Spring 2002
Dairy Bulletin – Spring 2002
- Planning for early turnout.
- Grass Challenge – an opportunity to maximise profit.
- Leatherjacket damage.
- Greenmount and Enniskillen herds update.
- Use of Pedometers at Greenmount
- Farmhouse dairy products
- Alternative forage costs for the Northern Ireland dairy farmer
- Contract growing forage maize.
- Milk compositional quality
- New £PIN value upgrades butterfat
Well managed grazed grass is the cheapest feed for dairy cows and is capable of supporting a high level of milk production. With the reality of lower milk prices there is a necessity for dairy farmers to maximise the contribution of grazed grass in their systems of milk production.
Early turn-out is a critical factor in the achievement of good grazing management over the whole season.
Benefits of Early Turn-Out
The immediate benefits from early turn-out and part-time grazing (3 hours/day) by dairy cows include:-
- increased milk yield (up to 2 litres/cow/day)
- improved milk compositional quality (up to 0.45 percent for combined fat and protein)
- reduced silage requirement
- less slurry disposal
It is estimated that the financial value of these benefits can amount to £1/cow for each day cows have access to grass (3 hours/day) compared to being fully housed.
In addition, there is a very significant long-term benefit from early turn-out due to the
improved quality of grazing swards in the following months. A late turn-out allows grass to become too mature and stemmy before the end of the first grazing cycle resulting in poorer grass utilisation and lower milk production. The quality of the grazing also suffers for the remainder of the season and cow performance is reduced.
Grazing Guidelines
The length of time cows are out grazing will depend on grass availability and weather/ground conditions. If conditions are unfavourable then cows should be housed once they have stopped grazing - usually 2-3 hours provided they are turned out with "an edge to their appetite". As grass supply increases the grazing period can be lengthened.
In addition to existing farm roads, "grass tracks" usually along the side of a field can be used very effectively to improve access to grass suitable for grazing. They avoid walking cows over previously grazed areas which are liable to poaching. The use of a back fence is also critical to prevent cows back-grazing.
Remember
Early turn-out is important as grazing even on a part-time basis (3hours/day) will increase milk yield and improve compositional quality. In addition there is a long term benefit in achieving better grazing management in the remainder of the season.
Dairy farmers must aim to grow their farm business through maximising net profit. This in the majority of dairy systems, means having the skills and knowledge to make good use of grass. Grass Challenge for dairy farmers, which has been running for over 2 years, will help you to acquire these skills and the knowledge. Already there are numerous examples, where those participating, are consistently producing a gross margin per cow and per litre above their yield group averages (Greenmount Benchmarking)
Farm based groups.
The majority of the Grass Challenge programme will continue to be delivered via small, locally based, groups (10-12 people) meeting regularly on farms. This, very importantly, allows participants to learn from each other through discussion of common problems and solutions. Anyone interested should contact their local Dairying Development Adviser who is now in the process of starting new groups for the 2002 season.
Topics included
The four topic areas are grazing management, sward quality, silage production and nutrient management. Having completed the grazing management unit there are many examples where dairy farmers, following a reorganisation of their grazing system, and are consistently producing 25/26 litres from May/June grass. There are similar examples of improved silage quality, with an improvement in sward quality, making a major contribution to this.
This spring there have been reports of leatherjacket damage to grazing swards. The leatherjacket is the larvae of the crane fly better known as the daddy-long legs.
Leatherjackets normally feed just below the surface of the soil destroying the roots and the underground stem of grass. When leatherjacket populations are high, bare patches will appear in the sward where the grass has been killed out. They are completely legless grubs; fat and soft with a tough, brown or dark grey wrinkled skin.
They will be just below the surface at the edge of the bare patch in the sward.
Where sward damage has been considerable a control spray with chlorpyrifos
(Dursban 4) at an approximate cost of £20 per hectare will be required. In some cases it may be necessary to "stitch in" grass seed to repair sward damage. Use similar grass varieties to the existing sward.
Premium Milk Herd
The Premium Milk herd continues to operate at a high level of performance. Average herd size now stands at 70 cows, with 29 cows and 17 heifers having calved between 1st September 2001 and 31st January 2002. Silage intakes are recorded on a monthly basis, with cows eating on average 12.9 KGs silage dry matter/ cow/ day in January. Overall rolling average milk yield stands at 7532 litres/ cow/ year feeding 1.7 t concentrate/ cow/ year. Rolling average butterfat and protein percent for the herd is 3.98 and 4.00 percent respectively. Cows are also assessed for body condition score each month. The average condition score of cows in milk in January was 2.9, while the average condition score of dry cows in the herd was 3.27.
High Forage Herd
The High Forage herd continues to maximise levels of milk production from forage. Average herd size now stands at 83 cows, with 30 cows and 18 heifers calving between 1st September 2001 and 31st January 2002. The cows on average consumed 11.4 KGs silage dry matter/ cow/ day in January. Rolling average milk production stand at 7720 litres/ cow/ year feeding 1.35 t concentrate/ cow/ year. Milk production from forage is currently 4720 litres/ cow/ year. Rolling average butterfat and protein percent for the herd is 3.77 and 3.20 percent respectively. The average condition score of cows in milk in January was 2.88, while the average condition score of dry cows in the herd was 3.28.
CREAM
Students continue to learn the skills associated with managing a dairy herd in the CREAM project. There are 31 cows in the herd, with 11 cows and 4 heifers calving between 1st September 2001 and 31st January 2002. The cows are fed using a wagon mix, consisting of a concentrate blend and a number of forages, which is designed to support M+32 litres/cow/day. Cows yielding in excess of this are fed concentrates in the parlour. Rolling average levels of milk production in January were 9617 litres/cow/year, feeding 2.9 tonnes concentrate/ cow/ year. The average 305 day milk production for the herd (based on milk recordings) in January was 11,366 KG/ cow. Rolling average butterfat and protein percent for the herd is 3.57 and 3.06 percent respectively. The average condition score of milking cows within the herd in January was 2.71, while the corresponding figure for dry cows was 2.85.
SPRING HERD PROJECT AT ENNISKILLEN CAMPUS
Aims of Herd:
- 70 Black and white cows averaging 6000 litres per year
- Cow breed/type to suit compact spring calving
- Production cost of 8 pence per litre
- Concentrate usage of 750 – 1000 KG (0.13 KG/l)
- Higher milk compositional quality
- Improved cow longevity
- Ease of management
- Profit maximisation not sole rationale.
Current Position:
Rolling average yield of 5870 litres on 770 KG concentrate. Approximately half of the herd calved at end of February, including 13 New Zealand cross Holstein heifers. First impressions of these are favourable : largely quiet animals calving with a minimum of fuss and settling to milk well. The herd are on excellent quality first-cut silage (11.4 ME, 71 D value), and up to 7 KG concentrates, 5-6 for heifers.
Good autumn/early winter conditions allowed significant improvements in condition score which reached an average of 2.7 last month.
The heifers due to be served during the coming spring are being fed good silage and 2 KG of concentrates to maintain a steady growth rate. In mid-February they averaged just over 300 KG liveweight (Holstein X Friesian bull).
A pedometer is a cow identification device incorporating an activity meter. It is usually attached to the cows leg or neck. The increased activity of a cow on heat is detected through an increased rate of generation of electrical impulses, which are counted and stored in the pedometers circuitry. The pedometer transmits both the activity information stored and the cow’s identification each time the cow enters the milking parlour or passes a reading device. The parlour computer then calculates an average activity level for the previous 10 days. High positive activity deviations from the average value which exceed specified threshold values, indicate that the cow is on heat.
Experimental trials with pedometers in the 1970’s before computerisation was introduced showed that pedometers could detect up to 90 percent of heats. Results from the DAISY dairy herd fertility recording system shows that the average heat detection rate is only 56 percent. Increasing the heat detection rate from 56 percent to 90 percent has the potential to reduce calving intervals by approximately 20 days.
Fertility Performance at Greenmount Campus
In terms of fertility performance calving index has been improved to a very respectable figure of below 380 days. However, as the data in Table 1 indicates, this is not without effort as submission rates have been falling with cows becoming more difficult to spot on heat. This is also borne out by the increasing days to 1st service. Non-return conception rates have been maintained over the past year and the average herd calving date has remained stable.
To improve heat detection, pedometers will be installed on the herd by April 2002 to reduce the labour input involved in heat detection and improve labour use efficiency at the same time.
Table 1 High Forage Herd Fertility Performance
| Index | 1998-99 | 1999-00 | 2000-01 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Days to 1st AI | 71 | 77 | 82 |
| Submission rate (%) | 72 | 59 | 50 |
| Heat detection rate (%) | 82 | 86 | 86 |
| Conception rate (%) | 60 | 60 | 64 |
| Calving index (days) | 419 | 377 | 379 |
| Average calving date | 5-Jan | 29-Dec | 31-Dec |
Pedometers are best suited to large autumn calving herds, spreading the cost of the system and for the herd to be housed throughout most or all of the breeding period. The potential benefits of pedometers include:
- Better heat detection
- Reduced calving intervals
- Less time spent observing heat
The Northern Ireland dairy sector relies heavily on commodity markets for milk powders and butter. Recent intense competition on world markets has seen a decline in returns to our dairy producers.
With farm businesses looking for ways to maintain their incomes an opportunity exists for a number of producers to add value to their milk. A programme of workshops has been planned for the Spring of 2002 to provide individuals with the knowledge and skills necessary to produce a range of farmhouse dairy products.
The workshops will be held in the Food Technology Centre at Loughry Campus, Cookstown. They will cover all aspects of farmhouse cheese, ice-cream and yoghurt manufacture, from hands-on practical experience of product manufacture to distribution and marketing. Advice on premises, equipment, legislation, hygiene and business planning will also be provided.
A similar programme was held at Loughry Campus in the Autumn of 1999, when a series of workshops were held on farmhouse cheese. Causeway Cheese Company, owned by Damian and Susan McCloskey, was formed following these workshops. Drumkeel cheese is produced in Loughgiel and is Northern Ireland’s first hand crafted farmhouse cheese. It is moulded into a hexagonal shape, representing the Giant’s Causeway. Damien and Susan continue to work with food technologists from the Agri-Food Development Service, receiving technical advice and guidance.
For further information about the series of workshops contact Joy Alexander on 028 8676 8132 or e-mail joy.alexander@dardni.gov.uk
A joint project between staff from ARI Hillsborough and Greenmount Campus has sought to provide farmers with detailed information on anticipated yields and associated costs of alternative forages and their possible role on today's modern dairy farm.
The decision whether to grow an alternative forage must be carefully considered with the crop best suited to the farm situation chosen. The subsequent husbandry and feeding management will have to be of a high standard to ensure that the crop’s full potential is realised.
When deciding whether to grow an alternative forage consider the following;
- Could better use be made of existing grass through better grazing management or by improving silage quality?
- Will the crop grow well on this farm?
- What are the practicalities of feeding the forage?
- Is the arable expertise needed to grow the crop available?
- Will there be an increase in financial return?
Crop Yield and Utilisation
Crop yield is the key factor affecting the cost of any system of forage production. It is important that growers are aware that alternative forage yields may vary considerably from year to year and from farm to farm.
Table 1 shows yields (expressed as dry matter per hectare) and the utilisation rate of 4 forages. Utilisation rate accounts for the wastage incurred in the ensilage process and during feeding.
Table 1 Utilised yields for alternative forages per annum
| Dry matter yield t/ha | % loss | Utilised dry matter yield t/ha | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grazed grass | 10.6 | 25 | 8 |
| 3 cut silage | 13.8 | 17 | 11.5 |
| Whole crop wheat silage | 13 | 15 | 11.1 |
| Maize silage | 14.7 | 14 | 12.6 |
Cost of production
Table 2 summarises the production costs in dry matter terms for the 4 forages examined. Cost is expressed as "cash cost" and as "full economic cost". The "cash cost" applies to those farmers who do not include a cost for their land, grazing infrastructure, silos or feeding areas as they are already in place. The full economic cost for grazed grass includes the cost of a grazing infra structure of roadways electric fencing and water system depreciated over 15 years. For conserved forages the full economic cost includes a cost for feeding the forage and the cost of building a silo and feed area depreciated over 25 years.
Table 2 Costs of production for alternative forages
| Grazed grass | Three cut silage | Whole crop wheat silage | Maize silage | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Establishment & Variable costs £/ha | 181 | 291 | 341 | 546 |
| Contractor cost £/ha | 75 | 298 | 202 | 163 |
| Cash cost £/tDM | 32 | 51 | 49 | 56 |
| Cash cost with AAPS* £/tDM | 31 | 40 | ||
| Depreciation of silo feeding area and grazing infrastructure £/ha | 49 | 75 | 70 | 67 |
| Land charge £/ha | 250 | 200 | 250 | 250 |
| Feeding cost £/tDM | 2 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Total economic cost £/tDM | 73 | 85 | 88 | 91 |
| Total economic cost £/tDM with AAPS* | 69 | 75 |
AAPS* - Arable area payment scheme
Feeding a balanced diet
Alternative forages such as whole crop wheat and maize may be produced at a cost similar to 3 cut grass silage. These forages are not a complete feed on their own as they are high in starch and low in protein and will need supplementation to balance the dairy cow diet. The additional costs of balancing alternative forage diets also need to be taken into account.
Summary
- Are there opportunities to improve production from an existing grassland systems before considering an alternative
- Consider the present farm situation in relation to land type, arable expertise and the practicalities of feeding
- The yield of forage grown has the greatest affect on cost.
- The production costs of alternative forages can be significantly reduced when grown on land registered for arable area aid. Is this available?
- Alternative Forages can be produced at a lower cost than grass silage. However they do require supplementary protein which will increase the cost of a balanced diet
- Further research and technology developments are required to increase yields and improve the utilisation of grass.
Many dairy farmers now realise that feeding forage maize to cows has several benefits. These include:-
- Improved milk yield and quality
- Improved cow condition, general health and fertility.
Maize with a high starch content can improve gross margin/cow by up to £20 despite the necessity to feed a higher protein ration.
In some cases there is insufficient suitable land available for a dairy farmer to grow his/her own maize. This has led to an interest in purchasing the crop from contract growers. The following calculations can be used as a guide and form the basis for discussion amongst those growing forage maize and those wishing to feed it to livestock.
How much is the crop worth?
The costs/ha of growing the crop include;
| Seed, fertiliser and herbicide | £202 |
| Plastic film | £169 |
| Contractor cost for establishment (ploughing, cultivation, drilling, fertilising and slurry spreading) | £140 |
| Harvesting | £135 |
| Total growing cost/ha | £646 |
However an arable farmer growing the crop on land eligible for arable aid, would require a cash value of at least £950/ha in order to cover overhead costs such as conacre and provide a reasonable level of profit. The average utilisable yield of maize silage is 12.6 tonnes/ha, which is equivalent to a cost of £75/ tonne dry matter, or 75 pence per tonne per 1 percent dry matter. No additional payment should be made for dry matter contents above 30 percent. In recognition of the benefits of high starch content, an adjustment should also be made of around 30 pence/tonne for each 1 percent starch above or below 25 percent.
Examples of calculating value /tonne of maize silage
30 percent Dry Matter and 30 percent Starch = (30 x 75) + (5 x 30) = £24.00
25 percent Dry Matter and 25 percent Starch = (25 x 75) = £18.75
20 percent Dry Matter and 10 percent Starch = (20 x 75) – (15 x 30) = £10.50
25 percent Dry Matter and 20 percent Starch = (25 x 75) – (5 x 30) = £17.25
The above figures, which should only be taken as a guide, compare favourably with silage at £15 per tonne. If maize is being purchased directly out of the field then the value per ton per 1 percent dry matter should be reduced to 65 p. Changes could be made to the value per tonne dry matter and adjustments for starch content as required. An accurate analysis is essential to operate a suitable payment system.
Producing milk of high compositional quality can generate additional income. Two main factors affecting milk composition are feeding and breeding.
Feeding
Milk composition is determined by the cow’s energy balance; that is energy intake from feed less the energy required for maintenance and milk production. If a cow is in positive energy balance the milk protein and butterfat percent tends to be high. In general the better a cow is fed the higher the milk composition.
Increasing the cow’s energy intake influences milk composition more than any other factor. Increased energy intake can be achieved by increasing concentrate feeding levels and offering cows more quality silage/grass
Underfeeding will therefore depress quality and it is essential to plan ahead to meet herd feed demand during the transition to turnout in the spring.
Restricted access to silage will depress both milk butterfat and protein percent (Table 1) and knowing the quantity and quality available is necessary.
Table 1 Effect of silage restriction on milk quality
| Ad lib silage | Restricted silage | |
|---|---|---|
| Fat (%) | 3.95 | 3.88 |
| Protein (%) | 3.21 | 3.09 |
To help balance feed demand and get the most from your farm this spring if adequate grass is available and grazing conditions are reasonable turning cows out a few hours each day can improve milk composition. (up to 0.45 percent for combined fat and protein) Early turnout will also help avoid having to feed poor quality silage resulting in a significant fall in performance.
Breeding
Breeding to improve milk composition is a slow but positive process. Always select a bull with good reliability for positive fat and protein percent and milk record to identify cows with low compositional quality.
To improve milk composition
- Ensure the cows energy intake is sufficient
- Ensure cows are in good condition at calving
- Avoid excessive loss of condition in early lactation
- Feed good quality silage ad lib
- Turn out as soon as possible for at least a few hours each day until ground conditions and grass supply are suitable.
- Use bulls with positive protein and butterfat reliability
Changing economic circumstances in milk production in recent times, ie. lower milk prices and the reduced cost of milk quota have led to a revision in the formula used to calculate £PIN for AI bulls. The weighting for butterfat has been changed from 0.5 to 1.2.
The new £PIN Calculation is:-
£PIN = -0.03 X milk PTA + 1.2 X fat KG PTA
+ 3.0 X protein KG PTA.
In the past milk quota prices tended to work against high fat levels but lower quota prices, now means that a reduced protein : fat ratio is more appropriate in calculating £PIN value. The new £PIN formula reduces the protein : fat ratio from 6:1 to 2.5:1.
The effect of this is to increase £PIN value and also upgrade £PLI by upwards of £20 for many of the leading AI sires. The new figures are reflected in the February 2002. AI Bull proofs just published.
Sire Selection
Since butterfat from many dairy herds continues to be low, thus reducing milk price, it is important to keep this in mind when selecting AI sires.
In addition to aiming for a high £PLI value with good type merit, look also for suitable AI sires with a high weighting for fat KG. Try also to select sires that are not seriously negative for butterfat percent.
Contributions from:
Agri-Food Development Service.
Greenmount Campus
- Aidan Cushnahan
- Michael Garvey
- Joe Kennedy
- Charles Kilpatrick
- Connor Maguire
- Martin Mulholland
- Jane Sayers
- Sam Thompson
- Alan Warnock
- John Wilkinson
Agri–Food Development Service .
Loughry Food Centre.
- Joy Alexander
Agri-Food Development Service.
Supply Chain Division
- David Neill
Compiled and edited by :
- Sam Thompson
- Information and Promotions
