title: Cow breed, stocking rate, and calving date affect the profitability of pasture-based dairy farms

authors: Spaans, Olivia Katherine

abstract: Data from two multi-year experiments undertaken at the DairyNZ research farm, No 2. Dairy were collated and analysed. The effects of:
1)	 Breed (Jersey or Holstein-Friesian; JER, HF) at optimum or high comparative stocking rates (CSR; 80 or 100 kg body weight (BW)/t dry matter (DM) of feed available; CSR80 and CSR100, respectively); and 
2)	Changing the mean calving date (January, April, July, or October; JAN, APR, JUL, OCT) 
on biophysical measurements (i.e., milk production, pasture growth) and farm profitability were determined. 
Changing these strategic management variables affected the amount of pasture grown and consumed. For example, there was an interaction between breed and CSR in many of the measured pasture and milk production variables in experiment one; whilst, in experiment two, changes in the month of calving affected pasture dry matter intake (DMI) in early-mid and mid-late lactation, and annual milk production. Annual pasture production was greatly reduced at CSR100 on the HF farmlet, but not on the JER farmlet. Month of calving affected pasture DMI during early-mid lactation and mid-late lactation. 
A breed x CSR interaction reduced milk production per cow at CSR100, an effect that was greater in the HF breed than in the JER. Month of calving affected milk production per cow with the JUL herd producing the highest yield, compared with the JAN, APR and OCT herds.
Other breed x CSR interactions were also detected: JER cows had the lowest mean days in milk (DIM) to first heat at both CSR80 and 100; furthermore, there were negative effects of an increase in CSR from 80 to 100 kg body weight/t DM feed in the HF breed on DIM to first heat. Total metabolisable energy (ME) requirements per cow was affected by a breed x CSR interaction. At CSR80, the HF used more ME per cow than the JER, whilst at CSR100, both breeds used less total ME per cow than at CSR80, but the HF again used more than the JER.
From a profitability perspective, HF cows had a greater operating profit per hectare than JER at CSR80; however, JER cows were more profitable at CSR100. The JUL herd had the most profitable farm system, in both the base economic model and stochastic model. Results of the stochastic modelling with no premium included in the milk payment (NZ$/kg fat and protein) variable revealed the operating profit per hectare was greatest for the JUL herd, compared with the JAN, APR, and OCT herds. Inclusion of a premium for milk supplied during 16 May to 15 July in the milk payment (NZ$/ kg fat and protein) variable as well as a downward adjustment in milk price for JUL calving cows because of the high milk production peak in spring did not overcome this difference in profitability. Therefore, the JUL calving scenario was most profitable. The APR seasonal calving strategy resulted in a 10% reduction in operating profit per hectare, compared with the JUL herd, while the JAN and OCT strategy had the lowest operating profit per hectare.

text: Cow breed, stocking rate, and calving date affect the profitability of pasture-based dairy farms Data from two multi-year experiments undertaken at the DairyNZ research farm, No 2. Dairy were collated and analysed. The effects of:
1)	 Breed (Jersey or Holstein-Friesian; JER, HF) at optimum or high comparative stocking rates (CSR; 80 or 100 kg body weight (BW)/t dry matter (DM) of feed available; CSR80 and CSR100, respectively); and 
2)	Changing the mean calving date (January, April, July, or October; JAN, APR, JUL, OCT) 
on biophysical measurements (i.e., milk production, pasture growth) and farm profitability were determined. 
Changing these strategic management variables affected the amount of pasture grown and consumed. For example, there was an interaction between breed and CSR in many of the measured pasture and milk production variables in experiment one; whilst, in experiment two, changes in the month of calving affected pasture dry matter intake (DMI) in early-mid and mid-late lactation, and annual milk production. Annual pasture production was greatly reduced at CSR100 on the HF farmlet, but not on the JER farmlet. Month of calving affected pasture DMI during early-mid lactation and mid-late lactation. 
A breed x CSR interaction reduced milk production per cow at CSR100, an effect that was greater in the HF breed than in the JER. Month of calving affected milk production per cow with the JUL herd producing the highest yield, compared with the JAN, APR and OCT herds.
Other breed x CSR interactions were also detected: JER cows had the lowest mean days in milk (DIM) to first heat at both CSR80 and 100; furthermore, there were negative effects of an increase in CSR from 80 to 100 kg body weight/t DM feed in the HF breed on DIM to first heat. Total metabolisable energy (ME) requirements per cow was affected by a breed x CSR interaction. At CSR80, the HF used more ME per cow than the JER, whilst at CSR100, both breeds used less total ME per cow than at CSR80, but the HF again used more than the JER.
From a profitability perspective, HF cows had a greater operating profit per hectare than JER at CSR80; however, JER cows were more profitable at CSR100. The JUL herd had the most profitable farm system, in both the base economic model and stochastic model. Results of the stochastic modelling with no premium included in the milk payment (NZ$/kg fat and protein) variable revealed the operating profit per hectare was greatest for the JUL herd, compared with the JAN, APR, and OCT herds. Inclusion of a premium for milk supplied during 16 May to 15 July in the milk payment (NZ$/ kg fat and protein) variable as well as a downward adjustment in milk price for JUL calving cows because of the high milk production peak in spring did not overcome this difference in profitability. Therefore, the JUL calving scenario was most profitable. The APR seasonal calving strategy resulted in a 10% reduction in operating profit per hectare, compared with the JUL herd, while the JAN and OCT strategy had the lowest operating profit per hectare.

year: 2018

title: Momentum returns, market states and market dynamics: Is China different?

authors: Cheema, Muhammad A.

subjects: Momentum returns

abstract: Recent studies suggest that momentum returns are conditioned by market states, but we find that China is different. First, we find that momentum returns in China exclusively follow DOWN markets contrary to the U.S. evidence. Second, the absence of momentum returns following UP markets in China cannot be explained by market dynamics, unlike in the U.S. Third, momentum returns in China are higher when the market continues in the same state than when it transitions to the other state as in the U.S. but this is true in China only following DOWN states.

text: Momentum returns, market states and market dynamics: Is China different? Recent studies suggest that momentum returns are conditioned by market states, but we find that China is different. First, we find that momentum returns in China exclusively follow DOWN markets contrary to the U.S. evidence. Second, the absence of momentum returns following UP markets in China cannot be explained by market dynamics, unlike in the U.S. Third, momentum returns in China are higher when the market continues in the same state than when it transitions to the other state as in the U.S. but this is true in China only following DOWN states.

year: 2017

title: The Application of Critical Discourse Theory: A Criterion-Referenced Analysis of Reports Relating to Language Revitalisation in Australia and New Zealand

authors: Lewis, Roger Brian

subjects: te reo Māori

abstract: The discipline of language policy and planning (LPP) is often proposed as a viable tool for language revitalisation. However, the conventional paradigm upon which LPP is based is inadequate for such an inherently political, contentious and problematic area of social policy, and does not address the hegemonic and counter-hegemonic discourse that is at the very core of language revitalisation efforts. It is therefore argued here that LPP needs to be explicitly underpinned by critical discourse theory (CDT) if it is to be of genuine use to those involved in language revitalisation efforts, particularly to grass roots language activists. Following an introductory chapter which provides a background to the research and a rationale for it (Chapter 1), there is a critical review of selected literature on LPP and CDT, a review which ends by proposing a list of criteria which, it is argued, can be used to determine the extent to which discourse that is intended to be counter-hegemonic adheres to the principles of effective counter-hegemonic discourse as outlined in the literature on CDT (Chapter 2). In the following three chapters (Chapters 3, 4 & 5), these criteria are applied to the analysis of three recent reports that have a direct bearing on indigenous language revitalisation in Australia (Our Land Our Languages) and New Zealand (Ko Aotearoa Tēnei and Te Reo Mauriora). The first of these reports is found to adhere very closely to the criteria; the second less so; the third almost not at all. The different ways in which each of these reports has been received would tend to support the hypothesis that, other things being equal, the more closely a text of this type conforms to the criteria - that is, the more closely it is aligned to the fundamental principles of effective counter-hegemonic discourse as outlined in CDT - the more likely it is to be positively received and, therefore, to represent an effective challenge to the existing hegemony. The overall conclusion is that CDT can not only assist language activists by providing a basis for determining how successful counter-hegemonic discourse is likely to be in achieving its aims but has the potential to provide LPP with a secure theoretical foundation (Chapter 6).

text: The Application of Critical Discourse Theory: A Criterion-Referenced Analysis of Reports Relating to Language Revitalisation in Australia and New Zealand The discipline of language policy and planning (LPP) is often proposed as a viable tool for language revitalisation. However, the conventional paradigm upon which LPP is based is inadequate for such an inherently political, contentious and problematic area of social policy, and does not address the hegemonic and counter-hegemonic discourse that is at the very core of language revitalisation efforts. It is therefore argued here that LPP needs to be explicitly underpinned by critical discourse theory (CDT) if it is to be of genuine use to those involved in language revitalisation efforts, particularly to grass roots language activists. Following an introductory chapter which provides a background to the research and a rationale for it (Chapter 1), there is a critical review of selected literature on LPP and CDT, a review which ends by proposing a list of criteria which, it is argued, can be used to determine the extent to which discourse that is intended to be counter-hegemonic adheres to the principles of effective counter-hegemonic discourse as outlined in the literature on CDT (Chapter 2). In the following three chapters (Chapters 3, 4 & 5), these criteria are applied to the analysis of three recent reports that have a direct bearing on indigenous language revitalisation in Australia (Our Land Our Languages) and New Zealand (Ko Aotearoa Tēnei and Te Reo Mauriora). The first of these reports is found to adhere very closely to the criteria; the second less so; the third almost not at all. The different ways in which each of these reports has been received would tend to support the hypothesis that, other things being equal, the more closely a text of this type conforms to the criteria - that is, the more closely it is aligned to the fundamental principles of effective counter-hegemonic discourse as outlined in CDT - the more likely it is to be positively received and, therefore, to represent an effective challenge to the existing hegemony. The overall conclusion is that CDT can not only assist language activists by providing a basis for determining how successful counter-hegemonic discourse is likely to be in achieving its aims but has the potential to provide LPP with a secure theoretical foundation (Chapter 6).

year: 2014