GrassMaster Developments

[Graham]

In late 2007, Novel Ways utilised the FRST TIF scheme to part-fund some undergraduate research at the University of Waikato. The current model GrassMaster II drymatter instrument was appraised in the physics laboratory, and a new model probe and measuring technique put forward. We have yet to complete and test a new design (the GrassMaster Pro) but are also conscious that there are many hundred users of the earlier instruments spread around the world.

We are still manufacturing and selling the tried and tested Grassmaster II to agronomists, farmers and grass-seed merchants, and have excellent feedback from them. Recently we have been in contact with Meat and Wool New Zealand, to access their nationwide data on grass plot DM using the GrassMaster. The aim is to find a more universal equation for paddock measurements, that can be used throughout the year on most grass and legume species.

Please use this forum to post comments on your findings with the probe, or to ask about its features.

[Graham]

Novel Ways have recently completed the paperwork to obtain the GrassMaster field data through Meat&Wool NZ. Having the data to hand will let us test our theories on over 300 rolling country paddock measurements gathered at various times over much of NZ.

Companies developing and trialling new grass seed varieties are keen users of the GrassMaster II - it's portable, doesn't damage the grass plots, easy to use and gives highly repeatable results.

Recently a farmer traded in his damaged electronic rising plate meter (RPM)for a new GrassMaster II, because he needed more accuracy. He was well aware that RPMs are not suited to sloping or hilly sites (can only measure on flat ground), and can attract huge errors if used on pugged or uneven pasture (the central rod drops into depressions in the ground, directly affecting the measurement).

In fact I am always perturbed when NZ pasture drymatter levels are not specified in kgDM/Ha, which although not a measure of energy, is at least some way towards the truth. 'So many clicks on the RPM' is an often-printed expression, which is truly 'dumbing down' the situation.

I think what farmers really need to know is the ENERGY in MJME for the paddock in question. So they need to know three things:

Paddock area, paddock drymatter in kgDM/Ha, and the MJME of the material in MJME/kgDM.

This last one is the hardest to measure immediately on the farm. That's why we are looking hard at Brix Meters (see other thread) because they are available, are fast to use, are cheap and reliable, and just need some more research behind them. The difference between good quality grass MJ and poor quality grass, is as much as 100% or more. There is not much point measuring grass drymatter if you don't also have a measurement of the quality, especially when viewed over a whole year. The situation gets far worse if you start comparing farms, where the quality can vary even more.

We're very proud of the GrassMaster II as it is, and would run it in a managed trial over a range of pasture types against any RPM, and come out smiling. We'll be even happier when we can provide a more universal equation for pasture DM mass, and add in a quality measurement. All data taken within a few minutes by the farmer, per paddock.

Getting this sort of information on the farm, and logging it on a database of some kind, would then lead to the possible doubling of production on farms. The reason I'm so confident about this, is that average energy conversion of the sun's energy to milk product energy in NZ is only 0.06%. The losses are huge, but with a bit more care farmers could grow more grass and keep it in better condition. That's all it would take. (See Farming the Sun thread).

[Graham]

From MAF site: SFF Project Summary
Project Title: Best-Practice Pasture Renewal for Better Forage Production and Sustainability Grant No.: 08/019

Contact Details
Name of Applicant Group: DairyNZ Waikato and Bay of Plenty Focus Farm Groups
Contact Person: Warren King
Address: AgResearch Ruakura
East St
Hamilton
Telephone 1: 07 838 5159
Telephone 2: 021 228 5159
Facsimile: 07 838 5119
Email: warren.king@agresearch.co.nz
Project Details
Status: In Progress
SFF Funding: 300,000.00
Total Project Funding: 1,022,000.00
Proposed Start Date: 2008-07
Proposed Finish Date: 2011-09
Region: Waikato, Bay of Plenty
Sector: Pastoral
Sub-sector: Dairy
Topic: Feed & forage
Farm production
Last updated: 08 February 2010

Latest update

Project description
This project proposes to trial best-practice pasture renewal and management techniques with monitoring of the establishment, persistence and production of the key forage species. The information will be used to develop a value proposition that explicitly considers the costs, benefits, risks and uncertainties of pasture renewal in a farming system context. Together with consideration of the social context of technology adoption, this directly addresses the key constraints to higher rates of successful pasture renewal and adoption of new pasture technologies.

The issue/opportunity
Higher rates of successful pasture renewal and the wider adoption of new pasture technologies have the potential to deliver significantly more forage and so drive a major step forward in the profitability and sustainability of New Zealand's pastoral agriculture. Industry has recognised this: the 2006 Dairy Industry Strategy aims to increase pasture harvested by 50% by 2015 and estimates that this will add about $6 billion in export value to New Zealand.

These technologies can also reduce the environmental consequences of grazing livestock. For example, direct-drill sowing techniques enable better fertiliser and seed placement that require lower overall fertiliser application rates, which limits subsequent nutrient losses. In addition, reduced cultivation means that soil carbon losses are lower and there is less impact on soil structure and soil health. Better pasture establishment success rates and best-practice ongoing management results in pastures that are more persistent and more resilient with a greater potential to tolerate extreme climatic events such as drought.

The context/background
Pastoral industry bodies such as the Pasture Renewal Charitable Trust (a group representing more than a dozen pastoral industry companies) have identified a number of critical issues that currently limit industry growth: poor pasture condition, poor pasture persistence, low rates of pasture renewal with low success rates, and low rates of technology adoption.

Farmers themselves have identified a number of constraints to the adoption of new pasture technologies:

Lack of on-farm demonstration of successful pasture establishment and persistence in their region
Perceived high risk and uncertainty during pasture establishment
Distrust of information from commercial seed and fertiliser merchants, which is often based on inadequate short-term (1-2 year) trials. Much of this information can be contradictory and confusing
Lack of convincing value proposition for renewal of perennial pastures.
Methods
This project has a strong focus on on-farm case studies. Farmer initiated, there will be approx. 10 each in the Waikato and BOP. These trials will involve a number of pasture renewal options and will examine the entire pasture renewal process, from paddock selection to the persistence of the new pasture. The aim is to provide compelling demonstrations of a range of contrasting pasture establishment techniques. These may include cultivation options or different species/cultivars. Pasture performance and environmental quality will be closely monitored. Some of the monitoring will be done by farmers although the 'added-value' measurements of soil structure and pest status (for example) will be done by scientists.

In addition, some structured interviews will be conducted to examine the social context of the decision-making process in the adoption of pasture renewal technologies (multi-criteria decision making). This information will guide the development of the project outputs and help to maximise the capture of the opportunities outlined above: industry-wide improvements in profitability and sustainability.

Latest update
Ten farms (29 pastures) in the Waikato and ten farms (28 pastures) in the BOP are now being monitored and a broad range of pastures are covered. Eleven months of pasture measurement have now been recorded for most pastures.

Additional funding has recently been received from DairyNZ and the project has been extended to include endophyte testing (currently under way) and extension into the South Island (Canterbury and Otago), with pasture monitoring expected to start early 2010.

Publication of results has occurred in the Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association and in farming media.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update
Most of the farms have now been selected for this project-eight each in the Bay of Plenty and Waikato. A total of 48 paddocks now have cages installed and we have three months data. Three-fold differences in pasture production were measured between the "best" and "worst" paddocks on some farms. A survey of soil-borne insect pests revealed very high numbers of black beetle in many paddocks. These results have been discussed at three field days in the BOP and were also highlighted at the Waimate West Field Day in Taranaki.

Update
This project continues to be delayed by the contracting process. Apart from the core contract having only recently been signed, the co-funding contracts have required the development of quite lengthy documentation. This process is not yet complete. Despite these delays, some progress has been made on the selection of the farms: a field trip that visited five farms in the Bay of Plenty was held in September and a substantial amount of data collected on the pasture renovation process.

This sort of research looks like smart business, and lines up with my recent upskilling about the low average solar efficiency of pastoral farming. How else could an extra 50% of grass be obtained across NZ in just a few years.

After facilitation by a contact in Fonterra's "Pastures From Space" program, we had a meeting with Dr Warren King from AgResearch recently. He agreed that the GrassMaster II would be an ideal measuring instrument to complement paddock and test site readings on grasses and forages, to help with these types of research programmes. We could also learn a lot more about our equipment, as these sites are carefully sampled, and the material is sent off to labs for analysis. Several instruments of various types can be used to estimate pasture drymatter and other parameters, all this taking a lot less time and effort than the actual grass sampling and lab work to compare them all.

We are now waiting for a costing from AgResearch for these marginal fees, and we'll be happy to provide free equipment and any staff training needed. This work would have obvious benefits for all levy payers and stakeholders, not to mention GrassMaster owners. This type of collaboration between the private sector and CRIs is hopefully on the increase, and should be the fastest way to produce terrific results for farmers.

[Graham]

We have a disappointing result from Dr Warren King: AgResearch have continued with their paddock data gathering research for CDAX and others, and failed to provide a quote for any costs for research for us. There was a legal issue, involving whether or not we could use the AgResearch name after paying for the data to be gathered by their team, and who would carry out the analysis or stats. There was another issue over them being involved at all if we were going to export the technology. I had to reply that we started exporting GrassMasters (the forerunner, PastureWand) three months after starting on the design work in 1996! And we've sold a lot more GrassMasters (with Tru-Test's help) than CDAX have sold of their Pasturemeters.

Around about the same time we were advised to contact Dr Bruce Thorrold at DairyNZ. The head office is within walking distance of our factory, and their research farms are opposite us on State Highway 26. Initial background work looked very positive. This is what Dr. Thorrold's PR statement includes:

From the DairyNZ website

Monday, 31 March 2008
Bruce Thorrold, newly appointed Strategy and Investment Leader (Productivity) at DairyNZ, says he is looking to lessons from the past to equip farmers with the tools they need for the future.

“The history of the dairy industry shows that we are most successful when we combine farmers’ drive to innovate and succeed, with scientific knowledge and agri-business commercial discipline.
..
“To achieve all this, the industry needs to have clear goals and an integrated and long-term plan for achieving them. Since the disestablishment of the Dairy Board and as the separate organisations that were formed took time to become established, there has been some fragmentation of approach in the industry. Today there is a strong drive to improve the level of cooperation and integration, to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness,” Dr Thorrold says.

“Certainly our experience is that combining our resources with those of willing partners is of major benefit to farmers. As with any relationship, we need to keep working at it to improve and I intend to do just that. Fortunately we are not alone in taking this path.”

He points to Government’s recent Fast Forward Fund and the call for long-term and integrated planning as a general shift toward ensuring projects have greater alignment with agreed objectives.

“DairyNZ is keen to make the most of the funding injection from Government, and support the drive to ensuring investment is matched by industry and coordinated from a long term strategy perspective. Having said that, we are also aware of the need to deliver proven tools to farmers in the short to medium term. Farmers can’t wait until tomorrow for the solutions they need today. Addressing that need is still top priority for us, and is where the value of partnerships will come to the fore.”

Dr Thorrold highlights five key areas where DairyNZ can use this integration to deliver immediate results for farmers:

Working with farmers to support local initiatives such as Southland Demonstration Farm, BOP Focus on Dairy and Northland Dairy Development Trust
Working with animal breeding companies to ensure that farmers get the cows they expect from the new genomic selection methods.
Working with rural professionals to develop and deliver farmer tools such as InCalf and Healthy Hooves.
Working with CRIs and agri-business to increase the value farmers get from new plant material and endophytes.
Working with farmers and agri-business to test and demonstrate the value of automation and information technology on-farm.
Longer-term results will come from the integrated planning of the research and adoption effort in partnership with researchers, government and industry.

DairyNZ chief executive Dr Tim Mackle says Dr Thorrold is well placed to establish and maintain the partnerships that will maximise dairy farmers’ investment.

“It’s fair to say that the level of industry integration and partnership building we want to achieve will require high levels of energy and experience. The clear pay off for all involved is realising a better result together than we can achieve separately. Dr Thorrold is the right man to help develop this win-win environment. He has, and continues to work at, a very high level within the industry and has earned the considerable respect given by his peers,” Dr Mackle says.

..The Strategy and Investment Leader positions are a key part of a restructuring process undertaken to meet the broad mandate DairyNZ assumed through the merger of Dairy InSight and Dexcel. These high-level roles will help fulfil DairyNZ’s primary vision as an investor to secure and enhance the profitability, sustainability and competitiveness of New Zealand Dairy Farming.

Three Platforms have been established according to core responsibilities:

Productivity – covering the major work programmes of feed, animals and farm systems
Sustainability – covering environmental management, biosecurity (e.g. Tb eradication), animal welfare and community impact
People and Business – covering business planning and systems, and human capability.
Quick Bio
Contact:
Ph: 07 858 3750
Mobile: 027 293 4404
bruce.thorrold@dairynz.co.nz

On the third attempt at a meeting date, I was ushered into the tea-room at DairyNZ for a one-on-one, very informal meeting with Dr Thorrold. We had to conclude business an hour later as staff were filing in for lunch. DNZ are well funded by Dairy Farmers (another $43mill is contestable in the Pastoral 21 Fund), and they continually carry out grass sampling. I outlined our need for GrassMaster probe and Brix meter data, which would not add greatly to the costs of their trials, but would help us jointly provide good data to farmers, and probably supply better tools.

The meeting seemed positive, we hopefully ticked all the right boxes (see the PR statement above). I was urged to provide a wish-list of the work that we'd like carried out, and I did so in writing, promptly. I received a polite response that this had been received. Several months later, not one word has been written to give us a costing on the work. A followup email was written recently, this time no acknowledgement was made.

If you are a dairy farmer paying levies to DairyNZ, you might like to advise them when next you meet, that you would indeed like to see them working on projects with the private sector. Our Batt-Latch timers must collectively have saved farmers millions of dollars in costs over the years. The GrassMaster could be even more spectacular in helping the bottom line. As I explained to Bruce, Novel Ways won't get the massive collective gains, but we would be happy just to provide a product into that space.

Here is the letter I wrote to Bruce Thorrold.

To Dr Bruce Thorrold:

As at 20 July, no reply has been forthcoming to my documentation of the 3rd February informal meeting with you, and a request for costs for research work.

As you verbally assured me that the supply of our written wish-list was not a fob-off Bruce, I am now wondering which of these scenarios apply:

(1) You are too busy to reply (but not too busy for media and Fieldays appearances it would seem)

(2) You have no intention of replying because there is a conflict(s) of interest in intellectual property that Novel Ways is not aware of

(3) You do not wish to squander any farmer levies or Pastoral 21 funds on a small business, and would prefer all of it was spent in-house with your own staff (both research and admin)

(4) DairyNZ policy is not to support NZ agribusiness, unless it is capable of fronting up with most of any substantial research funds needed

(5) DairyNZ is not interested and sees no use in testing, proving, or reporting on private sector agribusiness tools for their levy payers, no matter how cost-effective and under-utilised they might be

(6) You are of the opinion that farmers will quickly find and vet specialized tools on an individual basis, so this market sector functions perfectly already

(7) DairyNZ ‘owns’ the area of pasture research and ruminant grazing in NZ and will not work with others in this sector, even if it would likely help dairy farmers

(8) DairyNZ are answerable only to levy payers and substantial funders, and Novel Ways is neither, therefore a reply is not necessary

(9) The projects discussed were too small in scale to involve enough staff for a longer length of time. The administration effort required was not worth it from DairyNZ’s view

(10) You have made a personal decision not to reply, and that is helped by the unofficial one-on–one meeting in the tearoom that was set up on the third attempt. There was never an intention to do anything.

Bruce, I know you’re in a responsible position, with lots of projects on the go. But you are being very unprofessional in dealing with another business. You have staff you could dictate a letter to, minimising your effort. I’m requesting you put at least something in writing, sometime this week, so I can decide what I’m doing with our stalled research programme.

If I get no reply, I will post this one-sided communication (minus our technical info) somewhere your levy-payers will see it. That’s a promise.

Yours faithfully
Graham Lynch, owner.

[Graham]

AgCareers has this PR gem for prospective DairyNZ employees:

DairyNZ is the industry good organisation representing New Zealand's dairy farmers. Funded by a levy on milksolids and through government investment, our purpose is to secure and enhance the profitability, sustainability and competitiveness of New Zealand dairy farming. We aim to do this by leading innovation in world-class dairy farming and by working always in the best interests of New Zealand's dairy farmers.

Our structure has three key investment areas: productivity (feed, animals and farm systems); sustainability (environmental management, biosecurity, animal welfare and community impact); and people and business (farm business and human capability). These enable us to focus on delivering real value to farmers.

We deliver this value through leadership, influencing, investing, partnering with other providers and through our own strategic capability, with the goal of better positioning New Zealand’s dairy farmers, on-farm, nationally and internationally. Our work includes research and development to create practical on-farm tools, leading on-farm adoption of best practice farming, promoting careers in dairying and advocating for policy, legislative and investment decisions by central and regional government which are good for dairy farming.

I could be forgiven for thinking that the old Dexcel policy is still in place: basically it stated that the Extension Division would show farmers new technology, tools and techniques to help in their operations - as long as the work was all derived from Dexcel research.

I'm still waiting for someone at DairyNZ to provide a quote for our research work. I think we'd have a lot more luck partnering up with the private sector, by now the initial work would have been completed. The difference is obvious. If DairyNZ had to act as a normal business, they would treat every customer with the same care we do. Otherwise, they'd be out of business. As simple as that.