That return on kilograms-of-feed difference also doesn’t take into account terrain or flexibility factors, or the benefits to other enterprises such as cows as pasture-grooming tools to establish higher-quality pasture for other stock classes.
A valid comparison of enterprises needs to take these factors into account, as imprecise as they may be.
When the same feed resource over the same time is used by different enterprises they can be more validly compared, based on the return on drymatter.
The most notable enterprise on many sheep and beef farms is grazing dairy heifers, the profitability of which is usually compared with trading cattle but often also with lamb finishing or even two-year heifer calving despite these not meeting the same-feed, same-time requirement.
The profitability of grazing enterprises can be quite accurately established because the weights and weight gains required are well-defined and so the feed demand can be calculated.
On the other side of the equation the return is known in advance. For all other enterprises there will be some uncertainty about these factors, hence a less valid calculation of the anticipated return.
In this particular comparison the inflexibility of the grazing option becomes an unexpected cost.
However, a beef finishing enterprise on the same feed should be subjected to the same target disciplines. What would help is if the benefit of meeting targets, or more often the cost of not being readily able to, could be calculated.
This would help to reach a more reasoned decision about feed allocation, therefore driving more discipline.
Intensive bull finishing systems come as close as any to being subject to these target-driven systems, which are driven by the compelling cost of too many bulls not finished before the second winter.
Because of the dairy downturn there is already a reduction in the number of heifers being grazed out, both in reduced numbers in each mob as well as a reduced number of mobs.
The other notable feature of many dairy heifer grazing programmes is the comprehensive animal health plans that accompany them.
The seemingly continual lift in prices being asked to graze heifers will also surely stop.
Discussions about what will fill the gap have been approached in many different ways. It has been a welcome out from the focus on targets for some, seemingly forgetting that the return on that focus has been pretty good.
Matching that profit with another enterprise will be a challenge for many. There are other trading enterprises that can match dairy heifer grazing as long as they are managed to perform well.
With any exit from heifer grazing there is the opportunity to put in place a more sustainable system. So many dairy heifer grazing systems are managing worms in a very unsustainable way.
Frequent whole-mob treatment throughout the year, often with products that have a significant sustainability tag attached to them, is common.
This is the perfect selection ground for resistant worms. New tools for identifying resistant worms are confirming this outcome.
One benefit of having a system that is not fanatically driven by targets is that there is less pressure to eliminate all risk with unsustainable practices.
The reality is that high performance driven by targets can be successful without sacrificing the future.
The other notable feature of many dairy heifer grazing programmes is the comprehensive animal health plans that accompany them.
These are not exclusively a dairy heifer grazing feature but they are more visibly applied than is the case in most sheep and beef systems.
They are driven by the same minimal-risk approach that results in unsustainable drenching practices that are embedded in these plans.
However, these plans don’t have the same negative outcomes when drenching is excluded.
This is another feature of dairy heifer grazing that should remain on sheep and beef farms whether or not the dairy heifers are there.
• Trevor Cook is a Manawatu veterinarian.
