Irish Grassland Association

Table 1. Average feed, grazing season length and milk production performance of spring
milk producers with varying proportions of grass in the diet of the dairy herd (2008-2011).
Table 1. Average feed, grazing season length and milk production performance of spring milk producers with
varying proportions of grass in the diet of the dairy herd (2008-2011). Grass rich
Grass poor
System number 1 2 3 4
Grass rich
Grass poor
No. of farms 425 1,630 571 124
Home System grown number grass in the diet (% of total 92.0 1 85.1 2 76.23 65.7 4
feed consumed by the dairy herd)
No. of farms 425 1,630 571 124
Meal fed (kg DM/cow) 0.36 0.66 0.99 1.31
Home grown grass in the diet (% of total feed
Grass used (t DM/ha) 8.5 92.0 8.1 85.1 7.676.2 6.8 65.7
consumed by the dairy herd)
Overall stocking rate (LU/ha) 2.02 2.04 2.10 2.12
Meal fed (kg DM/cow) 0.36 0.66 0.99 1.31
Milking platform stocking rate (cows/ha) 2.06 2.15 2.28 2.27
Grazing Grass used season (t DM/ha) (full-time days) 270 8.5 257 8.1 2507.6 244 6.8
Milk yield (litres/cow) 4,679 4,974 5,192 5,577
Overall stocking rate (LU/ha) 2.02 2.04 2.10 2.12
Milk yield (kg Milk Solids/ha) 723 769 823 883
Milking platform stocking rate (cows/ha) 2.06 2.15 2.28 2.27
Grazing season (full-time days) 270 257 250 244
The data in Figure 1 shows the response to additional feed consumed per cow. The response
observed Milk yield (litres/cow) was the equivalent of 0.67 litres of milk per 4,679 additional 4,974 kg of feed 5,192 eaten – assuming 5,577
a Milk milk yield and (kg meal Milk price Solids/ha) of 30 c/litre and 30c/kg respectively, 723 this suggests 769 a return 823 of 20c 883 worth
of milk for 30c worth of meal. The response to supplements is low indicating that cows were
The data in Figure 1 shows the response to additional feed consumed per cow. The response observed was the
already on a high plane of nutrition. When the extra feed was introduced, it was eaten instead
equivalent of 0.67 litres of milk per additional kg of feed eaten – assuming a milk and meal price of 30 c/litre and
30c/kg of grass respectively, – a high this substitution suggests a return rate happened of 20c worth at of farm milk for level 30c as worth indicated of meal. in The Figure response 2. to supplements
is low indicating that cows were already on a high plane of nutrition. When the extra feed was introduced, it was
eaten instead of grass – a high substitution rate happened at farm level as indicated in Figure 2.
Figure 1. Milk yield response on the grass rich and grass poor systems of milk production.
Figure 1. Milk yield response on the grass rich and grass poor systems of milk production.
The data in Figure 2 shows that for each additional tonne of feed purchased, grass utilisation declined by 600
kg of grass dry matter – a substitution rate of 60%. For every 1kg of additional feed consumed, total intake only
increased by 0.4kg DM. If the cows were being underfed, the substitution rate would have been considerably lower.
additional feed consumed, total intake only increased by 0.4kg DM. If the cows were being
underfed, the substitution rate would have been considerably lower.
Figure 2. Pasture utilisation on the grass rich and grass poor systems of milk production.
Figure 2. Pasture utilisation on the grass rich and grass poor systems of milk production.
Financial performance
What then are the implications for financial performance? Table 2 shows that on average, grass poor
systems of milk production generate more output per hectare but are less profitable.
Financial performance
Table 2. Average financial performance of spring milk producers with varying proportions of grass in the
diet of the dairy herd (2008-2011).
Grass rich
Grass poor
System number 1 2 3 4
No. profitable.
farms 425 1,630 571 124
Per litre (cent)
Milk price
31.3 31.0 30.8 30.5
Gross grass output in the diet of the dairy herd (2008-2011). 31.6 31.3 31.1 30.9
Total costs
18.0 19.2 20.7 22.1
Net margin
13.6 Grass 12.1 rich 10.4 Grass 8.8 poor
Per System hectare number (€)
1 2 3 4
Gross No. output of farms 2,958425 3,189 1,630 3,412 571 3,651 124
Total Per costs litre (cent)
1,660 1,932 2,231 2,568
Net Milk margin price
1,29831.3
1,257 31.0 1,180 30.8 1,083 30.5
% of Gross farms output making over €2,000/ha 21 31.6 20 31.3 15 31.1 6 30.9
Total costs
18.0 19.2 20.7 22.1
The data Net margin Table 2 shows that higher output did not increase 13.6net profit on 12.1 either a per litre 10.4 or per hectare 8.8
basis. Reducing the grass content of the diet increased total costs per litre – variable costs, particularly
the feed
Per hectare
costs jumped
(€)
while fixed costs remained static. On either a per cow (not shown) or a per
hectare Gross basis, output both variable and fixed costs increased. This 2,958increase was 3,189 greater than 3,412 the increase in 3,651
gross Total output costs and so the net margin (the margin remaining 1,660 to pay the farmer, 1,932 bank principle 2,231 and taxation) 2,568
was €200/ha Net margin lower in the grass poor system compared with 1,298 the grass rich 1,257 systems of milk 1,180production.
1,083
% of farms making over €2,000/ha 21 20 15 6
It seemed surprising that a milk yield response of 0.67 litres/kg of additional purchased feed was not
profitable when the four years of the study are taken into consideration. The reason for this is explained
in Figure 3 where we look at what tends to happen as farmers increase feed input.
Spending on the grass poor doesn’t stop at just meal and forage purchase. For every €100 spent on feed
(meals and forage), an average of an additional €60 was spent on other costs on the grass poor farms.
What then are the implications for financial performance? Table 2 shows that on average,
grass poor systems of milk production generate more output per hectare but are less
Table 2. Average financial performance of spring milk producers with varying proportions of
SECTION
4
technical
focus
Irish Grassland Association - newsletter summer 2016
26
Irish Grassland Association - newsletter summer 2016
27