title: Biophysical, environmental, and economic implications of removing imported supplementary feed from a pasture-based dairy farm system -An upper North Island case study

authors: McCahon, Kieran Shaun

subjects: milk production

abstract: The biological efficiency and profitability of pasture-based systems is optimised by matching pasture supply with the nutritional demands of the herd across the year. Despite the importance of grazed pasture to the profitability of pasture-based systems, the use of purchased (i.e., non-pasture) feeds (supplementary feeds) has increased considerably over the last two decades within the New Zealand (NZ) dairy industry. 
Supplementary feeds may be offered to maintain or increase dry matter intake (DMI) and milk production during periods when pasture supply is insufficient to meet herd demands (i.e., a pasture deficit). However, published results indicate that, despite greater milk production and gross farm revenue (GFR), imported supplementary feed is not associated with an increase in profitability. In addition, the intensification of grazing systems through concurrent increases in stocking rate (SR) have been associated with poorer environmental outcomes, such as reduced water quality and increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 
The primary objective of my Masters project was to investigate the biophysical, economic, and environmental effects of removing imported supplementary feed from a typical pasture-based system in the upper North Island of New Zealand. This was conducted over three years in Northland, New Zealand (35⁰56’39”S 173⁰50’34”E), using a quantitative case-study approach that compared three pasture-based dairy farming treatments differing in SR and the nature of feed supply. As a Control treatment, imported supplementary feed was offered as palm kernel expeller (PKE) during periods of pasture deficit (~ 550kg DM/cow/yr; ~ 10% of the cows’ diet; PKE treatment). This was compared with two alternative systems to remove the need for PKE: 1) reduced SR (Pasture treatment); or, 2) growing potentially high yielding forage crops on the dairy platform and maintaining SR (Cropping treatment). I used the nutrient budgeting software OVERSEER to model treatment effects on nitrogen (N) leaching, phosphorous (P) loss, and GHG emissions. In addition, I conducted a Monte Carlo analysis to investigate economic performance of all three treatments and how it varied over a range of key input prices.
On average, despite no significant difference in milk production, operating profit tended to be lower in the Cropping treatment relative to the PKE treatment. In addition, after accounting for variability in market prices, the Cropping treatment returned a lower operating profit at every probability level relative to the PKE treatment and was, therefore, an inferior system for a profit-focused decision maker.
Milk production and associated GFR were lower in the Pasture treatment compared with the PKE treatment; however, there was no effect of treatment on operating profit at average market prices. When accounting for potential market price variability, the PKE treatment returned a greater operating profit in 70% of scenarios. As a result, the PKE treatment would likely provide a preferable system for a profit-focused decision maker, with low to moderate risk aversion. However, the relative profitability of treatments was highly dependent on the marginal milk production response (MMPR) to supplementary feed. Consistently large MMPRs to supplementary feed were achieved in the current study: 30 to 50% greater than published farm systems experiments. A reduction in the MMPR to supplementary feed by 10% eroded the profit advantage of the PKE treatment. In addition, despite no treatment effect on N leaching, GHG emissions tended to be lower in the Pasture treatment relative to the PKE treatment. As a result, a decision maker, paying or receiving incentives to reduce environmental externalities would likely be indifferent between the PKE and Pasture treatments, even with the large MMPR to supplementary feed achieved in the current study. Depending on the potential response to supplementary feed, profitability may be maintained with the removal of imported supplementary feeds from a pasture-based system by decreasing SR.

text: Biophysical, environmental, and economic implications of removing imported supplementary feed from a pasture-based dairy farm system -An upper North Island case study The biological efficiency and profitability of pasture-based systems is optimised by matching pasture supply with the nutritional demands of the herd across the year. Despite the importance of grazed pasture to the profitability of pasture-based systems, the use of purchased (i.e., non-pasture) feeds (supplementary feeds) has increased considerably over the last two decades within the New Zealand (NZ) dairy industry. 
Supplementary feeds may be offered to maintain or increase dry matter intake (DMI) and milk production during periods when pasture supply is insufficient to meet herd demands (i.e., a pasture deficit). However, published results indicate that, despite greater milk production and gross farm revenue (GFR), imported supplementary feed is not associated with an increase in profitability. In addition, the intensification of grazing systems through concurrent increases in stocking rate (SR) have been associated with poorer environmental outcomes, such as reduced water quality and increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 
The primary objective of my Masters project was to investigate the biophysical, economic, and environmental effects of removing imported supplementary feed from a typical pasture-based system in the upper North Island of New Zealand. This was conducted over three years in Northland, New Zealand (35⁰56’39”S 173⁰50’34”E), using a quantitative case-study approach that compared three pasture-based dairy farming treatments differing in SR and the nature of feed supply. As a Control treatment, imported supplementary feed was offered as palm kernel expeller (PKE) during periods of pasture deficit (~ 550kg DM/cow/yr; ~ 10% of the cows’ diet; PKE treatment). This was compared with two alternative systems to remove the need for PKE: 1) reduced SR (Pasture treatment); or, 2) growing potentially high yielding forage crops on the dairy platform and maintaining SR (Cropping treatment). I used the nutrient budgeting software OVERSEER to model treatment effects on nitrogen (N) leaching, phosphorous (P) loss, and GHG emissions. In addition, I conducted a Monte Carlo analysis to investigate economic performance of all three treatments and how it varied over a range of key input prices.
On average, despite no significant difference in milk production, operating profit tended to be lower in the Cropping treatment relative to the PKE treatment. In addition, after accounting for variability in market prices, the Cropping treatment returned a lower operating profit at every probability level relative to the PKE treatment and was, therefore, an inferior system for a profit-focused decision maker.
Milk production and associated GFR were lower in the Pasture treatment compared with the PKE treatment; however, there was no effect of treatment on operating profit at average market prices. When accounting for potential market price variability, the PKE treatment returned a greater operating profit in 70% of scenarios. As a result, the PKE treatment would likely provide a preferable system for a profit-focused decision maker, with low to moderate risk aversion. However, the relative profitability of treatments was highly dependent on the marginal milk production response (MMPR) to supplementary feed. Consistently large MMPRs to supplementary feed were achieved in the current study: 30 to 50% greater than published farm systems experiments. A reduction in the MMPR to supplementary feed by 10% eroded the profit advantage of the PKE treatment. In addition, despite no treatment effect on N leaching, GHG emissions tended to be lower in the Pasture treatment relative to the PKE treatment. As a result, a decision maker, paying or receiving incentives to reduce environmental externalities would likely be indifferent between the PKE and Pasture treatments, even with the large MMPR to supplementary feed achieved in the current study. Depending on the potential response to supplementary feed, profitability may be maintained with the removal of imported supplementary feeds from a pasture-based system by decreasing SR.

year: 2019

title: Deconstructing the instrumental/identity divide in language policy debates

authors: May, Stephen

subjects: language policy

abstract: Debates about language and literacy policies are increasingly constructed at national levels in relation to their potential contribution to the ‘knowledge economy’, and to the ability of nation-states to compete economically in an increasingly globalised world. Invariably, this instrumental approach to language privileges the role of English as the current world language. Thus, in contexts where English is not spoken as a first language, English is increasingly viewed as the most important and/or useful additional language. In English-dominant contexts, monolingualism in English is seen as being a sufficient, even an ideal language model, while literacy in English comes to
stand for literacy (and related social mobility) per se. Where other languages are countenanced at all in these latter contexts, the instrumentalist approach continues to dominate, with so-called international and/or trading languages being constructed as the languages other than English most worth learning, or perhaps even as the only other languages worth learning.

The growing dominance of economistic, instrumental approaches to language policy, and the valorisation of English that is associated with them, clearly militate against ongoing individual and societal multilingualism. The languages most at risk here are so-called minority languages, particularly indigenous languages. In the new globalised world dominated by English, and where the perceived ‘usefulness’ of language is elided with language value, such languages are increasingly constructed as having neither. This paper deconstructs and critiques this positioning of indigenous and other minority languages, along with the wider instrumentality of much language
and literacy policy of which it forms a part. In light of this, it also explores how such languages can be actively, justifiably and effectively maintained and promoted, particularly in English-dominant contexts.

text: Deconstructing the instrumental/identity divide in language policy debates Debates about language and literacy policies are increasingly constructed at national levels in relation to their potential contribution to the ‘knowledge economy’, and to the ability of nation-states to compete economically in an increasingly globalised world. Invariably, this instrumental approach to language privileges the role of English as the current world language. Thus, in contexts where English is not spoken as a first language, English is increasingly viewed as the most important and/or useful additional language. In English-dominant contexts, monolingualism in English is seen as being a sufficient, even an ideal language model, while literacy in English comes to
stand for literacy (and related social mobility) per se. Where other languages are countenanced at all in these latter contexts, the instrumentalist approach continues to dominate, with so-called international and/or trading languages being constructed as the languages other than English most worth learning, or perhaps even as the only other languages worth learning.

The growing dominance of economistic, instrumental approaches to language policy, and the valorisation of English that is associated with them, clearly militate against ongoing individual and societal multilingualism. The languages most at risk here are so-called minority languages, particularly indigenous languages. In the new globalised world dominated by English, and where the perceived ‘usefulness’ of language is elided with language value, such languages are increasingly constructed as having neither. This paper deconstructs and critiques this positioning of indigenous and other minority languages, along with the wider instrumentality of much language
and literacy policy of which it forms a part. In light of this, it also explores how such languages can be actively, justifiably and effectively maintained and promoted, particularly in English-dominant contexts.

year: 2005

title: Takitoru: creative practice toward the development of a trilingual dramaturgical kaupapa

authors: Lodge, Alexandra Rose Pittaway

subjects: theatre

abstract: I have focused on writing a play in the three languages of Aotearoa: New Zealand Sign Language, te reo Māori, and NZ English. Through the development of this script with three actors I have found techniques for performance and workshopping to encourage multilingual creative practice for a playwright. Through case studies of playwrights doing similar work at an international level, I have synthesised analytical and creative research into a final script and summary of my dramaturgical findings.
Through creative practice in scriptwriting and developmental workshops, this research explores what story-telling modes, devices or styles seem particularly apt for conveying an inclusive and engaging trilingual narrative on stage.
This specifically involves developing a dramaturgical set of insights for others who may want to do cross-language performance in Aotearoa.

text: Takitoru: creative practice toward the development of a trilingual dramaturgical kaupapa I have focused on writing a play in the three languages of Aotearoa: New Zealand Sign Language, te reo Māori, and NZ English. Through the development of this script with three actors I have found techniques for performance and workshopping to encourage multilingual creative practice for a playwright. Through case studies of playwrights doing similar work at an international level, I have synthesised analytical and creative research into a final script and summary of my dramaturgical findings.
Through creative practice in scriptwriting and developmental workshops, this research explores what story-telling modes, devices or styles seem particularly apt for conveying an inclusive and engaging trilingual narrative on stage.
This specifically involves developing a dramaturgical set of insights for others who may want to do cross-language performance in Aotearoa.

year: 2020