Feeding Systems with Legumes to Intensify Dairy Farms - cgiar

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Real interest (%) 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 5 6 7 8 9 10 Payback period (years) Figure 2. Real interest rate that could be paid by adopting Cratylia and sugarcane, based on alternative milk yields in Costa Rica. Percent (%) 50 40 30 20 10 0 1,350 kg/lactation 1,500 kg/lactation Cratylia + sugarcane 0 27.5 Brachiaria + Cratylia + sugarcane 96 2,000 kg/lactation Figure 3. Percentage of pasture area that could be allocated to alternative uses because of the adoption of improved forage alternatives, with the same herd size in Costa Rica. 36.5 Brachiaria + Arachis + Cratylia + sugarcane
Ex-ante analysis for Nicaragua. The situation in Esquipulas, Nicaragua, was similar to Costa Rica; in other words, the forage alternatives evaluated in this study significantly reduced production costs. Figure 4 shows the cost of producing milk with different forage options according to cow productivity. Under study conditions, milk production cost was US$0.26/kg while the price received was US$0.22/kg. With the income obtained from the sale of weaned male calves, producers obtain an income similar to the minimum wage. This situation, however, could improve even with the current situation if cow productivity was higher. The quality of H. rufa is enough to maintain cows yielding up to 1,500 kg/lactation, without additional supplementation during the rainy season and cows yielding 2,000 kg/lactation, with energy and protein supplementation year-round, but with H. rufa it is possible to reduce milk production costs to US$0.20/kg based on grazing management (for example, good degree of coverage of pastures, weed control, rotation of paddocks, shade, availability of water for grazing animals, and adequate resting period). Cratylia with sugarcane in Nicaragua. With this forage option, as well as in the case of Costa Rica, it is possible to completely eliminate the need for supplementation during the dry season. The production cost was reduced by 31% (from US$0.26/kg to US$0.18/kg) with the same productivity of the existing herd. Similarly, it is possible to reduce the production cost to US$0.14/kg with a cow productivity of 1,500 kg/lactation. It is even possible to reduce it to US$0.12/kg with a cow productivity of 2,000 kg/lactation. The investment required to establish this forage option, on an average farm of 29 cows at this benchmark site, was approximately US$4,600. This investment covered the establishment of 5 ha of Cratylia, 2.4 ha of sugarcane, and the purchase of a cane chopper with diesel or gasoline engine because very little rural electrification infrastructure exists at this site. Figure 5 shows the real interest rates that could be paid for this investment, depending on the productivity per cow, assuming that the producer allocates 50% of the marginal income to pay back the loan regarding the base scenario (H. rufa + feed concentrate). During the study, the Nicaraguan financial system offered a real interest rate of 18% for farm/livestock credits with a 5-year payback period. In this situation and with the prevailing milk productivity at that time, it was not be possible to adopt this forage alternative because it was not economically viable. However, with productivities per cow of 1,500 kg/lactation, the payment of a credit was perfectly viable under the conditions prevailing in the country at the time of the study because it was possible to pay a real interest rate up to 22%, with a payback period of 5 years. With 97
Page 1 and 2:
Feeding Systems with Legumes to Int
Page 3 and 4:
Holmann, Federico and Lascano, Carl
Page 5 and 6:
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
Page 7 and 8:
At the CIAT-Quilichao station (Depa
Page 9 and 10:
In collaboration with Nicaragua’s
Page 11 and 12:
(Continued) Component Activity Outs
Page 13 and 14:
Activity 2.1. On-farm evaluation of
Page 15 and 16:
FINAL REPORT OF THE TROPILECHE CONS
Page 17 and 18:
RESEARCH RESULTS Component 1: Optim
Page 19 and 20:
during the rainy season, samplings
Page 21 and 22:
Ncidence (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Page 23 and 24:
Table 3. Effect of three types of p
Page 25 and 26:
References Cipagauta, M.; Velasquez
Page 27 and 28:
Table 1. Effect of incorporating St
Page 29 and 30:
Evaluation of Milk Production Syste
Page 31 and 32:
Table 2. Quality of milk produced b
Page 33 and 34:
Table 1. Effect of level and freque
Page 35 and 36:
Effects of Feeding Fresh and Ensile
Page 37 and 38:
Table 1. Daily intake of dry matter
Page 39 and 40:
argentea (taking into account cutti
Page 41 and 42:
Evaluation of Cratylia argentea as
Page 43 and 44:
A 3 x 3 Latin square changeover des
Page 45 and 46:
argentea is recommended over the us
Page 47 and 48:
The silos were left to ferment for
Page 49 and 50:
References Argel, P. J. and Lascano
Page 51 and 52:
y the Grain and Seed Research Cente
Page 53 and 54:
Table 2. Yields per hectare in diff
Page 55 and 56:
Table 1. Treatments evaluated for m
Page 57 and 58:
Table 3. Dry matter and crude prote
Page 59 and 60: Activity 1.3 Functional relationshi
Page 61 and 62: increase in milk yield when offered
Page 63 and 64: Milk Production in Dual-Purpose Cow
Page 65 and 66: associated pasture. Also, the perce
Page 67 and 68: that of cows grazing sole cropped p
Page 69 and 70: Effect of Age of Regrowth and Cutti
Page 71 and 72: Average DM yields/plant at 60 days
Page 73 and 74: Percentage 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 F
Page 75 and 76: Effect of Supplementing Fresh and E
Page 77 and 78: Table 1. Average milk production, t
Page 79 and 80: Lucas, H. L. 1983. Design and analy
Page 81 and 82: U = overall mean Tj = effect of the
Page 83 and 84: In the case of king grass, estimate
Page 85 and 86: Milk production during the season o
Page 87 and 88: Jorge Vela IIAP, Peru Use of Stylos
Page 89 and 90: Use of Stylosanthes guianensis with
Page 91 and 92: Activity 2.3. Integration of inform
Page 93 and 94: Application of the Model to Researc
Page 95 and 96: Table 3. Actual and predicted milk
Page 97 and 98: Usefulness of the CNCPS Model The T
Page 99 and 100: Annual Meeting February 1998, Costa
Page 101 and 102: Regional Consultation Meeting Octob
Page 103 and 104: Ex-Ante Analysis of New Forage Alte
Page 105 and 106: Resource prices and capital investm
Page 107 and 108: Table 3. Direct production costs, g
Page 109: Production costs decreased as produ
Page 113 and 114: Real interest (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10
Page 115 and 116: With this alternative, the milk pro
Page 117 and 118: Early Adoption of Arachis pintoi in
Page 119 and 120: Table 2. Change in area of improved
Page 121 and 122: Table 5. Profitability of Arachis p
Page 123 and 124: with a dry season between May and A
Page 125 and 126: From 21% to 73% of the farmers grew
Page 127 and 128: Research Recommendations Based on r
Page 129 and 130: Materials and Methods Data for this
Page 131 and 132: Prices of Inputs/Outputs and Use of
Page 133 and 134: Table 3. Amount of feed supplements
Page 135 and 136: adoption level requires the lowest
Page 137 and 138: Table 6. Use of a simulation model
Page 139 and 140: The production cost/kg milk was low
Page 141 and 142: level of adoption can be regarded a
Page 143 and 144: income was lower or equal to 6 mont
Page 145 and 146: Table 10. Annual seed requirements
Page 147 and 148: Nicaragua. In addition, this level
Page 149 and 150: Analysis of the Milk Market of Smal
Page 151 and 152: Results and Discussion Collection o
Page 153 and 154: Table 2. Characteristics of milk an
Page 155 and 156: The third need identified in Hondur
Page 157 and 158: artisan cheese factories milk with
Page 159 and 160: Tropileche Newsletter Federico Holm
Page 161 and 162:
Tropileche on Internet Anderson Med
Page 163 and 164:
Production of Brochures for Extensi
Page 165 and 166:
with heavy soils and frequent rains
Page 167 and 168:
systems, its use by ruminants can b
Page 169 and 170:
Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 26110: Cu
Page 171 and 172:
growing this cultivar in Costa Rica
Page 173 and 174:
Technical bulletins Argel, P. J. an
Page 175 and 176:
International Seminars Argel, P. J.
Page 177 and 178:
LIST OF PROJECT PROPOSALS DEVELOPED
show all

Feeding Systems with Legumes to Intensify Dairy Farms - cgiar

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?