fewer cows thus releasing land for other agri- cultural production.

In conclusion I would say I have tried to show past trends in dairy breeds in the UK and postu- late some reasons for them. I have described our Breed Improvement Schemes and suggested that our British Friesian breed has few equals in

the world. In the case of further breed substitution I have

tried to put the case for the North American Holstein fairly. In fact I anticipate a typical British compromise. Some further introduction of Holstein blood into our British Friesians with- out a complete change-over.

Ninth Paper

B Y N O R M A N S H A W

Dairy Farmer, Craigy Dairy Farm, Saintfield, Co. Down

The role of concentrates as well as grass and silage in the production of milk is evaluated and the stocking rate, yield per cow and output per man is considered. Various methods in grazing grass are described and the differences in paddock and silage grazing assessed according to seasonal changes are detailed. Tables are given showing milk and meal costs throughout the year and the selection of calving patterns, stockmanship and milking parlours are outlined as key areas in efficient production of milk (Editor’s summary).

Efficient milk production from grass is the sub- ject on which I have been asked to speak. How- ever, let us be quite clear that milk is produced not only from grass and silage but also from concentrates. It is the question of which particu- lar combination of these to adopt, which has been exercising, even tormenting, the minds of dairy farmers for a very long time. This is hardly surprising, since the best combination alters with changing economic conditions.

In considering efficient milk production I think that it is important to remember that the fixed or overhead costs on our farms are now very high. A well-known meal firm recently said that the average figure on their costed farms was E120facre. This is a high figure but I am sure an accurate one, reflecting the consequences of in- flation on these costs. It also reflects the high rent or interest figure being paid due to good farm land now being worth around &1,00O/acre.

Against this background I think there are three vital areas in efficient milk production. These are:

1. Stocking rate 2. Yield per cow 3. Output per man.

If we can get satisfactory levels in these three areas then I am quite sure that we can cope with the problem of high fixed costs and go on to make a satisfactory profit.

Good grassland production and management is vital with regard to the first two of these areas. It is our cheapest source of feed and therefore we want to make best possible use of it. Our climate, with a moderate and well-distributed rainfall, is ideal for grassland production, more so than any- where else in Europe. Since grass is the cheapest source of feed and we can grow it more cheaply and better, then we must be in a sound competi- tive position. It is vital therefore that we make good use of this natural advantage. Also, from the national point of view, the better use we make of our grassland, the less as a country we will have to spend on the import of concentrates.

On our own farm in County Down we have had to face this common problem of high fixed costs. We decided on complete specialization in milk production, even for a time to the extent of not rearing our own young stock. We felt it im- portant to carry the maximum possible number of cows, to get a respectable number of cows for each man employed and also to get a satisfactory yield per cow.

Journal of the Society of Dairy Technology, k’ol. 30, No. ?, April, 1977 85

We are now carrying 210 cows on 210 acres. The herd average is 1,150 gal with a meal feeding level of 30 cwt/cow or 2.9 lb of meal/gal. The cows calve mainly from September to January. Three full-time men are employed and silage making and slurry spreading are done by contractors.

This means of course that with regard to stock- ing rate we are carrying one cow per acre. I believe this is the maximum possible number that could be carried on the farm. We carry these by exploiting the use of nitrogen to the full. In grassland production there is a good response to nitrogen application up to 300 units; beyond that the response levels off. By using 300 units of nitrogen one is therefore getting the greatest pos- sible production from one's grassland. I t is at this level of nitrogen usage that we can carry one cow per acre.

In our own case this means that we have stocked up so heavily that individual yield is be- ginning to suffer, but in doing so we are getting maximum production per acre, that is provided one does not allow yields to suffer by more than 5-8 per cent, i.e. 30-40 gal over the summer months. The point of allowing individual yields to suffer to get maximum production per acre is due to the law of diminishing returns applying to the feeding of dairy cows. This practice is widely adopted in New Zealand where milk is produced entirely from grass, without any con- centrates whatsoever.

There is therefore some conflict between high- stocking rate and high yields in the summer months. During this period stocking rate should take preference. Neither does there appear to be any evidence to suggest that we could profitably feed meal during the summer months in order to get bigger yields. Most research has indicated that it takes from 12 lb up to even 43 Ib of meal to produce an extra gallon of milk at grass.

If we look at Table 1 which compares summer milk and meal prices over the past few years we can see that meal feeding at grass cannot be justified on economic grounds.

From this I readily accept that autumn calvers should not be fed meal at grass. Nevertheless I am not sure about high yielding spring calvers intensively stocked.

Firstly I am not sure that research work always distinguishes between autumn and spring calvers. The 6-7 gal February-March calver is an entirely different proposition from the stale autumn calver. We feel reasonably justified in feeding 4-6 lb/day to these spring calvers. This keeps them in better condition and is a gesture towards good stockmanship. Nevertheless the fact remains that there is very limited scope for profitable meal feeding at grass. This means that the success of our summer milk production largely depends on good grass and a high stocking rate.

There are many different ways of grazing this grass. We have used a paddock system for the past seven years and have been well pleased with it. The cows go out to grass in late March and strip graze Italian rye-grass for two weeks. They then go on to 105 acres divided into 22 equal sized paddocks about April 10th. They graze one of these paddocks each day until the end of Sep- tember when they go back on to the silage area for a few weeks before being housed for the winter.

The fertilizer programme for the paddocks is the usual 75 units of nitrogen in early March followed by 40 units after each grazing. This gives a total application over the season of 300 units of nitrogen, 20 of phosphate and 20 of potash.

We would not claim any better production from paddocks than from strip grazing or set stocking. Most research work or surveys on this show only marginal differences between them in terms of total production. I t is therefore a ques- tion of choosing the system which suits one best. We like the discipline and convenience of pad- docks. There is no trouble in having to change an electric fence each morning while cows wait im- patiently for you to do so. Instead the routine is relaxed, cows move in to milking from one pad- dock and out to anot'her of fresh grass easily, regularly and sometimes like clockwork. Further- more grass grazed at the 22-day growth stage is very milk-productive.

Paddocks are also a convenient way of grazing a large herd without serious poaching. The con- struction of some form of roads through the paddock area is also essential to the avoidance of poaching. In this way the cows walk on the roads and only go into each paddock once in 22 days.

TABLE 1 Ratio between price of summer milk and cost of meal

1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

3 5 p 37P

Meal price/lb 1 '7p 1 '5p 2.2p 3 'Op Ratio 9: 1 12:l 8 : l 7: 1 9: 1 10: 1

28P 3 . 0 ~

Milk price 1 6 ~ 18P 18P 22P

86 Journul of the Society of Dairy Technology, VoL 30, No. 2, Apri l , 1977

This was the standard approach to the grazing of large herds in New Zealand when I was there a few years ago, and the same approach has been successful with us. This approach allows a herd of over 200 cows to be managed in one mob with- out having to resort to zero grazing.

I would like to say a few words about our experience with Italian rye-grass. It has been excellent for early grazing, at least two-three weeks earlier than ordinary grasses. This is a big gain since daily production by late March is be- ginning to flag after the long winter. The grass can then go on to give three cuts of silage plus a late grazing. It gives a phenomenal production of grass in a season and a few acres of i t are extremely useful on an intensive dairy farm. It is not, in our experience, however, terribly suit- able for intensive grazing, tending to thin out too quickly.

Let us now move from milk from grass in sum- mer and from stocking rate to milk from silage and concentrates in winter. It is in the winter that we can feed our cows well and thus over t'he year combine high stocking rates with good individual yields.

It is however the quality of our silage which is the most important item of winter feed. If this is good then less meal will be required to produce the same amount of milk. Good silage gives tre- mendous scope for cutting production costs. The extent of this is shown in Table 2.

feed with it? Theoretically I believe we should feed to the point where the value of the last gallon produced is just greater than the cost of the meal to produce it. By doing this we are making full use of our own cows and are reducing total costs to a minimum.

TABLE 3 Effect of yield on 6xed costs/cow of f200

Yield 800 gal 1,000 gal 1,200 gal 1,400 gal

Fixed costsigal 25.00 20.00 16.60 14.30

Table 3 shows the effect of yield on fixed costs per gallon. If we take the 25120 fixed costslacre mentioned earlier and add &45/acre or/cow for forage costs and &35 as a capital charge on a cow valuation of E350 then we get a total of &2OO/cow.

This shows a sharp reduction in fixed costs per gallon as yield increases, this means to me that we should aim for high yields.

We think that feeding plenty of meal in the winter months is important in achieving respect- able yields. The level of feeding we should adopt is determined by the response. And the economic responses required is measured by the milk price and the meal price.

We like to feed 4 lb for each gallon above silage value. This means feeding 16-22 lb of a

TABLE 2 Effect of growth of silage on milk production

6 weeksi 9 weeksf 12 weeksi 8 16 meal 12 weeks 6 weeks 8 16 meal 9 weeks 8 16 meal

Milk yield/day 24 Ib 31 Ib 17 Ib 26 Ib 17 Ib 24 Ib

This is from work at Fermoy research station in Co. Cork, which shows that silage cut at six weeks gives as much milk as silage cut at 12 weeks and supplemented with 8 Ib of meal. This is a saving of 10 cwt of meal for an October calving cow or f40 f cow.

Silage making is therefore an important task. In our own case we start the first cut about 24th May. The job is done by contract and takes 7-10 days. It is cut at the 50 per cent emergence stage which is the recommended time for cutting. The grass is cut with a double chop harvester and an additive is used to ensure a good fermentation. When the silo is filled it is rolled and sealed with polythene. The second cut is taken about 20th July and any third cut about 25th August, both in similar fashion.

We thus approach the winter with what we hope is good quality silage. This is the basis of our winter feed but how much meal should we

16 per cent protein nutlday for the first three months after calving. We then begin to cut back the level of feeding since the response is less after the first three months of lactation. This means that most of the cows are being well fed, probably up to the theoretical point mentioned earlier. The outstanding cows, the 6-8 gal cows, however, are not getting enough to exploit their full potential. Nevertheless the herd generally is getting plenty of meal, and we can achieve herd averages in our case 1,150 gal and I should imagine up to around the 1,200 gal mark by this approach.

If we wish to break beyond the 1,200 gal barrier then I think we must change our feeding arrangements. I'm sure that cows would need three or four feeds of meallday. This would in- volve the provision of feeding facilities outside the milking parlour. Tn this way higher yielding cows could be exploited to their full potential. For practical reasons we are not prepared to do

Journal of the Society of Dairy Technology, Vol. 30, N o . 2, April, 1977 87

D

this, not yet anyway. Looking ahead however, we could see this practice spreading through the country.

This is all very well but with meal at &80-90/ ton can we feed as much as a few years ago? We have seen that the law of diminishing returns applies to the feeding of dairy cows. The response to the first few lb is much greater than the re- sponse to the last few lb. I t is the number of lb which we can feed for the last gallon which keeps changing with changes in milk and meal prices.

These recordings are from 1974/75 but the milk price is more recent, but for the sake of comparison this is satisfactory.

The results show the very much higher profi- tability of the good milkers. The extra meal fed gave an excellent response all the way up to 31 cwt. It appears that we could have fed the better milkers some more. Of course the big majority of the herd comes in the 900 to 1,300 gal range, but the figures for the small percentage of poor and very good cows are fascinating.

TABLE 4 Milk and meal prices in November 1971-76

1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

U P Milk price 22P Meal pricellb 1 . 5 ~ Ratio 14: 1 13: 1 8: 1 10: 1 11:l 11:l

4 . 0 ~ 4OP

3.5p 34P 3.5p

23P 3 *Op

23P 1.7p

Table 4 shows how the position has changed in the past few years.

It can be seen that next winter we can feed 11 Ib for the last gallon, a much better position than the winter of 1973/74 when we could only feed 8 lb. It is of course difficult to measure this last gallon, if however we have settled on a feed- ing level which we think is correct then this shows us how much to increase or decrease meal feeding per day to each cow from one winter to the next. By good judgement we hope therefore to be feeding each cow to its maximum response. The most difficult job is not to overfeed the poor milkers.

Good cows, of course, will give a better re- sponse than poor ones. The importance of good cows was clearly demonstrated to us by the results of our own milk and meat recording (Table 5). These enable us to compare milk yield and meal fed.

TABLE 5 Margin over meal for different yields: August to December

calvers ~ ~

Margin over meal Yield Total meal Ib of meallgal at 4Oplgal gal cwt Iblgal E

700 800 900

1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900

20 20 23 23 24 24 27 28 30 30 30 31 31

3.2 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8

200 240 268 308 344 388 412 448 480 520 5 60 596 636

For me these results show the necessity for using top quality bulls for breeding. In the case where we use A1 it justifies trying for the best proven bulls. The table clearly indicates a big increase in profits for a 100-gal increase in yield.

Another aspect of yield per cow is the season of calving. Our own milk and meal recording gave us some interesting comparisons between different months. This is shown in Table 6.

TABLE 6 Comparisons of milk yield and meal consumption for different

months of calving

Month of Total meal Ib meal/gal calving Yield cwt lblgal

August 1,114 24 September 1,153 26 October 1,117 24.5 November 1,190 24 December 1,126 19 January 1,060 16 February 1 ,ooo 12 March 1,014 9 April 1,032 8

2.4 2.5 2.5 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.3 1 .o 0.9

This shows much higher yields for autumn calvers, 110 gal in fact. It also shows substantial meal saving for spring calvers, 12 cwt in total, i.e. 1.3 lb/gal compared to 2.3 lb/gal for autumn calvers, i.e. a saving of 1 lb of meal/gal or 3.5 to 4.0 p/gal of milk produced.

This is an important saving in meal costs but we must be careful where fixed costs are high. It does not show that 12 cwt less meal consumed by spring calvers must mean that they eat more silage, probably 4 lb for each 1 lb of meal saved. This could mean 50 cwt of silage/cow extra being

88 Journal of the Society of Dairy Technology, VoI. 30, N o . 2 , April, 1977

required for the winter, in our case 500 tons of extra silage in total. This would need 25 acres to produce which would mean keeping 25 cows less.

If we now go on to calculate the effect of this reduction in yield of 110 gal and also the reduc- tion in stocking rate of about 10 per cent then we get an interesting answer. The combination of these two have reduced total yield to such an extent that fixed costs have increased so much as to almost exactly equal the saving of 4.0 p/gal in meal costs for spring calvers.

This surely indicates that we should be careful in choosing a calving pattern. If fixed costs are high then the best calving pattern may be differ- ent from that where fixed costs are low. Techni- cally the best month looks to be December in that we get the best of both worlds, good yields with reasonable saving in meal consumption. In our own case 1,126 gal at 19 cwt of meal consumed.

This brings me to the final area at which I want to look, output per man. A good stockman will get more from any cow than a poor one. Rex Patterson used to say that up to 400 gal of differ- ence in herd average could be attributed to the stockman. The whole art of good stockmanship, maintaining cow health, a good calving index and getting cows safely through calving, is of great importance. However, assuming we have good stockmen, the key factor becomes the number of cows per man. This means the quality of the lay- out of our farm buildings.

Within this the key building is the milking parlour. 1 believe a milking session should not last more than two hours. Beyond that fatigue, bore- dom, even bad language creeps in and we are heading for trouble. This means we build a par- lour which is big enough to milk our herd in two hours or less. In our own case we put in a 20/20 low jar herring-bone three years ago. This milks the herd comfortably in two hours and also that the three men employed now look after 210 cows instead of the 120 which we had with the old parlour. This shows very clearly the importance

of the milking parlour in achieving good output per man.

I have tried to outline what I consider to be the key areas in milk production. To summarize briefly, first of all we need a high stocking rate. Secondly a good yield per cow and to get this we need good feeding, good stockmanship, good cows and some attention to the season of calving. Thirdly we need good output per man which depends on the quality of the layout of our farm buildings and in particular on the capacity of our milking parlours.

Grass is vital in the first two areas mentioned; good grass well fertilized allows us to carry a high stocking rate. Quality grass and silage also gives us good yields and substantial savings in produc- tion costs. It is for this reason that efficient milk production must be based on grassland.

I believe that the UK dairy farmer who bases his milk production on grass is the best in Europe. In saying this I am not forgetting about French maize or the high yields of the Dutch herds. I am sure that when all aspects are considered, including herd size, this is a justifiable claim.

Could I also add that in the Milk Marketing Boards we have agricultural marketing organiza- tions which are second to none. Our own board in Northern Ireland has a tremendous reputation amongst farmers for the job it does. With all this behind us, including the size of our own UK mar- ket, one is bound to see a reasonable future for the dairy industry, even if there are surpluses in Europe.

Finally, could I finish by saying that we are relying on Government to ensure that we get full EEC prices by the end of transition next year, and that these will not be distorted by trouble with the ‘green pound’. Also that they will recog- nize the efficiency of the UK industry within Europe, and the importance of i t in this country in terms of the employment i t provides. They could recognize this by ensuring that no unneces- sary rules or regulations are introduced which would hinder us in getting on with the job.

Journal of the Society of Dairy Technology, Vol. 30, No. 2, April, 1977 89