By far the greatest proportion of the 1,150,000 acres of light land in Canterbury is found on the Canterbury Plain. This plain, originally covered by "low tussock" and of easy contour, was enticing to the early pioneers and became one of the earliest areas in New Zealand to be settled and farmed. Over the years it has developed into one of the most intensively farmed and productive areas of New Zealand. The dominant characteristic of the light land of Canterbury is undoubtedly the climate. The rainfall is reasonably evenly distributed over the year, but because of the low humidity, high temperatures and warm winds experienced over the summer in association with a free draining soil, the effectiveness of the rainfall over this period is drastically reduced. Consequently active plant growth is severely restricted for several months over the summer, and occasionally extends into the spring and/or autumn periods. The uncertainty as to the length and severity of this restricted growth period and the associated problem of equating the variable feed supply to the stock requirements, both within and between years, is the basic problem confronting the light land farmer. In spite of the environmental difficulties the productivity of the light land has increased several fold since early settlement. The original holdings on the Canterbury Plain were large with their boundaries on the rivers so as to provide access to water. Fine wool sheep were extensively grazed. However the introduction of refrigerated shipping and the extension of the water race system in the 1880's brought about a reduction in the size of holdings and a change in the pattern of farming. Dual purpose sheep were run and by the 1930's in response to favourable crop prices the system of diversified farming was firmly established. Unfortunately this system placed excessive emphasis on cash cropping, particularly on the light soils. Soil fertility was drained, structure severely damaged and subsequent pasture establishment and survival poor. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, with declining crop yields and with more favourable prices being obtained for fat lambs and particularly wool, the emphasis shifted from cropping to livestock farming. The carrying capacity however, was restricted by the reduced soil fertility and poor quality pastures and an environment in which climatic uncertainty tended to inhibit the rapid expansion of stock numbers. The results of research work carried out at the various institutions in Canterbury over the years have undoubtedly promoted a greater understanding and appreciation of the problems confronting the farmer and the limitations of the particular environment in which he must operate. For example, pasture species more suited to the low fertility conditions and climate were introduced with spectacular results. The most significant of these was subterranean clover (introduced in the 1930s), noted for its ability to withstand the summer droughts, to regenerate in the autumn, and to provide an increased bulk of feed in the spring. Research work had shown that both lime and phosphate were necessary on the light land soils, if high pasture production and persistency was to be expected. Soil fertility increased subsequent to a reduction in the emphasis on cropping and with the higher levels of fertiliser application. High fertility pasture species (e.g. white clover and lucerne), were introduced and not only gave higher and more reliable total production but exhibited improved seasonal spread of production. Investigations into pasture diseases and stock health provided answers to specific problems. Research into flock management generally and in comparisons between the productivity of various sheep breeds indicated the most suitable type of flock and breed for the light land farmer. From this and other research work (in conjunction with the observations of leading farmers in the area), an efficient system of light land farming has gradually evolved in which many of the basic problems have been overcome and which has resulted in a raising of the carrying capacity of the light land from ¾ stock unit per acre in the 1930's to 3½-4 stock units per acre at present. A central feature of this system (particularly at high stocking rates), is the high degree of flexibility incorporated in both the stock policies and feed supplies. Where the objective function is to maximise productivity over a period of years, it is essential to utilise the available spring feed efficiently while maintaining the ability to destock when confronted with feed shortages in the spring and early summer. Because of the fluctuating feed supply, which is characteristic of light land, the need to maintain feed reserves and to incorporate a high degree of flexibility in the stock policy is evident if the feed supply and demand are to be equated. In summary, the increased productivity can be attributed to two factors: (1) The ability to grow a greatly increased quantity of herbage per acre with an improved seasonal pattern of production. (2) A more efficient utilisation of the herbage produced. Unlike his counterpart in more reliable farming districts, the light land farmer operates in an environment of uncertainty. Yield uncertainty, particularly at high stocking rates, is the major problem to be overcome and this dictates very largely the system of farming adopted. Price uncertainty is also a significant aspect of light land farming because of the reliance on a limited range of products and the inability to diversify. In an analysis of physical and financial data collected from a sample of light land farms in Canterbury (1) there was no evidence to suggest that any one particular pattern of output was superior to all others. This result was surprising, but may reflect the uncertainty inherent in the environment. (1) For a full discussion on this, see Section 3.3.2(a). Alternatively it may infer that the actual patterns of production are less important than the managerial skill with which they are implemented. These results pointed to the need to explore more fully the following facets of light land management: (1) Given a developed farm, is there any one optimal pattern of production which (a) generates increased profit under average seasonal and price conditions, and (b) is subject to only small variations in profit under changing seasonal and price conditions? (2) Given the potential for the development and expansion of light land farming, how profitable is this from the individual farmer's viewpoint? If, in an evaluation of the first problem, high levels of productivity are shown to be profitable on existing well developed farms, then a reallocation of resources to obtain the desired combination should be recommended. An optimum combination of enterprises shown by such an analysis might well serve as the goal where an undeveloped potential still exists on a farm and where a reallocation and intensification in the use of resources is necessary if productivity is to be increased. In this study of light land farming two case farms have been used and although the results refer specifically to these particular farms, some conclusions of a general nature are possible. In Chapter II the physical characteristics of the area are described. In Chapter III a review of the research into specific problems relating to the management of light land is presented. This is followed in Chapter IV by an explanation of the technical principles of light land farming which have evolved. Chapter V is devoted to the comparison of some of the production possibilities open to the light land farmer using linear programming. An analysis of light land development 1s presented in Chapter VI, while Chapter VII presents the conclusions and summary of the study.

By far the greatest proportion of the 1,150,000 acres of light land in Canterbury is found on the Canterbury Plain. This plain, originally covered by "low tussock" and of easy contour, was enticing to the early pioneers and became one of the earliest areas in New Zealand to be settled and farmed. Over the years it has developed into one of the most intensively farmed and productive areas of New Zealand. The dominant characteristic of the light land of Canterbury is undoubtedly the climate. The rainfall is reasonably evenly distributed over the year, but because of the low humidity, high temperatures and warm winds experienced over the summer in association with a free draining soil, the effectiveness of the rainfall over this period is drastically reduced. Consequently active plant growth is severely restricted for several months over the summer, and occasionally extends into the spring and/or autumn periods. The uncertainty as to the length and severity of this restricted growth period and the associated problem of equating the variable feed supply to the stock requirements, both within and between years, is the basic problem confronting the light land farmer. In spite of the environmental difficulties the productivity of the light land has increased several fold since early settlement. The original holdings on the Canterbury Plain were large with their boundaries on the rivers so as to provide access to water. Fine wool sheep were extensively grazed. However the introduction of refrigerated shipping and the extension of the water race system in the 1880's brought about a reduction in the size of holdings and a change in the pattern of farming. Dual purpose sheep were run and by the 1930's in response to favourable crop prices the system of diversified farming was firmly established. Unfortunately this system placed excessive emphasis on cash cropping, particularly on the light soils. Soil fertility was drained, structure severely damaged and subsequent pasture establishment and survival poor. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, with declining crop yields and with more favourable prices being obtained for fat lambs and particularly wool, the emphasis shifted from cropping to livestock farming. The carrying capacity however, was restricted by the reduced soil fertility and poor quality pastures and an environment in which climatic uncertainty tended to inhibit the rapid expansion of stock numbers. The results of research work carried out at the various institutions in Canterbury over the years have undoubtedly promoted a greater understanding and appreciation of the problems confronting the farmer and the limitations of the particular environment in which he must operate. For example, pasture species more suited to the low fertility conditions and climate were introduced with spectacular results. The most significant of these was subterranean clover (introduced in the 1930s), noted for its ability to withstand the summer droughts, to regenerate in the autumn, and to provide an increased bulk of feed in the spring. Research work had shown that both lime and phosphate were necessary on the light land soils, if high pasture production and persistency was to be expected. Soil fertility increased subsequent to a reduction in the emphasis on cropping and with the higher levels of fertiliser application. High fertility pasture species (e.g. white clover and lucerne), were introduced and not only gave higher and more reliable total production but exhibited improved seasonal spread of production. Investigations into pasture diseases and stock health provided answers to specific problems. Research into flock management generally and in comparisons between the productivity of various sheep breeds indicated the most suitable type of flock and breed for the light land farmer. From this and other research work (in conjunction with the observations of leading farmers in the area), an efficient system of light land farming has gradually evolved in which many of the basic problems have been overcome and which has resulted in a raising of the carrying capacity of the light land from ¾ stock unit per acre in the 1930's to 3½-4 stock units per acre at present. A central feature of this system (particularly at high stocking rates), is the high degree of flexibility incorporated in both the stock policies and feed supplies. Where the objective function is to maximise productivity over a period of years, it is essential to utilise the available spring feed efficiently while maintaining the ability to destock when confronted with feed shortages in the spring and early summer. Because of the fluctuating feed supply, which is characteristic of light land, the need to maintain feed reserves and to incorporate a high degree of flexibility in the stock policy is evident if the feed supply and demand are to be equated. In summary, the increased productivity can be attributed to two factors: (1) The ability to grow a greatly increased quantity of herbage per acre with an improved seasonal pattern of production. (2) A more efficient utilisation of the herbage produced. Unlike his counterpart in more reliable farming districts, the light land farmer operates in an environment of uncertainty. Yield uncertainty, particularly at high stocking rates, is the major problem to be overcome and this dictates very largely the system of farming adopted. Price uncertainty is also a significant aspect of light land farming because of the reliance on a limited range of products and the inability to diversify. In an analysis of physical and financial data collected from a sample of light land farms in Canterbury (1) there was no evidence to suggest that any one particular pattern of output was superior to all others. This result was surprising, but may reflect the uncertainty inherent in the environment. (1) For a full discussion on this, see Section 3.3.2(a). Alternatively it may infer that the actual patterns of production are less important than the managerial skill with which they are implemented. These results pointed to the need to explore more fully the following facets of light land management: (1) Given a developed farm, is there any one optimal pattern of production which (a) generates increased profit under average seasonal and price conditions, and (b) is subject to only small variations in profit under changing seasonal and price conditions? (2) Given the potential for the development and expansion of light land farming, how profitable is this from the individual farmer's viewpoint? If, in an evaluation of the first problem, high levels of productivity are shown to be profitable on existing well developed farms, then a reallocation of resources to obtain the desired combination should be recommended. An optimum combination of enterprises shown by such an analysis might well serve as the goal where an undeveloped potential still exists on a farm and where a reallocation and intensification in the use of resources is necessary if productivity is to be increased. In this study of light land farming two case farms have been used and although the results refer specifically to these particular farms, some conclusions of a general nature are possible. In Chapter II the physical characteristics of the area are described. In Chapter III a review of the research into specific problems relating to the management of light land is presented. This is followed in Chapter IV by an explanation of the technical principles of light land farming which have evolved. Chapter V is devoted to the comparison of some of the production possibilities open to the light land farmer using linear programming. An analysis of light land development 1s presented in Chapter VI, while Chapter VII presents the conclusions and summary of the study.

Die Wasserproduktivität in der Tierhaltung ist von vielen Faktoren abhängig. Die Futterproduktion hat den größten Anteil am Wasserbedarf von tierischen Produkten. Weitere Einflussfaktoren sind die Leistung, die Reproduktion und der Gesundheitsstatus der Tiere, das Management und die Haltungsbedingungen. In dieser Arbeit sollte untersucht werden, wie sich diese Faktoren auf die Wasserproduktivität von Milch und Geflügelfleisch in Nord-Ost-Deutschland auswirken. Zehn unterschiedliche Futtermittel wurden hinsichtlich ihres Wasserbedarfes untersucht. Aus diesen Futtermitteln wurden die Rationen für die Tiere erstellt. Die Milchleistung der Kühe wurde zwischen 4.000 und 12.000 kg Milch pro Kuh und Jahr in 2.000 kg Schritten variiert. Für jedes Leistungsniveau wurden zwölf verschiedene Fütterungsstrategien untersucht, welche auf der Erhöhung einzelner Bestandteile der Ration basieren. Der Wasserbedarf von Leitungswasser im Stall wurde mit 38 Wasserzählern ermittelt. Für die Wasserproduktivität des Geflügelfleisches wurden vier verschieden intensive Mastverfahren untersucht. Die Wasserproduktivität steigt mit steigender Milchleistung der Kühe. Das Maximum wird bei 10.000 kg Milch pro Kuh und Jahr und Rationen mit einem hohem Gras- bzw. Maissilageanteil erreicht. Die Kühe, die im automatischen Melksystem gemolken wurden, nahmen mehr Tränkwasser zu sich, als die Kühe im Fischgrätenmelkstand. Dies ist durch die höhere Milchleistung bedingt. Im automatischen Melksystem wurden im Mittel 28,6 Liter Reinigungswasser pro Kuh und Tag benötigt. Für die Reinigung des Fischgrätenmelkstandes wurden 33,8 Liter pro Kuh und Tag genutzt. Die untersuchten Broilermastverfahren zeigten keine Unterschiede hinsichtlich der Wasserproduktivität. Die intensivere Aufzucht und bessere Futterverwertung wurde durch eine niedrigere Wasserproduktivität des Futters kompensiert. Der Anteil des technischen Wassers macht in der Milchkuh- und Broilerhaltung nur einen kleinen Teil am Gesamtwasserbedarf aus. / Livestock production is the main user of water resources in agricultural production. Water is used in animal production for producing feed, watering the animals, and cleaning and disinfecting barns and equipment. The objective of this dissertation was to quantify the effects of management strategies, such as feeding, intensity of production and the replacement process on the water productivity of milk and poultry meat in Germany. Water productivity in milk and broiler production systems was calculated based on the methodology of Prochnow et al. (2012). Own measurements of the drinking and cleaning water demand in milk production were conducted in a dairy cow barn. The study was based on site conditions of North-East Germany with common variations in farm operations. The feed production is the main contributor to water input in dairy and poultry production. The water productivity of milk increased with an increasing milk yield. The most beneficial conditions related to water productivity in dairy farming were found to be with a milk yield of approximately 10,000 kg fat corrected milk and a grass silage and maize silage based feeding. The total technical water use in the barn makes only a minor contribution to water use. Former regression functions of the drinking water intake of the cows were reviewed and a new regression function based on the ambient temperature and the milk yield was developed. In broiler production the intensification of the fattening systems did not increase water productivity. An increase of water productivity in animal production can be achieved with various management strategies with their specific influence on the production process. The feed management should be a focus of the strategies.