Pete Morgan & Ann Bouma, Te Awamutu

The farm has a mix of contour, aspects and fertility, and the pasture management, cropping programme and herd management have been undertaken with this variance in mind. In recent years the farm has peak-milked around 610 - 620 cows and produced 210,000 to 215,0000 kilograms of milk solids (kgMS). 

The farming philosophy has centred around growing as much pasture as possible and then utilising stocking rate to turn that feed into milk through efficient grazing. Over recent years, up to 100 tonnes of Dry Matter (DM) as maize or palm kernel expeller (PKE) was brought into the system primarily to manage dry summers. Up to 10 hectares of maize silage and approximately 20 hectares of summer forage crops were grown. Nitrogen (N) has always been used in a strategic way, with current usage being 50 – 70 kg N/ha per year, which is well below the district average.

 Halter virtual fencing has been run on the farm since 2022 and was instrumental in making significant changes to the farming system. 

The importance of staff welfare is also a feature of the farm, and the Boumas actively seek opportunities for their staff to grow and develop. 

In 2021 Pete and Ann were named the Fonterra Responsible Dairy Award winners. They want to continue to focus on home grown pasture and feed and turning that into milk as efficiently as practical, but this has to be done in a way that makes the farm an attractive and interesting place for staff to work and develop.

Historically, the herd was milked through two sheds. An early 2023 study considered the implications of closing one shed, reducing herd numbers to allow a reasonable milking time, and bringing young stock home to utilise surplus pasture. This study reviewed the physical, financial, and greenhouse gas (GHG) implications of the move (Table 1).

Table 1: Summary of dairy platform 

In recent years the following changes have been made:

• Halter virtual fencing was implemented in 2021, with subsequent changes made to the fencing infrastructure.
• Calves were reared at home in the 2022/23 season. 
• For the 2023/24 season, cow numbers have been reduced; all young stock including heifers are being grazed at home with no external grazing.
• The herd was milked through one shed for the majority of the season. The freshly calved and colostrum cows were milked through the second shed, and it was closed down once calving was completed. 
• The young stock rearing system piloted by Owl Farm near Cambridge was tweaked to make it applicable for this situation. The basis of this is chicory and PKE as supplements to support young stock through the summer.

Milking the herd through one milking shed was driven by a desire to improve the overall efficiency of the business and to reduce its environmental footprint. The primary motivator to utilise Halter technology was to provide an attractive work environment and improve pasture utilisation. Having young stock at home gives Pete and Ann greater control over how replacement heifers are fed in a dry summer. 

Fewer cows doing higher per cow production reduces the GHG footprint by ensuring more feed goes into production and less into animal maintenance. A real focus on pasture management means production pre-Christmas is maximised, which gives flexibility to roll with the punches in a dry summer. A focus on profitability and debt repayment also means the business is more able to withstand the income shocks that weather events can bring. The new system also means fewer cows and fewer young stock are needed. The reduced GHG profile has been a positive benefit of all these changes.

Farmax was used to help understand the physical and financial impacts of the changes while considering the impact on GHG emissions. Since Farmax does not include GHG emissions from external grazing blocks, a manual calculation and adjustment has been made for GHG emissions from the young stock while out grazing in the base models.

The reduction in peak milking cows from 610 to 510 and bringing the young stock home to utilise the extra pasture, reduces GHG on the dairy platform by four percent.  When adjusting for the GHG contribution the grazed young stock would have contributed, the total emissions from the business have reduced by 17.2 percent.

Table 2: GHG impacts, including young stock changes

The reduced cow numbers and only operating one milking shed, are expected to reduce staff numbers by 0.8 full time equivalents (FTE). 

Greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced by 430 t CO₂e and the dairy operating profit reduces by about $28,000 at a $7.80 kgMS milk price. This means it has cost $65 to remove a tonne of CO₂e.

Figure 1: GHG changes

It’s expected the farm system will be more resilient because of the changes. The overall size of the business will be smaller without the need for external young stock grazing.

The motivation for the system change was primarily to create a more attractive work environment for staff by closing one milking shed and reducing cow numbers. A significant adjustment has been having the confidence in the ability to increase per cow production and the associated pasture management to drive that change.

Pete and Ann identified what they thought the final system may look like and engaged DairyNZ and AgFirst to stress test their assumptions and to model performance of the farm moving forward. Farmax modelling was instrumental in quantifying the feasibility of the changes and the financial impact.

Pete and Ann’s plan is to refine the existing system to ensure the business is resilient into the future. Some key areas of focus are:

• Ensuring that the business is financially strong.
• Making sure it is an attractive place for staff.
• Rearing high-quality young stock.
• Optimising production by ensuring the cows are content and well fed.
• Minimising the farms impact on the environment.
• Ensuring the farming system is resilient to climatic change and weather events.

Pete and Ann’s advice for other farmers wanting to make changes is to focus first and foremost on turning pasture into milk. They also suggest:

• Consider the impacts on staffing and the working environment.
• Ask others both farmers and industry people to get a good range of perspectives on the pros and cons of proposed changes.
• Prepare a realistic budget for the proposed changes and get a trusted person to pressure test your assumptions. Be clinical about how the proposed budget stacks up against the current budget. 
• Ensure the infrastructure is in place and that you and your staff have the skills to accommodate the proposed changes. Be realistic as to how big a shift may be required.

Finally ask yourselves “what is the point of the change?” Does it align with the long-term strategy and goals for the farm and business? Will it complement the business in terms of physical performance, operational efficiency and meet your business and environmental goals?