Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T02:16:36.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Barriers to the adoption of management-intensive grazing among dairy farmers in the Northeastern United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2010

J.R. Winsten ,
A. Richardson ,
C.D. Kerchner ,
A. Lichau  and
J.M. Hyman
J.R. Winsten*
Affiliation:
Winrock International, 2121 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, USA
A. Richardson
Affiliation:
Prescott Creeks Preservation, P.O. Box 3004, Prescott, AZ 86302, USA
C.D. Kerchner
Affiliation:
AgRefresh, P.O. Box 843, Burlington, VT 05401, USA
A. Lichau
Affiliation:
Department of Community Development and Applied Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA
J.M. Hyman
Affiliation:
Department of Community Development and Applied Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Jwinsten@winrock.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper uses recent survey results from almost 1000 dairy producers in northeastern US to analyze farmers’ perceptions of barriers to the adoption of rotational grazing [management-intensive grazing (MIG)] as a means for feeding their dairy herds. The survey found that approximately 13% of dairy producers in the region were using MIG during the 2006 growing season. Approximately 40% of farmers surveyed were using a confinement feeding operation where the milking herd does not graze at all and close to 47% were using a traditional system that involved some pasture forage for the milking herd. Regardless of the popular sentiment that increased information and technical assistance is needed in the field, producers more frequently report a series of other barriers as being greater obstacles to the adoption of MIG. Farmers using confinement feeding tended to see each of the barriers presented as being more significant obstacles than did other farmers. Farmers with higher debt ratios and higher milk production per cow were more likely to view the financially related barriers (decreased milk production per cow, cash flow and farm profits) as significant obstacles.

Keywords

dairy farmingmanagement-intensive grazingrotational grazingtechnology adoptionbarriers to adoption
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 104 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Dartt, B.A., Lloyd, J.W., Black, J.R., and Nott, S.B. 2000. A comparison of management-intensive grazing and conventionally managed Michigan dairies: profitability, economic efficiencies, quality of life and management priorities. E. Lansing, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
2Winsten, J.R., Parsons, R.L., and Hanson, G.D. 2000. A profitability analysis of dairy farms and feeding systems in the Northeast. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 29:220–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Rust, J.W., Sheaffer, C.C., Eidman, V.R., Moon, R.D., and Mathison, R.D. 1995. Intensive rotational grazing for dairy cattle feeding. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 10:147–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Elbehri, A. and Ford, S.A. 1995. Economic analysis of major dairy forage systems in Pennsylvania: the role of intensive grazing. Journal of Production Agriculture 8:501–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Renfrew, R.B. and Ribic, C.A. 2001. Grassland birds associated with agricultural riparian practices in southwestern Wisconsin. Journal of Range Management 54:546–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Sovell, L.A., Vondracek, B., Frost, J.A., and Mumford, K. 2000. Impacts of rotational grazing and riparian buffers on physiochemical and biological characteristics of Southeastern Minnesota streams. Environmental Management 26:629–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Paine, L.K., Klemme, R.M., Undersander, D.J., and Welsh, M. 2000. Wisconsin's grazing networks: history, structure, and function. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education 29:60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Owens, L.B. and Bartholomew, H.M. 1997. Water quality from pastures. Ohio State University. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
9Winsten, J.R., Rotz, C.A., and Ford, S.A. 2000. Herd size and milk production level effects on profitability and phosphorus loading with management-intensive grazing. In Proceedings of the American Forage and Grasslands Council Annual Meeting, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
10Rotz, C.A. 2008. Grazing and the environment. Presentation to the Northeast Pasture Consortium, Binghamton, New York.Google Scholar
11Undersander, D., Temple, S., Bartlet, J., Sample, D., and Paine, L. 2000. Grassland Birds: Fostering Habitats using Rotational Grazing. Cooperative Extension Publishing, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
12Ostrum, M.R. and Jackson-Smith, D.G. 2000. The use and performance of management intensive rotational grazing among Wisconsin dairy farms in the 1990's. Cooperative Extension, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
13Goldberg, J.J., Wildman, E.E., Parker, J.W., Kunkel, J.R., Howard, D.B., and Murphy, B.M. 1992. The influence of intensively managed rotational grazing, traditional continuous grazing, and confinement housing on bulk tank milk quality and udder health. Journal of Dairy Science 75:96–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14National Research Council. 1999. The use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
15Foltz, J., Jackson-Smith, D.G., and Chen, L. 2002. Do purchasing patterns differ between large and small dairy farms? Econometric evidence from three Wisconsin communities. Agricultural Resource Economics Review 31:28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Costello, S., Baumann, L.E., Splett, N., and Schraufnagel, S. 1996. A survey of dairy grazing management practices. Journal of Dairy Science 79 (Suppl. 1):159.Google Scholar
17Conneman, G., Grace, J., Demaine, D., Putnam, L.D., Richards, S., Staehr, E., Bulkley, S., Degni, J., and Murray, P. 2001. Dairy farm business summary: intensive grazing farms New York 2000. Department of Applied Economics and Management, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University. E.B. 2001-13.Google Scholar
18Blayney, D.P. 2002. The Changing Landscape of U.S. Milk Production. USDA Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
19USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Quick Stats Database. Available from Web site http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/index.asp#top (accessed October 2009).Google Scholar
20Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
21Kriegl, T., Bauman, L., and Splett, N. 1999. Wisconsin Grazing Dairy Farm Survey Report. University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar