The study by DairyNZ senior economist Matthew Newman and AgFrirst consultant Phil Journeaux said the jury was still out on the financial and environmental merits of the barns.
Macleod agreed with their assessment that as an investment used for three months of the year, wintering barns would financially never stack up as wise use of capital but when taken over a 12-month period they did.
The system had both financial and environmental benefits, he said.
Cows were heavier, in better condition after winter, pasture recovered faster in the spring, it eliminated wintering costs, provided shelter, there was higher utilisation of supplementary feed and reduced fertiliser use.
The Newman and Journeaux study was presented to the Australian Agriculture and Resource Economics Society’s annual conference in Rotorua this week and was based on a study of two Southland and three Canterbury wintering barns and free stalls.
They found that without intensifying the farming system, nitrogen losses may could be reduced but at a significant loss. But intensifying the farm system could erode any environmental benefits.
With good management and intensifying the farm business, barns could be profitable but that depended on the milk price, feed costs and initial capital outlay, they found.
"Overall, the decision around a barn tends to be either-or – either you make money out of it or you reduce the environmental footprint of the farm. It is difficult to achieve both," Newman said.
The researchers acknowledged farmers invested in wintering barns for pasture and grazing benefits, lower wintering costs, feed utilisation and shelter but concluded financial and environmental considerations “were well down the list”.
Macleod said that was wrong.
“Every one of these reasons is either environmentally or economically motivated.”
His research showed farming systems could be intensified and environmental outcomes improved.
“Either you make money
out of it or you reduce the environmental footprint of the farm. It is difficult to achieve both."MATTHEW NEWMAN
DairyNZ
“Our studies indicate that 30% to 40% of feed in a pasture-based system goes to waste.
“If we can devise a production system that can capture that wasted feed, then we can produce more from the same land and fertiliser inputs.
“That is a huge environmental and financial outcome.”
Macleod also argued that by definition it was financially more accurate to call infrastructure costs production assets because of the contribution to improved animal welfare and pasture and reduced fertiliser use.
The researchers found it was taking farmers two to three years to adjust their systems once they built a barn.
“They require a change in management and often more attention to detail, particularly around nutrition," Newman said.
He said building a barn meant farmers were trading climate risks for financial risks, such as servicing loans and sourcing supplementary feed.
A second stage of the project would include nine barns in Waikato with a final report due at the end of March.
