Anaerobic digesters for livestock operations are receiving attention for energy production and odor control. A farm-based digester went into operation in September 1999, on an 800-cow dairy farm in Minnesota. The goals of this paper are to analyze the contribution that a digester system can make to dairy farm profitability, and to demonstrate the impact of government and utility subsidies on profitability. Results indicate that the current selling price of electricity is not sufficient to justify building an anaerobic digester in most cases unless there is a subsidy or significant nonenergy market benefits.A naerobic digesters for livestock operations are receiving attention because energy production and odor control are two critical issues for producers and society. The technology has a somewhat tarnished reputation, however, with many failures as well as some successes since it initially became popular after the early 1970s energy crisis. The goals of this paper are to analyze the contribution that a digester system can make to dairy farm profitability and to demonstrate the impact of government and utility subsidies on digester profitability.

Markets for dairy quality hay have emerged as dairy farms purchase more feed off the farm. Previous research on hay markets used proxies for quality since objective measures of quality were unavailable. A hedonic pricing model incorporating direct measures of quality (moisture, crude protein, and relative feed value (RFV)), proxies (cutting), and bale-type variables was estimated using data from a hay auction. Large round and square bales and medium round bales were discounted relative to small square bales. The implicit price for RFV was $0.55/ton in 2001-02. S tructural change in the U.S. dairy industry has led to the emergence of a growing market for quality hay. High-quality hay in dairy rations is required for greater milk production. Many large dairy farms now purchase all feed inputs, including hay, rather than producing feedstuff on the farm. The shift from traditional dairy farms that produced most or all of the hay on the farm to large dairy farms with high production levels per cow has resulted in a demand for high-quality forages. The purpose of this study is to estimate the implicit values of quality and packaging characteristics associated with high-quality hay in a major dairy area.Understanding the characteristics of the emerging hay market has far-reaching implications for both dairy and crop producers. Sourcing an adequate supply of dairy-quality hay in a bale type that suits dairy operations will become a more important for farmers who outsource cropping. Dairy farmers exiting the industry could be in a strong position to supply hay to dairies. Row crop producers interested in diversification could include alfalfa in the crop rotation. Maynard, Harper, and Hoffman quantified the economic benefits of such a strategy. Understanding how hay quality and packaging impacts price is an added dimension to the decision of including alfalfa in cropping decisions and machinery purchase decisions.

Combining the benefits of legume N2fixation and N fertilization may increase the productivity and profitability of pasture systems. Our objectives were to study the effects of N fertilization on productivity and persistence of legumes in mixtures with cool‐season grasses under rotational stocking with short grazing periods. Twelve N fertilization regimes ranging from 0 to 336 kg of N per ha were applied annually to smooth bromegrass and reed canarygrass in monoculture and mixture with alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and kura clover. Alfalfa was the dominant legume in mixtures with cool season grasses in 1999. As kura clover developed, it became the dominant legume species and by the trials end stands averaged over 70% in mixtures with both smooth bromegrass and reed canarygrass and across N treatments. Nitrogen fertilization did not affect alfalfa stands, but reduced kura clover stands by 17%. Smooth bromegrass‐legume mixtures with no N fertilization produced more forage (10.5 Mg DM/ha) than any smooth bromegrass monoculture with N treatment (336 kg of N per ha produced 8.0 Mg DM/ha). Cost of forage mass in smooth bromegrass‐legume mixtures was less than 50% of smooth brome monocultures. While N fertilization did not increase forage production in treatments with legumes, legumes were able to maintain vigorous stands with up to 336 kg of N per ha.

No abstract

No abstract