A packed final seminar in Whangarei heard that after three years of many trials throughout the province, fast-track systems could end without the targeted liveweight achievements and plagued by declining pasture quality.
AgFirst Northland consultant Gareth Baynham said the project had shown the difficulties of managing a fast-track system on kikuyu-dominant pasture.
Using the farm modelling programme Farmax, Baynham analysed two markedly different cattle systems monitored during the life of the project.
The fast-track system was a lower stocking rate of 2.1 bulls/ha, buying them in at 250kg liveweight (LW) in April and finishing them between January and March at 313kg carcaseweight (CW), generating an average sale price of $1211 at 17 months.
Far North cattle farmer Laurie Copland uses a small portion of his Broadwood farm to grow cattle really fast.
He runs 60-65 bulls on 30ha of river flats with high-quality short-rotation ryegrass and nitrogen, using a 35-day maximum rotation in winter and 18 days in summer.
He aims to market those cattle at 340kg CW by Christmas.
The slow-track system was 3.3 bulls/ha buying in April at 185kg LW and selling in three roughly equal-sized groups – two store sales, in November and March, followed by the remaining one-third finished at 269kg CW or $1001/head in April at 20 months.
Most intensive beef systems in Northland – eg: Technosystems – are in this slow-track category.
“Production and profitability was similar between the two systems,” Baynham said.
“The slow track had higher production but the fast track was more efficient and generated higher beef returns.
“Gross farm revenue was very similar but with the higher stocking rate comes higher costs.”
For the purpose of efficiency, shouldn’t more farmers be running fast-track systems, Baynham asked those at the seminar. He found few willing to do so, except Copland, based on their perception of the risks.
While both systems have risks, the major risks are different and Northland’s highly variable pasture growth rates can expose fast-track systems to dangers.
‘The slow-track had higher production but
the fast-track was more efficient and generated
higher beef returns.’
Good spring pasture growth potentially creates surplus feed and pasture quality issues, while poor winter and spring pasture growth creates a feed deficit and the risk of underfeeding cattle.
The under-utilisation risk means the gross margin (GM) for the fast-track system takes a hit when a good spring is modelled (-10%), but an even bigger hit (-22%) from a poor winter-spring.
Conversely the higher stocked cattle on a slow-track system are able to eat a tonne more of drymatter which would be produced in a good spring.
That generates considerable upside and the GM jumped by 49%.
On the flip side, the higher stocking rate carries bigger exposure to a poor winter-spring, resulting in a 33% drop in GM.
“The risk is that your slow track gets even slower,” Baynham pointed out.
“Bulls are already growing at low rates through the winter, so a small reduction in pasture growth means much lighter bulls at marketing and increased reliance on a fickle store market if cattle are not finished.”
The fast-track system relies on bulls reaching their genetic potential because even a small drop in feed quality will quickly reduce liveweight gain, and for a low stocking rate to be profitable exceptional liveweight gain is needed.
“Fast-track farming requires pasture to be held in the sweet spot, which is grazing at two or two-and-a-half leaves, allowing the animals to graze on the best pasture, leaving higher residuals, having high-quality pasture species, and being prepared to ‘re-set’ pasture that has lost quality by topping or grazing with low-priority stock.
“In contrast, the slow-track bulls are much less sensitive to feed quality because generally it is the amount of pasture they are offered which limits liveweight gain.
“Slow-track farming has a focus on maximising pasture growth: Grazing at two-and-a-half to three leaves, long rotations in the winter, tactical nitrogen and minimising pugging damage.”
The management systems needed for fast and slow systems are almost opposites.
Baynham said farmers should not be relying on recipes. The big danger was getting caught in no-man’s land when the seasons didn’t pan out as predicted.
