ACEPTACIÓN, COLABORACIÓN Y CUMPLIMIENTO DEL PLAN DE

4.8.1 Introduction

Farmer G’s parents originally farmed 200ha. In 1987 they increased the farm to 350ha and in the late 1990s increased the land area to 450ha. The property was a mixed farming

operation. In the 1980s the farm was sheep, crop and deer and in the 1990s the deer numbers increased as they became more profitable. In 2000 the farm changed its focus toward crop and dairy grazing.

Farmer G completed his university education in 2000 and after working for a seed company returned to the farm in 2003. Farmer G ran the mixed cropping operation and in 2003 also bought an additional 60ha to add to the mixed farm. The farm ran 1,500 deer, 600 breeding ewes, and finished 2,000-3,000 lambs. The property also ran dairy support and grazing bulls, dairy heifers and velveting stags. The farm cropped 150ha of ryegrass for seed and varying areas of barley, wheat, winter forage and brassica seed. Farmer G described the farm as a complex operation with intense management. As a result, between 2003 and 2005, Farmer G reduced capital stock and changed the focus to cropping and dairy support.

In 2005, Farmer G built the first cow shed on the property, converting 200ha to dairy. This dairy platform fully replaced the deer unit. In the second season of dairy operation, Farmer G planned a second dairy shed. In season three the two dairy sheds were milking 1,600 cows on 400ha. Farmer G then purchased an adjoining 220ha and finished building a third dairy shed in December 2011 – running the remainder of the season with 2,200 cows through three sheds. Farmer G also purchased a run-off block of 100ha. This season (2012/13) the three sheds will milk a total of 2,500 cows across the 660ha (effective total) dairy platforms. The total cropping programme this season will be on the 100ha run-off block.

4.8.2 Reason for the Conversions

In the 1990s Farmer G’s parents looked at converting the farm to dairy but decided against conversion. Farmer G believed that this was because at the time the return on capital for dairy was similar to mixed cropping. Farmer G also noted that he worked on a dairy farm when he was younger and had not enjoyed the experience. Farmer G thinks this may have put his parents off converting.

74 A driver for Farmer G making the decision to convert in the early 2,000s was a proposed change in water rights. Farmer G said that there was the introduction of separate water rights for different land uses and they hoped the conversion to dairy might improve their current water right. However, Farmer G said in the end this was not the case.

Another driver for change was the simplicity of the dairy system reducing both the complexity of the crop system and improving the ease of management.

Farmer G said dairy was attractive because it guaranteed cows for wintering, young stock to graze and reduced the negotiating over prices. After the first conversion, profitability and succession drove the subsequent dairy sheds. The second dairy shed at the time was seen as a way to make the farm more divisible for succession purposes.

4.8.3 Dairy System

The farm has been divided up into three ownership structures. The first dairy farm is through a land holding company. The second farm is in a family trust and the third as a joint venture between Farmer G and a partner. Farmer G now has the ‘dairy operation’ where he

operates/oversees the three independent farms plus the runoff as one unit. Farmer G has lower order sharemilkers in two sheds and a manager in the third. The reason for the lower order sharemilker was to reduce the number of labour unit’s Farmer G was directly

managing. At one time the three farms and the runoff can have a maximum total of 17 labour units. Farmer G says he would not consider 50:50 because he would lose the synergies of management between the dairy farms and the runoff and feed supply.

Last season, the three sheds ran 900, 900 and 820 cows producing 448kgMS/cow. Farmer G describes himself as a system 3 or 4 farm feeding supplements “in the holes of pasture supply”. He feeds 500kg/cow of grain and 100kg/cow silage supplements. Supplements are purchased from the runoff and from external sources. One third of the cows are wintered on the run off and the rest on neighbouring land. Replacements are grazed off farm.

4.8.4 Crop/Runoff farm

The 100ha farm has a rotation of kale – barley – grass.

The farm produces primarily for the dairy farms but may sell any excess silage outside the group. Farmer G notes he is always considering new crops. When asked if he would consider

75 high value crops such as seed crops instead of dairy support, Farmer G said he was not interested because he liked the simple system. Farmer G said that he could possibly purchase barley cheaper than he could grow it for the dairy farm, but noted it was a clean rotation and provided all the straw required for the farms. He also said he had grown carrot and ryegrass seed in the past and the management, time and high inputs needed for

successful seed crops were not worth the risk or return.

4.8.5 Synergies of the systems

A synergy of the farm system according to Farmer G is the ability to move staff between the dairy farms with the managers and the crop farm allowing the staff to help each other out during the tougher periods of the year. Equipment from the crop farm can be used for regrassing and drilling on the dairy farms.

Another synergy Farmer G recognises is in the scale of the system and the accessibility of the run-off provides a level of self-sufficiency which manages the risk of an increase in grazing and wintering prices.

4.8.6 Future

Farmer G has no plan to invest in another dairy farm or expand the permanent area of the dairy platforms however he is considering leasing land to increase the 850 cow platform to carry 900 cows.

Farmer G would also consider buying another 100ha of runoff to be almost self-contained (would still graze replacements off the farm). However Farmer G said he would be losing $40,000-$100,000 annually to buy more land for winterfeed. Farmer G considered the additional support land as an option for security in case of an increase in grazing and wintering costs.

76