Intensification of New Zealand beef farming systems

This study used whole-farm management, nutrient budgeting/greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and feed formulation computer tools to determine the production, environmental and financial implications of intensifying the beef production of typical New Zealand (NZ) sheep and beef farming systems. Two methods of intensification, feeding maize silage (MS) or applying nitrogen (N) fertiliser, were implemented on two farm types differing in the proportions of cultivatable land to hill land (25% vs. 75% hill). In addition, the consequences of intensification by incorporating a beef feedlot (FL) into each of the farm types were also examined.Feeding MS or applying N fertiliser substantially increased the amount of beef produced per ha. Intensifying production was also associated with increased total N leaching and GHG emissions although there were differences between the methods of intensification. Feeding MS resulted in lower environmental impacts than applying N even after taking into account the land to grow the maize for silage. Based on 2007/08 prices, typical NZ sheep and beef farms were making a financial loss and neither method of intensification increased profitability with the exception of small annual applications of N, especially to the 75% hill farm. These small annual additions of N fertiliser (<50 kg N/ha/yr applied in autumn and late winter) resulted in only small increases in annual N leaching (from 11 to 14 kg N/ha) and GHG emissions (from 3280 to 4000 kg CO2 equivalents/ha). Limited N applications were particularly beneficial to 75% hill farms because small increases in winter carrying capacity resulted in relatively large increases in the utilisation of pasture growth during spring and summer than the 25% hill farms. Intensification by incorporating a beef feedlot reduced environmental emissions per kg of beef produced but considerably decreased profitability due to higher capital, depreciation and labour costs. The lower land-use capability farm type (75% hill) was able to intensify beef production to a proportionally greater extent than the higher land-use capability farm (25% hill) because of greater potential to increase pasture utilisation associated with a lower initial farming intensity and inherent constraints in the pattern of pasture supply.