t e ten per c e n t
per month.
The feed budgets c a l c u l a t e d are given i n Appendix 4 and
summarised i n Figures 3 and 4. I t should be noted t h a t the q u a n t i t y o f
dry m a t t e r a v a i l a b l e i n March includes t h a t which i s grown during March
as w e l l as 100,000 kg c a r r i e d over. Under the Nui/Matua regime a
s t o c k i n g r a t e of 11.2 ewes per hectare i s sustainable.
At that
s t o c k i n g r a t e t h e l e v e l s o f dry m a t t e r on hand a t t h e beginning and end
o f t h e y e a r a r e i d e n t i c a l and t h e d r y m a t t e r grown d u r i n g the y e a r
equals t h e dry m a t t e r r e q u i r e d by t h e stock. The Nui/Tama/Turnips farm
supports 7.85 ewes per hectare.
Gross margins based on t h i s feed budgeting e x e r c i s e a r e
d e t a i l e d i n Appendix 1 and summarised i n Table 8. It can be seen t h a t
t h e riui/Matua farm has a h i g h e r l e v e l o f p r o f i t a b i l i t y than t h e
Nui /Tarna/Turni ps farm because o f i t s h i g h e r p r o d u c t i v i ty and lower
costs o f c u l t i v a t i o n .
Table 8
Gross Margin Summary of Dry1and Greenfeed A1 t e r n a t i ves
Farm1e t Composi t i o r ~
Stocking Kate
Nui :Flatus (70:30)
11.2 ewes/ha.
$/ha
Gross gevenue (Sheep)
U i r e c t Costs (Sheep)
Gross Margin b e f o r e
Pasture Costs
Annual Pasture Maintenance
and Establishment Costs
Gross 8largin Net of
Pasture Costs
5.
Wui :Turnips :Tama (70:15 :15)
7.85 ewes/ha
$/ha
327.87
103.43
224.44
59.54
164.90
iliscussi on
Matua P r a i r i e Grass has an economically v i a b l e place on
Canterbury sheep farms as t h e
r e s u l t s presented i n t h i s paper
detnonstrate.
F u r t h e r research i s needed t o determine t h e e x t e n t o f
t h i s role.
I n t h e complementary Nui/Matua system t h e r o l e o f Matua has two
facets.
F i r s t l y i t c o n t r i b u t e s d i r e c t l y t o t h e annual d r y m a t t e r
y i e l d . I t i s g e n e r a l l y conceded t h a t Matua has t h e abi 1it y t o o u t y i e l d
perenni a1 ryegrasses except in s p r i ng when growth r a t e s are simi 1a r
T h i s was demonstrated i n t h e i r r i g a t e d t r i a l s i n which
(White, 1985).
t h e annual y i e l d s o f Matua exceeded t h e annual y i e l d s o f Nui by
approximately 15 p e r cent.
Secondly i n c l u s i o n o f Matua i n t h e r o t a t i o n a l l o w s b e t t e r
management o f rye-grass based pastures which a r e t h e r e f o r e able t o
t h e Nui/Matua
achieve h i g h e r y i e l d s . As can be seen i n Table A.3.1.
systems o u t y i e l d e d t h e Nui o n l y systems a t b o t h s t o c k i n g r a t e s under
dry1 and c o n d i t i o n s a1 though on Nui /Matua farm1 e t s t h e r e was 1 ittl e
d i f f e r e n c e i n p r o d u c t i o n between t h e two species.
The t h i r d c o n t r i b u t i o n o f Matua t o t h e d r y l a n d farming system
i s as a p e r e n n i a l greenfeed. The feed-budgeting e x e r c i s e described i n
Section 4 shows t h a t Matua has
s i g n i f i c a n t advantages over t h e
combination o f Tama and Turnips as a greenfeed.
The
exercise
onderstates t h e advantages of Matua i n as much as i t does n o t t a k e
accourlt of t h e s u p e r i o r q u a l i t y of Matua i n t h e r e p r o d u c t i v e phase and,
t h e r e f o r e , of i t s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o lamb f a t t e n i n g . I n a d r y year t h e
advantages w i l l be r a t h e r l e s s since Matua w i l l n o t c o n t r i b u t e as g r e a t
a q u a n t i t y o f f l u s h i n g feed i n autumn as i n w e t t e r years.
Tne g r a z i n g t r i a l s conducted by D S I R t o asess t h e Nui/Matua
system under irri g a t i o n have produced extremely h i g h 1eve1 s o f ani ma1
production. However i t i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o determine t h e s u p e r i o r i t y of
t h i s system over one based on Mui ryegrass
r e s u l t s were n o t generated by t h e experiment.
since
comparable
Nui
As has been noted previously, Matua o u t y i e l ded Nui i n both o f
t h e i r r i g a t e d t r i a l s . Since t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s imposed on the r o t a t i o n
by the use o f Matua i n 50 % o f paddocks could be met under dryland
c o n d i t i o n s whi 1e mai n t a i n i ng economic superi o r i t y over t h e Nui a1one
system i t i s a t l e a s t probable t h a t the Mui/Matua system would be
s u p e r i o r under irri g a t i on.
The dryland g r a z i n g t r i a l s described e a r l i e r have generated the
data r e q u i r e d t o compare t h e Nui/Matua system w i t h one based on Nui
alone. A t t h i r t e e n stock u n i t s per hectare t h e s u p e r i o r i t y o f the
Nui/Matua system i s demonstrated, o n l y i n the l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s of hay
harvested, other than i n higher p r o f i t a b i l ity from 1ivestock.
At
s i x t e e n S.U.
per hectare t h e p r o f i t a b i l i t y o f the 1 i v e s t o c k e n t e r p r i s e
based on Nui/Matua i s c l e a r l y higher. One p o s s i b l e explanation f o r the
s i m i l a r i t y o f stock production a t the lower stocking r a t e l i e s i n the
f a c t t h a t there was a p a r t i c u l a r l y h i g h summer r a i n f a l l d u r i n g 1982/83
when t h e t r i a l was conducted. Both systems were understocked and t h e
sheep were, therefore, suppl ied w i t h optimal quanti t i e s o f feed under
each.
The use of Matua on d r y l a n d farms i n Canterbury r e q u i r e s
f u r t h e r e v a l u a t i o n under a range o f c l i m a t i c c o n d i t i o n s and across a
range of soi 1 types. I n Canterbury where r a i n f a l l i s h i g h l y v a r i a b l e
and t h e p r o b a b i l i t y
o f drought high,
farmers r e q u i r e
objective
i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e performance o f Matua under d r y c o n d i t i o n s i n order
t o assess t h e r i s k associated w i t h t h i s type o f system.
I n addi t i o n , i t has been suggested (White, 1985) t h a t the
advantages o f Matua may o n l y be e v i d e n t on s o i l s o f h i g h f e r t i l i t y .
The Temp1eton S i 1t Loam on which t h e tri a1 s were conducted is one o f
Land Use
Canterbury's b e t t e r s o i l s and has, according t o the M.O.W.D.
Capabi 1it y Survey, a p o t e n t i a l c a r r y i n g capacity o f 25 S.U.
per
hectare under i r r i g a t i o n and 22 stock u n i t s per hectare under dryland
condi ti ons.
The iJlin i s t r y of Agri c u l t u r e and F i s h e r i es a t L i n c o l n w i t h
co-operation o f a l o c a l farmer, conducted a two y e a r demonstration
comparing a 70 p e r c e n t Matua/30% Nui f a r m l e t w i t h a Nui alone f a r m l e t
on L i smore s o i l s under dry1 and conditions. Thi s demonstrati on tiad some
method01 o g i c a l defects, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the f i r s t season, b u t a1 though
these tended t o favour t h e 100 per cent Nui system, h i g h e r l e v e l s of
p r o d u c t i v i t y and p r o f i t a b i 1it y were achei wed on t h e Nui /Matua system.
T h i s t r i a l i s described i n Appendix 5. L i srnore s o i l s are very much
l i g h t e r s o i l s than Templeton s o i l s and are estimated t o have a
p o t e n t i a l c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y o f 10 stock u n i t s per hectare under dryland
conditions.
While t h i s demonstration cannot be considered conclusive p r o o f
t h a t Matua i s o f value as a pasture species on l i g h t l a n d w i t h o u t
i r r i g a t i o n , i t does suggest t h a t i t may be o f use on a wider range o f
s o i 1s than was p r e v i o u s l y be1 ieved.
A1 though t h e MAF demonstration i n d i c a t e s t h a t envi r o n m n t a l
l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e use o f Matua are n o t severe, i t s managerial
requirements do 1i m i t i t s a p p l i c a t i o n . Whi 1e t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y and
p e r s i s t a n c e o f ryegrass swards are reduced by poor g r a z i n g management
they w i l l s u r v i v e overgrazing. Matua can s u r v i v e being grazed once
b e f o r e i t has reached i t s c r i t i c a l grazing h e i g h t o f 15-20 centimeters
b u t a subsequent r e g r a z i n g b e f o r e r o o t reserves Rave been replenished
w i l l k i l l many o f t h e p l a n t s . S i m i l a r l y , prolonging t h e grazing p e r i o d
beyond t h e f o u r day maximum w i l l r e s u l t i n p l a n t death as a consequence
o f hoof damage.
Thus Matua i s l i k e l y t o be grown successfully o n l y by
those farmers capable of managing an in t e n s i ve r o t a t i o n a l g r a z i ng
system.
I n 1982 a HAF survey showed t h a t approximately 50 per c e n t of
farmers i n Canterbury operated some type o f r o t a t i o n a l g r a z i n g system.
Local advisors b e l i e v e t h a t o n l y 20 per c e n t are p r e s e n t l y capable of
( G Scales
t h e l e v e l of grazing management s u i t a b l e
f o r Matua.
pers .comm)
.
T r i a l s c a r r i e d o u t by t h e OSIK have t e s t e d systems w i t h 30 per
c e n t and 50 p e r c e n t Matua. Both of these a l l o w s u f f i c i e n t management
f l e x i b i 1 ity t o meet stock feed demands w i t h o u t cornpromisi ng t h e grazing
i n t e r v a l s o r g r a z i n g periods o f the Matua o r ryegrass swards. A1 though
the MAF demonstration f a r m l e t was 70% Matua, l o c a l a d v i s o r s agree t h a t
meeting g r a z i ng c o n s t r a i n t s would be extremely d i f f i c u l t if Matua-based
pastures comprised more than 50 p e r cent o f t h e farm.
In
surnrnary, a farming system
i n c o r p o r a t i n g up t o
50%
Matua-based pastures w i t h t h e remai nder in ryegrass-based pasture has
been shown t o be economically s u p e r i o r t o a system based s o l e l y on
ryegrass, on f e r t i l e s o i l s. There i s strong evidence t o suggest t h a t
such a system i s a l s o economically s u p e r i o r on l e s s f e r t i l e s o i l s , b u t
t h i s remains t o be val i d a t e d i n s c i e n t i f i c a l l y conducted t r i a l s.
Using a feed-budgeting approach i t has been shown t h a t a
Nui /Matua system i s l e s s c o s t l y and more p r o d u c t i v e than a system i n
which Nui i s supplemented by annual greenfeed crops.
The g r e a t e s t l i m i t a t i o n on the successful implementation o f the
Nui/Matua system i s l i k e l y t o be t h e a b i l i t y o f the farmer t o meet t h e
g r a z i n g managements requirements o f t h e Matua-based sward.
6.
Suaaestions f o r Future Research
I n t h e course o f assessing t h e economic i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e
Matua grazing t r i a l , i t became apparent t h a t a number o f aspects o t h e r
than s c i e n t i f i c v a l i d i t y determine t h e e x t e n t t o which such t r i a l s can
be r e p o r t e d meaningfully t o farmers and the e x t e n t o f economic analysi s
possible. These in c l ude :
1.
Rep1i c a t i on
One of t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s t r i a l was t h e assessment o f
Matua's s u i t a b i l i t y as a pasture species f o r dryland Canterbury.
The
most d i f f i c u l t environment f a c t o r f o r t h e d r y l a n d farmer i n Canterbury
is t h e extreme v a r i a t i o n i n annual and seasonal r a i n f a l l . I n assesi ng
pasture species, he i s , therefore, concerned w i t h performance under a
wide rarige o f r a i n f a l l conditions. Eva1u a t i o n o f Matua's performance
i n any s i n g l e year i s u n l i k e l y t o provide a r e s u l t which i s meaningful
f o r him.
For example, t h e dryland s e c t i o n o f t h i s t r a i l was conducted
i n a y e a r when sumrfler r a i n f a l l was so h i g h t h a t a t t h i r t e e n stock u n i t s
per hectare, t h e n e t r e t u r n s from s a l e o f surplus hay exceeded those
from t h e 1ivestock e n t e r p r i s e .
While i t may be p o s s i b l e t o assess t h e s u i t a b i l i t y o f a species
f o r a p a r t i c u l a r l o c a t i o n without within-year replication, i t i s n o t
p o s s i b l e t o asses i t s sui t a b i 1 it y f o r "dry1 and Canterbury" based on i t s
performance on a h i g h f e r t i l i t y s o i l such as a Templeton S i l t Loam.
Economic assessment on a regional b a s i s would be more c o s t e f f e c t i v e
and very much more meaningful p r o v i d i n g t h a t resources are a v a i l a b l e t o
a1 1ow rep1 ic a t i on on r e p r e s e n t a t i v e soi 1 types.
2.
Data Col 1e c t i on and Kecordi na
Where t r i a l s are intended t o r e f l e c t performance under c u r r e n t
farming p r a c t i c e s , and t o be evaluated i n an economic framework, i t i s
e s s e n t i a l t h d t a l l t h e i n f o r m a t i o n which i s important i n a farm
management c o n t e x t be c o l l e c t e d . Whether o r n o t i t i s v a l i d i n a
s c i e n t i f i c c o n t e x t t o disregard ' treatments ' which are appl i e d e q u a l l y
t o c o n t r o l and t e s t farmlets, d e t a i l s
o f such 'treatments' a r e
i m p o r t a n t t o farmers who may expect t o achieve s i m i l a r l e v e l s o f
performance t o those described by researchers.
I n t h i s t r i a l i t was assumed t h a t t h e r e would be no d i f f e r e n c e
i n wool production from ewes w i t h bodyweights as h i g h as those i n t h e
trials.
T h i s assumption may o r may n o t be v a l i d . However, wool i s a
very s i gni f i c a n t p a r t o f sheepfarm income and t h e f a c t t h a t production
1eve1 s have n o t beem recorded reduces c r e d i b i 1it y from the f a r m e r ' s
viewpoint. A1 1 i m p o r t a n t production parameters should be measured.
Another aspect o f data c o l l e c t i o n t o be considered i s t h a t data
should, where possible, be comparable w i t h o t h e r t r i a l s and t a i l o r e d t o
d i f f e r e n t forms of a n a l y s i s t o a1 1ow e x t r a p o l a t i o n from t r i a1 s r e s u l t s
t o o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s . I n one year o f t h i s t r i a l , data were c o l l e c t e d on
animal p r o d u c t i o n from an i r r i g a t e d NuiIMatua f a r m l e t . There was no
'Nui o n l y ' comparison. Had herbage production data been c o l l e c t e d as
w e l l as 'herage o f f e r e d ' data i t would have been p o s s i b l e t o d e r i v e a
comparable Nui o n l y s i t u a t i on u s i n g feed-budgeti ng techniques.
One hectare f a r i n l e t s a r e t o o s ~ l ~ d lt lo escape t h e charge,
however u n f a i r , t h a t t h e management i n p u t i s l i k e l y t o have been much
greater than would be p o s s i b l e i n a t y p i c a l farming context. A1 though
l a r g e r experimental blocks are l i k e l y t o be r u l e d o u t immediately on
grounds o f cost, a compromise s o l u t i o n may be p o s s i b l e .
In
t h e l a s t Appendix o f
t h e r e p o r t , a Matua
grazing
demonstration r u n by t h e MAF Advisory Services D i v i s i o n a t L i n c o l n is
b r i e f l y described.
The v a l i d i t y of the r e s u l t s obtained from t h i s
der~lonstration was 1 icni t e d because several o f t h e p r a c t i c e s employed
invdl idate t h e compari son between the farm1 e t s s t u d i ed.
I n t h e case of the Matua t r i a l c a r r i e d o u t a t L i n c o l n , i t may
have been p o s s i b l e t o cornbi ne these two e x e r c i ses, w i t h MAF p r o v i d i n g
farrn management e x p e r t i se and the D S I R , s c i e r l t i f i c e x p e r t i s e .
T r i a l Objectives
The o b j e c t i v e s o f e i ~si t r i a l changed d u r i n g t h e years o f i t s
imp1 ementation as changing farming p r a c t i c e s made e a r l i e r o b j e c t i v e s
obsolete.
T h i s i s i n e v i t a b l e w i t h a number o f longer-term p r o j e c t s .
#owever, where t h i s happens, i t i s most i m p o r t a n t t o consider what use
data c o l l e c t e d i n any one y e a r are going t o be. During the year when
the i r r i g a t e d Matua t r i a l was converted t o a d r y l a n d t r i a l , animal
There was,
production data and some herbage data were c o l l e c t e d .
however, no c o n t r o l f a r i n l e t from which data f o r comparison c o u l d be
I t c o u l d be argued t h a t i n such circumstances o n l y minimum
collected.
resources should be employed d u r i n g the t r a n s i t i o n phase since t h e
r e t u r n on such resources i s low. The c o l l e c i o n o f data from o n l y one
area w i t h o u t a c o n t r o l comparison does n o t p r o v i d e useful i n f o r m a t i o n
f o r analysis.
The concept of p r o v i d i n g an
economic a n a l y s i s based on
s c i e n t i f i c t r i a l data i s an e x c e l l e n t means o f c o n v e r t i n g s c i e n t i f i c
r e s u l t s i n t o "farmer f r i e n d l y n i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s process i n v o l v e s t h e
e v a l u a t i o n of the t r i a l r e s u l t s from a farm management perspective and
the t r a n s l a t i o n of the r e s u l t s i n t o c o s t s and r e t u r n s t o farmers.
In
order f o r such an e v a l u a t i o n t o be the most e f f e c t i v e , i t i s i m p o r t a n t
t h a t t h e r e be an element o f economic i n p u t t o t h e t r i a l desiyn and t o
the c o l l e c t i o n o f data on the t r i a l r e s u l t s . This w i l l ensure t h a t t h e
i n f o r m a t i o n needed f o r t h e farm management o r i e n t e d economic a n a l y s i s
i s r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e and can be c o l l e c t e d as t h e t r i a l proceeds.
L i s t o f References
Manfi e l d
R.
Personal Cotnmuni c a t i o n , Department o f Sci e n t i f i c
I n d u s t r i a l Research, Crop Research D i v i sion, L i ncol n.
and
Oepartrnent o f Farrn Management and Rural Val uation, L i n c o l n C o l l ege,
and B u r t E.S.,
F i n a n c i a l Budget Manual 1986 Eds. Clarke M.B.
L i ncol n Col 1ege
Douglas,
J .A.
i n Supplementary Feeding, A Guide t o the Production and
Feeding o f Supplements f o r Sheep and C a t t l e i n N ~ N Zealand.
kds.
K K Drew and P.t
tennessy. New Lealand Society of
Annual Production. Occasional Publ ic a t i on No. 7, 1980.
.
Dunlop, A.
Personal Communication, Burnham, Christchurch
Role o f Matua P r a i r i e Grass i n an A l l Grass Systan f o r
Fraser, T.J.
Prime Lamb Production Proceedings o f t h e New Zeal and Grassl and
Association 46, 1985.
Fraser, T.J.
Comparison under I r r i g a t i o n o f Matua P r a i r i e Grass and
Tama Ryegrass as Greenfeed Supplementary t o Nui Ryegrass f o r
Prime Lamb Production (unpubl ished) 1984. Grassl ands D i v i s i o n ,
Departrnent o f S c i e n t i f i c and I n d u s t r i a l Research, L i n c o l n.
Massey
Uni v e r s i ty , Matua P r a i r i e Grass, Publ i c a t i on No.
Farms Series, Massey Uni v e r s i ty, 1986.
3.
Massey
M i n i s t r y o f A g r i c u l t u r e and F i s h e r i e s , P r a i r i e Grass, Grasslands Matua.
Aglink, Farm Production and P r a c t i c e 3U 1 s t Revision, 1986.
Pearce, R.
Personal Comrnuni c a t i on, K i rwee, Chri stchurch
FIGURE 1
Summary of Grazing Pattern of Matua
Apply
Nitrogen
Apply +
Nitrogen
Note
1 S p e l l i n g Matua l a t e J a n - e a r l y A p r i l t o b u i l d up q u a l i t y
g r a z i n g p a s t u r e o v e r m a t i n g p e r i o d . U t i l i s e by s t r i p
grazing
2
S p e l l i n g Matua t o b u i l d u p p a s t u r e r e s e r v e s f o r p r e - l a m b
a n d l a m b i n g f e e d . U t i l i s e by s t r i p g r a z i n g .
3
R o t a t i o n a l l y g r a z e M a t u a when i t r e a c h e s 15-20 cm i n
height with g r a z i n g periods o f l e s s than f o u r days.
FIGURE 3
D r y M a t t e r Avai 1 a b i 1 it y
and Requirement on a 100 ha Nui/Matua D r y l a n d Farm C a r r y i n g 120 Ewes
Dry M a t t e r
'000 kg
20
*
J
~ d ~r $May
r
J:n
JI;
~;g
sLp 0;t
~ 6 dec
v Jan ~ L b M i r
The t o t a l dry m a t t e r a v a i l a b l e i n each month i n c l u d e s
DM c a r r i e d f o r w a r d and DM g r o w t h
FIGURE
4
D r y M a t t e r A v a i l a b i l it y and Requirement on a
100 ha Nui/Tama/Turnip Dryland Farm C a r r y i n g 785 Ewes
Dry M a t t e r
'900 kg
T o t a l A v a i 1a b l e
Dry M a t t e r
APPENDIX 1
Sheep Gross Margins
A.1.1.
*
Gross Marain @ 13 eweslha
50 % Matua, 50% Nui Dryland Pasture
Assumptions:
No deaths, replacements purchased as 2 tooths
Lambing 185% s u r v i v a l t o s a l e
Wool 4 kglewe
Lamb l i v e w e i g h t 25.7 kg
Carcase W t 42% o f 1iveweight
Gross Revenue : Lamb sales : 24 @ $9.38
10.79 kg @ 133clkg $14.35
Wool p u l l : 0.95 kg @ $4.75
Charges $9.72
Wool Sales:
4 kg head @ $3.50/kg n e t
Ewe sales: 3.25 ewes a t $3.00 n e t
225.12
182.00
9.75
Total Gross Revenue :
D i r e c t Costs:
Replacement: 3.25 2 t h ewes
@ $18.00/hd
Drench : ewes twice @ 19.42cldose
Lambs t w i c e @ 7.76cldose
Vaccination: ewes @ 1 1 . 7 9 ~
Eartags, f o o t r o t , docking: 50c/ewe
Di ppi ng : 34c/ewe
Ram c o s t : 50c/ewe
Cartage: 65cllamb t o works
80cIewe t o works
Wool shed expenses : 34clhead
Shearing: 13 @ $82.50/100
Crutch: 13 8 $361100
Feed Costs:
Hay-25.5 kglewe @ $ .83/bal e c o s t
Barley-8.4 kglewe @ $150/t
T o t a l D i r e c t Costs
$154.24
Gross Margin 8 13 ewes/ha
Gross Margin $/bU
Note:
*
Addi t i o n a l Revenue from 347 bales s u r p l us
hay @ $1.67 n e t
Ref. f o r Gross Margins i n Appendix 1,
Department o f Farm Management and Rural Valuation,
L i ncol n Col 1ege , 1986
Doug1as, J .A., 1980
579.49
A. 1.2.
Gross Margin @ 16 ewes/ha
262.63
50 % Matua 50 % Nui Pasture Dryland
Assumptions:
No deaths, replacements purchased as 2 t o o t h s
Lambing: 181% S u r v i v a l t o Sale
Wool : 4 kg/ewe
Lamb Liveweight: 26.8 kg
Carcase W t : 42 % 1iveweight
Gross Revenue: Lamb Sales: 29 @ $9.93
11.26 @ 133c/kg $14.98
Wool p u l l : 0.95 kg 8 $4.75
Charges: $9.80
Wool s a l e : 4 kg 8 $3.50/kg n e t t
Ewe sales: 4 ewes @ $3.00/hd
T o t a l Gross Revenue
287.97
224.00
12.00
$523.97
D i r e c t Costs
Replacement: 4 2 t h ewes a t $18.00/hd
Drench: Ewes t w i c e @ 19.42c/dose
Lambs t w i c e 8 7.76c/dose
Vaci n a t i o n ewes : @ 1 1 . 7 9 ~
Eartags, f o o t r o t , docking: 50c/ewe
D i p p i ng : 34c/ewe
Ram c o s t : 50c/ewe
Cartage: 65c/lamb t o works
80c/ewe
Woolshed expenses: 34c/head
Shearing : 16 @ 82.50/100
Crutch:
16 8 $36/100
Feed Costs: Hay 25.5 kg/ewe @ $2.50/bale
Barley 8.4 kg/ewe @ $150/t
Total D i r e c t Cost
Gross Margin @ 16 ewes/ha
Gross Marqin $/SU
72 .OO
6.21
4.50
1.89
8.00
5.44
8 .OO
18.85
6.40
5.44
13.20
5.76
40.80
20.16
A.1.3.
Gross Margin @ 13 Eweslha
100 % Nui Dryland Pasture
Assumptions:
No deaths, replacements purchased as 2 t o o t h s
Lambing: 183 % s u r v i v a l t o sale
Wool : 4 kglewe
Lamb l i v e w e i g h t : 26.0 kg
Carcase W t : 42% o f l i v e w e i g h t
Gross Revenue: Lamb sales : 24 8 $9.52
10.92 kg @ 133clkg $14.52
Wool p u l l : 0.95 kg $4.75
Charges: $9.75
Wool Sales:
4 kglhead @ $3.50/kg n e t t
Ewe Sales:
3.25 ewes @ $3.00 n e t
T o t a l Gross Revenue
D i r e c t Costs:
Replacement: 3.25 2 t h ewes 8
$18.00/head
Drench: Ewes t w i c e @ 19.42c/dose
Lambs t w i c e @ 7.76cldose
Vaccination Ewes: @ 1 1 . 7 9 ~
Eartags, f o o t r o t , docki ng : 50cIewe
U i ppi ng : 34clewe
Ram c o s t : 50c/ewe
Cartage : 6 5 ~ 1amb
1
80cIewe
Wool shed expenses : 34c/hd
Shearing : $82.501100
Crutchi ng : $361100
Feed Costs:
Hay - 25.5 kglewe @ $.83/bale c o s t
Barley - 8.4 kglewe @ $150/t
T o t a l D i r e c t Costs
Gross Margin 13 eweslha
Gross Marain $/SU
A d d i t i o n a l Revenue from 300 bales o f hay @ $1.67 n e t
$501.00
A.1.4
Gross Margin @ 16 Eweslha
100 % Nui Dryland Pasture
Assumptions:
No Deaths, replacements purchased as 2 t o o t h s
Lambing: 169% S u r v i v a l t o Sale
Wool : 4 kg/Ewe
Lamb Liveweights: 25.3 kg
Carcase W t : 42% of Liveweight
Gross Revenue : Lamb Sales: 27 @$9.19
10.63 @ 133c/kg
Wool p u l l : O.95kg @ $4.75
Charges: $9.69/hd
Wool Sales:
4 kglhead @ $3.5O/kg N e t t
Ewe Sales: 4 ewes @ $3.00 n e t
248.13
224.00
12.00
T o t a l Gross Revenue :
D i r e c t Costs:
Replacement: 4 2 t h ewes a t $18.00
Drench: Ewes t w i c e @ 19.42cldose
Lambs t w i c e @ 7.76cldose
Vaccination: Ewes @ 1 1 . 7 9 ~
Eartags, f o o t r o t , docking: 50cIewe
Dipping : 34c/ewe
Ram Cost: 50c/ewe
Cartage : 6 5 ~ 1 amb
1
80cIewe
Wool shed Expenses : 34c/hd
Sheari ng : $82.50/100 ewes
Crutchi ng : $36/100 ewes
Feed Costs : Hay 25.5 kglewe @ $2.50/bale
Barley 8.4 kg/ewe @ $150/t
T o t a l D i r e c t Costs:
Gross Margin @ 16 eweslha
Gross Margin $/SU
$215.04
A.1.5.
Gross Margin @ 22 Ewes/ha
30 % Matua, 70 % Nui I r r i g a t e d pasture
Assumptions:
No Deaths, replacements purchased as 2 t o o t h s
Larnbi ng 195% S u r v i v a l t o Sale
Wool : 4 kg 1 Ewe
Lamb Liveweights: 31.7 k g
Carcase W t : 42% o f Liveweight
Gross Revenue : Lamb Sales: 43 8 $12.55
13.31 kg @ 133c/kg
Wool p u l l : 0.95kg 8 $4.75
Charges: $9.90/hd
Wool Sales:
4 kg/head @ $3.50/kg N e t t
Ewe Sales: 5.5 @ $3.00
538.40
308.00
16.50
T o t a l Gross Revenue :
D i r e c t Costs:
Replacements: 5.5 @ $18.00
Drench: Ewes t w i c e @ 19.42c/dose
Lambs t w i c e @ 7.76c/dose
Vaccination Ewes: @ 1 1 . 7 9 ~
Eartags, f o o t r o t , docking : 50c/ewe
D i ppi ng : 34c/ewe
Ram Cost: 50c/ewe
Cartage : 6 5 c / l ainb
80c/ewe (works & rep1 )
Wool shed Expenses : 34c/hd
Shearing : 22 8 $82.50/100 ewes
Crutching: 22 @ $36/100 ewes
T o t a l D i r e c t Costs:
Gross Margin/ha @ 22 ewes/ha
Gross Margln $/SU
216.51
A.1.6.
Gross Margin: @ 20 Ewes and 5 Hoggets/ha
30 % Matua, 70 % Nui I r r i g a t e d pasture
Assumptions :
No deaths, breed own rep1acement
Lambing: 190% S u r v i v a l t o Sale
Wool : 4 kg per Ewe
Lamb Liveweights: 30.6 k g
Carcase W t : 42% o f Liveweight
Gross Revenue: Lamb Sales 33 8 $11.94
12.85 kg @ 133c/kg
1001 p u l l : 0.95kg @ $4.75
Charges: $9.90/hd
Wool Sales:
4 kg/head @ $3.50/kg N e t t
Ewe Sales: 5 @ $3.00
Total Gross Revenue :
D i r e c t Costs :
Drench: Ewes t w i c e @ 19.42cldose
Lambs t w i c e @ 7.76c/dose
Replacements s i x times @ 7.76c/dose
Vaccination Ewes: Q 1 1 . 7 9 ~
Eartags, f o o t r o t , docking : 50c/ewe
D i ppi ng : 34c/animal
Ram Cost: 50c/ewe
Cartage : 65c/l amb
80c/ewe
Wool shed Expenses : 34c/animal
Shearing: 25 @ $82.50/100 ewes
Crutching: 25 8 $36/100 ewes
T o t a l D i r e c t Costs
Gross Margin 8 20 ewes/ha
Gross iqargin $/SU
A.1.7.
Gross Margin @ 11.2 Ewes/hectare
30 % Matua, 70 % Nui I r r i g a t e d pasture
Assumptions:
No deaths, replacements purchased as 2 t o o t h s
Lambing: 120% Survival t o Sale
Wool : 4 kg/Ewe
Lamb Liveweight: 30.95
Carcase W t : 42% o f Liveweight
Gross Revenue : Lamb Sales : 13.4 @ 12.14
13.0 kg @ 133clkg
kloolpull : .95 kg @ $4.75
Charges: $9.90/hd
Wool Sales:
4 kglhead @ $3.50/kg N e t t
Ewe Sales: 2.8 @ $3.00
Total Gross Revenue :
D i r e c t Costs :
Replacement: 2.8 @ 18.00
Drench: Ewes twice @ 19.42cldose
Lambs twice @ 7.76cldose
Vaccination Ewes: 8 1 1 . 7 9 ~
Eartags, f o o t r o t , docki ng : 50cIewe
D i ppi ng : 34clanimal
Ram Cost : 50cIewe
Cartage : 6 5 c I l amb
80cIewe
Wool shed Expenses: 34clewe
Shearing : 11.2 @ $82.501100 ewes
Crutching: 11.2 @ $361100 ewes
T o t a l D i r e c t Costs:
Gross Margin @ 11.2 eweslha
Gross Marqln $/SU
A.1.8.
Gross Margin @ 7.85 Ewes/hectare
15 % Tama, 15 % Turnips, 70 % Nui
Assumptions:
No deaths, replacements purchased as 2 t o o t h s
Lambing: 120% S u r v i v a l t o Sale
Wool : 4 kg/Ewe
Lamb Liveweight: 30.95 kg
Carcase W t : 42% o f Livestock
Gross Revenue: Lamb Sales: 9.42 @ 12.14
13 kg 8 133c/kg:
Woolpull: .95 kg 8 $4.75
Charges: $9.90/hd
Wool Sales:
4 kg/head @ $3.50/kg N e t t
Ewe Sales: 2.0 @ $3.00
T o t a l Gross Revenue :
D i r e c t Costs:
Replacement P: 2.0 @ 18.00
Drench: Ewes t w i c e @ 19.42c/dose
Lambs t w i c e @ 7.76cldose
Vaccination Ewes: @ 1 1 . 7 9 ~
Eartags, f o o t r o t , docki ng : 50c/ewe
D i p p i ng : 34c/ewe
Ram Cost: 50c/ewe
Cartage : 6 5 c / l amb
80c/ewe
Wool shed Expenses : 34c/ewe
Shearing : 7.85 @ $82.50/100
C r u t c h i n g : 7.85 8 $36/100 ewes
T o t a l D i r e c t Costs
Gross Margin @ 7.85 ewes/ha
czEnFgK $/SU
APPENOIX 2
*
Pasture Establ ishment and Maintenance Cost
A.2.1.
MATUA P R A I R I E GRASS UNDER ORYLAND CONDITIONS FOR GREENFEED.
Programme
Ex drought a f f e c t e d "Nui " Ryegrass pasture, r e c e i ves
two grubbings w i t h 1 ime a p p l i e d
between t h e
grubbings.
C u l t i v a t i o n then f o l l o w s a programme o f grub, harrow and r o l l
Cul t i v a t i on
i n sequence, t h r e e times t o achieve weed c o n t r o l
s t a r t e d l a t e spring, e a r l y summer w i t h seed broadcast e a r l y
autumn.
L i g h t harrowing and use of cambridge r o l l e r t o
maxi m i se 1ow soi 1 moi s t u r e 1eve1 s a f t e r broadcasti ng
.
.
D i r e c t Costs
Seedbed Preparation :
5.2 hrs/ha @ $15.47/hr
Broadcast c o s t $5/ha
Seed: 30 kg/ha a t $3.05/kg Matua
3 kg/ha W.Clover a t $3.50/kg
Treatment: 25c/kg
Insecticide:
Thimet (phorate) 4 kg/ha
Establishment Cost ~ e ha
r
80.44
5.00
102.00
7.50
23.20
$218.14
F e r t i liser:
125 kg/ha Superphosphate a t
$175/tonne Spread
21.88
Lime
1 tonne/ha every f o u r years
a t $13.84/ton del i v e r e d
Spreadi ng $3.70/ha
4.39
Annual Maintenance Cost per ha
$26.27
....................
*
Reference f o r Gross Margins i n Appendix 2,
Department o f Farm Management and Rural Valuation, L i n c o l n
Col 1ege , 1986.
A.2.2.
NU1 KYEGRASS UNDER UKYLANO CONDITIONS FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING
Programme
Ex drought affected Nui Kyegrass pasture receives two grubbings
w i t h l i m e i n between the grubbings.
C u l t i v a t i o n then f o l l o w s a
programme of grub, harrow and r o l l i n sequence, t h r e e times t o achieve
weed c o n t r o l .
C u l t i v a t i o n s t a r t e d l a t e s p r i n g l e a r l y summer w i t h seed
d r i 11ed w i t h whi t e c l o v e r e a r l y autumn.
D i r e c t Costs
Seedbed Preparations:
5.2 hours @ $15.47/hr
Seed:20 kg Nui @ $1.50/kg
3 kg Huia W . Clover @ $3.50/kg
Insecticide:
Thimet (phorate) 4 kglha
Establishment Cost p e r ha
F e r t i 1iser :
Superphosphate 125 kglha
@ $175/tonne
Lime :
Every f o u r t h y e a r 1 tonnelha a t
13.841tonne d e l i v e r e d
Spreading 3.701ha
Annual Maintenance Cost Der Ha
80.44
30.00
10.50
23.20
$144.14
21.88
4.39
A.2.3.
NU1 RYEGRASS UNDER IRRIGATED CONDITIONS FOR CONSUMPTION BY
LIVESTOCK
Programme
Ex i r r i g a t e d Nui pasture disced twice, l a t e spring then
ploughed, heavy harrowed, grubbed and heavy harrowed.
Lime a p p l i e d
p r i o r t o l a s t grubbing. D r i l l e d and harrowed w i t h Nui/whi t e c l o v e r mix
e a r l y autumn.
D i r e c t Costs per hectare
Establishment Costs
Seedbed Preparation :
11 h r s @ $15.47/hr
Seed :
20 kg l4ui a t $1.50/kg
3 kg Huia W.Clover a t $3.5/kg
Insecticide :
Thimet (phorate) 4 kg/ha
170.17
30.00
10.50
23.20
Establishment Cost per Ha
F e r t i 1iser :
150 kg/ha Superphosphate @ $175/tonne 26.25
Lime :
1 tonne/ha every f o u r y e a r s @ $13.84/ton
del i v e r e d $3.70/ha spread
4.39
Water Charge
50.00
Annual Maintenance Cost Per Ha
$80.64
A.2.4.
MATUA PRAIRIE GRASS UNOER IRRIGATION FOR GREENFEED
Ex i r r i g a t e d Nui , pasture d i sced t w i c e l a t e s p r i ng,
heavy harrowed, grubbed and heavy harrowed. Lime a p p l i e d
grubbing. Broadcast & harrow.
D i r e c t Costs per hectare
Seedbed Preparation :
11 h r s @ $15.47/hr
Seed: 3 kg W.Clover 4 $3.05/kg
30 kg Matua 4 $3.05/kg
Fungicide treatment: 25c/kg
Insecticide :
Thimet (phorate) 4 kg/ha
Establishment Cost per ha
$302.87
F e r t i 1is e r :
150 kg/ha Superphosphate a t $175/tonne
26.25
Lime :
1 tonne/ha every f o u r years 4 $13.84/ton
del ivered $3.70/ha spread
Water Charge :
4.39
50.00
Annual Maintenance Cost per ha.
ploughed,
prior to
A.2.5.
TAMA RYEGRASS FOR GREENFEED UNDER DRYLANO CONDITIONS
Programme
Ex drought a f f e c t e d Nui ryegrass pasture,
Ploughed e a r l y
summer, grub and harrow t w i c e w i t h l i m e a p p l i c a t i o n i n between.
Roll
and harrow then d r i 11 e a r l y February.
Nitrogen appl i c a t i o n l a t e
Autumn
.
O i r e c t Costs
Seedbed Preparation :
5.9 h r s l h a 8 $15.47/hr
Seed :
30 kglha @ $1.30/kg
Insecticide:
Thimet (phorate) 4 kg/ha
F e r t i 1iser :
125 kglha Superphosphate @ $175/tonne
Lime:
1 tonnelha every f o u r years @ $13.84/ton
d e l i v e r e d $3.70/ha spread
N i trogen 250 kglha Sul phate o f Ammonia
a t $280/tonne
Total Annual Costs per ha
21.88
4.39
70.00
$249.74
A.2.6.
SOFT TURNIPS FOR GREENFEED UNDER ORYLAND CONDITIONS
Prograinme
Ex drought a f f e c t e d Mui Ryegrass pasture. Ploughed s p r i n g t o
conserve moisture and grubbed pnd harrowed. Lime a p p l i c a t i o n January,
and then grubbed and harrowed again. R o l l e d and harrowed b e f o r e
d r i 11 ing in e a r l y February.
D i r e c t Costs
Seedbed Preparation :
5.6 h r s l h a @ $15.47/hr
Seed :
800 gmslha @ $4.50/kg
Insecticide:
T h i ~ n e t (phorate) 4 k g l h a
F e r t i 1iser :
125kglha Superphosphate @ $175/ton
Lime
1 tonnelha every f o u r years @ $13.84/ton
del i v e r e d $3.70/ha spcead
T o t a l Annual Costs p e r ha
4.39
APPENDIX 3
PRODUCTION DATA FROM D S I K TRIALS
A.3.1.
Dryland T r i a l s
Table A.3.1.
Seasonal I n t a k e of Pasture by Sheep Grazing Nui and Nui
& Matua Systems
( tonnes DM/ha)
Stocking Rate
Cul t i v a r
P r o p o r t i on
Nui/
50
13 ewes
Matual Nui/
50
50
16 ewes
Mui/ ~ a t u a lNui/ ~ u i '
50
50
50
50
Nuill
50
Autumn
Winter
E a r l y Spring
Lactation
Summer
Hay
T o t a l System Y i e l d
11.2
Annual Y i e l d
11.1
11.2
10.2
10.7
11.2
9.7
11.5
9.9
10.9
10.3
1 Winter s p e l l ed; 40% o f area ploughed i n December f o r renewal
2
1 August
-
5 December
Source : Fraser, T .J
., 1985
Table A.3.1.2.
Animal Performance on Dryland Pastures
Ewes
Stocking Rate
Ewes Liveweight
s t a r t (kg)
Ewes Liveweight
s t a r t (kg)
Lambs
S u r v i v a l t o sale %
Mean l i v e w e i g h t (kg)
Cal c u l a t e d meat
y i e l d kg/ha
Source:
13
16
13
16
60.5
(1.6)
58.9
(1.0)
60.3
(2.1)
60.9(2.5)
61.2
(1.2)
60.5
(1.1)
59.5
(1.7)
55.7(1.1)
185
26.0 (0.8)
169
25.3 (0.7)
185
25.7 (0.8)
181
26.8 (0.7)
297
375
Fraser, T.J., 1984
Standard d e v i a t i o n s i n b r a c k e t
299
328
9.4
A.3.2.
Irrigated Trials
Table A.3.2.1.
Seasonal I n t a k e of Pasture
( tonnes ,DM/ha 1
Year
Stocking Rate
22 Ewes
C u l ti var/Management
Nui
Matua
Autumn
W i nOer
Spring
Summer
Total System Y i e l d
14.11
Annual Y i e l d
13.49
15.57
., 1985
Source : Fraser, T .J
Table A.3.2.2.
Seasonal I n t a k e o f Pasture
( tonnes DM/ha )
Year
1981/82
Stocking Rate
20 ewes + 5 h g t s
C u l ti v a r
Nui
P r o p o r t i on
70
30
Autumn
Winter
E a r l y Spring
Lactation
Summer
1.38
1.58
0.01
3.95
2.7
1.2
0.5
0.7
1.3
1.9
Total System Y i e l d
Annual Y i e l d
15.22
13.74
Source:
Fraser, T.J.
Matua
pers corn
18.67
Table A.3.2.2.
Animal Performance on I r r i g a t e d Pasture
Year
Cul ti var
1980181
Nui /Matua
1981182
Nui /Matua
Ewes
Stocking rate
Ewes s t a r t (kg)
Ewes end ( k g )
22
63.7
66.7
(0.9)
(1.1)
20 ( + 5 hoggets)
66.3
(1.2)
64.8 (1.1)
Lambs
S u r v i v a l t o Sale %
Mean Liveweight ( k g )
e a r l y Dec
Mean 1 iveweight ( k g )
e a r l y Feb
195
190
24
(0.4)
20.6
(0.4)
31.7
(0.5)
30.6
(0.6)
Standard devi a t i ons i n brackets
APPENDIX 4
FEE0 BUDGETS
A.4.1.
100 ha dryland farm with 70 % of area in Nui-based pastures
Both pastures
and 30 X of area in Matua-based pastures.
l a s t for five years. Grazing regime i s as described in t e x t
Section 4. A wastage factor of 10% per month i s applied t o
dry matter carried forward on the paddock. Conserved dry
inatter carried forward sustains a once-only loss of 30%.
Dry m a t t e r Grown and
available f o r yraring
Feed brought forward
t4on t h l y dewand o f
1120 ewes
Surplus
Dry m a t t e r c a r r i e d
forward on paddock
t4arch
April
May
32984
51546
10OOOO
30542
102442
92198
July
August
645/U
15120
8680
67813
102960
92198
86762
93591 70352
43641
57701
89891 171654 1713572 154155 133066
47342
30542
30542 47342
6U782
60782
91022
78254
96402 103990
78169 48490
63112
99879
97393
87192 168951 145517 109132
86762
70352 43641
57701
89891
50b54 149572 133155 112066
93591
Sept
Oct
June
l4ov
168284 106560
Dec
Jan
76632
53320
61958
61958
Feb
25U88
49022
79319
Conserved DM c a r r i e d
forward
Total
10U319
A.4.2.
100 ha d r y l a n d faun w i t h 70 % o f area i n Nui-based pastures,
15% of t h e area i n s o f t t u r n i p s and 15 % o f the area i n Tama
ryeyrass. Grazing regime i s as described i n t e x t Section 4. A
wastage f a c t o r of 10 % per Inon ,h i s appl i e d t o d r y m a t t e r
c a r r i e d forward on the paddock conserved. Dry m a t t e r c a r r i e d
forward sustains a once-only l o s s o f 30%.
lry matter Grown and
d v a i l a b l e f o r grazing
eed brought forward
onthly delnand of
1120 ewes
idarch
April
32984
30240
100,000 100419
21407
33182
urpl us
111577
97477
ry m a t t e r c a r r i e d
forward on paddock
100419
87730
June
July
August
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
47047
36120
47383
33015
66360
135366
65520
46872
87730
91435
95533 109358
98272
109827 176332
33182
21407
21407
33182
42602
101595 106148 121509 109191
122030
109827
May
91435
95533 109358
98272
42602
63797
Jan
Feb
31248
25088
162350 1410036 118072
54848
43426
34359
202591 178055
154373 128858
108801
155332 141350
120036
97072
79021
Total
100021
~ n s e r v e d DM c a r r i e d
forward
A
-
-
PlAF Grazing Demonstration
Between March 1984 and November
1985, the M i n i s t r y
of
A g r i c u l t u r e and F i s h e r i e s s t a f f a t L i n c o l n , i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a l o c a l
farmer, i4r Alex Dunlop, conducted an on-farm t r i a l cor~lparinga 70 per
c e n t Matua and w h i t e c l o v e r 30% Nui and w h i t e c l o v e r u n i t w i t h a 100
p e r c e n t idui and w h i t e c l o v e r u n i t .
Each u n i t co~nprised e i g h t
hectares.
On t h e 100 p e r c e n t Nui u n i t t h r e e hectares were sown i n
h i g h endophyte ryegrass arid f i v e hectares i n l o w endophyte ryegrass.
Both u n i t s were l o c a t e d on L i srnore stony s i l t loam.
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , on two occasions d u r i n g t h e t r i a l , aajustments
were made which have reducea t h e v a l i d i t y o f the comparison and i t was
necessary t o f i n i s h t h e demonstration b e f o r e several season's unbiased
d a t a c o u l d be c o l l e c t e d . From A p r i l 7 t o [Say 2, 1984, t h e ewes froril
t h e i i u i f a r n l e t were s h i f t e d t o the Matua f a r m l e t . T h i s das intended
t o compensdte f o r t h e f a c t t h a t t h e Matud b l o c k nad more d r y ti-tatter per
h e c t a r e a t t h e s t a r t o f the t r i a l . A rnore a p p r o p r i a t e a d j u s t ~ n e n twould
have been t h e equal is a t i o n o f dry m a t t e r by g r a z i n g o r t o p p i n g b e f o r e
the t r i a l
commenced.
The
Inedsure
adoptea
resulted
7'11
an
overcompensation and t h e p r o p o r t i o n a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e Matua u n i t i s
t h e r e f o r e understated.
Secondly,
a f t e r Idnlbing, d r y ewes and ewes which had had
b e a r i n g s o r had a b o r t e d were c u l l e d . The lambing percentage o f ewes
w i t h l i v e lambs was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each u n i t . Ewe numbers v!cre brought
u,p t o t h e o r i g i n a l l e v e l s and
the c a l c u l a t e d lambing percentage
mai n t a 1 nea by b u y i n g ewes and 1 ambs 'a1 1-counted1
.
The t i m i n g o f t h e t r i a l has a1 so l e d t o an understatement o f
t h e b e n e f i t s o f Matua, s i n c e t h e f i r s t season's lambing percentage and
t h e l a r g e s t p o r t i o n o f i t s wool p r o d u c t i o n had a c t u a l l y been determined
b y l e v e l s o f f e e d i n g i n the n~onthsb e f o r e the t r i d l .
The c o s t s and r e t u r n s from each f a r l n l e t over the twenty one
month p e r i o d f o r which the demonstration was conducted a r e sumrnars'sed
below. Pdsture e s t a o l is h ~ ~ i e r costs,
~t
which were n o t i n c u r r e d d u r i n g
t h i s p e r i o a w i l l be discussed l a t e r .
Table A.5.1.
Costs an0 Returns from MAF Grazing T r i a l
Nui /Matua
Returns (March 1984
-
March 1985)
Lamb: 122 @ 14.5 kg = $13.87/hd
Cull Ewes: 21 @ $3.00/hd
Wool: 247.8 kg @ $3.50/kg n e t
Sub- t o t a l
A p r i l '85
-
November '85
Lamb: 148 @ 10.64 k g = $8.35/ha
C u l l Ewes: 19 @ $300/hd
M.A. Ewes: 77 8 $14.00
Wool 337.4 kg @ $3.50/kg n e t
Sub-total
Total Returns
D ~ r e c tSheep Costs (March '84
-
darcn '85)
StocK Purchase:
Ewes @ 014.UO/hd
8/d4 9 M.A. Ewes 8 13 1amDs
A.C. cd $7.00
2/85 32 Ewes 16 M.A. Ca $14.00
16 2' t h @ $18.00
3/84 80 M.A.
1120.00
154.00
224.00
'288.00
80
12 ewes p l u s 19 lambs
237M.A.
16 2 t h
Drench: ng:
-
Ewes 80 Se only @ 3 . 0 ~
2 x 8 Nilvermplus Se @ $22.42
Lambs 2 x 122
"
" 8 10.76
'I
2 x dl
" la 10.76
E a r t a g s : 121 G 18c
Docking: 122 @ 3.15 c
D i p p i n y : G4 @ 34 c
Shearing: 80 @ 82.5 c
Crutch: 80 @ 36c
Noolshed Exp: 80 U 34c
Table A.5.1 c o n t ' d
...
T a b l e A.5.1
cont'd
Transport:
Inward: Ewes 112 @ 84c
Ewes & Larnbs 9 @ $1.00
Outward:
Ewes 21 @ 84c
Lambs 122 @ 60c
94.08
9.00
17.64
73.20
--w----
Sub-total
D i r e c t S h e e ~C o s t s Mar 1985
-
2226 .Y5
Nov 1985
Drenching:
Ewes: 96 Se o n l y k3 3.0 c
2 x 96 Nilverm + Se @ 22.42
Lambs: 1 x 148 '
" (31U.76
Docking: 148 @ 3.15
S h e a r i n g : 96 @ 8 2 . 5 ~
Woolshea Exp: 9b B 34c
T?ansporr;:
Outward: 96 E ~ e s@ 84c
148 Larnns @ 60c
-
2.88
43.05
15.92
4.66
79.20
32-64
80.64
88.80
------347.73
Sub- t o t a l
Total D i r e c t Sheep C o s t s
2574.74
-------
P a s t u r e Maintenance C o s t s March 1984
-
125 Kg/ha S.Super E x t r a @
$255.36/t a p p l i e d
8 t silage @ $12.00/t
255.36
96.00
Sub- t o t a l
March 1985
-
March 1985
-----351.36
------
125 kg/ha S.Super
500 kg Urea @ $486 -36
per t a p p l i e d
8 t S i l a g e (3 $12.00/t
Sub- t o t a l
November 1985
O v e r d r i l l e d 2 ha @ 15 kg/ha Nui
p l u s 5 kg/ha Moata
250 kg/ha o f N-Super @ $243.45
/ t o n n e a p p l i e d o v e r 2 ha
Sub- t o t a l
Total P a s t u r e Maintenance C o s t
Overdri 11 e d 2 ha
165.50
250 kg/ha
121.73
-----287.23
638.59
-----...
----.---
Total Variable C o s t
Net Revenue from T r i a l Farm1 e t
March 1984 - Nov 1985
3213.33
------------2960.81
N .Super
For t h e period of t h e t r i a l t h e net revenue from t h e Nui/Matua
f a r m l e t exceeded t h a t of t h e N u i farinlet by $551.78 o r $68.97 per
hectare.
No maintenance f e r t i l i s e r was a p p l i e d t o e i t h e r f a r m l e t i n
t h e second season a s s o i l t e s t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t n u t r i e n t l e v e l s were
adequate.
The t r i a l d i d not continue f o r long enough t o
pasture l i f e on e i t h e r f a r m l e t .
determine
the
The pasture establishment c o s t s of both farmlets i n $1986
d e t a i l e d in Table A.5.2.
are
Table A.5.2.
Pasture Establ i sh~nentCosts
Nui /Whi t e Clover Farml e t
1,
2.
3.
4.
5.
$/ha
-
Cultivation
v a r i e t y of machinery passes
eg. several grubbings followed by s e r i e s of
4.5 nrs/ha @ $15.47/hr
harrowings and r o l l i n y s
Seea 22 kg Nui Ryegrass 8 $ 1 . 5 ~
3 kg White Clover (3 $3.00
F e r t i l i s e r 180 kg/ha Super @ $175/t Sagged
Liine 2.5 Tonne/ha @ $17.54
D r i l l i n g - own year and labour 1.2 h r s @ $15.47
Matua/dhi t e Clover Farml e t
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Cultivation - a s above
Seed 40 kg/ha @ $3.05/kg
plus treatment @ 25c/kg
3 kg White Clover @ $3.50
F e r t i l i s e r a s above
Lime as above 25 t / h a @ $17.54/t
Broadcsating and harrowing. Own gear and labour
f a s t e r a c r o s s ground b u t 2 passes 1.2 h r s @ $15.47
69.62
122.00
10.00
10.50
31.50
43.85
18.56
I f a sward-life of f i v e y e a r s i s assumed, 1.6 h e c t a r e s of each
farrnlet would r e q u i r e renewal each season. The c o s t s of t h e Matua/Nui
f a r m l e t would i n c r e a s e by $979.29 and those of t h e Nui f a r m l e t by
$725.49 during t h e two seasons of t h e t r i a l .
Thus t n e Matua/Nui
farrnlet woul d r e t u r n $298.98 i n t o t a l o r $37.37 per h e c t a r e more than
t h e Nui farmlet, d e s p i t e t n e i s s u e s of stock t r a n s f e r and timing which
nave l e a t o an understatement of t h e advantages of Matua.
RESEARCH REPORT
The Optimal Location of Egg Production in Mew Zealand,
A.C. Beck. J.P. Rathbun, C.D. Abbott, 1984.
An Economic Survey of Hew Zealand Town Milk1
Producers, 4983-84, R.G. Moffitt, 1985.
The Economics of Irrigation Development 0%the Amuri
Plains irrigation Scheme, Glen Greer, 1984.
A Financial and Economic Survey of South Auckland Town
Milk Producers and Factory Supply Daiuy Farmers, 198384, R.G. Moffitt, 1985.
An Economic Suwey of New Zealand Wheatgrowers:
Enterprise Analysis, Survey No. 8, 1983-84, R.D. Lough,
P.J. McCartin, 1984.
Optimal Pricing and Promotion for Agricultural Marketing
Agencies, S.K. Martin, L. Young, A.C. Zwart, 1986.
An Economic Suwey of New Zealand Wheatgrdwew:
Financial Analysis, 4982-83, R.D. Lough. P.J. McCartin,
1984.
A Contractual Framework for Evaluating Agricultural and
Horticultural Marketing Channels, S.M. Martin, A.C. Zwart.
1986.
Farmland Pricing in an Inflationary Economy with
lmplications for Public Policy, K.L. Leathers. J.D. Gough,
1984.
An Integrated Framework for Analysing Agricultural
Marketing lssues, S.K. Martin, A.N. Rae, A.C. Zwart, 1986.
Labour Mobility Between New Zealand and Australia, R.L.
St Hill, 1986.
An Analysis of Production, Consumption and Borrowing
Behaviour in the Noflh Island W i l l Country Pastoral Sector,
A.C. Beck, J.B. Dent, 1984.
Survey of New Zealand Farmer Intentions and Opinions,
November 4985-January 4986, J.G. Pryde, P.J. McCartin,
1986.
New Zealand's inshore Fishery: a Perspective on the
Current Debate, R.A. Sandrey, D.K. O'Donnell, 1985.
A Financialand Economic Survey of South Auckland Town
Milk Producers and Factory Supply Dairy Farmers, 498485, R.G. Moffitt, 1986.
Land Policy and Band Settlement in New Zealand, J.R.
Fairweather. 1985.
Farm Enlargement in New Zealand, J.R. Fairweather, 1985.
An Economic Survey of Mew Zealand Town Milk
Producers, 1984-85, R.G. Moffitt. 1986.
Market Prospects (for Maize, S.A. Hughes, R.L. Sheppard,
1985.
An Economic Suwey of NZ Wheatgrowers: Financial
Analysis, 4984-85; R.D. Lough, P.J. McCartin, 1986
Factor Cost Analysis of a New Zealand Meat Processing
Company, M.D. Clemes. L.D. Woods, 1985.
The Effect on Wofliculture 08 Dust and Ash: Proposed
Waikato Coal-Fired Power Station, P.R. McCrea, October
1986
An Economic Survey of New Zealand Wheatgrowers:
Enterprise Analysis, Survey No. 9, 4984-85, R.D. Lough,
P.J. McCartin, 1985.
A Study of the Determinants of Fattening and Grazing
Farm Land Prices in New Zeala~id,I962 to 1983. P.G.
Seed, R.A. Sandrey, B.D. Ward., December 1986
An Economic Suwey of Mew Zealand Wheatgrowers:
Financial Analysis, 1983-84, R.D. Lough, P.J. McCartin,
1985.
172.
Biological Control of Gorse: an ex-ante evaluation, R.A.
Sandrey, 1985.
173.
The Competitive Position of New Zealand Fresh Fruit
Expouts, M.T. Laing, S.A. Hughes, R.L. Sheppard, 1985.
174.
Marketing Structures for the Hodicultural Industuy, N.L.
Taylor, R.G. Lattirnore, 1985.
Farmers' Responses to Economic Restructuring in
Wurunui and Clutha Counties: Preliminary Ana1ysis of
Suney Data. J.R. Fairweather, July 1987.
Suney of NZ Farmer intentions and Opinions, OctoberDecember 4986. J.G. Pryde. P.J. McCartin, July 1987.
Economic Adjustment in New ZeaIand: A Developed
Country Case Study of Policies and Problems, R.G.
Lattirnore, July 1987.
DISCUSSION PAPERS
104.
Farmlands Grain (N.Z.) Society btd - A Marketing Audit
1980-84, R.G. Lattirnore. 1986. (not available)
105
Proceedings of the New bealand Rural Economy and
Society Study Group Seminar, J.R. Fairwdather (ed.).
October 1986
106
Papers presented at the Eleventh Annual Conference of
the New Zealand Branch of the Australian ~grieulturai
EconomicsSociety, BBenheim. Volume 1 and 2. December
1986
Farm Structure Change in Mew Zealand and lmplications
for Policy, J.R. Fairweather, 1986.
107
Gowe and Goats: Considerations for Biological Control
of Gorse. R.A. Sandrey, January 1987.
Accounting Developments and lmplications for Farm
Business, R.H. Juchau, 1986.
108
Red Deer: The Economic Valuation. R.A. Sandrey, January
1987.
Maori Fishing Rights in New Zealad: an Economic
Perspective, R.A. Sandrey, 1986.
109
Rural Mew Zealand; what next? Ralph Lattimore and Tim
Wallace (eds.), July 1987.
Government's Role in Adverse Events Assistance, T.E.
Dickinson, R.A. Sandrey, 1986.
110
Dairying in Japan and the Benefits of Adopting New
Zesland Pasture Grazing Techniques. R.G. Moffitt, April
1987.
111
Selling Mew Zealand Products in Japan. R.G. Moffitt, July
1987.
SuppBy Response Parameters in New Eealand Agriculture
- a Literature Search, M. Wood-Belton, R.G.J. Lattirnore,
1985.
Papers Presented at the Tenth Annual Conference of the
New Zealand Branch, Austra!ian Agricultural Economics
Society, 1985.
An Examination of A$PernaliveMarketing Structures - a
literature search, D.E. Fowler, R.L. Sheppard, S.A. Hughes,
1985.
The Treatment of Taxation in Capital InvestmentAppraisal,
N.T. Williams, 1986.
Additional copies of Research Reports, apart from complimentary copies, are available at $20.00 each.
Discussion Papers are usually $15.00 but copies of Conference Proceedings (which are usually published
as Discussion Papers) are $20.00. Discussion Paper No. 106 is $20.00 per volume and Discussion Paper
No. 109 is $29.70.