@conference {41017,
	title = {Modelling the Feed Requirements of Cross-Bred Sheep},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production},
	volume = {58},
	year = {1998},
	month = {Jan},
	pages = {161-164},
	publisher = {New Zealand Society of Animal Production},
	organization = {New Zealand Society of Animal Production},
	abstract = {Feed requirements of flocks of ewes from Romney dams mated to either Romney , Border x Dorset, Finn x Texel, or Texel x Dorset sires (R, BD, FT, TD), were estimated from assumed profiles of live weight and reproductive performance. These were constructed by extrapolating data collected from four flocks of 500 ewes each, born in 1994 and run under a common management system at Limestone Downs (a large Waikato sheep/beef property). Annual feed requirements for R, BD, FT and TD ewes (plus 25\% replacements) were estimated to be : 670, 809, 766 and 740 kg DM/ewe; equivalent ewe numbers for the same annual intake: 1000, 829, 875 and 906 ewes; g lamb weaned/kg DM consumed: 37, 43, 47 and 40 g/kg DM. Live weight and reproductive profiles for ewes sired by East Friesian rams were also constructed by extrapolating data from East Friesian-cross ewes born at Limestone Downs in 1996 and mated as hoggets in 1997. Estimates of annual feed intakes, equivalent ewe numbers and g lamb weaned/kg DM consumed for East Friesian-cross ewes (plus 25\% replacements), mated first as hoggets (EFH) were: 925 kg DM/ewe, 725 ewes and 56g/kg DM; or mated first as two-tooths (EF): 907 kg DM/ewe, 739 ewes, and 50g/kg DM. The increased feed demand for high producing ewes occurred mainly from late pregnancy until weaning. },
	issn = {1176-5283},
	author = {Brookes IM and Lowe KI and Garrick DJ}
}
@conference {40626,
	title = {Managing the high performance beef cow herd - where to next?},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production},
	volume = {54},
	year = {1994},
	month = {Jan},
	pages = {315-318},
	publisher = {New Zealand Society of Animal Production},
	organization = {New Zealand Society of Animal Production},
	abstract = {Historically, the breeding cow has established its place on New Zealand  
sheep and beef farms as a {\textquoteright}hardy{\textquoteright} animal, able to withstand the vagaries of  
climate and feed supply, and for {\textquoteright}cleaning-up{\textquoteright} rough pastures generally  
assisting output from the ewe flock - the main enterprise.  The cow has been  
particularly useful where contour or cost prevented cropping or conservation.   
In this context, pure breeds such as Angus or Hereford have served well.  The  
traditional role of the beef cow needs to be reviewed as farmers: 
- move to cross-breeding and use more {\textquoteright}productive{\textquoteright} breeds 
- have much higher expectations of beef income relative to sheep 
- increase their proportion of beef to sheep 
- develop their properties 
 
Data from the {\textquoteright}Limestone Downs{\textquoteright} property near Port Waikato is presented to  
show that this {\textquoteright}new{\textquoteright} cow in the {\textquoteright}new{\textquoteright} environment presents challenges and  
opportunities not earlier foreseen.  At Limestone Downs, three-way cross- 
breeding of the Angus herd started in 1984, with Hereford and Friesian bulls  
introduced.  At that time, average calf weaning weight was 180 kg.  In 1992 the  
last of the pure Angus cows weaned calves of 205 kg, with the 3-way cross  
cows weaning calves at 250 kg.  Mean cow liveweight of about 420 kg has not  
changed since 1984.  However, the liveweight of the cross-bred cows drops 34- 
40 kg between calving and weaning, whereas the Angus tended to stay  
constant.  Additional calf weaning weight has cost the cow liveweight which  
must be replaced before the following spring. 
 
With increased subdivision, pasture development and greater cattle numbers  
there is no longer the rough feed for cows to {\textquoteright}survive{\textquoteright} on.  This, coupled  
with a cow now bred to produce a heavy calf at weaning at the expense of her  
own body condition if necessary, can lead to re-breeding problems and high  
cow losses. 
 
What of the future?  We need to be clear about our expectations of the  
breeding cow, and perhaps accept that in the traditional role, the traditional  
cow needs only minor modifications.  At the other end of the spectrum however,  
in a situation where the cow is a direct competitor for feed, we need to consider  
a whole spectrum of options such as twinning, as these are developed and  
proven. },
	issn = {1176-5283},
	author = {Lowe KI}
}
@conference {40627,
	title = {The stock unit system - fair treatment for the breeding cow?},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production},
	volume = {54},
	year = {1994},
	month = {Jan},
	pages = {319-322},
	publisher = {New Zealand Society of Animal Production},
	organization = {New Zealand Society of Animal Production},
	abstract = {The stock unit (SU) system has been widely used in conjunction with  
gross margin (GM) and analysis to make recommendations to farm managers  
on the comparative profitability of pastoral livestock systems.  This information  
can be misleading, particularly where beef breeding cow policies are being  
compared with finishing cattle policies that involve high rates of liveweight  
gain (e.g. bull beef production).  To illustrate the deficiencies of the SU system  
for standardising between different livestock enterprises, relative gross margins  
per stock unit (RGM/SU) were derived for two case study farms in contrasting  
environments.  One property was located in the Manawatu region (Tuapaka),  
the other at Port Waikato (Limestone Downs) in South Auckland.  Using the  
breeding cow as a base (=100), the RGM/SU at Limestone Downs for breeding  
ewes, bull beef, steer finishing and once bred heifers were 70, 158, 74 and 121,  
respectively.  If these RGMIsu were expressed in terms of returns per kilogram  
of pasture consumed ($/kg) the rankings, relative to breeding cows (=100),  
were breeding ewes (51), bull beef (95), steer finishing (53) and once bred  
heifers (106).  Corresponding values for breeding ewes and bull beef at  
Tuapaka were 59 and 65.  Thus, the substitution rates between livestock  
enterprises varied substantially depending on the method used to account for  
differences in feed consumption.  The implications of these findings for farm  
management decision making are discussed. 
 },
	issn = {1176-5283},
	author = {Crawford HK and Lowe KI}
}
@conference {40098,
	title = {Development of systems for out-of-season lambing at Limestone Downs},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production},
	volume = {48},
	year = {1988},
	month = {Jan},
	pages = {95-98},
	publisher = {New Zealand Society of Animal Production},
	organization = {New Zealand Society of Animal Production},
	abstract = {DairyMAN is a computerised dairy herd health and management program recently developed within the Department of Veterinary Clinical Services at Massey University. The program is designed to be a reproduction, health and production recording and analysis system for use on either annual or twice yearly seasonal calving dairy herds. It is intended that the program be used as a management aid for farmers, veterinarians and farm advisors. DairyMAN is able to accept data from a variety of different collection methods, for example the Livestock Improvement Division (LID) notebook, shed sheets, wall charts, mating wheels or formal diary systems. On most farms the current recording system needs minimal modification to accommodate the program. The type of information that may be entered into DairyMAN includes farm, herd and individual cow data. From these data the following reports may be generated: 1. Performance indicators 2. Diagnostic indicators 3. Management aids 4. Simple information collation The program is an example of the development of computer management aids which quickly and effectively analyse herd and farm performance and can target problem areas that need attention. The level of utilization of the program for a single farm will vary depending on the demands of the farmer, his advisor and his veterinarian. Their combined enthusiasm in the farm activities will encourage increased usage of this management aid.},
	issn = {1176-5283},
	author = {Lowe KI and Carter ML and McCutcheon SN}
}
