Greenhouse Fodder Grazing for Dairy Cows

Madeline Hunter
Section:105 Monday/8:30am
AGR 1110
11/27/18

1
Introduction

Adopting a grazing system for dairy cows has many advantages for both the producer and

the cows (Kyle, 2004). The Great Lakes Grazing Dairy Financial Summary report through the

Government of Canada conducted a study to understand the economic viability of using a

grazing system for dairy cattle compared to dairy farms that do not let their cows out on pasture

(Kyle, 2004). In their study they found that although graziers produced less milk, they still were

more profitable since they did not have to spend as much on fed for their cows (Kyle, 2004). Not

only does allowing cows out to pasture for intense grazing increase profitability for the farmer it

also increases the welfare of the cows (Stafford & Gregory, 2011). With the increase in larger

scale farms for animal production many consumers have issues surrounding the welfare of the

animals (Harper & Makatouni, 2002). Not only do cows prefer to be outside than in the barn, the

exercise also helps to reduce leg injuries, swelling and overall lameness (Haskell et al., 2010;

Legrand et al., 2010). This is especially true for cows housed in a tie stall barn shown by the

research conducted by Hernandez-Mendo et al. (2010) where cows with access to pasture tended

to have an increased gate and a reduction in lameness compared to cows with no access to

pasture and were housed in a tie stall barn. Unfortunately, Canadian famers can only make use of

these benefits for part of the year since Canada has long winters and therefore dairy cows cannot

graze all year round outside on pasture (Kyle, 2004).

Solution and Product Description

A greenhouse that allows for cows to graze throughout the winter by providing an area

where forage can be grown by blocking out the winter conditions could be the solution to this

inconvenience. Since it is not reasonable to build a greenhouse large enough to allow for pasture

2
rotation and only having one pasture would cause compaction and therefore a reduction in forage

growth (Donkor et al., 2001) the typical grazing system is not an option. The Greenhouse Fodder

Grazing System is a combination of a greenhouse and shipping containers that produce

hydroponic fodder that allows cows to graze from the fodder that is produced all throughout the

winter months. The walls are built from the shipping containers while the roof and sides without

the shipping containers is made from greenhouse material. The hydroponic fodder is grown for

seven days in individual trays which produces a mat of sprouts (Vertical Crop Consultants,

2017). Each tray is connected to and irrigation system which is linked to a water tank that

contains vital nutrients for the plants. Inside of the shipping container the temperature, humidity,

CO2 levels and lighting are all controlled (Vertical Crop Consultants, 2017). Each mat is moved

out of the shipping container on a conveyor into the open greenhouse space where it is still

connected to the water reservoir and it can continue to photosynthesize and grow. The number of

growing days has an effect on the nutrient content in the fodder (Fazaeli et al., 2012). There is an

increase in nutrients in the fodder when the sprouts have more time to mature (Fazaeli et al.,

2012). During this time cows can freely graze on the fodder in the greenhouse which runs along

the inside walls on the conveyor. To ensure that the fodder mats are not simply picked up by the

cows and eaten as a whole, mesh would be placed over top and the sprouts can grow through the

mesh. Once each mat reaches the end of the conveyer, the leftovers can be fed whole to the

cows, dry cows, heifers or another livestock. The conveyer can be programmed to move at a

certain speed around the greenhouse and this speed depends on the amount the producer has

decided to feed. For example, the conveyer could move at a rate where it takes a week for a mat

to reach the end or a couple days depending on how many cows need to be fed. The open

greenhouse area provides space for the cows to move around, similar to a pasture and favorable

3
conditions for the fodder to continue to grow while on the conveyer. The ground of the

greenhouse would need to be a natural type of turf to provide traction for the cows as opposed to

concrete like in a free-tall barn, otherwise it would take away from the grazing atmosphere.

Figure 1: Example of exterior view. (Flora Focus, n.d.)

Figure 2: Exterior view. Figure 3: Interior view (without roof).

4
Figure 4: Inside hydroponic fodder container (Vertical Crop Consultants, 2017)

Grow for 7 Move to

Prepare trays
days greenhouse

Leftovers given Cows graze

to other from fodder in
livestock greenhouse

Figure 5: Flow chart from container to greenhouse

5
Cost

Overall the Greenhouse Fodder Grazing System would be very costly to implement. The

price for a fully automated hydroponic fodder system can typically range from $8,000 to $13,000

and upwards of $40,000 for higher end ones (Alibaba, n.d.). The number of containers needed

also depends on the number of cows being fed and how much fodder will make up their diet. For

half an acre area the greenhouse itself can range from around $87,000 to $175,000 for a simple

polyethylene film which is one of the cheaper materials to use at $4-$8 per square meter whereas

glass would be $20-$60 per square meter (Alibaba, n.d.). There are many miscellaneous items

and unknown costs that would also need to be included in this that would be specialized to each

farm. Overall the major costs with polyethylene film material would be on the low end of around

$24,000 and high end of $45,000 (Alibaba, n.d.). Ongoing costs according to FodderTech

include; electricity, seed, labour and more is dependent on each farm, however, on average is

around $0.03-$0.05 per pound of feed produced (FodderTech, n.d.). In Tranel’s (2013) research

he found that for one pound of barley fodder produced it cost 0.23 cents in labour, 0.12 cents in

seed and 0.01 cents for miscellaneous costs for a total of around 0.36 cents for a pound of fodder

produced. These estimates are very different and when compared to other companies such as

Vatical Crop Consultants and other research there is a wide range of estimate for ongoing cost to

produce fodder. This is due to various factors such as; varying costs in feed at different times and

in different parts of the world, the amount of time it takes for the trays to be filled or how the

containers are being heated. In comparison, the cost for one pound of hay back in 2010 was

around 6 cents and the price continues to increase each year (McGee, 2011). There are also

multiple unknow costs to consider such as the conveyer, doors/gates, troughs and more which

6
would vary from farm to farm. Overall these are very rough estimates and in reality, the cost of

each part of the system would have a fairly large range since each farm has different needs.

Table 1: Estimated high and low start-up cost and ongoing costs.

Market

This type of product or idea could potentially work for the organic dairy farms or grass-

fed dairy farms. These two specialized industries must meet certain requirements in order to be

certified organic or grass fed (Mongeon & Summerhayes, 2010). To obtain a certification to be a

certified organic dairy farm, one of the requirements states that pasture must make up 30% of the

cows’ diet, they must have access to outside year-round and in the growing months must have

access to pasture to graze (Mongeon & Summerhayes, 2010). Although free housing systems are

preferred, tie stall barns are accepted in an organic dairy farm as long as the cows are let outside

a minimum of twice a week (Mongeon & Summerhayes, 2010). At the moment there are no

7
national regulations for grass-fed milk production, however, the Dairy Farmers of Ontario

released a document as a guideline for minimum standards for grass-fed dairy operations (Dairy

Farmers of Ontario, 2018). The standards include that the cows’ diet must be made up of 75%

forages and the cows must have full access to pasture for at least 6 hours every day in the

growing months (Dairy Farmers of Ontario, 2018). These standards may not be so easy to follow

with such unpredictable weather patterns due to climate change (Wheeler & von Brun, 2013).

With extreme change in climate many crop yields will decrease which will increase prices

(Schlenker & Roberts, 2018; Wheeler & von Brun, 2013). It also has a potential market for

farmers that do not have enough land for pasture rotation but still want to let their animals out to

get exercise with the same benefits as pasture grazing. Lameness in cows can be found in both

free-stall and tie-stall barns and other research has shown that with increased lameness is reduced

milk yields (Cook, 2003). In a study conducted by Cook (2003), it was found that lameness was

more elevated in the winter months than the summer months in free-stall housed cows and less in

tie-stall housed cows. Even though Cook (2013), found that there was reduced lameness in tie-

stall cows in the winter months, the public still tends to have lots of concerns with the housing of

cows in tie-stall barns where they are kept in individual stalls for the majority of their life during

lactation (Zurbrigg et al., 2005) The greenhouse grazing system could provide some reassurance

for the public in that cows housed in tie-stall barns can at least get some form exercise during the

winter.

Overall, at the moment the market for this product is likely very small. As of the years

2016/2017 there were only 232 certified organic dairy farms in Canada of 10951 total dairy

farms in Canada with milk shipments (Canadian Dairy Information Centre, 2018). Of all the

8
dairy farmers in Canada it is unlikely they many would be willing to pay for a product this costly

if they were not going to receive a fair price for their dairy products. In this case, a new

specialized market would need to be created where consumers would have to pay a higher price

for dairy products that are “more animal welfare friendly”. Animal welfare has shifted towards

consumer perception of what animal welfare standards should be instead of welfare standards

being dictated by scientific research (Fraser, 2003). This means that the public is deciding what

they want to see in animal production systems and if they agree to pay for higher priced dairy

products then the Greenhouse Fodder Grazing System may become affordable to farmers all over

Canada.

Exportation

This idea could be used in any other country that has a winter season such as some parts

of the United States and Europe. There is also the potential to export to other countries that have

higher animal welfare standards such as some countries in Europe (World Animal Protection,

n.d). In Norway the construction of new tie-stall barns is banned and in 2023 all tie-stall are to be

abolished (Weary & Keyserlingk, 2017). This could be an issue for many dairy farmers in

Norway that have tie-stall barns and do not have the money to build a new free-stall barn. As an

alternative the Greenhouse Fodder Grazing System could be used since it allows cows out “on

pasture” all year round which could potentially satisfy the public and save Norway dairy farmers

from having to pay as much to renovate their barns. Similar to Canada, a new market towards the

public looking for more welfare friendly options could be created over in Europe as well since

organic dairy product demand has increasing in Europe and is continually gaining the interest of

consumers (Rosati & Aumaitre, 2004).

9
Environmental Sustainability

Soil and land use are of great importance in agriculture today and is essential for

successful sustainability for the future (Montgomery et al., 2007; Foley et al., 2018). The

Greenhouse Fodder Grazing System has environmental sustainability qualities. Due to the

limited amount of space needed and the amount of fodder that can be produced in this small area,

land use for grazing can be minimized (Barbosa et al., 2015). Hydroponic agriculture is also very

efficient in water use compared to conventional agriculture since the water can be reused in the

system and the water is directly delivered to each plant (Barbosa et al., 2015).

General Benefits and Benefits to Canada

The Greenhouse Fodder Grazing System has several benefits in different aspects. Firstly,

allowing cows out into the greenhouse allows them to get exercise and move around all

throughout the year, including in the winter which benefits Canadian farmers. This is important

for animal welfare in the dairy industry since it reduces lameness in the cows (Hernandez-Mendo

et al., 2010). Secondly, fodder has also been shown to have increased levels of protein, fibre and

many vitamins and minerals in comparison to the grains depending on the type of fodder being

grown due to increased enzyme activity in the sprouts (Fazaeli et al., 2012; Naik et al., 2015). As

well as being very nutritious it is also easily digestible and contains many health benefits to

livestock (Naik et al., 2015). Although some research is contradicting, there can be an increase in

milk produced when feeding hydroponic maize fodder to lactating cows most likely due to the

digestibility and therefore, more nutrients can be accessed (Naik et al., 2015). This idea could

also create jobs in Canada since builders, engineers and individuals in the agricultural industry

would need to be hired to design, build and implement this idea. It would also create more on

10
farm jobs since there is a significant amount of on-going labour to produce hydroponic fodder

(Tranel, 2013). This includes preparing the trays with seeds every day (Tranel, 2013) and

moving the mats onto the conveyer to go into the greenhouse. The producer can also control

grazing efficiency my limiting or increasing the amount of fodder available to cows (Kennedy et

al., 2009). One of the largest advantages to feeding fodder to livestock even as a supplement, is

that it ensures that feed will always be available (Nail et al., 2015) If the growing season was not

very good and forage yields were low, hydroponic fodder can make up for the losses

(Despommier, 2010). This is a growing concern due to climate change leading to warmer

weather where some crops will suffer in yields (Despommier, 2010). Stored forages always have

the potential to go moldy due to it being baled with a higher moisture content than preferred

(Gregory et al., 1963) and therefore fodder can be used as a backup in such cases. There are

many benefits to consider for this idea, some of which may not be relevant now but may be

important in the future.

Problems

There are many problems that need to be addresses with this system. The main problem

being cost. For what the system costs it is most likely not realistic to allow cows to graze

throughout the winter in this way. Not only is the Greenhouse Fodder Grazing System not very

cost effective, it is unclear if feeding dairy cows fodder is cheaper than a typically lactating dairy

cow diet since many companies and researchers have claimed different findings. According to

FodderTech, a company that specializes in building greenhouses and shipping containers for

growing livestock fodder claims that hydroponic fodder is cheaper than the increasing costs of

hay and other grains (FodderTech. n.d.). Supposedly, feeding fodder to dairy cows has a host of

11
other benefits such as higher milk volumes, increased fertility rates, increase in herd health and

more (FodderTech, n.d.). Their claims contradict some other research that has been conducted on

the use of fodder for livestock. In a study conducted by Tranel (2013) found that when focusing

on cost per pound of dry matter produced it was cheaper to feed high quality hay than produce

hydroponic barley fodder.

Even if cost wasn’t an issue, fodder production is very sensitive to molding if the right

temperatures are not met (Naik et al., 2015). This is especially concerning since the sprouts

would be moved from the containers into the greenhouse where it most likely won’t be as warm

and not have the exact same conditions. Another concern would be the amount of nutrients in the

fodder itself, most of it is fresh weight while only a small percentage is dry matter and therefore

the cows would need to be fed more especially on a 100% grass-fed diet (Fazaeli et al., 2012). A

cow in milk needs to eat on average 18-25 kilograms of dry matter per day (Alberta milk, n.d.).

When growing fodder, much of the dry matter content from the grain is lost and is turned into

fresh matter (Fazaeli et al., 2012). The dry matter content in barley grain is more than 90% of the

grain while the green fodder only contains 20% dry matter (Fazaeli et al., 2012). This means that

although a lot of fodder can be produced and for a decent price, the cows would need to be

consuming a lot in order to get all of the dry matter required if the fodder was their primary

source of feed. Yield would also be a problem depending on the herd size and therefore the

number of cows that need to be fed as well as the surface area available for the cows to graze

from. Each dairy farm operation is different and therefore every farm would need to produce a

different amount of fodder depending on herd size and if the fodder is being used a supplement

or if they are being feed a 100% fodder diet (FodderTech, n.d.).

12
Table 2: Daily production, dimensions, and number of dairy cows fed per day

Daily Capacity Dimensions in Number of Number of

(lbs) ft. (LxWx8ft. dairy cattle dairy cattle
H) (100% Fodder) (Supplemental
Fodder)
125 8’x12’=96 sq.ft. 1-2 5-6
250 12’x20’=240 3-4 11-12
sq.ft.
500 16’x20’=320 7-9 23-24
sq.ft.
750 20’x20’= 400 11-14 35-36
sq.ft.
1000 20’x24’=480 15-19 46-49
sq.ft.
1500 20’x32’=640 23-28 70-73
sq.ft.
2000 20’x40’=800 30-38 93-98
sq.ft.
(FodderTech, n.d.)

It is unclear how much the fodder would continue to grow inside the greenhouse itself and if

it were grazed from, how much it would continue to grow since there is not much research

relating to fodder being used in this way. Another problem would be how animal waste is

removed from the greenhouse. The ground would ideally be a natural type of turf in order to re-

create grazing as seamlessly as possible, allow them to lay down comfortably and to provide

some traction. With a material like this it would be most likely difficult to remove the waste and

therefore alternatives would have to be researched and tested.

A lot of research concerning each issue would have to take place in order for the system to

work which could be costly. Overall, there are many unknowns that would need to be evaluated

13
 since each farm is different and would have specific needs and requirements that work best

which is why some of these problems would not be very easy to address.

Unknowns to Consider

There are many factors to consider when deciding whether or not the Greenhouse Grazing

System would be successful in Canada. Along with these considerations there are also many

unknown factors that can be difficult to evaluate without a prototype or more research. This

includes what products, equipment and materials would need to be imported and what is already

available in Canada. Where the parts would be sourced from in order to make it as cheap as

possible to manufacture but with high quality materials is an important aspect. An option would

be to partner with existing Canadian hydroponic or greenhouse agriculture companies so that the

system can be improved upon. A list of possible companies with contact info is listed below in

table 3.

Table 3: List of Canadian hydroponic and/or greenhouse agriculture companies

Company Contact info Website

ZOLU Email: https://zoluhydroponics.com/

Hydroponics info@zoluhydroponics.com
Phone: 506-252-8102
Hydronov Visit website to email https://hydronov.com/projects/
LLC inquiries:
https://hydronov.com/contact-
us/

Benfried Email: horti@telus.net http://www.benfried.com/en/locations/benfried-

International Phone: 604-5040855 international-b-v-/
b.v

14
 Conclusion

Overall, there are many aspects to consider for the Greenhouse Fodder Grazing System.

When weighing out the cost along with many other issues versus the benefits it is evident that

there are more disadvantages than there are advantages to this system. This idea is probably not

cost effective nor labor effective for what the producer would receive in return. However, in

saying this there is a potential for a new market. More and more people are looking for

alternative foods that are produced with increased animal welfare practices (Harper &

Makatouni, 2002). If the public is willing to pay more for dairy products where the cows are feed

and housed in this way, then maybe this system could have some potential in the future.

15
 References

Alberta Milk. (n.d.). How much and how many times does a lactating cow eat each day?
Retrieved from https://albertamilk.com/ask-dairy-farmer/how-much-and-how-many-
times-does-a-lactating-cow-e/

Alibaba. (n.d.). Find quality Manufacturers, Suppliers, Exporters, Importers, Buyers,

Wholesalers, Products and Trade Leads from our award-winning International Trade Site.
Import & Export on alibaba.com. Retrieved from http://www.alibaba.com/

Barbosa, G., Gadelha, F., Kublik, N., Proctor, A., Reichelm, L., Weissinger, E., Wohlleb, G.,
Halden, R. (2015). Comparison of Land, Water, and Energy Requirements of Lettuce
Grown Using Hydroponic vs. Conventional Agricultural Methods. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health,12, 6879-6891.
doi:10.3390/ijerph120606879

Cook, N.B. (2003). Prevalence of lameness among dairy cattle in Wisconsin as a function of
housing type and stall surface. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association,
223, 1324-1328.

Dairy Farmers of Ontario. (2018). Interim grass fed milk standard protocol. Retrieved from
https://www.milk.org/Corporate/PDF/GrassFedProtocol.pdf

Despommier, D. (2010). The vertical farm: Controlled environment agriculture carried out in tall
buildings would create greater food safety and security for large urban
populations. Journal Für Verbraucherschutz Und Lebensmittelsicherheit,6, 233-236.
doi:10.1007/s00003-010-0654-3

Donkor, N. T., Gedir, J. V., Hudson, R. J., Bork, E. W., Chanasyk, D. S., Naeth, M. A. (2002).
Impacts of grazing systems on soil compaction and pasture production in
Alberta. Canadian Journal of Soil Science,82, 1-8. doi:10.4141/s01-008

Fazaeli, H., Golmohammadi, H.A., Tabatabayee S.N., Asghari-Tabrizi, M. (2012). Productivity

and Nutritive Value of Barley Green Fodder Yield in Hydroponic System. World Applied
Sciences Journal, 16, 531-539.

(Figure 1)
Flora Focus. (2012). Ben Greene's Aquaponic-Farm in Shipping Containers. Retrieved from
https://florafocus.wordpress.com/2012/12/25/ben-greenes-aquaponic-farm-in-shipping-
containers/

FodderTech. (n.d.). Hydroponic Fodder Systems. Retrieved from http://foddertech.com/

16
Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan,G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Coe,
M.T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H.K., Helkowski, J.H, Holloway, T., Howard, E.A., Kucharik,
C.J., Monfred, C., Patz, J.A., Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N., Snyder, P.K. (2005). Global
Consequences of Land Use. Science, 309, 570-574. Doi: 10.1126/science.1111772

Fraser, D. (2003). Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science
and values. Animal Welfare, 12, 433-443.

Government of Canada; Canadian Dairy Information Centre. (2018). Number of Farms, Dairy
Cows and Heifers. Retrieved from
http://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/index_e.php?s1=dff-fcil&s2=farm-ferme&s3=nb

Government of Canada; Canadian Dairy Information Centre. (2018). The Farm: Production of
certified organic milk and number of producers in Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/index_e.php?s1=dff-fcil&s2=farm-ferme&s3=org-bio

Gregory, P. H., Lacey, M. E., Festenstein, G. N., Skinner, F. A. (1963). Microbial and
Biochemical Changes during the Moulding of Hay. Microbiology, 33, 147-174.
Doi:10.1099/00221287-33-1-147

Harper, G.C., Makatouni, A. (2002). Consumer perception of organic food production and farm
animal welfare. British Food Journal, 104, 287-299.

Haskell, M.J., Rennie, L.J., Bowell, V.A., Bell, M.J., Lawrence, A.B. (2006). Housing System,
Milk Production and Zero-Grazing Effects on Lameness and Leg Injury in Dairy Cows.
Journal of Dairy Science, 89, 4259-4266.

Hernandez-Mendo, O., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Veira, D.M., Weary, D.M. (2007). Effects of
Pasture on Lameness in Dairy Cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 90, 1209-1214.

Kennedy, E., McEvoy, M., Murphy, J.P., O’Donovan, M. (2009). Effects of restricted access
time to pasture on dairy cow milk production, grazing behavior and try matter intake.
Journal of Dairy Science, 92, 168-176.

Legrand, A.L., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M. (2009). Preference and usage of pasture
versus free-stall housing by lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 92, 3651-
3658.

McGee, B. (2011). Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: Hay prices Ontario,
1981-2010. Retrieved from
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/crops/price_hay.htm

Mongeon, M., Summerhayes, B. (2010). Organic Dairy Production. Retrieved from

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/dairy/facts/10-087.htm

17
Montgomery , D.R.(2007). Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 13268-13272.

Naik, P.K., Swain, B.K., Singh, N.P. (2015). Production and Utilisation of Hydroponics Fodder.
Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 32, 1-9.

Rosati, A., Aumaitre, A. (2004). Organic dairy farming in Europe. Livestock Production
Science,90, 41-51.

Schlenker, W., Roberts, M.J. (2009) Non-linear temperature effects indicate severe damages to
U.S crop yields under climate control. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America, 106, 15594-15598.

Stafford, K.J., Gregory, N.G. (2008). Implications of intensification of pastoral animal

production on animal welfare. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 56, 274-280,
doi:10.1080/00480169.2008.36847

Tranel, L.F. (2013). Hydroponic Fodder System for Dairy Cattle?. Animal Industry Report, 659,
1-3. doi: https://doi.ord/10.31274/ans_air-180814-606

(Figure 4)
Vertical Crop Consultants. (2017). Microgreens and Hydroponic Horse Feed Cropbox. Retrieved
From http://cropbox.co/index.php/cropbox/vertical

Weary, D.M., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. (2017). Public concerns about dairy-cow welfare: how
should the industry respond? Animal Production Science, 57, 1201-1209.

Wheeler, T., von Braun, J. (2013). Climate change impacts on global food security. Science, 341,
508-513.

World Animal Protection. (n.d.). Review animal welfare standards around the world. Retrieved
from https://www.worldanimalprotection.org/our-work/help-protect-animals-
globally/review-animal-welfare-standards-around-world

Zurbigg, K., Kelton, D., Anderson, N., Millman, S. (2005). Stall dimensions and the prevalence
of lameness, injury and cleanliness on 317 tie-stall dairy farms in Ontario. The Canadian
Veterinary Journal, 46, 902-909.

18