Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 1932

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy

Management options for dairy farms under climate change: Eects of MARK
intensication, adaptation and simplication on pastures, milk production
and protability
Matthew T. Harrisona,, Brendan R. Cullenb, Dan Armstrongc
a
Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania, TAS 7320, Australia
b
Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
c
D-ARM Consulting, 260 Old Telegraph Rd, VIC 3818, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: There are few holistic analyses of agricultural systems that inclusively consider how the combination of gradual
Drought climate change and increased frequencies of extreme climatic events inuence biophysical variables as well as
Extreme climatic events economic returns. Here we examine how climate change to 2040 inuences pasture growth rates, grazed pasture
Grazing harvested (PH) and protability of three case study (baseline) farms in southern Australia. We applied
Heat wave
development options (or adaptations) to baseline farms in each region that either intensied, simplied or
Rainfall
modied the seasonal distribution of feed supply (Intensify, Simplify or Adapt, respectively) by manipulating
Representative concentration pathway
Simulation several components of the farm system simultaneously, including herd size, liveweight and farm assets.
In general, climate change reduced annual pasture produced. On dryland farms, hotter, drier conditions
reduced growing durations through later autumn breaks and earlier nishes to spring growth, although winter
growth rates were enhanced. On irrigated farms, the magnitude and inter-annual variability of PH was less
inuenced by climate change. Overall, climate change reduced milk production and income, and increased costs
due to additional fodder conservation and more purchased feed.
Current climate variability caused far greater inter-annual variation in PH and prot compared with the long-
term impacts of climate change. This suggests that farm outcomes may be improved by tactically managing for
short-term climatic variability, rather than by making long-term strategic changes in preparation for climate
change.
Future work on adapting dairy businesses to climate change should examine development options that help
maintain or extend growing season length and/or harness the additional winter growth. Our study indicates that
climate change impacts on dairy systems will be regionally-specic; no individual development option was
universally eective in reducing pasture losses to climate change across regions and development options, and
no option consistently increased or decreased PH across sites. Future adaptation strategies should thus take into
account not only local climate variability as well as climate change, but also the existing farming systems already
operating at each site.

1. Introduction employing an estimated 39,000 people (DA, 2015). An important sector

Increasing global demand for animal products will require strategies
to increase future livestock production. By 2050, consumption of meat
and dairy is expected to have respectively risen by 76% and 65%
against a 200507 baseline, compared with 40% for cereals (FAO,
2012). Currently, the major dairy consumers are China, India, the EU
and the United States; India and China together consume almost
100 million tonnes of milk products per year (Bailey et al., 2014).
Australian dairy is a $13.5 billion farm, processing and export industry
of the dairy industry is based in south-eastern Australia, where the
majority of production occurs. Similar to their New Zealand counter-
parts, the Australian industry remains predominately pasture-based
with an estimated 7075% of feed requirements met from grazed
pasture under normal seasonal conditions (DA, 2015), largely because
grazed pasture is generally the cheapest source of feed (Chapman et al.,
2014a). However, dairy production systems in this region are diverse,
with some systems implementing grain or alternative concentrate
feeding during milking, and others operating similar systems to those

Corresponding author at: P.O. Box 3523, Burnie, TAS 7320, Australia.
E-mail address: Matthew.Harrison@utas.edu.au (M.T. Harrison).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.04.003
Received 24 October 2016; Received in revised form 30 March 2017; Accepted 6 April 2017
0308-521X/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.T. Harrison et al.
in Europe and North America, where cows are housed and fed total
mixed rations for most or all of the year (Ho et al., 2013). While pasture
growth is a key driver of prot in pasture-based dairy farms, in practice
farms are complex ecosystems (Bryant and Snow, 2008) with biophy-
sical, management and nancial components (Kalaugher et al., 2017).
Pasture production is highly dependent on seasonal climatic condi-
tions, with the amount and timing of rainfall being a key factor in the
seasonal and annual variability of pasture growth (Chapman et al.,
2009). Drought conditions have a substantial impact on farm nancial
performance because low pasture growth rates reduce pasture intake,
leading to greater reliance on purchased feeds (grain, concentrates, hay
and silage), which also tend to be more expensive during such times
(Armstrong et al., 2005; Chapman et al., 2014b). Projections for climate
change in south-eastern Australia indicate that temperatures will
increase and rainfall is likely to decrease, although large uncertainty
exists in rainfall projections (CSIRO, 2015). Previous studies have
shown that warmer and drier climates will lead to increases in pasture
growth rates in winter and early spring, but with contraction of the
spring growing season (Cullen et al., 2009; Moore and Ghahramani,
2013). However, the future climate scenarios used in those studies did
not capture either (1) the projected eects of rainfall patterns, with
more rain forecast to fall in fewer, larger events and longer dry spells
between events (CSIRO, 2015), or (2) the increase in temperature
extremes, including heat waves of greater frequency and magnitude
(White et al., 2010). Recent work accounting for extreme climatic
events have revealed an additional detrimental impact to pasture
production and farm nancial performance compared with analyses
using only gradual changes in climate (Harrison et al., 2016), with
impacts likely to vary regionally and according to the type of farm
system implemented.
Existing climate change research related to dairy production has
mainly focused on climate impacts rather than adaptation (e.g.
Klinedinst et al., 1993). For instance, climate projections for South
Africa suggest that dairy cattle over most of the country are likely to be
severely heat stressed at peak annual temperature-humidity index from
the year 2046 onwards (Nesamvuni et al., 2012). Although there has
been some research of dairy farm adaptation to climate change in other
countries (e.g. New Zealand (Kalaughter et al., 2017) and Ireland
(Fitzgerald et al., 2009)), there has been little in Australia. What has
been done focuses on adaptation of specic attributes of the farm
systems, such as changes to single factors including pasture character-
istics (Cullen et al., 2014), stocking rates and/or calving dates (Harrison
et al., 2014a; Phelan et al., 2015). Such options do not address broader
questions about future options for the dairy industry by considering, for
example, how whole of farm system changes inuence production and
prot resilience to climate change. For example, adaptations that aim to
intensify production may consider not only increasing stocking rates
and concentrate feeding per animal, but also farm infrastructure
investment and total debt.
In this study, the impact of future climate scenarios was examined in
three dairy regions of south-eastern Australia. Case study farms were
modelled as representative baselines in each region, along with three
contrasting development options. These represented regionally relevant
systems that (1) Intensify (increased stocking rate with greater reliance
on o-farm resources and farm infrastructure), (2) Simplify (reduced
stocking rate, fewer inputs such as fertiliser and less reliance on feed
resources produced external to the farm) or (3) Adapt (re-organise
resources around expected changes in pasture growth patterns) of each
case study farm. A participatory action research (PAR) approach was
used with regional working groups integral to describing, modifying
and validating the modelled results. This paper addresses the impacts of
climate change on the production and protability of the case study
farms, while in a future study we address the impact of climate change
in relation to inherent climate variability in wet and dry periods, the
transition from the base farm to each development option, and other
sources of variability in the farm business, notably milk prices and feed
20
Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 1932
costs. The aims of the current paper were
1. To examine the eect of climate change on (a) seasonal pasture
growth rates, (b) pasture intake per animal and harvested and (c)
prot of three case study dairy farms, and
2. To examine the inuence of climate change on PH and prot if
either of three development options that Intensied, Simplied or
Adapted the baseline farm were applied in each of the three regions.
2. Methods
2.1. Overview
An earlier publication detailed the inuence of climate change to
2080 and extreme climatic events on dairy farm production and
protability (Harrison et al., 2016), as well as the new approach used
to generate the climate data. Here, we rst quantify the inuence of
climate change between the present and 2040 on pasture production,
purchased fodder requirement, milk production and protability, then
elucidate the ability of dierent farm system adaptations in mitigating
or reversing adverse eects of climate change. We simulated these
systems using 38 years of either historical or future climate data and
assessed Low, Medium and High climate change trajectories. To enable
a more complete insight into the inuence of climate change on
production and prot, we held other variables constant where possible,
such as milk prices and feed costs. In a subsequent report, we will
further examine the impacts of implementing farm system adaptations
at the beginning of wet or dry decades for the historical and future
climates, and also incorporate variability in milk and supplementary
feed prices. Full details of the methods used to create the future climate
data are provided in Harrison et al. (2016).
2.2. Historical climate data, regional working groups and site characteristics
Australian dairy farming occurs across diverse climatic zones, but
the bulk of milk production occurs in south-eastern temperate regions.
We undertook case studies of three farms located in regions represent-
ing the breadth of dairy farming in this region. These were situated in
the Fleurieu Peninsula (Parawa, South Australia), Gippsland (Moe,
Victoria) and North West (NW) Tasmania (Wynyard). An expert work-
ing group was established in each of the regions, which comprised
farmers and local service providers. These groups dened the criteria
for selecting the case study farm, the farm development options to be
analysed, and provided input into the assumptions used when analysing
farm system changes. Regional working group members also contrib-
uted to the interpretation of the results to ensure that the analyses were
subjected to informed feedback and that a broad range of perspectives
were considered. Historical daily weather data for each site were
sourced from meteorological archives (http://www.longpaddock.qld.
gov.au/silo), with baseline data measured from 1 January 1975 to 31
December 2013. Annual average rainfall of the historical periods at the
three sites ranged from 937 to 995 mm, with a winter-dominant pattern
(Fig. 1). In winter, historical minimum and maximum daily tempera-
tures vary from 4 C to 15 C, respectively, and from 10 C to 26 C,
respectively, in summer (Fig. 1). All simulations using historical data
assumed a baseline atmospheric CO2 concentration of 380 ppm. Case
study farms used as baselines were located in cool temperate regions
12361 m ASL with Grey Dermosol or Red Ferrosol soils (Isbell, 2002)
and plant available water capacities of 3280 mm (Table 1). Pasture
species mainly consisted of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), and
were simulated as such in this study. Further site characteristics are
provided in Table 1 in Harrison et al. (2016), and historical climate
details are shown in Fig. 1.
M.T. Harrison et al.
Fig. 1. Monthly average rainfall (bars) and temperature (lines) for the historical (
and ) or High ( and ) climate change trajectories at (a) Fleurieu Peninsula (SA), (b) Gippsland (Vic) and (c) NW Tas.
2.3. Climate change data
Harrison et al. (2016) describe the methods used to produce the
future climate data in the present study. A key component of this
approach was the use of historical climate from each site to create the
future climate data. Importantly, this allowed modication and repla-
cement of climate indices from within the historical sequence, whilst
concurrently retaining the original time series order (see description of
Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 1932
and ) and 2040 climate scenarios with either Low ( and ), Medium (
the Variable approach in (Harrison et al., 2016)). Our rationale in
using these data was to study the impacts of climate change data
containing more extreme climatic events than historically observed,
since such events are predicted to occur more frequently in future
(IPCC, 2012). The approach documented in Harrison et al. (2016)
generated future climate data from global circulation models (GCMs)
containing both gradual climate change as well as more extreme
climatic events as predicted by regional climate models (White et al.,
21
M.T. Harrison et al. Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 1932

Table 1 2.4. Simulation model and baseline case study farms

Location and management details, soil characteristics and prices used to model the
baseline dairy farms under all climate scenarios.
A whole farm model (DairyMod; Johnson et al., 2008) was used to
Fleurieu Gippsland NW Tasmania simulate the farm system for each site and climate scenario. Using daily
Peninsula radiation, rainfall, maximum and minimum temperature as inputs,
DairyMod simulates photosynthesis, sward growth and composition,
Latitude/Longitude (S, E) 35.55, 38.20, 146.26 41.00, 145.73
soil biophysics including water balance, organic carbon and nitrogen
138.34
Altitude (m above sea level) 361 150 12 pools, grazing animal pasture intake as well as intake from supplemen-
Soil typea Dermosol Dermosol Ferrosol tary feed sources, milk production, mechanical grass cutting, and
Plant available water from the 80 80 32 feedbacks between plant growth and pasture status. Pasture quality is
surface to 400 mm deep an emergent property of the model, varying in response to climate,
(mm)
plant growth, organic matter inputs to the soil, soil water content and
Saturated hydraulic 150 150 150
conductivity (mm/d)b the fractions of dead and live plant material (pasture quality parameters
Milking area (ha) 208 110 150 in this work were not modied from defaults specied in Johnson
Non-milking area (ha) 44 83 0 (2016)). The ability of DairyMod to reliably reproduce the eects of
Area irrigated (ha) 0 0 100
climate variability and management on pasture growth rates (Chapman
Max. allowable fodder intake 13 10 5
(kg DM/cowday)c et al., 2009; Cullen et al., 2008) and milk production (Johnson et al.,
Min. pasture grazing threshold 1.2 1.3 1.5 2016) in each study region has been well established.
(t DM/ha) For each site, we modelled pasture-based dairy systems using
Max. pasture threshold required 4.0 3.8 4.5 representative case study farms as baselines (Table 1). By interviewing
for cutting (t DM/ha)
farm managers, we collected several years of detailed farm data
Milk price ($/kg fat and 5.40 5.25 5.40
protein) (fertiliser use, milk production, stock numbers, supplementary feeding
Grain cost ($/t DM) 290 335 335 quanta, etc.) and calibrated simulations against these data. Farms at the
Purchased fodder cost ($/t DM) 210 265 265 Fleurieu Peninsula and Gippsland were rainfed, whereas two-thirds of
Irrigation costs ($/ML) NA NA 20
the farm in NW Tasmania was irrigated. Both rainfed farms incorpo-
a rated areas of land that were not grazed by milking cows (Table 1), but
After Isbell (2002).
b
Value in most limiting layer. were grazed by young stock and/or dry cows, and used for hay/silage
c
Includes only silage conserved on-farm or purchased. production. Nitrogen fertiliser and irrigation applications were made
using the decision rules dened on each case study farm and were
2010). calibrated in line with historical rates. Within each simulation, xed
Temperature, rainfall and CO2 projections were obtained from the stocking rates were used. Livestock feeding was modelled according to
top quartile of an ensemble of GCMs according to their skill score in animal daily energy demand, rst with grain, second with pasture and
southern Australia (Watterson et al., 2013), and were based on the third with conserved or purchased fodder when animal energy demands
Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 at 2040. Low, Med- were not met by the grain and/or pasture following manager decisions
ium and High climate impact scenarios were developed by taking the on case study farms. We simulated rotational grazing of paddocks until
10th, 50th and 90th percentiles for rainfall and temperature change, pasture dry matter reached a minimum biomass threshold, in line with
respectively, from the ensemble of GCMs; hereafter these data are management conducted on each case property. Pasture biomass was cut
referred to as future climate data or 2040 data. Low impact scenarios to a residual of 1.0 t DM/ha and conserved as silage if biomass reached
increased rainfall in most months (Fig. 1). Averaged over 38 years, a maximum threshold (Table 1). Conserved silage was fed as fodder in
mean monthly rainfall increased by 4%, 6% and 7% at the Fleurieu accord with maximum allowable intakes and wastage rates at each site,
Peninsula, Gippsland and NW Tasmania, respectively. Medium impact and silage/hay was purchased for fodder in years when there was
scenarios had little inuence on average annual rainfall (14% reduc- insucient pasture or on-farm fodder reserves (Table 1). We used the
tion across sites), whereas the High impact scenarios consistently terms pasture harvested (PH) to represent grazed plus cut pasture over
reduced rainfall compared with historical averages (613% reduction the year, and intake for the grazed component only, following Allen
across sites; Fig. 1). All future climate scenarios increased daily average et al. (2011).
temperatures, such that the Low, Medium and High change scenarios
respectively increased temperatures by 4%, 5% and 67% across sites, 2.5. Farm development options
averaged over the 38 years. Increased maximum daily temperatures
mostly contributed to this change, although minimum daily tempera- For each region, we modelled three development options (large-
tures also increased to a lesser extent (Fig. 1). Atmospheric CO2 scale adaptations) that were based on representative farming systems
concentrations for all future climate simulations were set to 489 ppm. dened by the regional working groups. Development options either
Compared with historical data, future climate data had 89% intensied, de-intensied (simplied) or adapted to each baseline
greater continuous dry-day durations (analogous to drought), 2770% farming system to climate change (hereafter we refer to these systems
greater average maximum rainfall events (intense precipitation days), as Intensify, Simplify and Adapt). The changes to baseline systems were
59% higher 90th percentiles of maximum daily temperatures and whole of farm system adjustments, as opposed to changes to individual
131% greater heat waves (measured as the number of consecutive components of the system.
days above the historical 90th percentile); variation within these ranges The Intensify options increased milk production by increasing herd
depended on climate scenario and site location. The overall variability size/stocking rate and mature cow liveweight, as well as the amount of
of future climate data was similarly greater than historical data, with purchased grain or hay/silage fed to animals. These options were
the standard deviation of daily rainfall and temperature being 2678% associated with greater investment in infrastructure and machinery
and 312% greater than respective standard deviations of baseline data. (Table 2). At all sites, the Intensify system reduced the reliance on
Further statistics regarding climate data used in this work are provided pasture as a feed source relative to the case study farm. For the Fleurieu
in Supporting information 1. Peninsula this development option was simulated as a total mixed
ration (TMR) system, with no grazing and 44 ha sold for $550,000 to
help fund the development of infrastructure. In contrast, the Intensify
system in NW Tasmania increased pasture production by increasing

22
M.T. Harrison et al. Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 1932

Table 2
Summary of modelling inputs and assumptions for the base farm and each development option.

Baseline Development options

Fleurieu Peninsula (South Australia) Intensify Adapt Simplify

Milking cows 350 400 400 290
Stocking rate (cows/ha of milking area) 1.7 n/a 1.9 1.4
Mature cow liveweight (kg) 550 600 550 520
Replacements reared per year 97 110 110 85
Calving time MayJuly Year round Split (May-Jun, Aug) May-Jun
Grain (t DM/cowyear) 1.6 3.0 2.2 1.0
Wastage of hay/silage during feeding (%) 10 5 9 10
Irrigation (mm/yearha) 0 0 0 0
Total assets managed ($,000,000) 5.35 5.58 5.59 5.26

Gippsland (Victoria)
Milking cows 352 500 250 200
Stocking rate (cows/ha of milking area) 3.2 4.5 2.3 1.9
Mature cow liveweight (kg) 475 550 550 475
Replacements reared per year 100 125 65 50
Calving time Aug-Sep Split (Apr, Aug) Apr Apr
Grain (t DM/cowyear) 1.1 2.0 1.8 0.5
Wastage of hay/silage during feeding (%) 15 7.5 15 15
Irrigation applied (mm/yearha) 0 0 0 0
Total assets managed ($,000,000) 4.47 5.12 4.32 4.25

North-western Tasmania
Milking cows 450 600 500 350
Stocking rate (cows/ha of milking area) 3.0 4.0 3.3 2.3
Mature cow liveweight (kg) 500 500 500 500
Replacements reared per year 115 155 130 88
Calving time Aug Aug Aug Aug
Grain (t DM/cowyear) 1.1 2.0 1.0 0.5
Wastage of hay/silage during feeding (%) 20 5 20 20
Irrigation applied (mm/yearha)a 205 311 325 205
Total assets managed ($,000,000) 5.92 6.49 6.09 5.77

a
Values represent averages across the farm area of 150 ha. The entire farm area was irrigated for the Intensify and Adapt options, whereas only 100 ha of the baseline and Simplify
options was irrigated.

irrigated farm area, but also reduced reliance on pasture feed by
increased feeding of grain and hay. Calving times varied across
development options. For the Fleurieu Peninsula calving time was
year-round to achieve a relatively at supply of milk throughout the
year, for Gippsland calving time was split equally such that half the
herd gave birth in autumn and winter/spring, respectively, and for the
Intensify option in NW Tasmania calving time was not changed from
the baseline system of winter/spring calving.
The Simplify development options reduced stocking rate and the
number of replacements required, and also maintained/reduced mature
cow liveweight. Simplify systems increased the proportion of feed
derived from both grazed and conserved pasture, and reduced the
amount of supplementary feed purchased. By reducing herd size and
pasture inputs (such as nitrogen fertiliser), this development option was
associated with lower feed and farm machinery costs, lower labour
costs and required no investment in additional infrastructure or
machinery.
In general, the Adapt development options were designed to re-
organise resources around expected changes in pasture growth patterns
without substantial capital investment. For the farms at the Fleurieu
Peninsula and NW Tasmania, the size of the milking herd in this option
was increased, whereas for the farm in Gippsland the number of milking
cows was reduced. In Gippsland the calving pattern was changed from
late winter/spring to autumn. In NW Tasmania, pasture production was
increased by increasing the farm area under irrigation. At the Fleurieu
Peninsula, a partial-mixed ration (PMR) was adopted with investment
in a basic feedpad.
2.6. Economic analyses
Detailed information on recent income from milk and livestock sales
and costs of the case study farms was collected from the farm managers
via interviews. Annual whole farm budgets were developed according
to Malcolm et al. (2005), and were evaluated using annual prot
budgets for each of the 38 years analysed. Total annual costs shown in
Table 4 account for expenses related to herds, sheds, feed requirements,
cash overheads, depreciation and imputed labour. Operating prot was
calculated as gross income minus variable and overhead costs, before
interest. Average return on total assets managed (ROTA) was used to
compare protability across systems, since this metric allowed compar-
isons between businesses (development options) having dierent
amounts of assets invested. Capital gains were not included in ROTA
computations. In this paper we assumed that development options had
already been implemented such that systems were in steady-state, with
no expenses incurred by transitioning from baseline systems to each
development option. The same prices per unit input/output were
assumed in all years and development options so that trends in ROTA
reected variability in climates (caused by changes in physical inputs),
rather than variability caused by temporal price uctuations from year
to year. The inuence of variation in milk price and feed costs over time
will be also considered in our future work.
3. Results
3.1. Inuence of climate change on seasonal pasture growth rates
Regardless of whether sites were rainfed or irrigated, climate
change reduced pasture growth rates from late spring throughout
summer and into the following autumn (OctoberMay), and elevated
growth rates in winter and early spring (JuneSeptember; Fig. 2). These
trends were amplied as the severity of climate change and extreme
climatic events such as drought and heat waves increased from the Low-
to High-change scenarios, with increasing water decit and higher
temperatures depressing summer and autumn growth, and higher

23
M.T. Harrison et al. Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 1932

90 160 (b)
(a)
80 140

Coefficeint of variation (%)

Pasture growth rates (kg
70 120
60
DM/ha.d) 100
50
80
40
60
30
20 40

10 20
0 0

Oct
Nov
Dec
Mar
Apr
May
Jan

Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Feb
Oct
Nov
Dec
Mar
Apr
May
Jan

Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Feb

90 300
(c) (d)
Pasture growth rates (kg

80

Coefficient of variation (%)

Historical Low 250
70 Medium High
60 200
DM/ha.d)

50
150
40
30 100
20
50
10
0 0
Oct

Oct
Nov
Dec

Nov
Dec
Mar
Apr
May

Mar
Apr
May

Sep
Jan

Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep

Jan

Jun
Jul
Aug
Feb

Feb

90 40
(e) (f)
Coefficient of variation (%)

80 35
Pasture growth rates (kg

70 30
60 25
DM/ha.d)

50
20
40
15
30
10
20
10 5
0 0
Oct
Nov
Dec
Mar
Apr
May

Jul
Aug
Sep
Jan

Jun
Feb
Oct
Nov
Dec
Mar
Apr
May

Aug
Jan

Jun
Jul

Sep
Feb

Fig. 2. Monthly average pasture growth rates and coecient of variation at (a, b) the Fleurieu Peninsula (SA), (c, d) Gippsland (Victoria) and (e, f) North-western Tasmania for the
baseline farm systems under the historical and 2040 climate scenarios.

temperatures and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 causing greater
growth rates in winter (Fig. 2a, c, d; also see Supporting information 1).
The reduction in pasture growth rates at the dryland sites (Fleurieu
Peninsula and Gippsland) was largest in spring and early summer,
whereas the magnitude of growth depression at NW Tasmania was
smaller (Fig. 2c, Table 1). Monthly variation in pasture growth rates
was greater for High and Medium climate change scenarios in late
spring and summer, indicating the detrimental eects of high tempera-
tures combined with low rainfall in these months (JanuaryMarch and
NovemberDecember; Figs. 1, 2). Despite increased variation at the
ends of the year, long-term growth rate variation in winter was lower
(Fig. 2).
3.2. Eects of climate change on pasture harvested, milk production and
return on total assets of the baseline farm systems
For each of the baseline (current) farming systems, pasture intake
and milking area PH were mainly reduced with climate change. As for
pasture growth rates, the reduction became greater from the Low to
High change scenarios and was more severe for the dryland sites (Fig. 3,
Table 3). There was relatively little eect of climate change on the
distribution or variability of pasture intake or harvested at the irrigated
site. However, the variation in pasture intake increased at the dryland
sites in 2040, particularly at the Fleurieu Peninsula, and the proportion
of PH by cutting increased. Reduced pasture production in future
climate scenarios increased the need to purchase feed, such that the
requirement for fodder increased as the severity of climate change

24
M.T. Harrison et al.
Fig. 3. Milking area PH (t DM/ha) for each development option at (a) the Fleurieu Peninsula (SA), (b) Gippsland (Victoria) and (c) North-western Tasmania under historical (
2040 Low- ( ), Medium- ( ) and High- ( ) change scenarios. Boxplots show the median, 25th and 75th percentiles in the box, with the 10th and 90th percentiles in the
whiskers and dots showing outliers.
became greater (relative to the historical climate for the baseline, the
High change scenario increased purchased feed requirements by 10%,
22% and 12% at the Fleurieu Peninsula, Gippsland and NW Tasmania,
respectively). Since nitrogen was applied in response to pasture demand
in the biophysical simulations, lower growth with climate change
reduced the requirement to fertilise with N in pasture-based options
(Table 3).
It should be noted that the biophysical model used to conduct these
simulations (DairyMod/SGS, see Johnson et al., 2008) adjusts animal
feed requirement in order to meet metabolic demand, and by doing so
largely maintains milk production under dierent climatic inputs. Since
milk production per cow and per farm under dierent climate scenarios
diers little (maximum change of 3% across all sites and options),
changes in gross income due to climate scenario reect this and hence,
were also small.
25
Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 1932
), and
For all baseline farms, the climate change scenarios required more
purchased feed and increased the need to conserve fodder, reduced
gross income and increased total costs (Tables 3 and 4). The reduction
in gross income with climate change from the historical system to the
High change scenario was low (0.71.2%) compared with the increase
in costs (0.44.6%, Table 4). Together these eects reduced return on
total assets (ROTA) in absolute terms by 0.5%, 0.8% and 0.4% at the
Fleurieu Peninsula, Gippsland and at NW Tasmania, respectively
(Table 4). At the Fleurieu Peninsula and Gippsland, the magnitude of
ROTA depression increased as climate change became more severe,
whereas there was little change in ROTA between alternative climate
scenarios at NW Tasmania since two-thirds of the farm area was
irrigated (Fig. 3c). Climate change increased ROTA variability at the
Fleurieu Peninsula and Gippsland, but had little eect at NW Tasmania
(Table 4, Fig. 4).
M.T. Harrison et al. Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 1932

Table 3
Long-term average annual results for each case study site (percentage coecient of variation in parentheses). Results are shown for the historical and 2040 climate scenarios for each
baseline farm and development option.

Site and development Climate Milk yield per Total milk Pasture Hay/silage Fodder Cut yield Milking area pasture Nitrogen fertiliser
option animal prod. intake intake purchased harvested (= PH) applied
(kg MS/cow) (t MS/ (kg DM/ (kg DM/cow) (t DM/farm) (t DM/ha) (t DM/ha) (kg N/ha)
farm) cow)

Fleurieu Peninsula
Baseline Historical 526 (3) 184 (3) 3326 (13) 1989 (18) 536 (30) 2.0 (7) 7.6 (9) 110 (0)
Low 519 (4) 182 (4) 3260 (14) 2021 (17) 509 (35) 2.0 (12) 7.7 (11) 110 (0)
Medium 520 (3) 182 (3) 3180 (15) 2071 (18) 536 (35) 2.0 (12) 7.5 (12) 110 (0)
High 520 (4) 182 (4) 3025 (18) 2177 (18) 589 (35) 2.2 (12) 7.3 (14) 110 (0)
Intensify Historical 700 (0) 280 (0) 0 4600 (0) 614 (28) 8.1 (11) 8.1 (11) 184 (29)
Low 700 (0) 280 (0) 0 4600 (0) 643 (30) 8.0 (13) 8.0 (13) 170 (34)
Medium 700 (0) 280 (0) 0 4600 (0) 673 (31) 7.8 (14) 7.8 (14) 165 (34)
High 700 (0) 280 (0) 0 4600 (0) 759 (30) 7.3 (16) 7.3 (16) 154 (31)
Adapt Historical 561 (2) 224 (2) 3221 (14) 1730 (22) 559 (38) 1.9 (18) 8.1 (11) 184 (29)
Low 557 (2) 223 (2) 3085 (15) 1832 (21) 569 (40) 2.0 (19) 8.0 (13) 170 (34)
Medium 555 (2) 222 (2) 3001 (15) 1891 (20) 604 (42) 2.0 (23) 7.8 (14) 165 (34)
High 553 (2) 221 (2) 2789 (17) 2051 (19) 695 (38) 2.0 (25) 7.3 (16) 154 (31)
Simplify Historical 473 (4) 137 (4) 3705 (10) 1467 (23) 78 (120) 2.3 (9) 7.4 (8) 130 (0)
Low 468 (4) 136 (4) 3668 (12) 1486 (24) 77 (163) 2.4 (14) 7.5 (10) 130 (0)
Medium 468 (4) 136 (4) 3551 (13) 1558 (24) 52 (197) 2.4 (14) 7.4 (11) 130 (0)
High 471 (4) 137 (4) 3359 (16) 1697 (25) 139 (119) 2.4 (16) 7.1 (14) 130 (0)

Gippsland
Baseline Historical 395 (3) 139 (3) 2815 (15) 1163 (29) 244 (61) 0 (0) 9.0 (7) 189 (21)
Low 397 (4) 140 (4) 2554 (14) 1395 (19) 208 (52) 0.9 (26) 9.1 (12) 199 (22)
Medium 395 (4) 139 (4) 2471 (15) 1447 (17) 237 (48) 0.9 (28) 8.8 (13) 190 (23)
High 392 (4) 138 (4) 2256 (16) 1581 (14) 298 (36) 0.9 (22) 8.1 (14) 172 (28)
Intensify Historical 531 (3) 266 (3) 2141 (20) 2053 (14) 990 (19) 0 (0) 9.7 (20) 224 (15)
Low 525 (3) 263 (3) 2117 (18) 2048 (13) 956 (17) 0 (0) 9.6 (18) 216 (15)
Medium 524 (3) 262 (3) 2066 (19) 2079 (13) 975 (17) 0 (0) 9.4 (19) 215 (15)
High 515 (3) 258 (3) 1883 (18) 2179 (10) 1041 (13) 0 (0) 8.6 (18) 203 (18)
Adapt Historical 512 (4) 128 (4) 3350 (9) 1115 (26) 17 (288) 1.1 (52) 8.7 (10) 206 (32)
Low 516 (3) 129 (3) 3313 (9) 1166 (24) 5 (409) 1.5 (27) 9.0 (10) 218 (26)
Medium 518 (3) 130 (3) 3235 (10) 1233 (24) 5 (434) 1.6 (28) 8.9 (10) 229 (25)
High 518 (2) 130 (2) 3023 (13) 1400 (24) 20 (311) 1.6 (29) 8.5 (13) 239 (21)
Simplify Historical 449 (4) 90 (4) 3699 (8) 1271 (20) 29 (202) 1.1 (48) 7.8 (10) 120 (0)
Low 451 (4) 90 (4) 3737 (9) 1250 (19) 2 (557) 1.5 (32) 8.3 (10) 150 (0)
Medium 450 (4) 90 (4) 3646 (9) 1317 (19) 3 (612) 1.6 (32) 8.2 (10) 150 (0)
High 448 (4) 90 (4) 3401 (12) 1483 (18) 16 (301) 1.6 (30) 7.8 (12) 150 (0)

NW Tasmania
Baseline Historical 496 (3) 223 (3) 3572 (2) 790 (5) 302 (18) 1.7 (17) 12.4 (3) 251 (12)
Low 489 (3) 220 (3) 3548 (2) 800 (6) 311 (18) 1.6 (16) 12.3 (3) 245 (12)
Medium 488 (3) 220 (3) 3540 (2) 806 (6) 319 (17) 1.6 (17) 12.2 (3) 241 (13)
High 489 (3) 220 (3) 3511 (2) 823 (7) 337 (18) 1.6 (17) 12.1 (3) 236 (14)
Intensify Historical 540 (2) 324 (2) 3269 (2) 1006 (3) 853 (03) 0.5 (12) 13.6 (2) 267 (6)
Low 531 (2) 319 (2) 3236 (2) 1015 (5) 856 (04) 0.5 (12) 13.5 (2) 265 (7)
Medium 532 (2) 319 (2) 3227 (2) 1026 (5) 864 (04) 0.5 (14) 13.4 (2) 262 (8)
High 531 (2) 319 (2) 3187 (3) 1047 (6) 877 (05) 0.5 (12) 13.6 (2) 257 (9)
Adapt Historical 513 (2) 257 (2) 3908 (3) 658 (13) 293 (19) 0.9 (11) 13.9 (3) 267 (6)
Low 504 (3) 252 (3) 3883 (3) 662 (12) 314 (20) 0.9 (12) 13.8 (3) 266 (7)
Medium 500 (3) 250 (3) 3864 (3) 666 (13) 295 (20) 0.9 (13) 13.8 (3) 263 (8)
High 501 (3) 251 (3) 3837 (3) 691 (14) 314 (20) 0.9 (16) 13.6 (3) 259 (8)
Simplify Historical 442 (4) 155 (4) 3579 (5) 1074 (6) 221 (40) 2.8 (17) 11.2 (6) 150 (7)
Low 436 (3) 153 (3) 3544 (4) 1091 (6) 232 (46) 2.8 (21) 11.1 (7) 146 (7)
Medium 436 (3) 153 (3) 3516 (4) 1111 (7) 243 (44) 2.8 (21) 11.0 (7) 144 (7)
High 435 (3) 152 (3) 3512 (4) 1116 (6) 253 (39) 2.7 (20) 10.9 (7) 143 (7)

3.3. Inuence of climate change on PH, intake per animal, purchased feeds
and ROTA of each development option
Relative to the historical climate, the Low change scenario had little
eect on milking area PH of the Intensify and Adapt options,
particularly in NW Tasmania. In some years, there were moderate
increases in milking area PH in the Simplify option at the dryland sites
for the Low change scenario, suggesting a benecial eect of low-level
climate change for these case study farms under this development
option (Fig. 3a, b). The High change scenario caused the greatest
depression in milking area PH regardless of site or development option,
with the exception of the Simplied system at Gippsland, which showed
a moderate increase in milking area PH (Fig. 3b). The variability in
milking area PH under the High change scenario relative to the
historical climate increased signicantly for all development options
at the Fleurieu Peninsula (Fig. 3a). All climate scenarios had relatively
little inuence on PH at NW Tasmania due to the use of irrigation at this
site. Variability of milking area PH of the Simplied system at NW
Tasmania was higher than that of all other systems (Table 1, Fig. 3c;
also see discussion).
3.3.1. Fleurieu Peninsula
At the Fleurieu Peninsula, average milking area PH of the Intensify
and Adapt options under the High change scenario decreased by 10%
relative to the historical climates, compared with only a 4% reduction
for the Simplify system. The reduction in the High-change grazed
pasture intake of all development options (except the Intensify option)
relative to historical climates was similar, at 913%. This resulted in the

26
M.T. Harrison et al. Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 1932

Table 4 the Fleurieu Peninsula caused by the High change scenario relative to
Long-term average annual economic results for each case study site and percentage historical costs was small, because the cost associated with higher
coecient of variation in parentheses. Gross income, total costs, operating prot and
purchased feeds was largely balanced by lower N fertiliser costs
return on total assets managed are shown for the historical and 2040 climate scenarios for
each baseline and development option. (average 16% reduction in N applied under climate change of the
Intensify and Adapt options; Tables 3 and 4).
Site and Climate Gross Total Annual Return on For all farm systems at the Fleurieu Peninsula, climate change
development income variable operating total assets reduced and increased the mean and variability of operating prot,
option ($000) and prot manageda
overhead ($000) (%)
respectively. This indicates that for all options we modelled, climate
costs change will tend to make dairy production more dicult, less protable
($000) and more risky at this site. However, some systems were impacted less
than others. The relative changes in operating prot and the absolute
Fleurieu Peninsula (SA)
change in ROTA of the Simplied system were 23% and 0.4%
Baseline Historical 1049 (3) 929 (4) 121 (34) 2.3
Low 1036 (3) 928 (4) 108 (45) 2.0 respectively, and for the Adapt option these changes were even larger
Medium 1037 (3) 933 (4) 104 (49) 1.9 ( 31% and 0.7% in operating prot and ROTA under the High
High 1037 (3) 945 (4) 92 (61) 1.7 change scenario relative to the historical climate). Operating prot and
Intensify Historical 1575 (0) 1393 (2) 182 (13) 3.3
ROTA of the Intensify system changed the least under the 2040 High
Low 1575 (0) 1391 (2) 184 (14) 3.3
Medium 1575 (0) 1392 (2) 182 (15) 3.3 change scenario, declining by only 3% and 0.1% respectively.
High 1575 (0) 1397 (2) 177 (15) 3.2
Adapt Historical 1275 (2) 1144 (4) 130 (32) 2.3 3.3.2. Gippsland
Low 1265 (2) 1147 (4) 118 (40) 2.1 For all farming systems at Gippsland, there was little eect of the
Medium 1262 (2) 1152 (4) 110 (43) 2.0
High change scenario on gross income relative to the historical climate,
High 1258 (2) 1167 (4) 91 (59) 1.6
Simplify Historical 783 (4) 681 (3) 101 (30) 1.9 although gross income and PH of the Intensied system were reduced
Low 775(4) 687 (4) 88 (39) 1.7 by 3% and 11%, respectively (Table 4). Gross income varied little under
Medium 776 (5) 681 (3) 95 (35) 1.8 climate change due to minimal change in milk production, which was
High 779 (5) 700 (4) 78 (52) 1.5
maintained due to higher use of supplementary feed. In contrast, PH of
Gippsland (Vic) the Adapt system at Gippsland was little inuenced by climate change,
Baseline Historical 760 (3) 632 (7) 128 (37) 2.9 and the Simplify system aorded a moderate gain in this variable,
Low 763 (4) 642 (4) 121 (36) 2.7
Medium 760 (4) 647 (4) 113 (39) 2.5
particularly under Low impact climate scenarios (Fig. 3, Table 3).
High 755 (4) 661 (4) 94 (45) 2.1 Feeding of hay/silage increased signicantly for all development
Intensify Historical 1449 (2) 1316 (4) 132 (62) 2.6 options under the High change scenario (6%, 17% and 26% increase for
Low 1433 (3) 1311 (3) 121 (59) 2.4 the Intensify, Simplify and Adapt options, respectively, relative to
Medium 1429 (3) 1317 (3) 112 (68) 2.2
historical climates; Table 3), as did purchased fodder in the Adapt
High 1407 (3) 1332 (3) 75 (95) 1.5
Adapt Historical 709 (5) 580 (4) 128 (26) 3.0 system. The purchased feed requirement for the Simplied option was
Low 715 (5) 586 (3) 129 (25) 3.0 reduced due to higher pasture utilisation. The amount of silage cut for
Medium 716 (5) 589 (3) 127 (26) 2.9 the Adapt and Simplify systems under the High change scenario
High 709 (5) 596 (3) 112 (33) 2.6 increased in line with greater feeding of hay/silage (45% increase for
Simplify Historical 490 (5) 383 (3) 108 (24) 2.5
Low 502 (6) 388 (2) 114 (23) 2.7
both systems, as opposed to the Intensied system at this site, which
Medium 500 (6) 389 (2) 110 (25) 2.6 had no cutting). Purchasing more fodder increased total costs by 1% for
High 492 (6) 394 (3) 98 (32) 2.3 the Intensify system and 3% for the Adapt system, though higher costs
North-western Tasmania of feeding associated with climate change in these systems were
Baseline Historical 1259 (2) 991 (1) 269 (10) 4.6 partially mitigated by lower nitrogen fertiliser costs. On the other
Low 1243 (2) 992 (1) 251 (11) 4.2 hand, the costs associated with purchased feed and N fertiliser of the
Medium 1242 (3) 992 (1) 249 (12) 4.2 Simplied system were reduced and increased, respectively, due to
High 1244 (3) 995 (1) 249 (11) 4.2
Intensify Historical 1821 (2) 1527 (0) 294 (9) 4.5
higher dependence of this system on home-grown feed.
Low 1794 (1) 1528 (0) 266 (9) 4.1 Relative to the historical climate, lower gross income and higher
Medium 1795 (2) 1530 (0) 266 (12) 4.1 total costs under the High change scenario resulted in large reductions
High 1792 (2) 1532 (0) 260 (11) 4.0 in operating prot and ROTA for all farm systems at Gippsland. Average
Adapt Historical 1447 (2) 1067 (1) 379 (8) 6.2
operating prots (absolute ROTA) were reduced by 9% (0.2%), 13%
Low 1413 (3) 1072 (1) 342 (10) 5.6
Medium 1411 (2) 1068 (1) 343 (8) 5.6 (0.4%) and 44% (1.1%) for the Simplify, Adapt and Intensify systems,
High 1413 (3) 1072 (1) 342 (10) 5.6 respectively. These results indicate that (if ROTA were used to contrast
Simplify Historical 878 (3) 713 (2) 165 (19) 2.9 the inuence of climate change), Intensied systems at Gippsland may
Low 866 (3) 715 (2) 151 (20) 2.6 fare worse than farming systems that have less investment in infra-
Medium 866 (3) 717 (2) 149 (17) 2.6
High 864 (3) 718 (2) 146 (21) 2.5
structure and lower dependence on purchased feeds.

a
Coecient of variation values for ROTA equal those of operating prot.
respective need to increase feeding of hay/silage and purchased feed by
19% and 24% for the Adapt system, and by 16% and 77% for the
Simplied system. The Intensify option at the Fleurieu Peninsula was
based on a TMR system and hence did not include directly grazed
pasture, however pasture was harvested indirectly through feeding of
hay/silage. The purchased fodder requirement for this option increased
by 24% due to lower pasture growth under climate change (cutting
yields decreased by 10% under the High change scenario). The change
in costs associated with climate change of all development options at
3.3.3. NW Tasmania
Under the High change scenario, the change in gross income of each
development option relative to the historical climate of the Intensify
and Simplify options was similar, with reductions of 1.6% and
1.5%, respectively, whereas the drop in gross income of the Adapt
system was somewhat larger ( 2.3%).
Although grazed pasture per animal was reduced by ~3% for all
systems under the High change scenario (Table 3), the distribution of
milking area PH of all options was only slightly reduced, because
irrigation of pastures largely buered the inuence of low production in
drought years (Fig. 3c). The increase in hay/silage feeding of all
systems under the High change scenario was also small (45% relative

27
M.T. Harrison et al.
Fig. 4. Return on total assets (ROTA) for each development option at (a) the Fleurieu Peninsula (SA), (b) Gippsland (Vic) and (c) North-western Tasmania under historical (
2040 Low ( ), Medium ( ) and High ( ) change scenarios. Boxplots show the median, 25th and 75th percentiles in the box, with the 10th and 90th percentiles in the
whiskers and dots showing outliers.
to the historical climate; Table 3). However, the purchased feed
requirement in the baseline and Simplied systems under the High
change scenario increased somewhat more than other options (12% and
14% respectively, relative to the historical climate), since one-third of
the farm area in these systems was rain-fed, and since these systems had
greater reliance on home-grown feed compared with the other systems.
The corollary of higher purchased feed requirements in the Simplied
system was higher costs and a more signicant eect of climate change
on protability (Table 4). Relative to historical climates, costs of the
Simplied option increased by 0.7%. Across options, climate change
reduced absolute ROTA relative to the historical climates by 0.40.6%.
4. Discussion
In this study we addressed two aims through analyses of three case
28
Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 1932
), and
study farms. The rst aim was to examine the eect of climate change
on seasonal pasture growth rates, PH and prot of baseline farms in
three regions. The second aim was to examine the inuence of climate
change on milking area PH and prot if development options that either
intensied, simplied or adapted were applied to the baseline farms.
4.1. Inuence of climate change on seasonal growth rates, pasture grazed
and prot of the baseline farms
Consistent with work by Cullen et al. (2009) for mainland Australia,
our study predicted increased winter and early spring pasture growth
rates, but this was counteracted by both later autumn breaks and
shorter spring growing seasons, regardless of climate scenario (Fig. 3).
However, Cullen et al. (2008) also predicted that annual pasture
production in Victoria (Ellinbank) and Tasmania (Elliot) in 2030 would
M.T. Harrison et al.
be 410% greater than that produced under their 19712000 baseline,
in contrast to the lower total annual pasture production simulated here
(relative to our historical baseline of 19752013, annual yields in 2040
under the High change scenario at Gippsland and NW Tasmania were
decreased by 10% and 3%, respectively). Phelan et al. (2015) also
forecast a benecial inuence of climate change on pasture production
in Tasmania, intimating that mean annual pasture growth would
increase by 16% in 2050.
The dierence between results of the current study and those above
may be due to several reasons. The most likely explanation is the
dierence in climate data. A key novelty of the present study was that
we used climate projections that incorporated the higher likelihood of
more extreme climatic events (ECEs) expected to occur with climate
change (Seneviratne et al., 2012). In contrast, past studies such as those
above and others (Harrison et al., 2014b; Jones and Thornton, 2003;
Parry et al., 2005) have typically modelled crop and livestock impacts
of gradual or average climate change, as derived from one or more GCM
or emissions scenario (Soussana et al., 2010). Indeed the focus of the
great majority of previous climate change impact studies has been on
changes in mean climate, since these changes are more robust to predict
than changes in climate variability (see review by Thornton et al., 2014,
and references therein). Climate data produced in this way are
generally xed according to the method chosen and are not subject to
modication to account for regional dierences in projected ECEs due
to local geography or climatic variability at a given location (Harrison
et al., 2016). However, by concentrating on changes in climate means,
the full impacts of climate change on biological and human systems are
probably being seriously underestimated (Thornton et al., 2014). The
climate scenarios used in the present study were developed by increas-
ing the frequencies of extreme rainfall events, dry-day durations
(analogous to drought) and heat waves by altering the regularity of
climatic events falling in the tails of the long-term historical distribu-
tion observed at each site (we used the Variable method as described
in Harrison et al., 2016). Accounting for increased frequencies of ECEs
was likely a major reason for the result that climate change had a
detrimental impact on annual pasture growth, as opposed to the
positive impact found in previous studies above. Indeed, a fundamental
conclusion in the paper by Harrison et al. (2016) was that biophysical
modelling that explicitly accounted for the increased climate variability
associated with more frequent ECEs had impacts on livestock systems
over and above those of gradual climate change. The dierences
between the historical and 2040 climates, including information on
extremes, are shown in Supporting information 1.
Our results demonstrate that climate change increased year to year
variability in grazed pasture consumption and farm protability, in line
with recent observations that inclusion of more frequent ECEs in
climate change analyses increases inter-annual standard deviation of
biophysical and economic metrics (Harrison et al., 2016; Nardone et al.,
2010). Lower annual pasture production of baseline farms with climate
change was reected in lower grazed pasture per animal and per area
(Table 3 and Fig. 3), notably for the baseline farm at Gippsland,
although the High change scenario caused large increases in the
variability of pasture utilised at the Fleurieu Peninsula (Fig. 3a). The
impact of climate change on PH of the base farm in Tasmania was lower
than that of other sites since the Tasmanian site was irrigated. Eects of
climate change on PH of the baseline farms were generally translated
into similar trends in ROTA1 (cf. Figs. 3 and 4); for example, the largest
reduction in mean ROTA occurred at Gippsland as climate change
severity increased. For all baseline farms, a consistent inuence of
climate change was lower gross income, higher costs and lower
operating prot. As well, the inter-annual ROTA variation increased
1
Here we used constant milk prices and feed costs for all seasons analysed, similar to
past work designed to isolate the inuence of climate on dairy farming systems and the
implications of dierent adaptations (e.g. see Kalaugher et al. 2013).
29
Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 1932
as the emissions scenario moved from Low to High, indicating that
climate change will not only make overall protability of dairy systems
lower, but also more variable from year to year (Table 4). These results
represent applied examples supporting the observation by Nardone
et al. (2010) that increased future climatic variability will exert a strong
inuence on livestock systems, even though they have developed the
capability to cope and adapt to existing climate uncertainty. However,
for conditions that deviate many degrees from a coping range,
livestock systems will become vulnerable if there is no adaptive
capacity. Increased climate variability that increases the inter-annual
and seasonal variation of forage availability will contribute to reduce
the overall sustainability of each farm system, both from socialeco-
nomic and ecological perspectives (Nardone et al., 2010), particularly
for farms that are totally reliant on rainfall for pasture production (e.g.
Fig. 2a, b).
4.2. How did climate change impact milking area PH and prot for farm
systems that intensied, simplied or adapted existing management
practices?
Our results demonstrate that no development option was univer-
sally better across regions at abating the inuence of climate change
on PH or protability. Nor did any development option result in
universally lower long-term variability in PH or prot, although the
Simplify option had a tendency for lower median impact and variability
on the dryland farms. For instance, although average PH of the Intensify
systems at Gippsland and the Fleurieu Peninsula was reduced by ~10%
under the High change scenario relative to the historical climate, the
impact of climate change on PH of the Intensify systems in Tasmania
was relatively negligible (Fig. 3). In the same vein, PH in the Simplify
system at Gippsland was positively benetted under all climate
scenarios, whereas PH at the other sites in the Simplify system under
the High change scenario dropped by 4% on average, relative to
historical climates. Further, whilst the High change scenario signi-
cantly increased the variability of PH of all systems at the Fleurieu
Peninsula, this scenario had relatively little inuence on the variance in
PH at the other sites. These results are not surprising since pasture
management of each adaptation diered across sites and none of the
adaptations explicitly changed pasture management in isolation.
We found that climate change had a detrimental inuence on
protability under the High impact climate scenario, regardless of
development option (Fig. 4). This indicates that no farming systems
adaptation examined in the present study was capable of fully alleviat-
ing the negative impact of climate change on prot. However, some
systems were less impacted than others, as shown by comparing the
climate-induced reduction in ROTA for each development option
relative to the same reduction under climate change for the baseline
farm at each site. For the Fleurieu Peninsula, climate change reduced
ROTA of the baseline farm by 0.53%. At this site the Intensify option
was the least impacted under the High impact scenario ( 0.08%
change in ROTA), whereas ROTA of the Adapt option decreased by
0.77%, suggesting that the Intensify option at the Fleurieu Peninsula
may be less impacted and more resilient to climate change. For
Gippsland, the Simplify option was least impacted by climate change
(0.22% reduction), and the Intensify option the most (1.13% reduc-
tion). In Tasmania, all development options had similar reductions in
ROTA under climate change ( 0.37% to 0.62%), bracketing the
climate-induced reduction of the baseline farm ( 0.39%).
Together these conclusions indicate that studies designed to in-
vestigate alternative farm systems as adaptations to climate change
should be regionally adapted, ground-truthed with local experts, and
devised using participatory-action research (PAR) with case study
farmers. Although PAR has been used to study climate change adapta-
tion in the cropping, livestock and natural resource management
sectors (Bridle and Price, 2009; Mapfumo et al., 2013), little work
using PAR has been conducted to study the inuence of longer term
M.T. Harrison et al.
adaptations to climate change for the Australian dairy industry.
However, research of dairy farm adaptation to climate change has
been conducted in other countries. Kalaugher et al. (2017) analysed six
pasture-based dairy farms in New Zealand and suggested that without
adaptation, a negative impact of climate change would likely occur in
all regions. However, the level of impact was largely dependent on local
climate variability as well as on the management practices of each farm.
These results agree with results found in the present paper, indicating
that widespread studies applying a generic management scenario and/
or farm details to several regions should be treated with caution.
Similar to the work presented by Kalaugher et al. (2017) and Dynes
et al. (2010), we found that some adaptations had the potential to
reduce climate change impact compared with the baseline. In Ireland,
Fitzgerald et al. (2009) found that (1) grass-based dairy production was
able to adapt to climate change, (2) that there were dierences between
farms on poorly and well-drained soils, and (3) that there would be
more feed in spring and autumn. In East Africa, Claessens et al. (2012)
showed that mean agricultural income of smaller-holder dairy farmers
could be increased by 331% by planting sweet potato or an improved
maize variety, depending on location and species.
Although the negative inuence of climate change on dairy farms
was a common result to all systems we examined, causes of this result
diered across sites and development options. Climate change reduced
the duration of the growing season at all sites and required a greater
proportion of fodder to be ensiled as opposed to directly grazed, which
increased costs associated with fodder conservation. For the dryland
sites, costs were often further increased under future scenarios because
shorter growing seasons signicantly reduced PH, increasing the
requirement to purchase supplementary feed (Tables 3 and 4). For
the irrigated site, water availability during summer increased total
pasture production so climate change had less eect on PH compared
with dryland farms (Figs. 2 and 3), but the eect of climate change on
milk production was still present due to a reduction in pasture intake
and quality. Averaged over each 38-year simulation, pasture intake and
metabolisable energy intake (MEI) under the historical climate and
2040 High scenario were respectively reduced from 9.77 to 9.61 kg
pasture DM/animalday, and from 166.5 to 165.2 MJ/animalday.
Together, lower pasture intake and quality reduced daily lactation
from 1.350 to 1.339 kg milk solids/animalday. When cumulated over
the simulation, these subtle dierences led to larger dierences in
average annual farm milk production between the historical and 2040
High scenario (e.g. for the irrigated baseline farm this was 1.4%);
although these changes were lower than the average annual variability
of 3.0%. For both dryland and irrigated dairy farms, the inuence of
either lower PH or lower pasture quality reduced milk production and
thus gross income. Together with higher costs, lower income reduced
operating prot and ROTA; this result was consistent across climate
scenarios, sites and development options.
In implementing adaptations, the inuence of climate change on
irrigation requirements also should be considered, as more water will
be required per unit area under drier conditions, and peak irrigation
demands will rise due to more severe heat waves (Parry, 2000). In the
Tasmanian case study, we assumed that water supply was non-limited
(and would be non-limiting in 2040), in line with the large catchment
area and storage volume available for irrigation on this farm. Compared
with the historical climates, the high change scenario increased
irrigation requirements by 56% per year. While there is potential for
the farm in NW Tasmania to expand irrigated area as an adaptation to
climate change, this option does not exist for the majority of the
Australian dairy industry. For example, major irrigated dairy regions in
the southern Murray-Darling Basin are very likely to have reduced
volumes of water for irrigation due to projections for higher tempera-
tures, lower rainfall and less run-o in future, and greater allocations of
water to achieve environmental objectives (Leblanc et al., 2012).
Indeed, during the Millennium drought in the Murray-Darling Basin
region from the mid-1990s to 2009 a reduction in dairy water use and
30
Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 1932
the gross value of dairy production was observed (Leblanc et al., 2012).
By the close of the century, increased drought frequency, lower rainfall
and nearly complete absence of runo is likely to have terminated
irrigated agriculture in this region (Garnaut, 2008).
4.3. Impacts of climate change relative to dierences across development
options
Although the development options analysed in the present paper
represented some of the variability possible in dairy farm management
and infrastructure (e.g. we included simultaneous changes to stocking
rates, herd sizes, calving times, total assets managed etc.), there are
several other factors that we did not consider, such as the dynamic
variation in milk price, feed costs or management over time (e.g.
climate resilience; Kalaugher et al., 2013). Thus, we could have
investigated several other development options, but we considered
those simulated here as a foremost priority, since they were selected by
expert regional working groups. Some of the other development options
that may warrant investigation in future work are suggested in the
Future Ready Dairy Systems Climate Toolkit produced by Dairy
Australia (see http://frds.dairyaustralia.com.au/myregions/western-
australia/adapting-western-australian-dairy-farms-to-climate-change/
[Veried 13 February 2017]). In response to higher winter growth
rates, pastures could be sown earlier, annual pasture species with
greater winter productivity could be introduced into existing perennial
pastures, and additional fertiliser could be applied in winter/early
spring so plants could better utilise the spring ush. In response to
earlier termination of spring growth with climate change, farmers could
cut silage earlier, sow (and allow grazing of) summer forage crops, or
introduce more drought tolerant, deep-rooted species suited to hotter,
drier spring and summer conditions (e.g. C4 species such as kikuyu and
maize). As global warming will increase vapour pressure decit and
evapotranspiration rates, farmers with irrigation infrastructure may
have increasing dependence on reliable water supply. Any or all of
improvements in irrigation water-use eciency, on-farm water harvest
methods and the spreading of dairy-shed euent may help overcome
lower water allocations.
4.4. Managing for climate change versus climate variability implications
for the dairy industry
This paper has revealed that the impact of climate variability was
much greater than that of climate change for all development options,
climate change scenarios and sites. This result can be seen in Figs. 3 and
4 where the variability of pasture harvested and ROTA within each
development option is greater than the reduction within development
options across climate scenarios (even before accounting for extreme
years shown by outliers). These trends are similarly reected in pasture
and hay/silage intake per animal, fodder purchased, cut yields and
nitrogen fertiliser, as shown by comparing the CV values within
development options and across climate scenarios versus the CV values
across options at a given site. The variability of any metric simulated
would depend on the number of years used to conduct the modelling,
and since variability generally increases as more years are included in
the analysis, this indicates that including more years (rather than less)
is a necessary protocol to properly account for climate variability at a
given site (Harle et al., 2007).
Altogether the complexity of livestock farming systems dictates that
the implications of climate change on individual dairy farms may be
dicult to predict, given there will be several (possibly interacting)
impacts. Higher temperatures increase heat stress on cows, which is
likely to reduce dry matter intake, gross milk yield and eciency of
milk yield (West, 2003). Higher temperatures may encourage growth of
summer grasses that occur in tropical northern Australia (e.g. kikuyu;
Bell et al., 2013), which would result in lower pasture digestibility and
metabolisable energy. Increased atmospheric CO2 concentration can
M.T. Harrison et al.
increase plant water-use eciency and contribute to additional growth
(Harrison et al., 2014b; Harrison et al., 2010), but if more nitrogen
fertiliser is not applied, leaf nitrogen content is likely to be diluted by
additional non-structural carbohydrate (Harrison et al., 2009), leading
to lower forage quality (Bell et al., 2013; Howden et al., 2008). Lower
rainfall may lead to lower irrigation allocations, since the majority of
irrigation water in Australian dairy is derived from self-extracted
sources and irrigation service providers (DA, 2016b). Indeed, the
combination of post-deregulation restructuring and the impacts of a
1-in-100 year drought has already had signicant impacts on both
milk production and the condence of farmers in past events (Khan
et al., 2010). Since the combined inuence of the above factors on
individual farms will depend on current farming systems as well as
environmental factors, the Australian dairy industry advises that farm-
ers should manage for climate variability (e.g. week-to-week and year-
to-year) rather than for climate change (e.g. long-term change expected
in pasture growth over the next 40 years) (DA, 2016a). Our results
unequivocally reinforce this advice, showing much greater inter-annual
variability compared with median change expected over the next
40 years. Nevertheless, our results also demonstrate that some con-
sideration should be given to climate change when planning longer-
term strategic investment.
Further research should consider the regional-level cost and envir-
onmental inuences if one adaptation becomes the preferred option of
several farms within a given location. A cluster of farms following an
intensication trend (e.g. as for dairy farming in New Zealand; Foote
and Joy, 2014) would cause greater demands for purchased feeds,
livestock water (and if available) irrigation water, which at the regional
level would be expected to elevate the costs of feed and/or water. At the
same time, an oversupply of milk could deate milk price. Regional-
level intensication could also result in environmental impacts such as
erosion and salinization (Kirchmann and Thorvaldsson, 2000), as well
as nitrogen pollution via groundwater leaching and nitrous oxide
emissions resulting from more nitrogenous fertilisers and livestock
excrement. Such cost and environmental inuences of agricultural
adaption at the regional level should be carefully considered when
forming future political and legislative guidelines.
5. Conclusions
We have shown that climate change impacts on pasture growth
rates and dairy farm nancial performance may be highly regionally
specic. An increase in extreme weather events coupled with gradual
climate change will increase water shortages and regional irrigation
demand with high regional variability (Dll and Siebert, 2002). Unlike
past work, the present paper made explicit treatment of increased
frequencies of extreme climatic events in studying climate change
eects on agricultural production systems (e.g. see Harrison et al.,
2016), from climate to milk production to protability. Including
extreme events may be one reason why our study found a reduction
in dairy productivity and protability under high-level climate change,
regardless of location.
We found that climate change to 2040 will reduce pasture harvest
yields and cause greater yield variability in late spring and summer. For
the case study farms analysed, the High climate change scenario will
reduce pasture growing season durations. While winter pasture growth
rates increased relative to the historical climate, total annual pasture
production and consumption were reduced and year-to-year variability
increased. Further, greater expenditure on supplementary feed and
fodder conservation was required to maintain milk production, which
in turn led to reduced protability and increased risk for dairy farms.
Climate-induced reductions in pasture harvested or prot may
potentially be reversed by implementing certain farm adaptations,
assuming such adaptations are practicable. None of the development
options analysed here was universally more eective in reducing
pasture losses to climate change across regions and development
31
Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 1932
options, nor did any option consistently increase or decrease pasture
harvested across sites. However, some options appeared more prefer-
able than others; for example, at dryland sites, median pasture
harvested of simplied farming systems was less impacted by climate
change than that of other options. Similarly on farms with capability for
irrigation, increasing irrigated area and minimal additional investment
in other infrastructure consistently resulted in high pasture harvested
and prot over the long-term, as well as low variability. Future work on
adapting dairy businesses to climate change should aim to optimise
production and prot by examining development options that include
raising water-use eciency, helping maintain growing season length
and/or take advantage of additional growth expected in winter.
Acknowledgements
This project was supported by The University of Melbourne and The
Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture through funding from the Australian
Government Department of Agriculture and Dairy Australia. We thank
the Dairy Businesses for Future Climates (R0021803) team members
(Gillian Hayman, Warren Mason, Margaret Ayre, Nicole Reichelt, Cathy
Phelps, Monique White, Ruth Nettle, Richard Rawnsley, Rachel Brown
and Ruth Beilin) for their work in the project. We acknowledge Natalie
Doran-Browne for support in conducting DairyMod simulations. We
thank the case study farmers and the regional working group members
for their contribution to the project.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.04.003.
References
Allen, V.G., Batello, C., Berretta, E.J., Hodgson, J., Kothmann, M., Li, X., McIvor, J.,
Milne, J., Morris, C., Peeters, A., Sanderson, M., The, F., Grazing Terminology, C.,
2011. An international terminology for grazing lands and grazing animals. Grass
Forage Sci. 66, 228.
Armstrong, D., Ho, C., Doyle, P., Malcolm, B., Gibb, I., Brown, S., 2005. Analysing
drought impacts and recovery options by adapting a dairy farming systems modelling
approach. Aust. Farm Bus. J. 2, 1116.
Bailey, R., Froggatt, A., Wellesley, L., 2014. Livestock Climate change's Forgotten Sector
Global Public Opinion on Meat and Dairy Consumption. Chatham House, The Royal
Institute of International Aairs Available:. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/
les/chathamhouse/eld/eld_document/
20141203LivestockClimateChangeBaileyFroggattWellesley.pdf (Accessed 7
September 2016).
Bell, M.J., Eckard, R.J., Harrison, M.T., Neal, J.S., Cullen, B.R., 2013. Eect of warming
on the productivity of perennial ryegrass and kikuyu pastures in south-eastern
Australia. Crop Pasture Sci. 64, 6170.
Bridle, K.L., Price, R.J., 2009. Undertaking participatory research at a national scale: the
biodiversity in grain graze approach. Anim. Prod. Sci. 49, 916927.
Bryant, J.R., Snow, V., 2008. Modelling pastoral farm agro-ecosystems: a review. N. Z. J.
Agric. Res. 51, 349363.
Chapman, D., Beca, D., Hill, J., Tharmaraj, J., Jacobs, J., Cullen, B., 2014a. Increasing
home-grown forage consumption and prot in non-irrigated dairy systems. 4.
Economic performance. Anim. Prod. Sci. 54, 256262.
Chapman, D.F., Cullen, B.R., Johnson, I.R., Beca, D., 2009. Interannual variation in
pasture growth rate in Australian and New Zealand dairy regions and its
consequences for system management. Anim. Prod. Sci. 49, 10711079.
Chapman, D.F., Hill, J., Tharmaraj, J., Beca, D., Kenny, S.N., Jacobs, J.L., 2014b.
Increasing home-grown forage consumption and prot in non-irrigated dairy systems.
1. Rationale, systems design and management. Anim. Prod. Sci. 54, 221233.
Claessens, L., Antle, J.M., Stoorvogel, J.J., Valdivia, R.O., Thornton, P.K., Herrero, M.,
2012. A method for evaluating climate change adaptation strategies for small-scale
farmers using survey, experimental and modeled data. Agric. Syst. 111, 8595.
CSIRO, 2015. Climate change in Australia. In: Information for Australia's Natural
Resource Management Regions: Technical Report. CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology
Australia.
Cullen, B., Rawnsley, R., Eckard, R., Christie, K., Bell, M., 2014. Use of modelling to
identify perennial ryegrass plant traits for future warmer and drier climates. Crop
Pasture Sci. 65, 758766.
Cullen, B.R., Eckard, R.J., Callow, M.N., Johnson, I.R., Chapman, D.F., Rawnsley, R.P.,
Garcia, S.C., White, T., Snow, V.O., 2008. Simulating pasture growth rates in
Australian and New Zealand grazing systems. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 59, 761768.
Cullen, B.R., Johnson, I.R., Eckard, R.J., Lodge, G.M., Walker, R.G., Rawnsley, R.P.,
M.T. Harrison et al.
McCaskill, M.R., 2009. Climate change eects on pasture systems in south-eastern
Australia. Crop Pasture Sci. 60, 933942.
DA, 2015. Australian Dairy Industry in Focus 2015. Dairy Australia, Melbourne Available
at:. http://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/~/media/Documents/Stats%20and
%20markets/Australian%20Dairy%20Industry%20In%20Focus/Australian%20Dairy
%20Industry%20In%20Focus%202015.pdf (Accessed 25 February 2016).
DA, 2016a. Climate Variability. Dairy Australia Limited Available:. http://www.
dairyaustralia.com.au/Environment-and-resources/Climate/MicroSite1/Home/
Climate-impacts-and-responses/Adapting-to-climate-change/Climate-variability.aspx
(Accessed 17 April 2016).
DA, 2016b. Dairy Australia (2016). The Australian Dairy Industry Available:. http://
www.dairyaustralia.com.au/Industry-information/About-the-industry.aspx
(Accessed 21 May 2016).
Dll, P., Siebert, S., 2002. Global modeling of irrigation water requirements. Water
Resour. Res. 38 (8-1-8-10).
Dynes, R., Payne, T., Brown, H., Bryant, J., Newton, P., Snow, V., Lieering, M., Wilson,
D., Beets, P., 2010. New Zealand's land-based primary industries & climate change:
assessing adaptation through scenario-based modelling. In: Nottage, R.A.C. (Ed.),
Climate Change Adaptation in New Zealand: Future Scenarios and Some Sectoral
Perspectives. NZ Climate Change Centre, Wellington, NZ, pp. 4455.
FAO, 2012. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision, ESA Working
Paper No. 12-03. FAO, Rome.
Fitzgerald, J.B., Brereton, A.J., Holden, N.M., 2009. Assessment of the adaptation
potential of grass-based dairy systems to climate change in Ireland-the maximised
production scenario. Agric. For. Meteorol. 149, 244255.
Foote, K., Joy, M., 2014. The true cost of milk: environmental deterioration vs. prot in
the New Zealand dairy industry. In: Paper Presented at the 2014 NZARES Conference,
Nelson, New Zealnd, August 2829, Available:. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/
bitstream/187496/2/FooteJoy_2014.pdf (Accessed 15 February 2017).
Garnaut, R., 2008. Chapter 6 Climate change impacts on Australia. In: The Garnaut
Climate Change Review. Cambridge University Press (ISBN 978-0-521-74444-7.
Retrieved 13-02-2017. Available). http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp6.htm.
Harle, K.J., Howden, S.M., Hunt, L.P., Dunlop, M., 2007. The potential impact of climate
change on the Australian wool industry by 2030. Agric. Syst. 93, 6189.
Harrison, M.T., Christie, K.M., Rawnsley, R.P., Eckard, R.J., 2014a. Pasture management
and livestock genotype interventions to improve whole farm productivity and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions intensities. Anim. Prod. Sci. 54, 20182088.
Harrison, M.T., Cullen, B.R., Rawnsley, R.P., 2016. Modelling the sensitivity of
agricultural systems to climate change and extreme climatic events. Agric. Syst. 148,
135148.
Harrison, M.T., Edwards, E.J., Farquhar, G.D., Nicotra, A.B., Evans, J.R., 2009. Nitrogen
in cell walls of sclerophyllous leaves accounts for little of the variation in
photosynthetic nitrogen-use eciency. Plant Cell Environ. 32, 259270.
Harrison, M.T., Kelman, W.M., Moore AD Evans, J.R., 2010. Grazing winter wheat
relieves plant water stress and transiently enhances photosynthesis. Funct. Plant Biol.
37, 726736.
Harrison, M.T., Tardieu, F., Dong, Z., Messina, C.D., Hammer, G.L., 2014b. Characterizing
drought stress and trait inuence on maize yield under current and future conditions.
Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 867878.
Ho, C., Newman, M., Dalley, D., Little, S., Wales, W., 2013. Performance, return and risk
of dierent dairy systems in Australian and New Zealand. Anim. Prod. Sci. 53,
894906.
Howden, S.M., Crimp, S.J., Stokes, C.J., 2008. Climate change and Australian livestock
systems: impacts, research and policy issues. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 48, 780788.
IPCC, 2012. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate
change adaptation. In: Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Dokken, D.J., Ebi,
K.L., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Plattner, G.-K., Allen, S.K., Tignor, M., Midgley,
P.M. (Eds.), A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New
York, NY, USA, pp. 582.
Isbell, R.F., 2002. The Australian Soil Classication, Revised, rst ed. CSIRO Publishing,
Melbourne.
Johnson, I.R., 2016. DairyMod and the SGS Pasture Model: A Mathematical Description of
the Biophysical Model Structure. IMJ Consultants, Dorrigo, NSW, Australia.
Johnson, I.R., Chapman, D.F., Snow, V.O., Eckard, R.J., Parsons, A.J., Lambert, M.G.,
Cullen, B.R., 2008. DairyMod and EcoMod: biophysical pasture-simulation models for
Australia and new Zealand. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 48, 621631.
32
Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 1932
Johnson, I.R., France, J., Cullen, B.R., 2016. A model of milk production in lactating dairy
cows in relation to energy and nitrogen dynamics. J. Dairy Sci. 99 (2), 16051618
February.
Jones, P.G., Thornton, P.K., 2003. The potential impacts of climate change on maize
production in Africa and Latin America in 2055. Glob. Environ. Chang. 13, 5159.
Kalaugher, E., Beukes, P., Bornman, J.F., Clark, A., Campbell, D.I., 2017. Modelling farm-
level adaptation of temperate, pasture-based dairy farms to climate change. Agric.
Syst. 153, 5368.
Kalaugher, E., Bornman, J.F., Clark, A., Beukes, P., 2013. An integrated biophysical and
socio-economic framework for analysis of climate change adaptation strategies: the
case of a New Zealand dairy farming system. Environ. Model. Softw. 39, 176187.
Khan, S., Abbas, A., Rana, T., Carroll, J., 2010. Dairy Water use in Australian Dairy Farms:
Past Trends and Future Prospects. CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country National
Research Flagship.
Kirchmann, H., Thorvaldsson, G., 2000. Challenging targets for future agriculture. Eur. J.
Agron. 12, 145161.
Klinedinst, P., Wilhite, D., Hahn, G.L., Hubbard, K., 1993. The potential eects of climate
change on summer season dairy cattle milk production and reproduction. Clim.
Chang. 23, 2136.
Leblanc, M., Tweed, S., Van Dijk, A., Timbal, B., 2012. A review of historic and future
hydrological changes in the Murray-Darling Basin. Glob. Planet. Chang. 8081,
226246.
Malcolm, B., Makeham, J., Wright, V., 2005. The Farming Game Agricultural
Management and Marketing, second ed. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.
Mapfumo, P., Adjei-Nsiah, S., Mtambanengwe, F., Chikowo, R., Giller, K.E., 2013.
Participatory action research (PAR) as an entry point for supporting climate change
adaptation by smallholder farmers in Africa. Environ. Dev. 5, 622.
Moore, A.D., Ghahramani, A., 2013. Climate change and broadacre livestock production
across southern Australia. 1. Impacts of climate change on pasture and livestock
productivity, and on sustainable levels of protability. Glob. Chang. Biol. 19,
14401455.
Nardone, A., Ronchi, B., Lacetera, N., Ranieri, M.S., Bernabucci, U., 2010. Eects of
climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems. Livest.
Sci. 130, 5769.
Nesamvuni, E., Lekalakala, R., Norris, D., Ngambi, J.W., 2012. Eects of climate change
on dairy cattle, South Africa. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 7, 38673872.
Parry, M., Rosenzweig, C., Livermore, M., 2005. Climate change, global food supply and
risk of hunger. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 360, 21252138.
Parry, M.L., 2000. Assessment of potential eects and adaptations for climate change in
Europe. In: The Europe ACACIA Project. Jackson Environment Institute, University of
East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Phelan, D.C., Harrison, M.T., Kemmerer, E.P., Parsons, D., 2015. Management
opportunities for boosting productivity of cool-temperate dairy farms under climate
change. Agric. Syst. 138, 4654.
Seneviratne, S.I., Nicholls, N., Easterling, D., Goodess, C.M., Kanae, S., Kossin, J., Luo, Y.,
Marengo, J., McInnes, K., Rahimi, M., Reichstein, M., Sorteberg, A., Vera, C., Zhang,
X., 2012. Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical
environment. In: Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Dokken, D.J., Ebi, K.L.,
Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Plattner, G.K., Allen, S.K., Tignor, M., Midgley, P.M.
(Eds.), Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate
Change Adaptation: A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 109230. Available. http://ipcc-wg2.
gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-Chap3_FINAL.pdf.
Soussana, J.-F., Graux, A.-I., Tubiello, F.N., 2010. Improving the use of modelling for
projections of climate change impacts on crops and pastures. J. Exp. Bot. 61,
22172228.
Thornton, P.K., Ericksen, P.J., Herrero, M., Challinor, A.J., 2014. Climate variability and
vulnerability to climate change: a review. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 33133328.
Watterson, I., Hirst, A., Rotstayn, L., 2013. A skill score based evaluation of simulated
Australian climate. Aust. Meteorol. Oceanogr. J. 63, 181190.
West, J.W., 2003. Eects of heat-stress on production in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 86,
21312144.
White, C.J., Grose, M.R., Corney, S.P., Bennett, J.C., Holz, G.K., Sanabria, L.A., McInnes,
K.L., Cechet, R.P., Gaynor, S.M., Bindo, N.L., 2010. Climate Futures for Tasmania:
Extreme Events Technical Report. Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative
Research Centre, Hobart, Tasmania.