An increasing number of farmers have made the decision to winter all or a larger proportion of their cows at home on the milking platform next year while others have sown crops – especially fodder beet – as a supplementary feed for autumn and a means to transition cows at home.
DairyNZ farm systems specialist Mark Neal said by now those who made those kinds of decisions were committed to them, with fodder beet already in the ground, so it was matter of monitoring a range of farm performance metrics to assess the full impact of the decision.
Such changes could have effects on the farm business across a range of parameters that could unwittingly undo the savings made from cutting out or reducing off-farm wintering and grazing-off costs.
Really those kinds of system changes shouldn’t be done as a result of the milk price drop.
“A whole farm system change like that has to stack up at current and average milk prices,” Neal said.
He has looked at similar system changes for the Lincoln University Dairy Farm using FARMAX modelling.
While that modelling was still being worked through Neal said it was unlikely the outcomes for one farm would give definitive directions to other farms because each operation had its own specific set of circumstances.
Instead he outlined a framework farmers should use to assess options.
Figure 1 shows some of the factors that need to be considered.
Neal said in assessing the benefits of a crop such as fodder beet it was important to understand the difference between current pasture eaten and crop eaten per hectare that drove profitability. So yields and utilisation were king.
If a farmer was growing 18 tonnes drymatter (DM)/ha of pasture and utilising 85% of that, and fodder beet yields of 25t DM/ha and utilisation of 90% were achieved, fodder beet gave an increase of 7.5t DM/ha consumed – a significant increase.
But if the fodder beet yield was only 20t DM/ha and utilisation as 80% then there was only a 1t DM/ha gain, so it might not be profitable.
“It’s also important to consider that if pasture production and utilisation are low that’s likely to be a result of management and-or a soil or fertility situation. It’s unlikely that a farmer is suddenly going to be able to produce a 25-30t DM/ha crop of fodder beet.”
Skill was required for growing and feeding crops so yield and utilisation expectations needed to be realistic. When feeding a high-sugar crop like fodder beet, a plan was essential with appropriate diet and attention to detail to prevent acidosis, particularly in the transition period.
Having cows on the platform over winter could add complexity to the management system with more groups of animals to manage, particularly if young stock were also being reared at home.
Labour requirements would be different which might have staffing implications.
Nutrient loss numbers would also be affected if cows wintered at home and caution was needed given current and impending nutrient rules.
The what if’s
Along with the upfront considerations farmers needed to run their own sensitivity analysis and ask “what if” questions.
Variations in yields, cow numbers, grazing costs, irrigation reliability, fodder beet establishment costs and extra staff time could all have a significant effect on overall profitability of the system change.
For instance: What if fodder beet yield and utilisation were overestimated? If the yield was 20t DM/ha rather than 25t DM/ha and utilisation was 80%, not 90%, only 16t DM/ha would be eaten, reducing the benefit of home-grown feed. If 10% of the area was in fodder beet the benefit in home-grown feed would be less than 1% averaged over the platform.
If the farm had below-average pasture growth, it would be appropriate to carefully assess the opportunities to get average or higher beet yields, Neal said.
What if cow numbers were reduced in a wintering-on scenario?
If they were cut by 10% with 10% of the milking platform sown in fodder beet the level of bought feed might be similar, as a percentage of feed eaten, so there wouldn’t be an extra bought feed risk. However, there would be sensitivity to milk prices.
If a farm was stocked at 3.5 cows/ha, and production was 1400kg milksolids (MS)/ha a 10% reduction in cow numbers, with constant production per cow, meant 140kg MS/ha would be lost. If there was a $1/kg MS increase in milk price, the possible benefits of the wintering-on scenario would reduce by $140 (1400kg MS/ha x 10% x $1/kg MS).
If cow numbers weren’t reduced and cows were wintered-on, milk production would fall or additional supplement have to be bought in to compensate for the area of pasture taken out for winter crop. That increased the exposure to feed price risk.
What if grazing costs dropped to $25/cow/week from $30/week?
At $30/week, for 10 weeks of wintering, at a base stocking rate of 3.5cows/ha, the grazing cost is $1050/ha. If the weekly cost dropped, the grazing cost fell to $875/ha, reducing the relative benefit of moving to wintering-on by $175/ha.
What if irrigation reliability was low on the milking platform?
High yields would be at greater risk and the costs of buying in feed under dry conditions would be greater, reducing the benefit of wintering-on.
Farmers also needed to consider other factors such as ending a good business relationship with a good grazier, where supplement would be sourced, whether wintering-on would create pugging and soil compaction problems, whether they would have to regrass parts of the farm that wouldn’t be able to grow fodder beet on, and what that would do to the feed supply.
How would a farmer transition to wintering from their current system when they had to pay for wintering and establishing fodder beet in the first year, but benefits didn’t arrive till the second year?
If stocking rate was adjusted downwards as part of the strategy, the sale of excess stock might assist with cashflow over this period.
Reducing outsourced feed reliance
There’s a range of options for reducing reliance on outsourced feed while using fodder beet on the milking platform.
- Transition to beet on the platform: A small area of fodder beet is grown on the milking platform and used as autumn supplement as cows are gradually transitioned to the higher intakes used through winter off-farm.
- Winter on: All cows and rising two-year-olds (R2s) are wintered on the milking platform using fodder beet and topped up with grass silage. No reduction in milking cow numbers.
- Winter on: All cows and R2s are wintered on the milking platform using fodder beet and topped up with grass silage. Milking cow numbers cut in proportion to the area required for winter feed and change in feed supply for milking cows.
- Young stock on: Young stock kept on the milking platform and fodder beet used where possible. Milking cow numbers cut to allow for extra feed demand from young stock.
- Self-contained for all stock using fodder beet as required: Reduce stocking rate, cut supplementary feed but still winter and graze off with fewer stock overall.
Principles of decision making
- Why am I changing?
- What are my options? Include the possibility of improving business as usual.
- What are the individual changes that happen? Look at what happens to both revenue and costs.
- What are the extra risks? Price, climate and yield risk can be new factors.
- Can I plan and implement the change?
- Do you and your team have the skills? Do you have the cashflow to fund it? Do you have time to implement it?
- Can you get contractors when needed?
