September 2000
Dairy Bulletin September 2000
- Benchmark farms maintain profitability
- First cut silage analysis in South Antrim
- Hillsborough silage analysis for 2000
- Making the most of slurry
- Low butterfat – the breeding effect
- Key points from heifer 2000 open day
A number of farms have now completed a second year of benchmarking. Farmers continue to be very interested in their costs and profitability and how they compare to other similar farms. This allows areas for improvement on their own farm to be highlighted. The program is now on the internet and can be accessed at http://eservices.ruralni.gov.uk/onlineservices/secure/benchmarking.asp
Results for 35 farms who have completed two years of benchmarking show what the better dairy farmers can achieve, even when prices are declining. Table 1 shows the results.
Table 1
| 1998/99 | 1999/00 | |
|---|---|---|
| No. of cows per farm | 98.7 | 104.6 |
| Milk yield per cow (kg) | 6,282 | 6,520 |
| Milk output (ppl) | 19.6 | 18.4 |
| Meal fed per cow (kg) | 1,184 | 1,292 |
| Total costs (ppl) | 10.5 | 10.1 |
| Net profit (ppl) | 8.7 | 8.0 |
Profit per litre has fallen marginally but the number of litres produced has increased substantially. Total production on the 35 farms has gone up by 2.2 million litres or 10 percent. If this trend continued, production per farm would double in eight years. Total variable and fixed costs for the farms have remained largely unchanged. Profit for the dairy enterprise (with overheads allocated on a per hectare basis) has stayed the same at £54,000. This excludes any allowance for the farmer’s labour. Farms have had to expand to maintain profitability. If these farms had not moved on, the reduction in milk price and stock value would have led to a decrease in profit for the dairy cow enterprise of £7,200.
It must be remembered that profit and cashflow are not the same. These farms may have expanded by borrowing additional money for cubicles or quota. The capital repayments on any loans are not included in the above figures. Thus, although profit has stayed the same, cashflow may have declined. The viability of expansion could vary greatly from farm to farm depending on the current resources of the business.
Contact your local Greenmount Dairying Development Adviser if you would like to benchmark your dairy business.
An extreme variation in first cut silage is evident from the samples taken in the South Antrim area to date. Approximately 40 first cut silages have been sampled. Due to the weather conditions in late May and subsequent contractor backlog, cutting dates ranged from 12 May until 12 June.
In general, the silages harvested in late May have lower dry matters, lower ‘D’ values, slightly lower energy and very poor crude protein levels, compared to 1999. This is all leading to first cut silages with lower intake potential and lower feed value with higher supplementation levels required this winter. On a more positive note, silages appear well fermented with low ammonia levels and stable pH, therefore acidic silages should not be the problem first envisaged.
Range in results in South Antrim
Results vary depending on cutting date, sward quality and dry matter. The extremes and average results are shown below.
| Silage (A) | Silage (B) | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cutting Date | 12 May | 6 June | 26 May |
| Intake value | 99 | 63 | 72 |
| Dry Matter % | 36 | 19.4 | 22 |
| ‘D’ Value | 73 | 65 | 68 |
| ME (MJ/kg DM) | 11.8 | 10.4 | 10.8 |
| Crude Protein % | 15.4 | 9.7 | 11.6 |
| Ammonia N % | 10 | 12.4 | 10.3 |
| pH | 4.5 | 4 | 4 |
| M+ litres | 19 | 4 | 8 |
The Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland (ARINI) dairy feeding results for silage (A) & silage (B), based on a 100 cow, 7500 litre herd, fed for six months, demonstrate the extra costs associated with supplementing silage this winter.
| Concentrate feed levels (kg) | Yield/day (litres) | |
|---|---|---|
| Silage (A) | Silage (B) | |
| 0 | 19 | 4 |
| 4 | 27 | 13 |
| 8 | 32 | 22 |
| 12 | 36 | 30 |
The difference is approximately 4 kg meal/head/day, or in financial terms £9,360 (at £130/tonne for a 20 percent winter ration).
Why analyse your silage?
Analysing silage is an indicator of feed value, fermentation and intake potential. Before winter feeding commences, find out what is in the pit and then select the correct ration and the appropriate feed levels.
For more information on silage sampling and feeding levels required for this winter contact your local Greenmount Dairying Development Adviser.
Silage analysis – vital to planning winter feeding
Planning of winter feeding strategies must begin by knowing the quality of silage available on the farm. The ARINI Feeding Information System provides the most up-to-date evaluation of grass silage, wholecrop silage and maize silages in the United Kingdom. The system is automated, samples are logged into computer software and silages are scanned on a near infrared reflectance spectrometer (NIRS) instrument. From this, the key attributes of the silage are predicted. For grass silages this information is then appraised through a computer model to provide feeding strategies for dairy cows, growing cattle, suckler cows, breeding ewes and growing lambs.
The service is available direct from ARINI and cost per individual sample per report is £11+VAT. For further information on the system contact Dr Rosemary Agnew or Dr Tim Keady at ARINI. Telephone 028 9268 2484.
Slurry is a readily available fertiliser, containing valuable nutrients for grass growth and when used properly can increase crop yields. Efficient use of slurry will also reduce the need for purchased inorganic fertilisers, saving the farmer money.
With the completion of silage cutting and onset of autumn it is important to ensure that all slurry tanks are now emptied in advance of housing.
Slurry should only be applied when ground conditions are suitable and at times of the year when the growing crop can use the nutrients. Nutrients in slurry applied after the end of September/early October are likely to be of little benefit to grass swards and may be leached from the soil during times of high rainfall.
Soil test on a regular basis
Regular applications of slurry and inorganic fertiliser to the same fields can lead to a large build up of soil phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) with leaching of nutrients to watercourses. Continued application of inorganic fertiliser in these circumstances is also a waste of money.
It makes good sense to assess levels of phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) by soil testing each field every four to five years.
Nutrient management plan
Having established soil fertility, a nutrient management plan can be developed to match the needs of the growing grass with the nutrients applied from slurry and inorganic fertiliser. Potentially large savings can be made whilst maintaining grass yields and reducing environmental damage.
Although slurry is a valuable fertiliser, if applied under wet conditions, leading to run off, it is a powerful pollutant. It has a capacity to pollute 80 times more than untreated sewage.
To prevent pollution from slurry spreading follow the Code of Good Agricultural Practice.
- Never spread slurry on waterlogged, severely compacted or steeply sloping land
- Never spread slurry on land liable to flooding or when heavy rain is forecast
- Never spread slurry within 10 metres of a watercourse or open drain, or within 50 metres of any well or borehole
- Never apply more than 50,000 litres per hectare (4,500 gallons/acre)
Keep clean rainwater out of slurry tanks
It is useful at this time of the year to check guttering on all farm buildings. Clean rainwater from buildings should not be allowed to mix with dirty water from yards or enter storage tanks, thereby reducing storage capacity. Dirty yard water should be collected and not permitted to enter watercourses.
Divert clean rainwater via sealed yard gullies to a sealed storm drainage system. This system should have a manhole at the point where it leaves the farmyard to allow for monitoring of the water quality and also a facility to close off the outlet if the water becomes contaminated.
Many milk producers have in recent months suffered penalties on their milk cheques due to low butterfat. While many of the short term influences on milk fat production are nutritional, the problem has been compounded by a policy, often unwittingly, of breeding down butterfats.
When a butterfat quota was introduced in 1984 it brought with it much debate on how to deal with butterfat production. On the one hand, excessive butterfat production could lead to over quota penalties, while on the other, lower butterfat levels reduced the milk price.
In practice it became a matter of striking a balance, with the main influence on which way to go being the price of milk quota. As a rule of thumb, the advice generally given was that if quota could be leased for 10 pence per litre or less then exceeding the butterfat quota should not be a problem in economic terms.
Main emphasis on milk protein improvement
Meantime increasing milk yields through genetic improvement has been ongoing with good success on progressive dairy farms. On compositional quality the main emphasis has been on milk protein improvement, while butterfat has either been largely ignored or actively lowered by sire selection.
A glance through the breeding brochures will demonstrate that butterfat percent is generally negatively correlated with milk yield. In other words, the high milk bulls have, in the main, large negative deviations for fat percent with some as low as – 0.30 percent. Consequently, many of the daughters of high milk bulls will inevitably have low butterfat percentages in their milk.
A look at milk records often confirms that this is the case and is certainly an important contributing factor to current low butterfat problems.
What can be done?
Breeding to influence milk quality is a long term business so there are no quick solutions.
There are two broad options:
- Accept that as cow milk yields increase, butterfat percent is likely to be reduced and with it the end price.- more litres of milk at a lower price/litre.
- Pursue a policy of maintaining butterfat levels by selectively breeding higher butterfat cows to bulls with more modest milk yield improvements, but with less severe negative deviations for milk fat. Try to keep above the breed average of –0.05 percent butterfat.
An open day to highlight the Dairy Heifer 2000 project was held recently at Greenmount Campus. The Dairy Heifer 2000 project at Greenmount Campus is managed in partnership with J. Bibby Agriculture. The event highlighted the fact that rearing dairy heifer replacements should be considered as an investment in the future of the dairy enterprise. Figures were presented indicating that the cost of rearing a heifer replacement to calve at two years of age approached £800 and that age at first calving has a major influence on profitability. For example, if the age at calving were reduced so that heifers calved at two rather than three years of age, savings through reduced forage costs and land rental costs of up to £5000 per year for a 100 cow dairy herd are possible. Moving from three to two year calving and using the land and buildings released to carry additional cows has the potential to allow the same dairy farmer to increase profits by up to £10000 after additional feed costs and quota leasing charges*.
Other points were highlighted which should be considered when setting up a cost effective dairy heifer rearing programme:
- Calve heifer replacements at two years of age, a pre calving weight of 600kg and condition score 3.0
- Implement a calf rearing programme which will maximise growth rates during the rearing stage
- Monitor liveweight, wither height and condition score at key times during the rearing period
- Ensure that animals achieve target weights at the appropriate age
- Maintain animal performance at grass by adopting good grazing management
- Implement a breeding programme which will maximise levels of fertility within the herd
- Prepare the heifer for entry into the milking herd and regime towards the end of the rearing period
Visitors to the open day received a booklet highlighting the key management skills involved in rearing dairy heifers. Copies of the booklet can be obtained through your local Greenmount Dairying Development Adviser.
*Assumes that the farmer rears 30 heifers, operates a stocking rate of 2.25 CE per hectare, a land charge of £250 per hectare and uses standards from benchmarking data.
Contributions from:
Agri-Food Development Service
Greenmount Campus:
- Alan Hopps
- Neville Graham
- Godfrey McRoberts
- Joe Kennedy
- Dr Adian Cushnahan
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland
- Dr Rosemary Agnew
Compiled and edited by :
- Sam Thompson
- Informaton and Promotions
© Copyright 2000 IPD for AFDS (00131)
Greenmount Campus is an integral part of DARD’s Agri-Food Development Service
