Selecting a suitable solution

This section describes examples of how the consultant tailored solutions to infra- structure, tactical and operational, technology and systems problems. The consultant stated that at the heart of identifying a suitable solution is knowing where the client wants to be.

3.5.2.1 Infrastructure problem

In the example, the consultant provided, he wanted his client to improve the amount of pasture dry matter harvested per hectare to improve profitability. He had identified that poor drainage had reduced pasture utilisation and pugging and soil compaction had reduced the amount of pasture grown. The choice of the solution will depend upon the constraints or opportunities the consultant has identified during the visit that are relevant to the problem. The consultant then matches the attributes of the alternative solutions to the constraints (and resource opportunities) he has identified to determine the most suitable solution for the client. The consultant has identified a set of attributes for each solution.

Problem Type

Infra-structure

Tactical and operational

management Technology Systems

High capital cost solutions Soil fertility Drainage Low cost solutions Irrigation Pasture species Feed

pad mole drainsNovaflo & Use sand _dunes Sacrifice

paddock Purchase

These include the resource requirements of each solution such as the capital, cash flow, labour, management capability requirements, level of risk and so-on (Figure 17). For example, an important attribute of the solution of installing an intensive Novaflo and mole drainage system is that it has a high capital cost (Figure 17). As such, if the consultant has identified that high debt levels are an important constraint for the client, he will not consider this solution. Instead, he would consider alternative solutions that have a low capital outlay such as the use of a sacrifice paddock or the use of sand dunes if the client has these on the farm (a resource opportunity). If a client is in a financial position to afford intensive drainage, the consultant may weigh up whether he is best investing in drainage or a feed pad and which investment option provides the client with the greatest advantage. The other alternative is to purchase a runoff (Figure 22) to reduce pugging and soil compaction over winter. However, the consultant would also use the runoff to increase the stocking rate on the farm so that the client can afford the capital outlay on the investment. The complexity of this solution is much greater than the use of a sacrifice paddock or sand dunes to overcome a drainage problem.

Figure 17. Solution attributes.

3.5.2.2 Tactical and operational management problem

The consultant provided another example of a tactical and operational

management problem where a client has low levels of pasture dry matter

harvested per hectare because of poor grazing management. To improve the situation, the client may need to start using a feed budget, pasture wedges, a plate meter and adjusting their pre- and post-grazing residuals to more suitable levels. Often the client is not interested in grazing management. The consultant says that he often goes out to farms where the client says to him “Don’t ask me to score pastures otherwise you can hop in your car and leave now”. Such changes require additional labour input by the client and some clients may not want to put in all this extra work, another constraint. As such, the consultant must tailor the solution to their workload requirements. He stated that by providing such a client with rules for their rotation length at different times of the year and rules about pre- and post-grazing residuals and how to

Solution A Capital requirement Cash flow requirement Labour requirement Capability requirement Level of risk Etc.

increase or reduce supplement feeding levels to ensure these levels are met, they may be able to achieve 80% of the gains possible compared to the more time-consuming and formal approach that uses feed budgeting and a plate meter. As such, the consultant has solutions that provide quite good results for his clients without them having to put in as much effort as solutions that will provide the optimum impact.

The consultant stated that as an advisor, he has to have a suite of solutions that require different levels of labour input and management capability. For example, he can get a client to do a full pasture walk with a plate meter to obtain the average pasture cover level on the grazing area or he could recommend a technique developed by the Taranaki research station where a farmer can visually assess the longest five paddocks and the shortest five paddocks and average these to estimate the average pasture cover on the grazing area. The advice the consultant offers a client in relation to grazing management is heavily dependent on their management capability in this area. Information about the client’s ability is then used to tailor the solution to that specific client.

The consultant provided examples of two farmers with different capabilities in relation to pasture management. He described one farmer who was motivated and focused. This farmer was monitoring and recording pasture cover levels, and calculating cow intakes from pre- and post-grazing residuals to estimate what the herd was eating and he was focused on improving profit. Because this client was focused, the consultant provided him with more detailed advice on grazing management and how to improve profitability. In contrast, he had another farmer who did not monitor or record pasture cover levels or calculate cow intakes. The consultant provided him with a lower level of advice that suited his skills, knowledge and motivation. For the motivated knowledgeable farmer he would suggest that he grazes the sward at the two and a half to three-leaf stage to increase the amount of pasture harvested. For the other farmer who is less knowledgeable and less motivated, he would provide him with rules of thumb for round length at different times of the year for their district. This advice is not perfect, but it would allow the farmer to capture a good proportion of the potential benefits from improved grazing management without them having to understand grazing management and leaf emergence. In one situation, the consultant is providing the client with the principles and asking them to use these to improve their management. In the other situation, the consultant is providing a recipe that is based roughly on the principles, but the recipe will not have the full impact of the former approach.

Where a client has limited skills and knowledge, and or motivation, the consultant must simplify the solution and re-evaluate the likely impact of the change. He knows that a solution may have different impacts depending on the

knowledge and skills of the client. The consultant’s clients range from top 10% farmers through to below average farmers. As such, a good farmer might obtain 90% of the potential impact of a change, but a poor farmer might only capture 70%.

3.5.2.3 Technology problem

In terms of technology problems (Figure 16), the process of solution generation can be straight forward. For example, if the consultant determines that a client is not using nitrogen, a “technology problem” and he thinks it would be profitable for the client to use it, then the choice of the solution is quite straight forward. However, the application of this technology may not be quite as straight forward because the consultant has to determine how much nitrogen to use, when to use it and then how best to use the extra feed that has been generated. There is also some overlap between technology and infra-structure problems because a feed pad is a technology, but it is also a solution to a drainage problem, an issue of infra-structure.

3.5.2.4 Systems problem

In another example, the consultant was asked how he would respond if he identified a “systems problem” where the client’s stocking rate was 100 kg LW/tonne DM available, i.e. above the optimum level that he likes his clients to operate at (80 - 85 kg LW/tonne DM available). In such a situation, the client can go one of two ways to achieve this optimum. They can reduce stocking rate or they can increase the amount of bought-in feed. To decide what the client might do, first the consultant would have a discussion with them about risk and milk price risk in particular in relation to whether they want to reduce cow numbers or increase feed inputs. The consultant also discusses the type of system they want to operate, because he knows that most clients have a preference. As such, the consultant is considering both the client’s risk

attitude and system type preference. These are matched against the risk

and system type attributes of the two solutions.

In the first example, the client wanted to achieve high levels of milksolids production per cow. This goal acts as another constraint the consultant must take into account when determining the best solution for the client. This client then stated that he did not want to buy in additional feed. After analysing the situation, the consultant replied that he thought that the client was expecting too much from his herd for the level of feed he was providing. He did not believe his client could achieve his production per cow goal without feeding additional supplements. In effect, the consultant had identified a husbandry

constraint. He then cited research that showed that a stocking rate of 80 - 85

kg LW/tonne DM offered is the optimum stocking rate for good levels of milksolids production. He informed the client that because his herd had a stocking rate of 100 kg LW/tonne DM offered, he was struggling to produce at a

good level of milksolids production per cow and per hectare. He pointed out that the client was carrying a lot of live weight per hectare and not providing them with the feed they needed to produce at high levels of milksolids production. If the client did not want to buy in feed, then the consultant offered to estimate the reduced stocking rate he should be running to achieve his per cow production goal. For example, based on his calculation, he estimated that to operate at a comparative stocking rate of 80 - 85 kg LW/tonne of feed available, the client must reduce his herd size (and hence stocking rate) by 30 cows. In the second example, the client’s stocking rate was too low (e.g. 65 – 70 kg LW/tonne DM offered). The consultant pointed out that their stocking rate was too low and that there was insufficient grazing pressure being placed on his pastures. At such a low stocking rate, it was difficult for the client to maintain a high level of pasture dry matter harvested per hectare without very good management. The choices open to the client are to increase cow numbers or reduce supplement. The decision will again depend upon the client’s preference for a farm system type. Do they want a system that uses a lot of supplement or do they want a low input system. The consultant’s general rule is that the more supplement a client puts into his system, the higher the per cow production he should expect. He also has some rough rules of thumb about how much per cow production he can expect out of the different farm system types. For a system 1, he would expect the farm to produce milksolids at a level equivalent to 80% of the mature body weight of the herd and for a system 5 this figure should be 100%.

These results show that the consultant might have the same problem on different clients’ farms (e.g. stocking rate too high or stocking rate too low), but the solution to the problem could be quite different. For a situation where the stocking rate is too high, one client might reduce stocking rate because he does not like buying in feed and is risk averse. Another client might increase the amount of bought in feed because he likes well fed cows that achieve high levels of milksolids production. Alternatively, with a scenario where the stocking rate is too low, one client might reduce supplement use whilst the other might reduce cow numbers for similar reasons as stated above. As such, the consultant has to tailor his solutions around the client’s preference for farming system type, their production goals, and also their attitude to risk.

A key guideline that the consultant considers when helping a client change their farm system is to identify the client’s “comfort zone”. This is the zone that they want to be operating in, that that they are comfortable with. Some clients are most comfortable running low input systems, others prefer higher input systems where their herd is fed high levels of supplement, are maintained in good condition, and produce high levels of milksolids per cow. The consultant has to identify this zone for each client and work within the constraints of

that preference, e.g. “ … the word is where they want to be, their comfort zone, the zone they want to operate in, everyone has a zone where they want to operate. … I want to be able to step right or step left [tailor solutions], that’s the zone, so you have to work within that to do the best with that”. The consultant has clients that range from systems 1 and 2 through to systems 4 and 5.