IRISH FORAGE - Premier · PDF filePlanning and design of new milking facilities ... netwrap...

No problems allowed: a new herd-health strategy Golden rules for good silagePlanning and design of new milking facilitiesReseeding checklistIrish example in New Zealand

Forage harvesting – controlling costs

GUIDE 2011

FORAGE& NUTRITION

IRIS

H

PRICE 5

Forage Guide.indd 1 21/04/2011 16:26:42

LESS IS MORELess Dry Matter Loss + Less Protein Breakdown

= More Silage to Feed + More Profitable Dairy and Beef Production

Alltech Ireland • Sarney • Summerhill Rd • Dunboyne • Co Meath Tel: 01 802 6200• Fax: 01 825 2245 • www.alltech.com/ireland www.facebook.com/AlltechNaturally • www.twitter.com/@AlltechTweets

Copyright, ©, 2011, Alltech. All Rights Reserved.









Alltech A4.indd 1 21/04/2011 10:08:30

Forage Guide 205x290.indd 1 21/04/2011 15:35:23

forage & nutrition guide 2011

4 EditorialWith cattle and lamb prices excellent, and milk prices improving again, the confidence of livestock farmers is high, writes Liam de Paor.

8 New facilitiesTom Ryan, Teagasc, on the planning and design of new milking facilities.

10 Practical applicationsRodney Magowan on PhD research around upgrading to a trailing shoe spreader and taking it easy when applying slurry.

11 Up close on home –produced feeds Eoghan Finneran and Paul Crosson, Teagasc, Grange, consider whether alternatives to grass silage are really are cheaper.

14 Making hay in the Curragh Liam de Paor takes a look at a unique enterprise in Ireland’s equine heartland.

16 Holstein Friesian Open DayA memorable day is planned by the IHFA this year, as Liam dePaor explains.

18 The Zero OptionMatt O’Keeffe on the opportunities to increase production as the countdown to the abolition of milk quotas begins.

20 Soil fertility and silage yieldsStan Lalor, Teagasc, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford, explains why using more lime is critical for success.

24 Forage harvesting – controlling costsDermot Forristal, Teagasc, Oak Park, Carlow, on ensuring cost-reduction strategies deliver as intended.

27 No problems allowed: a new herd-health strategyMartin Kavanagh on the strategies that ensure no problems are allowed to develop on the best livestock farms.

29 Farm relief profile: Sebana MoynaghLiam de Paor profiles a popular and well-qualified operator with the Farm Relief Services.

30 Golden rules for good silageIn order to make the best-quality silage there are five key rules that must be observed, writes Frank Ward of JF-Stoll.

32 New grants make upgrading dairy equipment an easier decisionThere is a wide choice of milking systems and accessories available, prices vary as does the quality of service available, so which brand delivers the best lifetime value for milk producers?

33 Give your cattle a clean dinner plate!Charles Chavasse and William Minchin, Pfizer Animal Health, on an important dietary issue that can be addressed effectively.

35 Reseeding checklistDiarmuid Murphy, Germinal Seeds, offers some points to consider in planning for reseeding this year.

36 The silage puzzle: overcoming common challengesJane Oliver, Alltech, on meeting the challenges of quality silage production.

39 Mineral supplements during grazing seasonBrian Campion, Product Development Manager, Premier Molasses, on ensuring adequate macro-mineral supplementation during grazing season.

40 Irish example in New ZealandRodney Magowan reports on a high-sugar grass variety popular across Ireland that is also finding use in New Zealand.

42 Nutritional update on high-yielding HolsteinsNew research from Northern Ireland.

43 Improving milk quality and marginsDr David Mackey, Dairying Technologist, CAFRE, on the role breeding and feeding play in improving returns for farmers.

45 Winter feeding of the future herd and second cut-silageMark Scott, Greenmount Campus, CAFRE, offers some timely advice.

contentS



i 5

introduction

4 i introduction

Cattle and lamb prices have been excellent, and milk prices have improved again, so the confidence of livestock farmers is high. In addition, for yet another year, there is no super levy to worry about, as we just filled our national milk quota. However, compound feed, fertiliser and fuel prices have increased, which is not good news for livestock farmers, so improving fuel, feed and nutrient efficiency is critical to reducing input costs. Nevertheless, countries selling oil can afford to buy more milk products, meat and livestock so that is one positive consideration.For those with access to cash or credit, this is a great time to renovate farm buildings, upgrade parlours or to buy machinery, as prices are very competitive. The new €45m grant scheme available over the next three years makes the purchase of bulk tanks and dairy equipment very attractive.The new bulk tanks/silos are very energy efficient, and use less detergents and water, while milk is cooled quicker, so they are a good investment on any dairy farms. In addition, there is a wide choice of brands available at affordable prices.The wisdom of conserving adequate stocks of quality grass and maize silage has been well proven over recent years, as have the benefits of having some alternative crops available to supplement forage, such as brassicas, fodder beet and home-grown cereals, etc.Farmers know they need to reseed more permanent pasture with better varieties and improve the utilisation of

available grass by better grazing management. All the indications are that we are making some progress this year in these areas, but there is a long way to go.Over recent years, making quality silage has not been a priority on many farms. The longer-term consequences of this have been increased nutritional problems on farms with infertility and a drop in average milk yields as farmers failed to properly supplement the available forage and economised on purchased feeds.To counteract these ongoing problems, farmers need to invest in routine hoof care services, good animal welfare, better animal nutrition and in higher genetics. Feeding stock to reach their genetic potential will always pay rich dividends.We will need lots of extra cows after the abolition of milk quota, so this is a good time for pedigree breeders and commercial dairy farmers to upgrade their herds and take advantage of the increasing demand for replacement heifers.Incidentally, rearing replacement heifers is the second most profitable enterprise on dairy farms, so farmers with a limited milk quota or younger farmers planning to expand could enhance their incomes with this enterprise.

Liam de PaorEditor

Livestock farm incomes to further improve for 2011

Liam de Paor, editor.


i 5

forage & nutrition guide 2011induStrY neWS

4 i introduction

Volac Ireland, as market leaders in the forage pres-ervation sector, has been concen-trating its efforts in the further development of Netwrap. Rondosil is already a household name and the strongest brand of Netwrap on the market. In conjunction with RKW, its German manufacturer, Volac Ireland has been working closely to further strengthen the already high-qual-ity edge-to-edge performance. The developments are concentrated on more hardwearing chains or, in other words, the longi-tudinal filaments, which is has been implemented with its IM-PRESS technology due to the use of high-quality raw materials. This means the company has been able to make the individual filaments stronger and tougher. In addition, the effective width of the net is greater at the point of wrapping. That results in better spreading performance and edge-to-edge

coverage. The net feed on the round balers has been improved and the net is easier to cut off. IM-PRESS technology was tested in intensive trials with users in Ireland on all customary round balers over the past two forage seasons before it’s launch on the market this year. The

new Rondosil 3,000m netting had already been successfully tested in the silage, hay and straw product categories before it appeared on the market. This technology will also be available in the Topnet 3,600m and Evolution 4,000m netwrap as standard.

Volac further enhance Netwrap performance



6 i

induStrY neWS

Nutri-BuffAs farmers have become aware, grass currently being grazed is low in structural fibre and high in fermentable sugars, resulting in drops in butter fat percentages to as low as 3 per cent last week. This can cost up to two cents per litre. Decreased butter fats can be an indication of sub acute ruminal acidosis (SARA). SARA can give rise to laminitis and reduced reproductive performance through embryo mortality. Grazing trials conducted by UCD (O’Grady, 2006) showed 11 per cent of cows studied had SARA and 50 per cent of cows had a sub-optimal pH for maximum dry matter intake. Immediate action needs to be taken to resolve this problem. To help protect your income, use Nutri-Buff 270. Nutri-Buff 270 is an effective rumen buffer that has been specifi-cally formulated to meet the needs of the Irish dairy herd. Farmers who used Nutri-Buff 270 in the spring of 2010 recorded an improvement in butter fat percentages of between 0.2 and 0.3 per cent. For further details, contact your local co-operative animal health rep, call 059 9151251 or visit www.cahl.ie

Ireland is committed to reducing national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to a level 20 per cent below those of 1990 by the year 2020. The drive for increased milk production, in concert with aims for decreased GHG emissions, poses a significant challenge for the Irish dairy industry.According to Teagasc research the adoption of currently available best management practices such as earlier calving, reduced replacement rate; higher stocking rate and longer grazing season provide scope for Irish milk producers to contribute to achieving target reductions in greenhouse gases without necessarily having to limit the overall output of milk solids.Research designed to reduce the methane emission intensity of milk production has been underway at the Teagasc Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark since 2008. The aim is to investigate practical mitigation options for Irish dairy farmers to drive industry efficiencies. An increased focus on reducing emissions per unit product will result in the maximum reduction in global emissions.A study to compare the relative efficiency of three different breeds, in terms of GHG efficiency, is currently underway. The study will enable comparisons of the enteric methane intensity of milk production from Holstein-Friesian, Jersey and Holstein Friesian x Jersey cows.

Reducing methane emissions on dairy farms

DOA A4.indd 1 23/03/2011 12:25:27

Emerald Expo 2011.indd 6 24/03/2011 18:50:24

Forage Guide A4.indd 1 21/04/2011 15:07:33


6 i

DOA A4.indd 1 23/03/2011 12:25:27

Emerald Expo 2011.indd 6 24/03/2011 18:50:24



8 i


i 9

MiLKing faciLitieS

The €45m dairy equipment scheme has been open for applications since March. This grant scheme is very welcome as many farmers gear up for expansion. However, only about 3,500 farmers in total will benefit, assuming an average grant of €13,000. Funds are scarce so the scheme is targeted, i.e., there is a selection process with a marking system to rank applicants. The first tranche is €6.92m in grant aid and open for applications until May 3. The second tranche of €3.46m will stay open for three months and will open for applications from May. Subsequent tranches, of about €3.46m, will be released every three months until the end of 2013. Applications not selected in a

particular tranche will be rolled over for consideration in other tranches.

Items eligibleThe grant for milking equipment is 40 per cent and the investment ceiling is €40,000. For milk cooling equipment, the investment ceiling is €25,000. So what equipment is eligible for grant aid? Milking machine equipment, in new or existing buildings, units to include and be costed to include any additional piping, pumps, etc., within the unit cost. The Department reference cost per unit is €2,986.17.

Items included and limited to:New machines (including 1. replacement of existing machine); Extensions of existing machines 2. (excluding upgrades); Auto washer for milking machine; 3. Rotary and robotic milking 4. machines; and,Heat transfer units and water 5. heaters.

Milking equipment includes: wash

line, milk and vacuum lines, vacuum and milk pumps, pulsators, clusters, swing-over arms, milk indicator, automatic cluster removers, milk filter, vacuum regulator and diversion system.It excludes all stall work (rump and head rails, automatic bailing, etc.), mangers, feeders, meal bins, concrete and building work. Milk storage and ancillary cooling equipment to be costed on a per volume basis.

Items included and limited to: Bulk milk tanks including auto 1. washer and compressor. However, grant-aid will not be paid on the retro-fitting of an auto washer on an existing tank; Milk silos including auto washer 2. and compressor; Ice builder and plate cooler; and,3. Replacement compressor. 4.

There is no grant for solar water heating systems, however, the hot water storage cylinder will qualify for a grant. Farmers should be aware that the rump rail/supports in the parlour are not grant aided and there is no grant aid for retrofitting equipment. For example, there is no grant aid for fitting cluster removers to an existing machine or to a machine that is being extended. There will be no grant aid for in-parlour feeding equipment, mangers, augers or bins. No walls, buildings or construction of parlour pits will be eligible for grant aid. There is no grant for second-hand equipment. Adding extra units usually means that the existing machine will be upgraded to bring it all up to spec. The grant aid can only be based on the unit cost (max. €2,956.17) for extra units. So, as a complete new machine will attract a higher grant, it may cost very little extra overall.

Milking facilities – lots of options and decisions Farmers are faced with lots important decisions – what to do, how many units, where to locate parlour, type of parlour, etc. The following should help to tease out some of the issues.

Tom Ryan, Teagasc, on the planning and design of new milking facilities

New facilities


8 i

forage & nutrition guide 2011MiLKing faciLitieS

i 9

Whether to build a new parlour, extend or renovate will depend on general condition of existing parlour, the suitability of location, width of parlour, depth of pit, whether there is room to extend it, whether or not the building work can be done in the dry period, costs, etc.

Parlour throughput, labour efficiency and safetyMore units, good design, labour saving devices, efficient/safe handling facilities all pay ongoing dividends. Throughput hinges around number of units, work routine, design/layout of parlour, collecting yard, backing gate, no obstructions entering/ leaving parlour, entrance/exit gates that can be opened from anywhere in the pit, good light, no stress factors, etc.Labour efficiency is closely linked to throughput and can be maximised by planning the overall design. Gates/penning well planned, drafting/handling facilities well laid out, slip-throughs for people, feeders, cluster removers, automatic gates at entrance/exit, swing arms, diversion line, autowasher, wash down system, etc., all to improve efficiency and reduce drudgery. Facilities should be planned/built so one person can operate equipment and handle animals safely. Safety during construction and subsequent maintenance is important also.

SpecificationsSome relevant Department specifications are S106 (parlours/ dairies), S100 (concrete), S101 (roofs), S102 (cladding) and S129 (drainage), etc. Design and build milking facilities to suit the day-to-day use by the operator. Do not allow short cuts or other convenient modifications to be made by the builder or other equipment installers during construction and installation.

CostsFarmers should plan what they want to do, get planning permission, quotations and cost estimates. Check out electricity supply in good time also. It is vitally important to know your costs before building a new parlour or extending/renovating an existing one. Milking parlour costs should be divided into the building of the parlour/dairy, equipment and bulk tank/silo. Build a parlour that best suits you and your finances. Allow for future expansion and more automationConstruction costs: To build a 14-unit parlour, dairy, plant room, unroofed collecting yard with slatted tank and unroofed drafting area with a small crush costs about €5,000/unit. An 18-unit parlour, to the same spec., costs about €4,300/unit. This is a total of €70,000 and €77,400 respectively (excl. VAT.)Milking machine costs: quotations generally show a list of items costed for the number of units and the level of equipment required. A useful way to get a handle on costs is per unit. Costs can vary widely depending on the spec., from €1,700 to €8,500 per unit. A €1,700 unit would be a basic machine, without feeders and with some used parts. An €8,500 unit supplies a state-of-the-art machine

with swing arms, automatic front/rear gates, diversion line, automatic cluster removers (ACRs), electronic milk meters, meal feeders, auto ID, auto washer, electronic drafting, etc. A mid-price of €3,500 to €5,000 unit includes feeders and some automation (swing arms, ACR’s, diversion line and front/rear automatic gates). Discuss options with your supplier and look for an itemised quotation. Get an estimate of the annual service charges.If you are comparing quotations, are you comparing like with like? If you don’t pin down the costs you are certainly facing cost overruns and/or unfinished or poorly finished facilities.Cost of other equipment to take into account or consider are: the bulk tank, milk filter, plate cooler, water heater(s), wash troughs, hand washing facilities, wash down system, backing gate, generator, air compressor, etc.

VAT and capital allowances Aids for reducing the cost of the development are the VAT refund, the capital allowances and interest relief against tax and possibly access to the dairy equipment scheme grants. Get an investment health check done by your Teagasc adviser to see can you afford and finance it.



i 11 10 i

PracticaL aPPLicationS

At the recent AgriSearch dairy seminar in Hillsborough, presentations from PhD research projects showed great practical value to livestock farmers. The Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) Hillsborough work on the impact of different slurry spreading systems has influenced DARD decision makers into launching the Manure Efficiency Technology Scheme (METS) offering grants on trailing shoe, trailing hose and shallow injector slurry spreading

systems. The AFBI work has shown that grass output increases by almost a quarter when slurry is applied using a slurry tanker fitted with a trailing shoe mechanism. Researcher Debbie McConnell has continued this work by examining ways of reducing phosphorous (P) losses during slurry spreading. Soluble P loss was found to be 29 per cent lower with a trailing shoe rather than a traditional splashplate on a tanker. The team at AFBI also looked at the impact

of applying slurry on three different swards cut for silage after zero, 10 and 20 days of regrowth. Results showing that a 20-day delay in applying slurry after cutting grass slashed soluble P loss by 49 per cent with total P loss down an amazing 54 per cent. Upgrading to a trailing shoe spreader and not rushing out to apply slurry the day after silo covers go on makes sound sense for the bottom line of farm accounts and for protecting the purity of our precious water supplies.

Rodney Magowan on PhD research around upgrading to a trailing shoe spreader and taking it easy when applying slurry

Practical applications

Beef herd accounts for 38 per cent of agricultural output The national beef herd generates 38 per cent of agricultural output and is earning valuable foreign earnings for the country through exports, the National Beef Conference was told recently. Professor Gerry Boyle said that the target of a 20 per cent increased in the value of beef output, set in Food Harvest 2020 is achievable, and is likely to be driven by adding value to existing output combined with an increase in bull beef systems for male dairy calves.Static margins and low levels of profitability are a large part of the difficulty facing the Irish beef sector. The National Farm Survey shows that cattle farmers depend heavily on direct subsidies for their income, due to an underlying problem of a lack of profitability in cattle farming systems.Farmers at the conference heard how profitable grass based suckler beef production systems are operating at high stocking rates, calving in spring, with the mean calving date matched to the start of the grazing season, maximising the proportion of grass in the feed budget and achieving high levels of reproductive performance and carcass growth.


i 11


10 i

HoMe Produced feed coStS

The recent increase of purchased feed prices has prompted many farmers to re-assess the economics of home-produced feeds in 2011. Some farmers may consider employing contractors to sow and harvest grain crops or whole-crop silages as a replacement or complement for grass silage and, so, need to consider some key factors affecting the costs of alternative feeds relative to grass silage and purchased concentrates.

Complement not replaceThe Teagasc Feed Costs study re-enforced the cost advantage of grazed grass and also highlighted the continued importance of grass silage as the primary home-produced winter feed. Although grass silage may not be the cheapest winter feed when costed alone, when it is harvested from fields integrated with an efficient grazing system, no alternative provides cheaper feed (Figure 1). Therefore, rather than replace grass silage, the farmer should be seeking to complement it with low-cost winter feed alternatives. Net energy takes account of the efficiency with which a feed can be converted to meat or milk, and so is used as the measure upon which to compare feeds in this article. Costs are expressed as euro per 1,000 UFL and one UFL is equivalent to the amount

of net energy in 1kg of dried barley.This project investigated the cost of an integrated grazed grass/grass silage forage system for a suckler calf to weanling herd, where the annual feed budget comprised grazed grass between March and November and home-produced grass silage for the remainder of the year. This analysis found that total annual feed cost (grazed grass plus silage) amounted to €100/t utilised dry matter (UDM) or €105 per 1,000 UFL. Such a feed system, where the silage fields are grazed before and after silage harvests, is the default on most Irish cattle farms, because removing surplus grass in summer permits the most efficient utilisation of grazed grass. Given the substantial cost advantage of such a system, relative to purchased concentrates or other winter feeds (Figure 1 and Table 1) the following questions must be asked by the farmer before considering other home-grown alternatives:

1. Is it possible to efficiently graze the field?

Where it is possible to efficiently graze a field, it is highly unlikely that any crop other than grass will reduce annual feed costs for the whole farm as indicated by Figure 1. In some cases, it may not be possible to efficiently graze

a particular parcel of land, due to distance from the farmyard or lack of adequate fencing or water supply. In these circumstances, growing an alternative crop may be an option. Furthermore, high nutritional value alternatives may have a role to play where high levels of animal productivity are required, particularly during indoor feeding. If an alternative is to be grown in a grazing field the following questions must be addressed:

2. Will the alternative feed crop replace more costly purchased feed and/or increase animal output without increasing annual feed cost?

While an alternative feed crop may be less costly than grass silage, total annual feed costs may actually increase if the grazing system on the farm is negatively impacted. For example, where grass silage is replaced with an annual feed crop, management of grazed grass may become more difficult if grass surpluses are not removed as grass silage. This could lead to poorer grazing utilisation efficiency and, ultimately, increase the cost of grazed grass. So, while

Complement grass silage with low-cost feed alternatives

Eoghan Finneran and Paul Crosson, Teagasc, Grange, consider whether alternatives to grass silage really are cheaper Eoghan Finneran, Walsh Fellow,

Teagasc Grange.


12 i


HoMe Produced feed coStS

Table 1. Average yields of dry matter and net energy

GG GS2 Maize WCWW SBG FBH Kale Swedes

UDM yield (t/ha) 9.1 9.9 13.7 12.9 5.6 12.1 8.1 8.6

Energy yield (1,000 UFL /ha) 9.3 7.6 11.2 10.0 6.5 13.6 8.3 10.4

UDM = Utilised dry matter

0

GG GS2 GG/GS2 Maize WCWW SBG FBH

71

210

104

171 176189 190

119

157

Purchased concentrate

Swedes Kale

50

100

150

200

250

300

Figure 1. Total feed costs of grazed grass, grass silage, six alternative home-produced crops and a purchased concentrate. TFC = Total feed cost including �300/ha land charge, all fi xed costs and contractor costs for all operations from sowing to feed-out. GG = Grazed grass; GS2 = Two-cut grass silage system; GG/GS2 = Denotes a full-year integrated grazing and two-cut grass silage system where 35% of grassland area is cut for silage; WCWW = Whole-crop winter wheat silage; SBG = Crimped and propionic acid treated spring barley grain; FBH = Harvested fodder beet. Concentrate is purchased at �230/t delivered; storage and feed-out losses and costs are included. Yields are given in Table 1.

the alternative feed may be less costly than grass silage, if grazing becomes less efficient, annual feed costs may actually increase. To avoid such a scenario, it is imperative that any alternative feed replaces more costly purchased feeds or increases animal output relative to the default grazed grass and grass silage system.

3. Is reseeding (including a break crop) required for the field in question?

When reseeding of a grass field is undertaken, sowing a break crop such as rape or kale can be beneficial in terms of reducing reseeding cost and, in certain circumstances, can improve soil structure and aid control pest and weed control.

Whole crop cereals, maize, cereals and fodder beetMaize generally gives the highest

yields of whole-crop silage, followed by winter triticale and wheat. Plastic is recommended with maize in order to achieve economic yield and cob content, particularly away from southern and coastal regions. Similar feed value can be expected for whole-crop cereal silage and maize silages, but low grain content whole-crop cereal silage will give poorer digestibility than grass silage. The average cost of whole-crop wheat and maize is similar. However, maize cost has been shown to fluctuate more from year-to-year due to a higher level of yield variability. Lower-yielding crops such as whole-crop oats or barley can be more costly. Small grain cereal crops can also be harvested as high-moisture grains, crimped and treated with inoculant, propionic acid or urea. Such crimped grain is more costly on an energy basis than forage crops but is 30 per cent cheaper than purchased concentrates at current prices (Figure 1). Fodder beet is a high yielding, high

energy, but low dry matter (DM) feed crop. Its production costs/tonne grown can be quite low, due to yields of up to 20t DM/ha being possible. However, washing, chopping and feed-out costs can account for up to 25 per cent of total feed cost for fodder beet, making it more costly than whole-crop silages (Figure 1). In addition, its vulnerability to frost damage, both before and after harvest, mean that prolonged storage prior to feed-out can be risky.

Grazed brassicasKale, rape and swedes are the most commonly grown forages for winter grazing. Due to greater yields and net energy content, swedes are generally the least costly. An often overlooked cost, associated with these winter grazed forages, is the cost of compliance with the Nitrates Directive in terms of providing grassland runback or slurry storage capacity. The cost of grassland runback was included in this study. In addition, frost damage can be a risk for kale and rape in inland areas, while, on clay soils, grazing with heavy cattle can cause soil structural damage.

ConclusionBecause of the annual cost advantage of grazed grass/grass silage systems, alternative crops should only be considered as complementary feeds to grass silage or substitutes for purchased feeds. Grazed forages such as swedes and kale can provide the cheapest alternatives. Where winter grazing of such crops is not feasible, maize silage and whole-crop winter wheat are the lowest cost harvested feeds. For all crops, good management from crop establishment through to feed-out is critical to achieve high yields and utilisation rates, in order to dilute the increasing costs of fuel and fertilisers.

Leading the Development of Ireland’s Farming and Food Industry

Teagasc, the Agriculture and Food Development Authority, supports science based innovation in the agri-food sector and the wider bioeconomy to underpin profi tability, competitiveness and sustainability.

Through Research (food and agriculture) and Knowledge Transfer (education and advisory) Teagasc delivers fi ve programmes:

Teagasc Goals:

n Improve the competitiveness of agriculture, food and the wider bioeconomy n Support sustainable farming and the environment n Encourage diversifi cation of the rural economy and enhance the quality of

life in rural areas n Enhance organisational capability and deliver value for money

www.teagasc.ie

Animal and Grassland Programme n Animal and Bioscience n Grassland Science n Livestock Systems n Dairy n Beef n Sheep n Pigs

Food Programme n Food Bioscience n Food Safety n Food Technology

and Quality n Technology Transfer

to Food Companies

Advisory Programme n Business and

Technology n Environment and

Technology n Rural Development n Growth and Effi ciency n Competitiveness

Education Programme n Further Education

and Training Courses n Higher Education

Courses n Agriculture n Horticulture n Equine

Crops, Environment and Land Use Programme n Crop Science n Environment n Horticulture n Forestry

Rural Economy and Development Programme n Agri-Food Economics n Rural Sustainability n Farm Surveys n Farm Management n Rural Development

3005 Corporate 2011_ A4.indd 1 19/04/2011 15:12



12 i

Leading the Development of Ireland’s Farming and Food Industry

Teagasc, the Agriculture and Food Development Authority, supports science based innovation in the agri-food sector and the wider bioeconomy to underpin profi tability, competitiveness and sustainability.

Through Research (food and agriculture) and Knowledge Transfer (education and advisory) Teagasc delivers fi ve programmes:

Teagasc Goals:

n Improve the competitiveness of agriculture, food and the wider bioeconomy n Support sustainable farming and the environment n Encourage diversifi cation of the rural economy and enhance the quality of

life in rural areas n Enhance organisational capability and deliver value for money

www.teagasc.ie

Animal and Grassland Programme n Animal and Bioscience n Grassland Science n Livestock Systems n Dairy n Beef n Sheep n Pigs

Food Programme n Food Bioscience n Food Safety n Food Technology

and Quality n Technology Transfer

to Food Companies

Advisory Programme n Business and

Technology n Environment and

Technology n Rural Development n Growth and Effi ciency n Competitiveness

Education Programme n Further Education

and Training Courses n Higher Education

Courses n Agriculture n Horticulture n Equine

Crops, Environment and Land Use Programme n Crop Science n Environment n Horticulture n Forestry

Rural Economy and Development Programme n Agri-Food Economics n Rural Sustainability n Farm Surveys n Farm Management n Rural Development

3005 Corporate 2011_ A4.indd 1 19/04/2011 15:12



14 i


i 15

Kildare is the Thoroughbred county – you can go racing at three top-class racecourses; visit the Irish National Stud for a look at our finest Thoroughbreds, or get hands-on experience at one of the county’s many riding centres. Noel and Colette Lawler have built up a substantial forage business over 20 years, supplying hay and haylage to equine customers all over Ireland. This unique enterprise is based at Killeen, Naraghmore, near Ballitore, in south Kildare. This family business was built up “by word of mouth and has replaced imported haylage,” according to Noel, who delivers the bales, mainly using his own transport, to racehorse trainers, stud farms and equestrian centres from Cork to Derry and from the Curragh to Galway. Noel adds that: “it takes a lot of planning to get it right – listening to the weather forecast to cut the grass and bale it at the best time for optimum quality. Customers want dust-and-mould-free haylage, which is well fermented and well preserved in air-tight bales”. The choice of bale wrap can have a major influence on whether mould can take

hold in a bale or not. Moulds needs air to grow, so it is always worth looking for a wrap that seals particularly well and forms a more effective air barrier and Noel has been using Silotite with great success for many years.

Quality forageTo prevent white mould and produce good-quality forage, the moisture level within the grass must be within a range favoured by the lactic-acid-producing bacteria responsible for the fermentation process. Grass sugar levels must also be maximised, to enable sufficient lactic acid to be produced to achieve good fermentation and keeping quality. If the grass is too dry and/or over mature and ‘stemmy’, the risk of mould growth increases due to insufficient fermentation. However, Noel has the best of equipment and uses it to cut, ted, bale and wrap top-quality grass when weather conditions are most favourable. Grass is cut with a nine foot Taarup mower and a New Holland tractor. The haylage bales are made with a Welger D4000 and wrapped with two McHale

995 big square bale wrappers. Around 7,000 big square bales and an equal number of hay bales are made from 450 acres (mostly rented) of Italian and perennial ryegrass. Noel bales the haylage at approximately 68 per cent dry matter and he uses white Silotite (“a very reliable film”) and eight layers of film to wrap his haylage. According to Noel: “the white film reflects the sunlight, so bales stay cooler and there is no heating up or cooling down with these haylage bales”. Despite the recession in the equine sector, this family farm has a steady demand for their haylage, which goes to show that customers will still pay for good quality and excellent service.

Ewes in winterNoel takes in 500 ewes in the winter to graze down the fields and improve the pasture so the grass quality is excellent and makes nutritious forage for race horses and ponies. This quality equine feed needs the best possible protection and John Colleton, Area Manager for Irish Polythene Agri, reiterates the importance of using a top quality balewrap such as Silotite. According to

MaKing HaY

Making hay in the Curragh

Liam de Paor takes a look at a unique enterprise in Ireland’s equine heartland


14 i i 15


John, Silotite is the world market leader for the last 25 years and is now used by agri contractors and farmers in Ireland and worldwide to wrap over 50m bales of haylage and silage every year for horses, cattle and sheep. The innovative characteristics of Silotite include a multi-layer construction for superior strength as well as a two-sided tack, which helps to create an improved airtight seal around the bale. Silotite also benefits from in-built UV inhibitors, which help to prevent film degradation, even when exposed to strong sunlight.

Irish Polythene Agri is the biggest supplier of bale wrap and silage covers, etc. in Ireland and its parent company BPI Agri are the largest manufacturers in Europe. Irish farmers and contractors are well acquainted with brand names such as Silotite, the first co-ex bale wrap film and Visqueen, a market leader in silage covers. All products are manufactured to ISO quality standards and the agri-stretch film is available in green, white and black. The company also has an experienced sales team of crop specialists available to advise

customers on cost-effective and eco-friendly forage conservation.

Eco-friendlyUsed silage covers, balewrap, etc. are used to manufacture an award-winning range of garden furniture, street and countryside signs, bollards and marine decking. The Irish Farm Film Producer Group, to which Irish Polythene Agri is major financial contributor, supplies used-film recyclers, thereby contributing significantly to a greener Irish environment.

MaKing HaY


16 i


The Irish Hosltein Friesian Association (IHFA) open day will be hosted by the Hurley family of the renowned Clonpaddin herd on mid-summers day, Tuesday June 21, this year. With a big turnout from all over Ireland and lots of interest in visiting this top quality farm expected. This is the third generation of the Hurley Family to farm at Clonpaddin. The first generation started in 1945 and, initially, tillage was the main enterprise but later they switched to milk production. The herd was first established as a pedigree Friesian herd in 1954 by John Hurley, when he registered the Clonpaddin prefix. John is still actively involved with his sons Garry and Patrick who are members of the Redcross farm discussion group. John is a founder member of the Slaney Club, which was formed in 1976. He is currently president of the club. He established the herd with the purchase of two pedigree cows, one being Craigiehock Jackie Beata from which the Jill family was developed. Today, more than a third of the herd of 100 cows are Jills. The herd was further developed by John and his sons with purchases from Canada. In 1991, they purchased the Chrissie family from the Quality herd and the Mona from Newlands. These purchases proved successful and later bloodlines of the Heavenly Joys, Susie Mist, Fantas from the Brilea herd, tracing back to Quietcove, and Robin from Stanhope, were added. Other purchases from Irish herds were the Carmens from Ballyboy, Fame from

Cradenhill, Mimi from Grangecon and Damsel from Cunniamstown.

PhilosophyThe breeding philosophy at Clonpaddin is to breed long-lasting cows through building cow families that are a correct balance of production and type. The breeding goal is a medium-size cow with strength; udders that last; and feet and legs with the correct locomotion as cows have to walk long distances. Top AI bulls with positive linear conforma-tion from proven cow families, EBI and excellent fertility are used in the herd. Best practice in breeding of pedigree registration, classification and milk recording has been the hallmark since the foundation of the herd.

Prize winningThe Hurley family are great supporters of local and national shows and have taken the top accolades on many occasions. Clonpaddin SYG Jill and Cradenhill Linjet Fame won the junior and senior heifer in milk, national dairy show, Millstreet in 2005 (a record). Cradenhill Linjet Fame was the winner of the all Ireland junior cow at Charleville Show, reserve in the Bailey’s cow at Virginia Show and at the National Dairy Show, Millstreet, in 2007. The Hurley family also won the Maid of Avonmore in 2008

with Croagh Susie Mist and Maid of Avonmore in 2010 with Clonpaddin Jet Jolly. The Clonpaddin herd is noted for quality cattle developed through cow families and sales of stock is an important feature of the family farm business.

Silage cutsGrassland management is a key factor in profitability on the farm and the aim is to have quality grass available from turnout to mid November. Top-quality first-and second-cut silage is made and surplus grass is baled. The farm location on heavy (Macamore) soils poses particular problems in wet years, requiring the herd to have good feet and legs as they walk long distances to the paddocks. The Hurley’s strategy is to use modern scientific measurement to maximise grass utilisation and they are assisted by their Teagasc adviser, Michael Ayle. The farm runs to ap-proximately 150 acres with 100 cows supplying liquid milk to Glanbia. In the winter, the herd is fed a TMR diet of grass silage, maize, brewers grains, molasses and mineral balance using a Keenan 140 (with bale handler), which they purchased in 2007. The herd average is an impressive 9,473kg at 3.72 per cent butterfat, 3.21 per cent protein and lactation length of 381 days, with 95 per cent of the herd classified VG or EX.

iHfa oPen daY

Holstein Friesian open dayA memorable day is planned by the IHFA this year, as Liam dePaor explains

Gary Hurley

Milking

Cooling Farm supply

For all your dairy farming needs

Talk to your DeLaval dealer or contact our Sales Office in CarlowTel: 0599146859

www.delaval.com

DeLaval advert 206x290.indd 1 15/03/2011 15:24:09

Milking

Cooling Farm supply



www.delaval.com


Milking

Cooling Farm supply



www.delaval.com


Milking

Cooling Farm supply



www.delaval.com


-DeLaval 205x290.indd 1 21/03/2011 11:19:44

Milking

Cooling Farm supply



www.delaval.com


Milking

Cooling Farm supply



www.delaval.com


Milking

Cooling Farm supply



www.delaval.com


Milking

Cooling Farm supply



www.delaval.com


-DeLaval 205x290.indd 1 21/03/2011 11:19:44Forage Guide A4.indd 1 20/04/2011 16:55:23


16 i

Milking

Cooling Farm supply



www.delaval.com


Milking

Cooling Farm supply



www.delaval.com


Milking

Cooling Farm supply



www.delaval.com


Milking

Cooling Farm supply



www.delaval.com


-DeLaval 205x290.indd 1 21/03/2011 11:19:44

Milking

Cooling Farm supply



www.delaval.com


Milking

Cooling Farm supply



www.delaval.com


Milking

Cooling Farm supply



www.delaval.com


Milking

Cooling Farm supply



www.delaval.com


-DeLaval 205x290.indd 1 21/03/2011 11:19:44Forage Guide A4.indd 1 20/04/2011 16:55:23


18 i


i 19

forage MacHinerY

Matt O’Keeffe on the opportunities to increase production as the countdown to the abolition of milk quotas begins

The zero option

With four production seasons between now and the abolition of milk quotas, many farmers are planning strategies to increase output once the opportunity comes. For many, it is quite straightforward, with plenty of land around the milking parlour to provide a platform for increased production. It may necessitate the removal of a drystock enterprise from the farm, to make room for extra cows but, given the infrastructure of Irish farms, there will be many, perhaps even a majority of farms, where there is adequate land to expand cow numbers but an issue in the fact that it is not in the right place, i.e., adjacent to the milking and wintering facilities. Depending on the acreage involved, this may not be an insurmountable problem. Provided there are enough hectares to graze the milking herd for the season, then the land away from the yard can be used for silage and replacements. There are many instances, however, where there will simply not be enough grazing acres for the cows, that the farmer would wish to carry and which, if the land was all within walking distance, would be used for milk production.

It is in these cases that farmers must consider strategies outside of the norm if they wish to maximise the potential of their farm. Zero grazing is often associated with intensive indoor milk production systems. Increasingly, however, it is being adopted as a strategy to be used in tandem with intensive grazing systems. Already, in Ireland, many farmers use the zero grazing option at the shoulder periods and times of grass deficit to access grass at least cost to feed their cows. For a fragmented farm, it provides a solution to a situation where there are too few hectares available to graze an expanded herd. While the cost of production will be higher than grass grazed in situ, it will still be consider-ably cheaper than substituting with bought-in supplementary feed.

An affordable option The actual capital costs are affordable in most instances. The machinery required is, basically, a tractor of adequate horsepower and a zero-grazing wagon. Most farms are equipped with a tractor that is capable of driving these wagons. While a four-wheel drive would be preferable,

it would not be a necessity, depending on the terrain and expected ground conditions. Certainly, 80-90hp is adequate and the power output requirement when the machine is in operation is usually no more that 1,400-1,600 rpm. The zero-grazing wagons cost from €25,000 upwards, to the bigger models costing in the region of €46,000. This is a significant investment but, since the machine is only used for a farmer’s own purposes, the likelihood is that it would, at least, be able to be written down over a five-to-seven-year period. Fuel costs would be the other big factor, especially as energy prices are well up on historical levels and look like staying there. Nevertheless, compared to the cost of bought-in feed, it is a competitive option. It must be remembered that not all of the grass to be consumed by the cows will need to be drawn, only a relatively small proportion. The benefit of feeding fresh grass, as against ensiled forages, is that there is no depressant effect on milk protein levels. The wagons themselves are designed to minimise bruising of the grass. There is no chopping, so the grass arrives in the feed passage just


18 i


i 19

cut from the stem and fresh from the field. This lengthens the period it will stay fresh before it starts to ferment and lose feed value and palatability.

Advocate Dairy farmer Denis Drennan, from Dunbell, Co. Kilkenny, has been zero grazing for the past three seasons. He is a total advocate of the system. “It offers me options that I wouldn’t have otherwise. In the spring, I can offer cows fresh grass, when either there is a scarcity on the milking platform or ground conditions do not allow me to get enough grass into the cows by grazing.” The normal pattern for Denis is to zero graze the silage ground which is away from the milking parlour. That ground is then closed up for two silage cuts. In the autumn, it is available again for supplying fresh grass to the milking herd through the zero grazer, buffering the grazed intake from the grazing platform. Since the introduction of zero grazing onto the Drennan farm, there has been an increase in average annual yield, as well as an improvement of 0.15 per cent in milk protein. While not all of that is necessarily accounted for, by having more fresh grass available to feed to the cows at critical times, Denis is adamant that a fair proportion of the credit lies there. He is equally enthusiastic about the role of the zero grazer in very dry or very wet summer periods. “It gives me more options and that has to be good.” The one downside that Denis identifies with practicing zero grazing is time. It does mean sacrificing an hour each day it

is in use to travel the distance to the outlying fields, harvest the grass and haul it back. However, Denis insists that it is time well spent. The model he uses is an AB70, capable of carrying up to four tonnes of fresh weight grass, equivalent to about 600kg dry matter (DM). This is a machine supplied by Niall O’Reilly’s zero grazer company based in Cavan. Denis had another interesting take on zero grazed grass when he suggested that, at times, it can be a better product than the grass grazed in situ. One instance he cites is in a rainy time in spring. He can choose a time of day to maximise the DM and sugar content of the zero grazed grass. It is then available to the cows for up to 48 hours and is higher in sugars and DM

than what the cows would otherwise be eating out in the paddock. More machinesThe machine choice is wider now than a couple of years ago. Niall O’Reilly pioneered the system with his Italian-made machines. They range in size from 11 cubic metres up to the AB80 with a capacity of 32 cubic metres. Bogey axles and flotation tyres ensure minimal ground damage. Now Belmac Engineering, in association with Clare-based Conor Engineering, is also importing zero-grazing machines, showing the growing interest in maximising the amount of fresh grass farmers can provide in their animals diet.

forage MacHinerY


20 i


i 21

A number of farms have reported disappointing silage yields in recent years. While there are many factors that contribute to yield, such as weather and grass sward varieties, low yields are increased dramatically where soil fertility factors such as phosphorus (P), potassium (K) and lime have become critical. High yields of grass silage are only achievable where soil fertility and nutrient supply factors are optimised, particularly in years where grass growth is compromised by weather. In a year

of high fertiliser prices, it is critical to ensure that soils have sufficient nutrients to meet grass growth demands, while ensuring not to waste money by over-applying expensive fertilisers at the same time.

Trends of useLime is essential to maintain soil pH in order to maximise the availability of P and K in the soil. National lime usage in Ireland in 2009 was only 700,000 tons. Usage was slightly higher (1m tonnes) in 2010. However, annual lime usage is currently only approximately half of that used in the late seventies and early eighties. The recent survey of fertiliser use on farms has shown a dramatic decrease in fertiliser P and K on grassland. In 2008, the average application of fertiliser to silage swards was 7kg/ha (6 units/acre) of P and 24kg/ha (19 units/acre) of K. These rates of application are both over 40 per cent lower than those that were applied in 2003. With high fertiliser prices and the fear of breaching nitrates (N) regulations, there is a real danger that

soil fertility will suffer as fertiliser use decreases.

Soil pH and limeThe optimal soil pH for grassland is 6.3, although lower pH (≤ 6.2) is recommended where soils are at risk of having high molybdenum levels. However, the average pH of Irish mineral soils under grassland is estimated to be only 5.5. Only approximately 40 per cent of the grassland soil samples tested through Teagasc in 2010 had a pH > 6.0. Correcting soil pH is the first and essential step in managing fertility. The availability and release of N, P and K is reduced as soils become acidic. Trying to correct soil fertility problems with additional fertilisers on soils with sub-optimal pH will yield poor value for money, as the low pH will decrease the availability of the fertiliser P and K applied. Correcting soil pH with lime is vital. When the pH is right, you get best value out of fertilisers. The same is true when applying N fertilisers to soils that are under-supplied with P and K.

SoiL fertiLitY

Stan Lalor, Teagasc, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford, explains why using more lime is critical for success

Soil fertility and silage yields

Table 1. P & K fertiliser advice (kg/ha) for silage. (Units/acre shown in brackets)

Soil Index

First Cut Second or subsequent cut

No SlurrySlurry 33 m3/ha (3000 gallons/acre)

No SlurrySlurry 17 m3/ha (1500 gallons/acre)

P K P K P K P K1 40 (32) 175 (140) 20 (16) 33 (26) 10 (8) 70 (56) 0 02 30 (24) 150 (120) 10 (8) 8 (6) 10 (8) 50 (40) 0 03 20 (16) 120 (96) 0 0 10 (8) 35 (28) 0 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cattle slurry is assumed to have a P content of 0.6 kg/m3, and a K content of 4.3 kg/m3

→ 33 m3/ha of slurry = 20 kg P; 142 kg K→ 17 m3/ha of slurry = 10 kg P; 73 kg K1 m3 slurry = 1t = 220 gallons1 kg/ha = 0.8 units/acre11m3/ha=1000 gallons/acreP and K contents in slurry can be highly variable


20 i i 21


P and K critical for silageOn most grassland farms, areas used for silage crops will have the largest demand for fertiliser P and, especially, K. Table 1 shows P and K requirements for silage crops whether grown with or without slurry application. However, it is important to note that the slurry in this example is undiluted. Where large amounts of water, e.g. from milking parlours or dirty yards, are mixed with slurry, then the P and K content will be lower.Slurry is often applied to the silage area in order to return the P and K nutrients harvested in the silage crop, eaten over winter and excreted into slurry tanks, back to the fields and soils they came from. While this is good practice in theory, it is worth considering the P and K requirements of the silage area before making final decisions on slurry spreadlands and application rates.Studies have shown that soil nutrient status of silage fields often

deteriorates as the distance from the slurry storage facilities increases. The likely cause of this is higher slurry application rates in fields nearest the slurry stores in order to reduce slurry transport costs. The result of this is that nutrient distribution and soil P and K index levels, and hence P and K requirements, can vary considerably between fields, despite the fact that the grassland use pattern may have been similar over time.Where fields do not receive slurry, it is important to note that the P and K requirements can be high, and care should be taken to ensure that the fertiliser compound choice will supply enough P and K relative to N. With high fertiliser process in 2011, the distribution of slurry around the farm is critical in order to minimise fertiliser costs.

P and K decline – a vicious circleIf slurry and fertiliser P and K

applications to silage fields are inadequate, the impact may go unnoticed for some time as the crop draws on the soil reserves. Where soil reserves of P and K are high (index 4), high yielding swards may be sustained for many years without fertiliser, and this offers a potential cost saving to farmers. However, on medium-to-low-index soils (less than index 3), grass yields will suffer from low P and K supply more quickly. In this case, a farmer may see slurry as a cure for the problem, and would be correct to target these fields with slurry applications. However, it is worth remembering that silage coming from fields with low P and K status are likely to have lower P and K contents. Hence, the P and K fertiliser value of the subsequent slurry may also be reduced, and this should be factored in when deciding on slurry application rates and subsequent fertiliser P and K applications.

SoiL fertiLitY



i 23 22 i

Soil testingSoil testing is vital in order to get the balance right. Without information on soil fertility, you are shooting in the dark. It is common on many farms to apply fertilisers on the assumption that the entire farm has adequate soil fertility status (index 3). However, soil analysis results show that only approximately 25 per cent to 30 per cent of soil samples have P and K status in index 3. Therefore, on average, to assume that every field on a farm is index 3 will only be correct in approximately one out of every four fields on the farm. Therefore, some fields will be performing below their potential, while others will be receiving expensive nutrients that are not all required.

Sward compositionGood soil fertility status is commonly linked to maintaining perennial

ryegrass in the sward. Results from an experiment at Johnstown Castle that has been comparing the performance of a grazed sward with and without P fertiliser for the last 30 years show that, where the soil P was very low, the perennial ryegrass content declined dramatically, as did the seasonality of growth for early grass production and the digestibility of the sward. Where farmers are spending money on reseeding pasture, it is important to protect this investment by maintaining soil fertility to ensure that more productive grasses and clover are sustained.

SulphurSulphur (S) is also an important plant nutrient, and is closely associated with N in many plant processes. Deficiency of S can reduce the N use efficiency of the sward. There is no soil test available to accurately predict

S deficiency in soils. However, work at Johnstown Castle has shown that lighter soils with low organic matter contents are generally more prone to S deficiency. Based on the 140 sites in the grassland experiment, it was estimated that approximately 1.5m hectares are deficient in sulphur. The S content and the nitrogen to sulphur (N: S) ratio in plants are useful guides to assessing the

likelihood of a response to S fertilisers. The S content should be greater than 0.2 per cent in dry matter (DM) and the N: S ratio should be less than 15:1.

On soils likely to have a deficiency of S, 20kg/ha (16 units/acre) of S is recommended per year for grazed swards, and 20 kg/ha per cut is recommended for silage swards. Cattle slurry contains approximately 0.3-0.4 kg/m3 of S. This equates to approximately three units of S per 1000 gallons of slurry.

Controlling costs Controlling P and K fertiliser bills without impacting on grass production is possible by considering the following 10 steps:

Soil analysis for the farm is crucial •in order to identify the areas of the farm that have either deficient or sufficient soil nutrient levels. Soil analysis is inexpensive when compared with the potential cost of fertilisers required, or with the potential productivity foregone from under-application of fertilisers on deficient soils. Soil pH and lime requirement •(also determined from soil analysis) is critical to ensure that the nutrients present in the soil will be available to the grass for uptake. Nutrients such as N, P, K, S and Mg are constantly recycled by soil biological activity. Sub-optimal soil pH restricts this biological activity and the soil will be unable to reach its full nutrient availability potential.Determine P and K requirements •for each area of the farm. This is done by combining soil nutrient status with the production requirements. Areas of the farm will have different uses and intensities, and the P and K requirements should be adjusted to reflect this. The obvious example here is silage and grazing area, but other factors such as the grazing intensity may also allow scope to tailor P and K advice to land use around the farm.

SoiL fertiLitY


i 23


22 i

SoiL fertiLitY

Avoid application on areas that are • unlikely to give a response to fertiliser. P and K applications to index four soils will rarely show a response.Have organic manures analysed for •nutrient contents. Organic manures are highly variable, so knowledge of the nutrient content will be essential for precise nutrient applications. Laboratory analysis is preferable, provided a good representative sample can be collected. Other on-farm tools, such as the slurry hydrometer, are also available as an aid to assessing the dry matter and nutrient content.Use home-produced organic manure as •the primary source of P and K fertiliser. Target manure and slurry applications to areas that have the greatest requirements. This advice should also apply to areas that may not have traditionally received manure due to transport distance. As fertiliser price increases, so too does the value of manure and slurry, and cost of transport becomes relatively less expensive.Consider importing organic manures to •offset fertiliser costs. This will be restricted in many cases by N directive rules, but if the option is available, it can be a cost-effective alternative to chemical fertiliser.Examine the ratio of P and K requirements •for each area. Organic manures or common fertiliser compounds may not necessarily have the appropriate ratio of P and K to meet requirements. In such cases, alternative fertiliser blends, or applying more than one compound may be more cost effective to ensure that both P and K requirements are met without over-supplying either one at unnecessary costEnsure that application equipment, •whether for fertiliser, manure or slurry, is properly set up and calibrated in order to ensure precise application rates.Consider the weather and soil conditions •when applying fertilisers. Applications in conditions that result in nutrient loss to water represent an economic loss to the farmer. Avoid application on waterlogged soils, or when heavy rain is forecast, particularly when applying fertiliser on slopes.


24 I

FORAGE & NUTRITION GUIDE 2011

I 25

Dermot Forristal, Teagasc, Oak Park, Carlow, on ensuring cost-reduction strategies deliver as intended

Forage harvesting – controlling costs

Farm profit outlook looks reasonably good at the moment with respectable product prices in most sectors. The dry spring period has made management of most enterprises that bit easier. We cannot be complacent, however, as rising input prices force us to seek out cost cutting oppor-tunities. Winter forage represents a considerable cost on livestock farms. Cost-reduction options must be considered carefully however, as negative impacts on feed quality and on risk must be avoided. As beef, dairy and grain prices are good at the moment, it is easy to become complacent about costs. But this is the time to be most vigilant, as there is nothing more certain about our markets than the continued presence of volatility. As night follows day, low prices will again be a feature of the market. Of course, low costs are not an end in themselves. What’s required is efficiency or a good return for the costs of inputs invested in the system.

While we should always be seeking efficiency, it must be noted that a change in product prices may result in an input strategy that was profitable previously being uneconomic in a time of low prices. The importance of efficiency and cost control cannot be overemphasised. While, in good times, high costs and poor efficiency may result in a lowering of profit, when output prices are low, these same features can break a business. Forage costs are hugely significant and cannot be ignored.

Conserved forageThe provision of feed accounts for 72 per cent and 75 per cent of direct costs on dairy and cattle farms respec-tively (Teagasc National Farm Survey). While grass constitutes the main part of the animal’s diet through the year, conserved forage is, and will remain, a significant feature on most farms. There is little doubt that maximising grass in the diet will reduce costs, as

grass generally costs close to half that of silage, when all costs associated with the feeds are considered (land, inputs, mechanisation, storage, feed out, losses, etc). However, there are two reasons why conserved forage will always be a necessity on most livestock farms: (1) Grass growth during the winter months is very poor non existent; and (2), In most parts of the country, ground conditions are not suitable for carrying stock for much of the winter period. While maximising grass use at the shoulders of the growing season by appropriate grassland management is an effective cost reduction practice, for most livestock management systems, the conservation of excess grass from the high growth rate period of April to June is a sensible approach to winter forage provision. Given that we are going to conserve grass silage, what are the cost saving options that are available? In this article, we will focus particularly those with a mechanisation aspect.

CONTROLLING COSTS


24 I I 25

CONTROLLING COSTSFORAGE & NUTRITION GUIDE 2011

Conserve quality silageWhen pursuing cost reduction, silage quality must not be compromised. The silage quality conserved must be that which is optimal for the livestock system on the farm. With conventional silage, for example, the temptation may be to go for a later harvest to reduce the cost per tonne of DM harvested. However, the loss in digestibility of the silage and the slower return of the land to grazing may outweigh any benefits. It may, in fact, be better to harvest at a lower yield, but persuade the contractor that a discount is appropriate due to the reduced quantity of grass harvested as this is a real harvesting cost saving. The relatively rigid ‘per-acre’ charging system is partly flawed in this regard.

Reduce lossesReduction of field and ensiling losses is critical in reducing the cost per tonne of silage fed. Any wilting must be carried out quickly without rain

to reduce physical and quality losses in the field. Attention to detail, at all parts of the ensiling process, is essential to ensure satisfactory preser-vation and minimal storage losses. For conventional silos, careful silo loading with the grass evenly spread and compacted to avoid air pockets, and to give good contact with the covering polythene is essential. Two polythene covers with careful weighting down with tyres, rubber mats and or sand bags, etc., is necessary with a wall polythene sheet used to provide an overlap and wall seal. The polythene should be checked and tightened as the silage settles. For baled silage, meticulous attention to detail in film application, bale transport, placement in storage and protection from birds/vermin will pay off in reduced mould and spoilage.

Pits or balesWith grass silage harvesting, there are two basic conservation options:

conventional pit silage and baled silage, with variations possible within each. Which system is less expensive depends on a number of factors: • Relative contractor charges for each

operation;• Polythene costs;• Grass yield (and consequently bale

yield);• Quantity of dry matter in each bale

for baled systems;• Existence of storage facilities and/

or write off period for these; and,• Other details such as ensiling

losses, feed out costs, spoilage risk, etc.

Eoghan Finneran developed a detailed feed costing model, which estimates all costs from land through to feeding, as part of his PhD studies at Grange. Analysis with this model indicates that conventional pit silage costs are lower for first cut silage, with baled silage costing about 19 per cent extra. For lower yielding cuts, the situation can be reversed,


26 i


i 27

controLLing coStS

as the per-bale charging system for baled silage takes account of the yield drop. The actual cost on an individual farm may differ depending on silage storage facilities, individual contractor cost arrangements, etc. The marked difference between the two systems is the method of charging, where baled silage charges are much more closely aligned with grass yield (per bale mostly). This, coupled with the systems flexibility at harvest and feed out, can make baled silage very attractive as a grassland management tool. It is now used by many growers in this way. Conventional pit silage has the advantage of a much lower polythene charge. Labour is more efficiently used in large precision-chop silage outfits. Typically, one individual would harvest and ensile in excess of one acre in an hour (80 acres/day for a six-person outfit) whereas, with baled silage, one individual would cut, bale/wrap and transport between 0.4 and 0.7 acres per hour. Despite this difference, it may be easier to supply the labour required for a baled silage operation where a farmer may carry out all bale transport and tedding /raking operations.

Chopper or wagon silageWhen fuel prices are high, the issue of wagon silage as a fuel-saving measure, is raised and with good cause. While, with both systems, the energy or fuel used in grass mowing, raking, transport and pit loading would be similar, there is a significant difference in the power/energy used in the actual field harvesting. Modern forage harvesters are tremendous high-ca-pacity machines that have refined the grass pick-up chopping and delivery to a fine art. However, the process of high-speed, fine-cut chopping, coupled with largely pneumatic delivery into the trailer, is a very power-demanding operation. With the

silage wagon, grass is passed relatively slowly through a bank of knives and simply pushed up into the wagon. In Hillsborough, a few years ago in a single site trial, this system was shown to be almost twice as efficient on fuel as a conventional system. Overall, conventional silage harvesting in Irish conditions uses about 1.6L of diesel per tonne (22 per cent DM) harvested, while wagon silage would be between 0.9 and 1.2L per tonne. At today’s prices, this would amount to a cost saving of between €3 and €7 per acre on fuel with the wagon system.

Bale number per unit areaFor a given yield, the best possible way of reducing costs with baled silage is to reduce the number of bales per acre/hectare by increasing the amount of silage dry matter packed into each bale. This is achieved by a combination of wilting and careful dense baling, resulting in less bales to bale, wrap and transport. The quantity of silage dry matter packed into a silage bale can vary from 150kg to almost 300kg, with a huge effect on bale number per acre/hectare as outlined in Table 1.

Bale number per hectare (acre)Crops should be rapidly and carefully wilted to in excess of 30 per cent DM to achieve DM contents of more than 200kg per bale, remembering, though, that careful wrapping is par-ticularly important to reduce mould development on dryer bales. Good swath presentation and a helpful contractor that will maximise the bale density setting are also important.

Wilting with pit silageWith conventional silage, judicious wilting can save ensiling costs but it must be noted that wilting can incur physical and feed value losses in the

field and has been shown to reduce feed efficiency in many situations. While wilting can incur extra mecha-nisation, charges for tedding/raking, the subsequent harvesting, transport and ensiling costs should be reduced as these are largely associated with the weight of material being ensiled. First-cut silage crops with a DM yield of 7t/ha will have 39t of grass per hectare at 18 per cent DM content. Wilting this to 28 per cent DM will reduce the weight of grass to be picked-up, chopped, transported and ensiled, to 25t/ha. The difficulty with wilting is that it is entirely weather dependent and, at best, we have to be opportunist in our approach to wilting in our climate. A rigid approach to wilting could result in substantial losses and a very restricted seasonal capacity.

Field workThe cost of operating machinery in all systems can be influenced by a number of practical approaches:Choose machinery wisely. Match all machine capacities within a system to have an efficient system. Hire-in extra tractor/transport capacity where ownership is not justified. Consider fuel consumption when purchasing machines.Plan the silage campaign wisely – developing an agreed running order with clients that is efficient and avoids excess road travel in the middle of working days. Ensure the farm in-frastructure is optimised for efficient machine operation.Adopt a good preventative maintenance system with appropriate back-up to minimise down-time.Operate all machines with the aim of reducing fuel used per tonne of grass ensiled. Learn how to drive efficiently and pass this on to all drivers – it can make a difference.

ConclusionForage is an important component of most livestock production systems. Cost reduction is vital but not at the expense of quality. Now is the time to act.

forage HarVeSting

Table 1: Bale yield and bale DM content (through wilting and bale density)DM Quantity /bale (kg) 150 175 200 225 250 275Heavy crop (6.5t DM/ha) 43 (17) 37 (15) 33 (13) 29 (12) 26 (10) 24 (9)Light crop (4.7t DM/ha) 31 (12) 27 (11) 24 (10) 21 (8) 19 (8) 17 (7)


26 i i 27


As herd sizes increase on EU beef and dairy farms, there is a need for a fresh approach to herd management. Traditionally, farmers are involved in the day-to-day work and routine decisions that affect enterprise profitability. As stock numbers increase, it is harder for any one individual to grasp all the complexity of running the business. More cows mean more risks and hazards to success. These risks need to be controlled and to quote Jan Hulsen of Vetvice Consultants, the farm must reach a point where “no problems are allowed”.

No problems allowedThis is easy to say but harder to implement. We are all familiar with the disease breakdowns, production falls and dead stock. This is what is remembered and, often, we don’t acknowledge what is keeping things right when it is all going right! A healthy, productive and profitable herd is due to a combination of success factors. These factors must work together. The tendency is to divide up the issues on farm, so they seem unrelated. For instance, fertility is considered a significant problem as is lameness and high cell count, but if cows are lame they are slower to come bulling and have

lower conception rates. If cows have high SCC, they are struggling with an infectious process and are using energy trying to cope. The same applies to infectious disease – while it is obvious that certain viral diseases like BVD and IBR will impact directly on fertility, cows that are compromised because of disease, e.g., liver fluke, will have poorer energy balance and lower fertility. Any event, that compromises the cows’ immune system or energy balance, will impact on production and profitability. So, to tackle infertility on farm, there needs to be a correct analysis of what problems have been allowed. Is lameness an issue – how many cows would benefit from treatment? Have the roadways been assessed and is the management of the cows on the roadways contributing to the lameness – how fast do you drive the quad, for example? Has infectious disease been taken care off – what is the BVD status of the herd? Is the herd high or low risk for IBR? Is vaccination enough, or is it possible that disease is being introduced due to the buying policy on the farm? Are all the cows getting enough to eat? How do we know? Is it measured and, if so, do we know how to improve it without breaking the bank? The questions keep adding up and it is easy to lose sight of the objectives depending

on what is the fashion of the day. The issue of infertility is complex and there is no quick fix without a proper analysis of all farm events and activities. Improving herd fertility and sustaining that improvement may take two to three years of care and attention to detail. Year one is spent gathering information: submission rates, conception rates and herd pregnancy rates. Each system has its own targets and parameters to measure but, at its most basic, can we tell how many eligible cows went to the bull, how many of those got in calf and how many of those calved?Once there is an accurate measure of performance, then the way to improve performance on that farm with that particular herd of cows in that production system is developed. This may require the input of a number of farm advisers; vets, AI techs, grass managers, lameness specialists, and nutrition consultants. As herds increase in size, gathering this expertise and using it to make the most of farm profitability is a challenge for farmers. Conflicting opinions on the best approach whether on disease management or nutrition systems leads to confusion and devaluing of all systems! Advisers can be their own worst enemies!

aniMaL HeaLtH

Martin Kavanagh MVB, Animal Health Consultant to the Keenan Group, on the strategies that ensure no problems are allowed to develop on the best livestock farms

No problems allowed: a new herd-health strategy

forage HarVeSting

Martin Kavanagh


28 i


i 29

What does industry teach us?This problem raises its head on farms across Europe, where conflicting opinions leave the farmer in the middle wondering who is right. As a result, issues are tackled as they arise and the idea of ‘no problems allowed’ doesn’t develop. But, as farms grow in size, the need to prevent problems becomes more and more of a necessity. If we take a lead from the manufacturing industry and look at the concept of ‘right first time’ – this is a ‘quality management concept that defect (problem) prevention is more advantageous and cost effective than defect (problem) detection and associated rework.’ In other words, get it right the first time, follow a system and measure the performance. Only change what you are doing if you are not hitting the targets. Most people working with animals will say immediately, that you can’t avoid the unexpected variation of nature – animals always have ways of showing you that nature has the upper hand. I agree with that. However, if you measure the performance of the herd and can anticipate when the herd is coming unstuck, then it is far easier to improve this performance. Also, if the protocols you have in place are kept to rigidly, then it is less likely that the cows will surprise you.

Gain planAs part of my role as animal health consultant to the Keenan Group, I have become involved with a

number of farms in Europe that have embraced this idea of ‘no problems allowed.’ My job is to assist the nutrition expertise in establishing protocols on farm that get the best from the herd and the nutrition. The herds are constantly monitored through the mixer wagon technology for dry matter (DM) intake, milk output, and feed efficiency (FCE) is calculated from these figures. Typically herds are capable of a FCE in excess of 1.4, i.e., 1.4L of milk produced for every kg of feed DM eaten. By following this figure, we can create an early warning system that will recognise when events on farm are not right first time. Jan Jansen, a Dutch veterinary consultant employed by Keenan, also works with a number of these farms assisting the nutrition service and we see in common that great success is achieved when we contribute to putting protocols on farm for the management of calves, young stock, dry cows and fresh cows. Disease can be controlled. In one example, a herd on this programme that was struggling to achieve correct feed intakes was mobility scored and found to have a significant problem with lameness. A protocol was put in place to manage digital dermatitis and DM intakes are steadily increasing as the mobility of the herd is improving. The measurement of the DM intakes gives us a parameter to follow and ensure that what we are doing is correct. The farmer can see for himself that what he is doing is working and he is in control of it. In

another instance, a herd had high calf mortality particularly during the cold winter of 2010 and, again once, a calf feeding protocol was put in place and mortality reduced by 50 per cent. All the time, the herd‘s feed efficiency is monitored keeping the system right first time. Consultants and advisers have always struggled to maintain consistent contact with a farm business and this model of gain plan has potential to build consistency in the system and ensure that no problems are allowed.

InitiativesAs companies, like the Keenan Group, work more and more with intensive farming practice in all types of production systems, there is recognition of the need to form alliances with other companies to match up shared expertise and deliver more sustainable solutions to farmers. Currently, the Keenan Group is working with like-minded companies to merge their expertise and offer a unique solution to farmers seeking to improve the overall feed efficiency of the herd. Gain plan is working in France, the US, the Netherlands and The UK. The potential for alliances like these to deliver at farm level is far more sustainable than individuals working on their own. Also, it takes the best elements from the companies involved and allows the farmer the opportunity to maximise from his investment.

ConclusionThe future will bring more challenges in terms of managing herds to ensure no problems are allowed. There are lessons to be learned from manufacturing industries that deal with complex operations that are similar to the complexities of a farm system. To get the most out of the system, there must be protocols governing the high-risk periods – measuring and managing will be a key role for the farmer. Advice needs to be joined up and seeking the overall best result on the farm. Healthy cows are efficient and profitable cows.

aniMaL HeaLtH


28 i i 29


Sebana Moynagh is part of the nationwide FRS Network group and in great demand with livestock farmers from Cavan, Meath and Westmeath for milking relief, calf rearing and other livestock duties. Sebana also manages her own farm and pedigree suckler herd of Charolais cattle at Tonagh near Mountnugent in Co. Cavan, also finds time to cut 50 acres of her own silage with a double-chop trailed harvester behind a New Holland TS 110. She took over the farm from her father, Joe Moynagh, a progressive cattle and sheep farmer who took early retirement some years ago. The family were one of the first in the area to establish a herd of pedigree Charolais and also kept a flock of Suffolk and Texel cross ewes. It wasn’t all about the great outdoors for the family, however, as Sebana’s mother Winnie is a talented dressmaker.

Qualified farm managerSabena began third-level study in the Franciscan Agriculture College in Multyfarnham in 1989, one of only 20 girls out of 120 students. She then completed a three-year course with the Farm Apprenticeship Board and became a qualified farm manager. She spent her first year on a large dairy farm, owned by John Vance, near Raphoe, in Co. Donegal. Over the next two years she worked in Co. Cork, firstly, on the liquid milk and pedigree herd of Pat and Margaret Sweeney, close to Cork Airport and then for Con and Mary Kelleher, who had a spring-calving herd and supplied Bandon Co-op. Family concerns led Sebana to return to the home farm, where she worked for some years, also milking 50 cows for a neighbour. Becoming an FRS operator was a logical career move and Sebana is

currently working on a sizable dairy herd near Oldcastle with a pedigree herd who supply milk to Glanbia. At weekends, Sebana often does relief milking while still finding time to play ladies football with Moylagh GAA club in the Royal County.

ServicesOver 2,000 people are employed full and part time by FRS Network, which provides farm services, fencing, health and safety courses. It has also collected over 75,000 tonnes of used bale wrap, silage covers, etc. for recycling over the last 10 years. Farm Relief Services has 18 offices staffed by trained personnel to provide practical assistance at a local level and services the needs of 20,000 customers countrywide. Find out more at www.frsrnetwork.com

farM SerViceS

Liam de Paor profiles a popular and well-qualified operator with the Farm Relief Services

Farm relief profile: Sebana Moynagh

Sebana is one of two thousand people

employed byFRS Network


i 31 30 i


Early cutting means that you get the best quality of grass, with the highest digestibility and many tests have shown that with later cutting the overall bulk of material may increase but the resulting digestibility of the crop decreases. Therefore, the use of your own machinery, or getting a contractor when you require one, is very important as this will enable you to cut the crop at the ideal time, giving you the chance to maximise the quality of the silage made.Cutting dry grass can be sometimes easier said than done. Normally, grass contains approximately 85 per cent water when it is cut, or 15 per cent dry matter. This, if possible, should then be dried by a combination of wind and sun to a dry matter content of approximately 30 per cent as soon as possible in order to avoid loss of nutrients from the grass. Conditioning, wide spreading or tedding can be used to assist this rapid-drying process.

Speed of EnsilingThe goal of silage-making is to convert sugar into lactic acid and to preserve the grass for the animals. Speed is important, as once the grass is cut it starts to deteriorate, and with the risk of wet weather, speed of ensiling can ensure that all the grass is ensiled before the rain arrives. Tests have shown that 10mm of rain can wash 10 per cent of the sugars out of the grass which then reduces the

amount of lactic acid produced when ensiled. This, in turn, will have an effect on the fermentation process. Speed is also important, as grass can start to heat when mowed, as the energy used to produce the heat comes from the grass sugars. This again reduces the amount left to produce lactic acid.

PressurePressure is required to expel any air from the grass as it is ensiled to avoid any air pockets. This is achieved by compression from the buckraking machine and skilful filling of the silo in layers to avoid air pockets. Pressure is easier to apply to shorter-cut material as the compaction will travel deeper into the clamp, compressing the material more. Expelling more air will enable the silo to hold an increased volume of material into a given space.

AirtightnessAirtightness is required to ensure that no air can enter the silo. When air enters the silo, a process will begin the production of butyric acid. This is produced by butyric acid bacteria (chlostridium), which can live on almost anything. Their waste product is not wanted as it has a strong odour and grass in the silo will decompose into compost if the air is changed 55 times. This often happens with a loose silo top acting like a lung, pumping oxygen down into the silage. Wilting,

and the avoidance of soil and manure in the grass, will also assist with the reduction of butyric acid production.

Stationary knivesIt used to be said that chopping should only be done out of consideration for the mechanisation of the feeding process and not out of consideration for the cow. This attitude has now changed, partly because it is important for the compression of the silo and thus the silage quality, and partly because it is necessary in order to manufacture quality feed in connection with complete diet mixers. Therefore, today, it is important how the grass is cut or chopped. A slow-moving cut against stationary knives can result in there not being any sap at the outer surfaces ofthe grass, and it will take longer before the lactic acid bacteria can get into contact with the sugar in the grass and start the ensiling process. It is different with any high-speed rotating chopper which crushes the grass when chopping it and smears the sap out on to the grass surface. A test carried out at the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University of Denmark, comparing these two cutting/chopping methods, confirms that these assumptions are correct.

Precision chopThe grass sap and possible additives will be evenly distributed on all

quaLitY SiLage

In order to make the best-quality silage there are five key rules that must be observed: cut grass early; cut grass dry; ensure speed of ensiling; ensure pressure in silage clamp; and ensure airtightness of the silage clamp, writes Frank Ward of JF-Stoll

Golden rules for good silage


i 31 i 31 30 i


surfaces. The process of ensiling starts earlier and the quality is better. Often the surface of the grass is dry and the bottom wet. The precision chop forage harvester will mix top and bottom so that ensiling material will be completely mixed up. In this way, you avoid mildew spots in the silage, thus achieving less bad quality and less wastage. Precision chop silage is more uniform in chop length than cut grass, as the percentage of grass cut within a small tolerance of the set theoretical chop length is much greater than with cut grass.This helps to avoid mildew spots and bad quality silage in the silage clamp. When the crop has been precision chopped, it is easier to compress to a higher density. Furthermore, the cubic content of the silo will be better utilised. The feeding out of the silage is easier to mechanise so that the total mixed ration can easily be carried out.

Your needsJF-Stoll offer a range of machinery for conserving grass/wholecrop/maize crops for animal feedstuff, including mounted mowers, mower conditioners, tedders, swathers, forage harvesters, and a range of vertical diet feeders from 6.5-45 cubic meters. The range of precision chop harvesters are produced to suit everyone with tractors from 100-350hp, which all use the uppercut system. This cuts the material at the shearbar and then throws it directly up the chute and out into the tractor. This upper cut system requires less energy consumption than conventional precision choppers. It is possible to get a 25-50 per cent increase in capacity with a JF-Stoll harvester when using the same tractor. The multi-knife system helps to keep maintenance costs to a minimum. If damage is caused to the cutting knives, they can be replaced individually as they cover only 25 per cent of the width

of the cutting rotor on the 955 and 1050 machines. The genuine JF-Stoll harvester blades have a built-in line of fracture and will break if it encounters a large object entering the machine. The broken part of the knife will then be thrown up the chute thereby reducing any secondary damageto the cutting cylinder. The shearbar is tungsten-coated and can be reversed to give double the working life, again reducing the cost of ownership of the machines. These machines are available with grass picks of 1.85m and 2.1m width and also a 2.4m direct cut header, which is suitable for zero grazing and wholecrop harvesting.A maize header is also available. A much larger 1355 machine with 3.1m pick-up is available for those seeking outputs comparable to smaller self-propelled foragers, when driven by a suitably powered tractor with many additional features on the machine as standard.

quaLitY SiLage


32 i


i 33

There is a wide choice of milking systems and accessories available, prices vary as does the quality of service available, so which brand delivers the best lifetime value for milk producers?According to Steve Sefton, Sales Director with DeLaval, the company has a world-class reputation for innovation, reliability and a wide range of experience so farmers know they are making a wise decision by investing in this brand. The nationwide network of DeLaval dealers have been servicing milk producers for over 60 years and have an excellent track record. DeLaval offers preventive maintenance, an advisory service and a 24/7 emergency service. One satisfied DeLaval customer is the Curran family near Grange, in Co. Waterford who have a spring calving herd and supply Glanbia. Cows are milked in a 60-point DeLaval external rotary (PR 2100) parlour and one person can milk 300 cows in 50 minutes. The equipment includes Harmony light-weight clusters (very gentle on cows udders), DeLaval in parlour feeders, plus a computerised feed to yield system which optimises herd management information.Cows average 1,200 gallons pa from grassland-only 250kg of meal are fed per cow. All bull calves are sold for export at around two weeks so the farm focus is entirely on profitable milk production. The Curran family have been in milk production for generations – indeed their grandfather Tom was also a well-known inventor and studied at Clongowes College, but was taken out by his parents before he became too attached to academia.In those days the family made butter for export to Britain and still have the oak wood stamp used. At one stage up

to 80 cows were milked by hand but in 1929 they invested in a five-unit bucket plant (this cost £700 at the time) and were one of the first farm families to do so in the area.Their Farm Manager, Alan Cullen does an excellent job and is indispensable, according to James and Esther Curran. James and Alan are members of the local Teagasc discussion group and its name Future Focus is quite appropriate.All silage is clamped and mostly made at an outside farm about one mile from home using their own silage wagon. The silage wagon is also used to take out surplus grass and for zero grazing if required. In addition, 15-20 acres of fodder beet is grown and fed with the silage.

New rotary parlour-first of its kind in irelandAccording to Steve “this New Zealand-designed steel turntable was the first of its kind in Ireland and DeLaval has a great deal of experience installing rotary parlours worldwide over the last 25 years.

James Curran says: “in the new parlour, milking is a pleasant operation, animal comfort is greatly improved, cows come in quicker and spend less time in the yard.”This means “less slurry to clean and store, while our cows have more time for grazing and clean out the paddocks better”. Even with increased cow numbers, milking and cleaning takes four to five hours less per day – so more time for herd management. The hi-tech equipment includes milk recording, automatic cluster removal, multi-way cow segregation for AI etc so this is a one man operation.

Eco friendly systemsThe Hygenius C200 auto plant washer uses 30 per cent less water and detergents. As Jim says “push a button and walk away – after our tea break the plant is spotless”. Their 24,000L DeLaval DXCEM tank can be washed in 20 minutes using the cost effective Hygenius system.

dairY equiPMent

New grants make upgrading dairy equipment an easier decision

George Moore, DeLaval (Territory Manager) and James Curran, Glanbia milk supplier discuss the

Hygenius automated cleaning system.


32 i i 33

aniMaL HeaLtH

No one wants to eat off a dirty plate and cattle are no different! So what happens to the dung pats that are passed by cattle as they graze? It has been recognised, for many years, that cattle will selectively graze and avoid herbage that has been contaminated by dung, partly due to the smell but also because the herbage is less palatable (sour) and has a lower nutritional value and dry matter digestibility (DMD) (1,2). Within a grazing paddock, long and short phases of herbage will develop, the long phases being associated with the dung pats, and covering an area six to 12 times the actual pat size (3). Research at Moorepark (4) showed that dairy cows preferred to graze shorter

palatable grass when first entering a grazing area, leaving the long, inferior quality (low DMD) herbage until last in a grazing bout.

DegradationDung pat degradation is affected by •many factors includingWeather;•Pat moisture content;•Earthworm activity;•Trampling by cattle; and,•Dung beetle activity.•

In northern Europe, the dung inhabiting community is particularly rich, consisting of as many as 400 species of insect. The dung beetle’s (Aphodius sp) vital role in dung decomposition has been well


Charles Chavasse and William Minchin, Pfizer Animal Health on how an important dietary issue that can be addressed effectively

Give your cattle a clean dinner plate!

Charles Chavasse, Area Veterinary Manager Ruminants, Pfizer Animal Health



i 35 34 i

documented in research findings (4,5). The importance of the dung beetle cannot be underestimated, especially from an Irish production context, given our reliance on grass-based production systems (beef, dairy and sheep). Failing to acknowledge the dung beetle’s importance could lead to a reduction in profitability at farm level due to loss in utilisable grazed herbage.

BenefitsIt has been shown that dung pats in general, degrade in circa. 110 days (6). The loss of the dung beetle will lead to the lengthening of this degrading period and, hence, more contaminated pasture in the grazing rotation. The shorter the grazing rotation (18-21 days) and the higher the stocking rate the worse the problem. The presence of dung pats leads to increased dung breeding pest-fly populations and increased transmission of internal parasites of livestock.

The benefits of fast dung removal not only include increased sward palatability and reduction in pest flies and internal parasite transmission, but also the return of nutrients to the soil, particularly nitrogen, a large proportion of which would otherwise be lost as ammonia.Residues of endectocides like ivermectin have been studied extensively. The findings have shown a profound effect on populations of beneficial dung beetles and other insects (7). Compared to avermectins, results have shown that the residues of moxidectin (the active molecule in the Cydectin range) are less toxic and have minimal impact on dung-dwelling insects. It was found that doramectin was the most toxic to these dung insects, followed by ivermectin and eprinomectin (8). Dung from cattle treated with moxidectin supported the development of dung beetles at all stages after dosing, as did dung from untreated animals (9).

QualityThe environmental benefits of using moxidectin as a worm dose bring a number of advantages to the farmer too. There will be increased dung recycling, leading to increased available grazing area, better quality and quantity of grass and improved soil fertility, aeration and structure. There will be reduced habitat for gut roundworm eggs and larvae and less nuisance flies. The

environment will benefit, as dung beetles are a food source for birds and bats. Dung recycling also returns carbon and nitrogen to the soil.Cydectin Pour-On has the longest dosing interval of eight-10 weeks, which means as well as being less toxic to dung dwelling insects, fewer treatments may be required.

ReferencesMarten & Donker (1966). Animal 1. excrement as a factor influencing acceptability of grazed forage. Proceedings of 10th International Grassland Congress, Helsinki 359-363Leaver (1987). The potential to 2. increase production efficiency from animal-pasture systems. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 47:7-12Greenhalgh & Reid (1969). The 3. herbage consumption and milk production of cows grazing S24 ryegrass and S37 cocksfoot. Journal of the British Grassland Society 24:98-103Boa, Giller & Stakelum (1998) 4. Selective grazing by dairy cows in the presence of dung and the defoliation of tall grass dung patches Animal Science 66:65-73Jankielsohn (2006). The effect of 5. habitat change on the structure of dung beetle assemblages in the North-Eastern free state: A comparison of conserved and farmed land. Department of Zoology and Entomology, Faculty of Science, University of Pretoria. PhD, chapter 6: 1-49.Castle & MacDaid (1972). The 6. decomposition of cattle dung and its effects on pasture. Grass and Forage Science 27:133–138O’Hea, Kirwan, Giller & Finn (2010). 7. Lethal and sub-lethal effects of ivermectin on north temperate dung beetles, Aphodius ater and Aphodius rufipes. Insect Conservation and Diversity 3:24-33Floate et al (2002). Bulletin of 8. Entomological Research 92:471-481Strong & Wall (1994). Bulletin of 9. Entomological Research 84:403-409

aniMaL HeaLtH



i 35 34 i

The agricultural industry in Ireland seems to be in a good place as we look forward from 2011. Commodity prices are firm, milk quotas are to be abolished in 2015 and our commitment to the 2020 Food Harvest Report should herald potential for significant increases in production. Grass is the major crop on which our milk and meat industries are based and our temperate climate and ability to grow it in abundance gives us a significant advantage over our competitors. However, we are not utilising this resource as efficiently as we should be. Our grass based production systems cannot function efficiently if the grass is not adequate for the purpose. Irish grassland swards should be comprised of modern perennial ryegrasses and, unfortunately, this is not the case. Less than 2 per cent of our grassland is reseeded annually. We have grass-based production systems based on swards that are old and dominated, to a large part, by weed grasses. We need to reseed more. This will lead to more swards dominated by perennial ryegrass, with the ensuing benefits in terms of yield and increased productivity:• Benefitsof reseeding;• Increasedswardproductivity.;• Improvedgrassquality;• Maximisedgrazingdays;• Fertiliser-responsiveswards;

• Reducedsilagerequirement;and,• Eliminationof oldnon-productive

swards.

Increased/maximised productive capacity of the grazing platform.Current varieties of perennial ryegrass have a yield potential of 15 tonnes of dry mater (DM) per hectare. While many factors affect yield, if the new ryegrasses are not in the sward, you have no hope of achieving this potential. Now that grassland reseeding is about to commence in 2011, there are a number of important considerations that should be borne in mind. Reseeding grassland is a crucial process that plays a fundamental role in driving farm production and farm profitability in livestock based farming systems. Reseeding is a long-term investment, so it is crucial to get it right.

Varieties The most important thing to consider when reseeding is what varieties to sow. Vital traits such as spring growth, autumn growth, digestibility and total yield should be the basis on which the varieties to be sown are chosen. There can be large differences between varieties for these traits, so it essential to identify the superior varieties. The Irish recommended list of grasses lists the differences between varieties for these traits.

Every mixture should carry the ingredients on the attached green certification label. Use only varieties that suit your system, i.e., grazing or silage, clover or not, soil type dry or wet. The difference between varieties and mixtures can be substantial, so make sure. Use only varieties that are on the Irish recommended list. Reduced supply of perennial ryegrass means that some grass seed mixtures are being sold containing varieties that are not well suited to Irish production systems and not on the recommended list. These mixtures should be avoided. Teagasc estimates the cost of reseeding to be €540/ha. It is a false economy saving five or six euro on an acre of grass seeds if you are compromising on the quality of grasses. The better varieties cost more – for obvious reasons.Important points to remember:• Weneedtoreseedmore;• UsevarietiesfromtheIrish

recommended list;• Usevarietiesthatsuityoursystem;• Judicioususeof varietiesto

maximise spring and autumn growth. Key varieties are Tyrella, Drumbo, Mezquita and Navan;

• Selectvarietieswithenhanced‘D’values. Key varieties include Tyrella, Drumbo, Portstewart, Abercraigs, Navan and Dunluce; and,

• Cheapergrassseedmixturesarenot necessarily better value.

graSSLand reSeeding

Diarmuid Murphy, Germinal Seeds, offers some points to consider in planning for reseeding this year

Reseeding checklist

Diarmuid Murphy and Abigail Ryan pictured at a recent Teagasc/Germinal monitor farm work.


36 i


i 37

Jane Oliver, Alltech, on meeting the challenges of quality silage production

The silage puzzle: overcoming common challenges

Silage represents a large portion of the typical cow’s diet, so its quality largely affects what other ingredients are required and the amount added to the diet. Three major challenges associated with silage are shrink (dry-matter loss), quality (retaining important nutrients) and palatabil-ity. Making silage is very much like piecing a puzzle together, and there are many pieces to the silage puzzle. If, put together correctly, you can overcome the challenges listed above

and have a quality product to feed. Some of these jigsaw pieces include making sure forages are harvested at the correct maturity and moisture; ensuring the correct packing density; excluding oxygen; and managing ‘the face’. Another important piece of the puzzle is adding silage inoculant.

Shrink Shrink occurs in every feed ingredient used on farm. A good way to improve profits is to ensure that you do not lose

ingredients – whether purchased or grown on farm – before they become part of the feeding programme. It is typical to see silage dry matter (DM) losses of anywhere from 10 to 25 per cent from the time they are harvested to feed out, with an average of 18 per cent. The cost of silage per tonne will vary, but let’s say grass silage is worth €30 per tonne and that a particular dairy puts up 1,000t corn silage. With 18 per cent shrink, there would be 180t of DM loss – worth €5,400.

SiLage quaLitY


36 i i 37


Shrink/DM loss, in the case of forages, happens when bacteria break down and consume the forage, converting it to carbon dioxide, water, heat and other by-products. In fact, if enough air is present, improper fer-mentation will occur and unwanted bacteria present will break down the forage, effectively turning it into compost. However, if we exclude as much oxygen as possible, the pH will drop and kill off unwanted bacteria in the silage. The quicker the pH drops, the quicker the unwanted bacteria die, reducing the amount of shrink that will be experienced in your pile. In order to exclude oxygen, it is extremely important to achieve an acceptable packing density of 15 pounds DM per cubic foot. These days, it is important to ensure that forages are not being delivered to the pile faster than the push tractor can pack. If they are, then it is important to slow the harvester down or add

another tractor to the pile. It is also important that the pile is covered as quickly as possible. In fact, delayed covering of the pile by 48 hours will negatively impact aerobic stability. Oxygen-barrier films are also being used to reduce DM losses and spoilage. Using silage inoculant that contains the combination of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and enzymes can also help reduce shrink. Essentially, inoculant containing this combination is designed to drop the pH more quickly and efficiently, thus speeding the fermentation process and reducing losses. This happens because the bacteria produce high levels of lactic acid, which they do very efficiently, converting just one molecule of sugar into one molecule of lactic acid. Enzymes assist by making more sugar available to LAB. By comparison, wild bacteria need two or three molecules of sugar to produce the

same amount of lactic acid, slowing the ensiling process and allowing for those unwanted bacteria to break down the forage. Research comparing corn silage that was untreated and treated with an inoculant containing a specific combination of LAB (lactococcus faecium, lactobacillus plantarum, lactobacillus salivarius and pediococcus acidilactici) and enzymes (cellulose, hemicellulase, pentonsa-nase and amylase) showed a 5 per cent DM recovery. If you consider the example from earlier and subtract this DM recovery, you have reduced your losses from 18 per cent to 13 per cent. In this case, 130t of corn silage worth €3,950 was retained.

Increased protein quality When unwanted bacteria are alive in silage, they require energy and protein to grow and reproduce. In order to access these nutrients, they break down the proteins of the fresh crop

SiLage quaLitY


38 i


i 39

into molecules they can use – amino acids and ammonia. This breakdown reduces the amount of true protein that is left in the silage. The longer the pH is allowed to stay high in silage, the longer the unwanted bacteria live, reducing true protein. The protein that is lost in forage will ultimately have to be made up with purchased protein, in some cases, from very expensive bypass sources. Ensiling forages with an inoculant, as discussed earlier, ensures a quicker drop in pH, so a faster and more efficient fermentation, resulting in more retained nutrients such as protein. According to work done by Ad Van Vuuren, senior researcher in ruminant nutrition at Animal Sciences Group of Wageningen UR at Lelystad, the Netherlands, treating silage containing the same combination of LAB and enzymes listed above has led to the synthesis of 6 per cent more microbial protein from the fermentable organic matter in the ration, equating

to as much as 1kg/cow/day of milk production.

Palatability In order to maximise the amount of forage cows eat, we have to ensure that it is palatable. Several things can reduce forage intakes – first among them, poor fermentation and moulds. Poor fermentation can result in the production of unwanted butyric and acetic acid. Anyone who has had butyric fermentation knows how little of the silage you can put in the diet before intakes are affected. Acetic acid usually smells like vinegar, also impacting intakes. When fermenting silage, we always want to maximise the amount of lactic acid that is produced and minimise the amount of acetic or butyric acid in order to ensure the silage is palatable. Inoculant containing homo-fermen-tative LAB (meaning that it only produces lactic acid) helps achieve a more ideal ratio of lactic-to-acetic

acid. In order to ensure these bacteria have enough food (sugars) to survive and properly ferment the forage, inoculant that also contains enzymes is crucial, as enzymes break down complex sugars so that LAB can utilise them.

Making silage sense Improving cow health and performance, as well as the producer’s bottom line, can be achieved by placing more emphasis on making higher-quality silage and reducing losses. Using modern management practices and technologies such as inoculant will assist in carefully piecing the complicated silage puzzle together and overcoming common challenges, thus increasing the overall quality of silage and the feed presented to the cow.

References available on request.

SiLage quaLitY


38 i i 39


MagnesiumMagnesium is the most important mineral to supplement in the cow’s diet. Deficiency can cause grass tetany/grass staggers – the major cause of death in cows at grass (especially spring and autumn). Magnesium supplementation has also been identified as having the greatest influence on preventing milk fever. Cows should be supplemented with at least 15g to 20g of magnesium per head per day. The grazing ruminant is known to be particularly at risk from grass staggers because, at certain times of the year, the magnesium content of herbage can fall well below normal requirement levels. Although the animal’s skeleton contains about 70 per cent of the total body magnesium, it is only released very slowly and certainly not quickly enough at times of high demand. Additionally, magnesium is rapidly excreted in the urine so, when the requirement is high, there is a need for a continuous supply in an easily absorbable form. However, as grazing animals respond quickly to magnesium supplementation, prevention is better and easier than a cure. Palatability can be a problem but, by offering the supplementation on a liquid molasses base, the natural bitterness of magnesium sources is overcome and the sugars (a source of energy in the rumen, where the magnesium is absorbed) help to lower

the rumen pH, improving the uptake of the magnesium itself.

PhosphorusPhosphorus levels in Irish forages have been falling in recent years, in some cases providing only 50 per cent of the animal’s phosphorus requirements. Phosphate deficiency has increased significantly over the last decade due to reductions in fertiliser use. In grazing livestock, phosphorus (P) is the most prevalent mineral in deficiency. The level of P required by an animal relates to production status, so, for example a milking cow has a much higher requirement for phosphorus than a replacement heifer. Deficiency can lead to lower milk yield, infertility, lameness and an increase in the risk of milk fever.

Target % P of dry matter intake – 0.35 – 0.4% (56-64g of P per day

Typical Forage % P – 0.25% (40g of P per day)

Deficit – 0.10 – 0.15% (16-24g of P per day)

Symptoms of P deficiency• Animalschewingstonesandwood.• Lowconceptionrates/irregular

oestrus.• Reducedmilkyieldandquality.• Reducedfeedintake.• Lameness.• Dull,dryhaircoat.

In summary, the benefits of supplying magnesium and P during times of high demand in the form of a molassed liquid are:

• Asitismolassesbased,itishighlypalatable.

• Thesugarsprovidealmostinstantenergy for the animal at a time of severe stress.

• ThesugarslowertherumenpH,improving absorption.

• Thereis24houraccess-nostressperiod.

• Zerowaste,astheanimalsonlytake what is required.

• Completepeaceof mindthattheanimals are getting all their needs met.

Continuing with its emphasis on innovation and new product development, Premier Molasses has recently added new liquid feeds - Ultra-Mag and Hi-Phos, to its farm product range. Ultra-Mag is a high-quality magnesium supplement targeted at supplying daily dietary requirements to aid in the prevention of both grass tetany and milk fever. It supplies an easily absorbable form of magnesium in a molasses base to be made available to vulnerable stock on a free access basis. Hi-Phos is a molassed liquid feed for correcting P deficiency in livestock diets. It combines a high level of readily available P and easily available energy in an extremely palatable feed. Both liquids can be top-dressed on forages, mixed with dry feeds, or added to the diet feeder as part of the TMR. It can also be fed free-access through lick wheel feeders. Lick wheel/ball feeders are available from Sturdy Products and merchants/co-ops.

PreMier MoLaSSeS

Mineral supplements during grazing seasonBrian Campion, Product Development Manager, Premier Molasses, on ensuring adequate macro-mineral supplementation during grazing season


40 i


i 41

KiWi farMing

That is also finding use in New ZealandExperienced at fattening lambs on flat paddocks under irrigation in mid-Canterbury on South Island, New Zealand, Kerry Boon saw the potential and bought Two Peaks Farm in the hills near Mawaro, South Canterbury, seven years ago. A farm where free draining slopes with shallow soils rise from 300

to 837m above sea level and snow falls each winter. However, Kerry and his wife Miharu, with the on-call help of Kerry’s father Colin, have worked hard and established a tidy one-man farming operation fattening lambs and cattle in good time. “We thought we could fatten lambs up here and that it would give us more options. I can hold stock instead of having to be a price taker when

everyone else is selling them as stores,” explained Kerry. Pasture renewal is a key factor, as was the purchase three years ago of an additional 80 hectares to allow for more control of grazing options on today’s 729 hectare farm carrying 4,500 stock units, of which 55 per cent are cattle, 30 per cent are sheep and 15 per cent are deer that will be sold as weaners.

Irish example in New ZealandRodney Magowan reports on a high-sugar grass variety popular across Ireland

Miharu and Kerry Boon check on their one-year-old charolais-cross steers and heifers with Ben, Rebecca and Josh (right) in AberDart high sugar grass sown last October.


40 i


i 41

KiWi farMing

New grassesAmong the new grasses tried and tested at Mawaro, which means coal creek in Maori, the high-sugar perennial ryegrass AberDart has stood out for its ability to fatten lambs and young cattle. “AberDart certainly speeded them up after weaning, I was amazed at their weights and phoned the lamb drafter to get him in earlier,” Kerry commented. Lambs are sold at weaning or drafted by weight each week until the end of February and, on AberDart pasture, have averaged 400g of liveweight gain a day, which is the equivalent of any intensive lamb fattening farm in New Zealand. “We used to grow 12ha of rape for fattening, but can do this on AberDart instead with just 6ha of rape put in as insurance if it gets dry,” added Kerry. The Boons’ beef steers and

heifers are similarly grown to exacting standards – the cattle being produced for a Canterbury grass-fed beef contract supplying Japan can put on 2kg a day grazing pasture.“Typically, the steers will make 1.5kg a day from mid-spring to early summer so they’re putting on an extra half kilo when the grass is at its best quality,” said Kerry, who had 60 per cent of steers and heifers at target weights by 18 to 20 months old, with the rest cashed before 24 months. “The contract requires the right meat colour, a pH of less than 5.8, a fat cover at about 5mm-8mm and the cattle have to be a specific weight so basically we need them well fed and content.”

Health benefitsThe mix of AberDart, clover and

timothy with the herbs chicory and plantain has proven beneficial to animal health, as evident in lambs that “bloomed and didn’t take a backward step”, added Kerry, who is the head sheep convener for the Mackenzie Agricultural & Pastoral Highland Show Society. “I find the AberDart very good for establish-ing herbs and clovers in the sward. It gets away and then slows to let the clover grow with it. It’s not a tall grass but it’s certainly dense with fine leaf, there’s a lot there when you grab a handful and evenly grazed AberDart paddocks look like a carpet.” Premium grass sees mixtures based on Aber high-sugar grasses and AberDai white clover are available from the trade in the Republic and Northern Ireland.


42 i


i 43

Intensive genetic selection means the modern Holstein Friesian cow has the ability to produce huge volumes of milk. On benchmarked Northern Ireland farms she also, on average, consumes a tonne more concentrate per year than a dairy cow 10 years ago. Despite this, an energy deficit leading to the cow loosing condition during early lactation is a major problem, especially in animals with very high yield potential. This ‘milking off her back’ due to negative energy balance (NEB), often leads to a range of problems, including metabolic disorders, immunosuppression, re-productive failures and behavioural abnormalities.

ConclusionsRyan Law and Fiona Young, based at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), Hillsborough, drew the following conclusions from research into supplementation strategies for high yielding dairy cows during winter:•Delayingconcentratebuild-upin early lactation improved forage intake, yet had no significant impact on milk yield. This delayed build-up

in concentrate feeding improved the cow’s energy status, but did not impact on her fertility.• Addingadditionalconcentratesinto

the cow’s diet during early lactation gave a large milk yield response. However, feeding extra concen-trates later in the lactation gave a poorer milk yield response as most of the extra energy eaten went into body tissue reserves.

• Cowperformancewasnotaffectedwhen concentrates and forage were fed separately rather than in a mixed ration.

• Reducingthedietaryproteincontent of the diet from 173g/kg dry matter to either 115 or 114g/kg dry matter improved the efficiency of nitrogen (N) utilisation, but resulted in a substantial reduction in cow performance. There is scope to reduce dietary protein levels to 144g/kg dry matter after mid lactation to cut feed costs without loss of performance.

• Usingrumen-protectedmethioninemay offer an opportunity to reduce dietary protein levels and improve N utilisation efficiency without loss of performance.

• Dietaryproteincontentcanbeused as a tool to manage energy balance. Cows whose energy status was managed to achieve a predefined energy balance had improved dry matter intake and energy status, although this had no effect on performance.

• Offeringa‘fertilityimprover’ration,based on high starch levels in early lactation, followed by a diet containing a higher fat level, tended to reduce the interval from calving to commencement of cyclicity, but gave no better reproductive performance.

For many attending the AgriSearch seminar, a key message was that labour could be saved by moving to an easy feed system without any loss of milk output. Previous R&D had suggested that complete diet feeding marginally improved production, but this conclusion was not based on comparisons with an easy feed system for silage. Feeding concentrates and silage separately is now shown to have several benefits not least a reduction in winter workload.

nutritionaL uPdate

Nutritional update on high-yielding Holsteins

Dr Vanessa Woods, speaker on greenhouse gas emissions at the AgriSearch dairy seminar and Dr Alistair Carson, AFBI Head of Agriculture, welcome Dr Karen Wonnacot, right, of DairyCo. to the event.


42 i i 43


Milk quality is one of the main production targets in the future herd at Greenmount, Co. Antrim, and both breeding and feeding are paying dividends though the bonuses being received for milk quality compared to the Northern Ireland average. When the future herd was established, in autumn 2006, from the amalgama-tion of the premium milk and high forage herds, the 12-month rolling butterfat was 4.07 per cent and protein was 3.22 per cent. One of the targets, set at the launch of the new herd, was to achieve 4.10 per cent butterfat and 3.50 per cent protein on a 12-month rolling average basis. Rolling average production, to the end of December 2010, stood at 4.34 per cent butterfat and 3.44 per cent protein.

Milk quality valueMilk of this quality gets a bonus of

1.8 pence/litre on the current United Dairy Farmers’ milk pricing structure. This is worth an extra £21,500 per year for the 150-cow herd which averages 8,000 litres/cow/year. The improvement in milk butterfat and protein since the future herd was established is worth £14,200 more in milk sales per year. From 2006, the 0.27 per cent point improvement in butterfat, to 4.34 per cent, is worth around £38 per cow per year on the current United Dairy Farmers’ payment structure and the 0.22 per cent point improvement in protein to 3.44 per cent is worth around £56 per cow per year. While the improvement in butterfat has exceeded that of protein, the protein improvement is worth financially more, since each 0.01 per cent is worth 0.032 pence/litre, compared to 0.018 pence/litre for butterfat. Together, the improvements in both butterfat and protein, since 2006, is worth £95 more per cow per

year with the improved milk quality over this time increasing the value of milk produced by 1.2 pence/litre.

Feeding for qualityMilk quality can be improved by both feeding and breeding. In the future herd, feeding begins with the production of high-quality grass silage of high digestibility and silage intake value. Cows are batched into groups, with feed targeted according to yield and stage of lactation. Milk protein concentrations are closely related to energy balance and cows with the greatest negative energy balance or nutritional stress, around time of peak lactation, have lower levels of milk protein. Feeding alternative forages, such as forage maize, can increase the forage dry matter (DM) and, hence, energy intake of cows, helping to alleviate the negative energy balance in early lactation. At Greenmount, in the first year of feeding maize silage, the

Better Bred, Better fed

Dr David Mackey, Dairying Technologist, CAFRE, on the role breeding and feeding play in improving returns for farmers

Improving milk quality and margins

Average PTAs for cows in the future herd across the range of lactations

Maiden heifers In-calf heifers Lact 1 Lact 2 Lact 3 Lact 4 Lact 5+ Milking herd

Milk (kg) -6 -86 -89 -129 -199 -72 -329 -151

Bfat (%) 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.15 0.22 0.08 0.09 0.14

Prot (%) 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.08

£PLI 87 79 67 57 70 31 -12.6 50

Sire FI* 3.0 4.3 4.6 -6.1 -1.9 -1.4 -2.5 -1.6

Sire LS* 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2

Sire SCC* -7.2 -11.4 0.4 -12.9 -7.0 0.8 2.9 -4.8

*Weighted average of sire PTAs for fertility, lifespan and somatic cell count, based on sire proofs from August 2010.


44 i


i 45

milk protein per cent of the future herd increased by over 0.10 per cent on the previous winter. This improvement has been maintained in subsequent years.

Sire selectionBreeding to improve milk quality is a long-term approach and it takes years to see the benefits, but these can be clearly seen in the future herd. Many farmers have also been using

bulls with positive fat and protein percentages over the years and are producing good quality milk but, to improve milk composition still further, it is worthwhile establishing the genetic merit of your herd from a herd genetic report. This can aid sire selection and lead to continued improvement in milk quality.At Greenmount, there has been a consistent policy of selecting sires with a high PTA for protein percentage for over 15 years. Sire selection in the future herd is closely aligned to the target of 8,000L to 8,5000L per cow per year, on a rolling average basis, milk quality of 4.10 per cent butterfat, and 3.50 per cent protein with good fertility performance and a lifetime yield of 40,000L per cow. Therefore, the current production and genetic merit of cows is borne in mind before sires are selected each year. In August 2010, the average PTA of cows in the future herd was: 151 for milk; +0.08 for protein percentage; and +0.14 for butterfat percentage. A full genetic breakdown of the PTAs for the herd, including the average PTA for the non-pro-ductive traits, (fertility, lifespan

and somatic cell count) of their sires can be seen in the table and this forms the basis of sire selection decisions at Greenmount each autumn.For milk recorded herds,

information on the genetic merit of individual cows is available free of charge from DairyCo in a herd genetic report. This is updated at each proof run. The United Milk Records’ annual statement of terminated lactations and NMR’s i-report contain the same information for cows that have completed a lactation in the last year.

Breeding for further im-provementsIn terms of protein, only bulls with a PTA for protein percentages of 0.08, or higher, would have the genetic potential to maintain or improve the milk protein of the future herd in years to come. While positive, a bull with a PTA for protein percentage of 0.05 would lead to an improvement in many herds, but use of such a bull in the future herd would likely lead to a decline in milk quality since the average cow in the herd has a higher PTA. Therefore, for continued genetic improvement of the future herd, sires are selected with PTAs that would improve yield and milk quality, while also having positive fertility, positive lifespan and negative SCC PTAs. This winter’s sire selection included Bidlea Padbury, Fleury Mathys and Mascol for use on cows, with PTAs for protein percentages of 0.13, 0.08 and 0.08 at the August proof run, and Gran-J Oman McCormick for use on maiden heifers with a PTA for protein percentages of 0.07. A long-term approach to breeding for milk quality pays dividends with the example of the future herd being worth £14,200 in milk bonuses per year compared to that achieved four years ago. CAFRE dairying development advisers are provide training on breeding and sire selection and herd genetic reports at which breeding for milk yield and quality, fertility and longevity are discussed.

Better Bred, Better fed

Herd targets for milk composition:

Targets: BF 4.10 per cent, PR 3.50 per cent, (Yield 8,000 litres), (Milk solids 608 kg)

Rolling average (Oct 2006) BF 4.07 per cent, PR 3.22 per cent, (Yield 8,920 litres), (Milk solids 651 kg)

Current 12-month rolling average BF 4.34 per cent, PR 3.44 per cent, (Yield 7,889 litres), (Milk solids 614 kg)

2: Bonus payment for milk quality:

Future herd (weighted average)

Average milk bonus: (year) (p/litre)

2007 0.73

2008 1.23

2009 1.41

2010 1.62

United Milk payment structure: BF per cent: Base = 4.00 per cent.Each 0.10 per cent worth 0.18 pence/litrePR per cent: Base = 3.18 per cent. Each 0.10 per cent worth 0.32 pence/litre

Future Herd progress: BF per cent rolling averageOct 2006 (4.07 per cent @ bonus 0.13 ppl) to Dec 2010 (4.34 per cent @ bonus 0.61 ppl)In 8,000L cow, improvement in BF per cent since Oct 2006 worth £38.40/cowWorth equivalent of 148 litres at 26 ppl base

PR per cent rolling average:Oct 2006 (3.22 per cent @ bonus 0.13 ppl) to Dec 2010 (3.44 per cent @ bonus 0.83 ppl)In 8,000 litre cow, improvement in PR per cent since Oct 2006 worth £56.00/cowWorth equivalent of 215 litres at 26 ppl base

Overall improvement in BF per cent and PR per cent:Since Oct 2006 worth £95 per 8,000 litre cowWorth equivalent of 365 litres at 26 ppl base

Across herd of 150 cows, improvement since Oct 2006 is worth £14,200 per year (or £9,500 per 100 cows)

Compared to NI average: In 2009, NI milk quality stats - average BF = 4.04 per cent and PR = 3.26 per cent (+0.328 ppl on UDF payment).

(Non-weighted figures)Bonus of £2,624 in 100 cow herd producing 8,000 litres/cow

In 2010, Future Herd – average BF = 4.34 per cent and PR = 3.44 per cent (+1.444 ppl on UDF base).Bonus of £11,552 in 100 cow herd producing 8,000 litres/cow - £8,928 higher than NI averageImprovement made through both feeding and breedingFeeding – targeting feed at cows in most need/groupingBreeding – sire selection with herd aims in mind and importance of selecting on protein per cent

Sire selectionHerd genetic report to establish current genetic merit of herd – no benefit in using +ve PR per cent bulls that have lower PR per cent than current herd average.DairyCo list of bulls – filter to select bulls with PR and BF per cent greater than or higher than herd average.Sires used: List sires used this year and last year, highlighting PR per cent.


44 i i 45


By the end of last January, many dairy farmers had used up stocks of first cut silage and were preparing for the transition to second cut. This required nutritional adjustments to the diet to make this change as smooth as possible.

Forage quality at GreenmountSummer 2010 gave excellent conditions for the conservation of good-quality grass silage. Although

hot, dry conditions delayed the first cut, due to lack of bulk, it also delayed heading of grasses, resulting in improved quality. Last year also gave us one of the best forage maize growing seasons out of the last four

years, with excellent yields and quality in many areas.

Two groupsCows were batched in two groups since housing, a high-yielding group, and a group containing early lactation cows and cows giving yields which do not justify remaining in the high yielding group. The early lactation TMR was formulated with grass and maize silages at a ratio of 70:30 on a DM

Winter feeding future

Mark Scott, Greenmount Campus, CAFRE, offers some timely advice

Winter feeding of the future herd and second-cut silage

Table 1. First cut grass silage and maize quality at Greenmoun

Grass silage Maize silageDry Matter (%) 35.3 30.5

ME (MJ/kg DM) 12.0 11.4Crude Protein (%) 14.4 8.0

Intake Value 113Starch (%) 29.4


46 i


Winter feeding future

basis with only 3kg of concentrate. The parlour is set up to feed 2kg on day 1, rising to 7kg on day 21. This regime encourages high-yielding animals to build forage intakes early, which should be maintained throughout lactation.

After day 21, parlour feeding remained at a minimum of 7kg. However, if the yield of the cow justifies additional feeding, she was fed to yield above this minimum of 7kg. Heifers remained in this group throughout the first lactation, while cows over 30 days in milk yielding 30L or more were transferred to the high-yielding group. The high-yielding TMR was formulated with grass and maize silage at a ratio of 60:40 on a DM basis, with 4.5kg blend and 0.5kg soya to balance protein levels on the higher maize ration. Grouping these high yielding, mature cows, i.e., lactation 2+, allows specific targeting of feed and performance monitoring of those cows that worked the hardest.

Second-cut silageThe first-cut silage was forecasted to last until mid February. After this time, diets contained second-cut silage which analysed exceptionally well (see Table 3). This change required a minimal adjustment in ration formulation due to the high quality. However, where second-cut silages are poorer, a con-siderable change will be required in the TMR and/or parlour feeding. In the majority of cases, second-cut silages

will not support the same level of milk production as first-cut silages. This must be countered by feeding extra concen-trates through the TMR or the reduction of maintenance plus (M+) settings in the parlour (see example). In general, second-cut silage has a lower ME and intake value, reducing the amount of energy available for milk production.In this example, changing from first to second-cut silage reduces milk production potential by 6.5L. The amount of concentrate required to meet the energy difference is around 3kg. It is, therefore, essential that TMR and parlour concentrate input are reviewed regularly, especially when changing from one silage to another.

Get all forages analysed so you know what level of concentrate you need to feed to sustain milk production.If feeding high-quality silage, forage intakes can be built up in early lactation by introducing concentrates gradually over the first number of weeks. Compare the milk production potential of your first- and second-cut silages before the change over to allow diets to be adjusted. Adjust TMR or parlour concentrate input accordingly.

Jim Fulton, Assistant Farm Manager, Mark Scott, Dairying Technologist and Michael Graham, Farm Manager discuss forage quality and the coming change to second-cut grass silage.

Table 2: Group TMR feeding (January 2011)

Early lactation group

High yielding group

Fresh Dry matter (DM)

Fresh Dry matter(DM)

Grass Silage

25 9 22 8

Maize Silage

16 4.6 20 5.7

Straw 0.5 0.4 0.35 0.3Soya 0 0 0.5 0.45Blend 3 2.7 4.5 3.9

Table 3: Second-cut grass silage quality at

Greenmount

Second-cut grass silageDry Matter (%) 33.2

ME (MJ/kg DM) 11.4Crude Protein (%) 13.9

Intake Value 108

Silage ME Predicted DMI M+First cut 12 11 10Second cut 10.5 9.5 3.5


Premier Molasses Co. Ltd. Harbour Road, Foynes, Co. Limerick. Deepwater Berth, Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork.

t: 069-65311f: 069-65537 e: [email protected]

Contact us or your local Co-op/merchant today:

www.premiermolasses.ie

Prevent Grass Tetanythis Spring

Magnesium supplementation has been identified as having thegreatest influence on preventing both grass tetany and milk fever.

Ultra-Mag succeeds in supplying the cow’s daily magnesiumrequirements in a highly bio-available and palatable form.

with Ultra-Mag (2.5%)

Moalsses full pg fnl.qxp 13/01/2011 12:44 Page 1

Premier Molasses Co. Ltd. Harbour Road, Foynes, Co. Limerick. Deepwater Berth, Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork.

t: 069-65311f: 069-65537 e: [email protected]

Contact us or your local Co-op/merchant today:

www.premiermolasses.ie

Prevent Grass Tetanythis Spring

Magnesium supplementation has been identified as having thegreatest influence on preventing both grass tetany and milk fever.

Ultra-Mag succeeds in supplying the cow’s daily magnesiumrequirements in a highly bio-available and palatable form.

with Ultra-Mag (2.5%)

Moalsses full pg fnl.qxp 13/01/2011 12:44 Page 1

PREMIER MOLASSES A4.indd 1 22/03/2011 14:57:31Forage Guide 205x290.indd 1 21/04/2011 15:37:00

LMAH413/10a

Performance and support you can trust

moxidectin

Pour On for Cattle

Not only does CYDECTIN Cattle Pour-On have the longest dosing interval, 8-10 weeks1, and promotes higher weight gains1, and promotes higher weight gains1 2, but it is also less toxic to dung beetles 3

This means they are free to help recycle dung4, reducing wormlarvae and nuisance flies and increasing pasture availability.Combine this with less doses required5 and you get a unique advantage in these days of environmental compliance.

1. Against Ostertagia spp. and Dictyocaulus spp.

2. CYDECTIN market support trials, B1-B59.

3. Strong, L, Overview: the impact of avermectins on pasture ecology. Veterinary Parasitology. 48 (1993) 3-17 Floate, KD, Endectocide use in cattle and fecal residues. The Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, 2006; 70:1-10.

4. Effects of ivermectin and moxidectin on the insects of cattle dung. L. Strong & R. Wall, School of Biological Science, University of Bristol, UK.

5. Compared to ivermectins.

For further information please contact your veterinary surgeon orPfizer Animal Health, 9 Riverwalk, Citywest Business Campus, Dublin 24. (01)4676650. For full details – see data sheet. Active ingredient: moxidectin. Speak to your medicine prescriber about the use of this or alternative products. ® Registered trademark Date of preparation: 7.10

LMAH413/10a


moxidectin

Pour On for Cattle







LMAH413/10a


moxidectin

Pour On for Cattle








LMAH413/10a


moxidectin

Pour On for Cattle

Not only does CYDECTIN Cattle Pour-On have the longest dosing interval, 8-10 weeks1, and promotes higher weight gains1, and promotes higher weight gains1 2, but it is also less toxic to dung beetles 3

This means they are free to help recycle dung4, reducing wormlarvae and nuisance flies and increasing pasture availability.Combine this with less doses required5 and you get a unique advantage in these days of environmental compliance.







LMAH413/10a


moxidectin

Pour On for Cattle







LMAH413/10a


moxidectin

Pour On for Cattle







Forage Guide A4.indd 1 11/04/2011 10:26:42Forage Guide 205x290.indd 1 21/04/2011 15:39:45

IRISH FORAGE - Premier · PDF filePlanning and design of new milking facilities ... netwrap...

Documents

Transcript of IRISH FORAGE - Premier · PDF filePlanning and design of new milking facilities ... netwrap...