1. Increasing dairy farm profit by maximising forage utilization Edith Charbonneau, Ph.D, agr. Collaborators: M.C. Coulombe M.C. Coulombe R. Roy R. Roy D. Pellerin D. Pellerin

2. Content  Having high quality forage in quantity – Adjusted yield for quality – Cost per adjusted ton  Forage utilisation – Milk from forage – Its impact – How to increase Milk from forage  Assess forage management and utilization

3. Importance of forage management  Forage management is a key factor to increase dairy farm’s net income Up to around 50 000$ higher net income for farms having more efficient forage management ₋High yield ₋Good quality ₋Low cost of production ₋High Milk from forage (Roy et al., 2008)

4. $/T DM  Good forage utilisation decreases the need for concentrate feeds  Price in concentrate feeds varies greatly in time Importance of forage management

5. Adjusted yield for quality  Value of forages estimated from corn grain and soybean meal prices and compositions

6. Forage value increases up to 50$/T; it’s an increase of 20% Adjusted yield for quality  Value of forages estimated from corn grain and soybean meal prices and compositions

7. Cost of forage production

8. Adjusted yield –Correct the yield for the nutrient content (quality) Adjusted cost of production –Cost of forage production /Adjusted yield Adjusted yield eq DM/ha Yield Quality T DM/ha (Coulombe, 2012) Adjusted cost of production

9. Quality Calculation –Relative quality _ based on energy (RQE) RQE = TDN (%DM) / 1.24 –Relative quality _ based on protein (RQP) Digestible protein (%DM) / 0.32 –Global quality index (RQE+RQP) / 2 Coefficients are calculated using a reference forage: –Weighted mean from average chemical analysis of a mid- mature silage (2/3) and a mid-mature hay (1/3) (Coulombe, 2012) Adjusted cost of production

10. Quality-adjusted cost of production - relationship with the cost of production - AverageCost Prod. 25% higher Cost Prod. 25% Lower  Adj. cost of production, $/T202259 b 165 a -94 Variable cost, $/ha494530 b 447 a -83 Fertilizer and other improvements, $/ha 96 89-8 Machinery cost, $/ha666754 b 588 a -166 Labor cost, $/ha211224 b 188 a -36 Results from 381 herds in AgritelWeb (2009-11) Results for the adjusted forage cost of production from dairy farms

11. Quality-adjusted cost of production - relationship with the cost of production - AverageCost Prod. 25% higher Cost Prod. 25% Lower  Yield, T/ha 5.95.1 a 6.5 b -1.4 Adjusted yield, eqT/ha 6.15.1 a 7.1 b -2.0 NE L, Mcal/kg DM 1.341.351.34- Crude protein, % 16.315.8 b 16.9 a +1.1 Area, ha 74.669.3 b 81.7 a +12.4 Results from 381 herds in AgritelWeb (2009-11) Results for the adjusted forage cost of production from dairy farms

12. Forage utilisation

13.  Milk from forage Concept was developed in the 70’s by Agri- Gestion Laval at Université Laval Milk from forage (MF) is an estimation of the milk produced from forage by subtracting milk production theoretically allowed by concentrate from the total amount of milk.

14. MF average = (MF energy + MF protein ) /2 MF energy = ECM – [Conc NE L (Mcal) - NE L for growth (Mcal) ] 0.75 (Mcal/kg milk) MF protein = PCM – [Conc CP (kg) – CP for growth (kg) ] 0.088 (kg CP/kg of milk) Milk from forage (Charbonneau, 2002)

15. Objectives for Milk from forage (kg/cow) Average cow weight (kg) Acceptable Level Target > 65026503200 550 to 65025503100 < 55024503000 Milk from forage

16. AverageMF 25% lower MF 25% higher  Milk from forage, kg/cow2266919 b 3 629 a +2700 Margin/cow (std), $/cow35163268 a 3763 b +495 Feeding cost, $/hL34.5135.83 a 33.04 b -2,79 Milk sold, hL54396166 a 4996 b -1170 Number of cows73.380.8 a 67.2 b -13.6 Results from 381 herds from AgritelWeb (2009-11) Milk from forage – Economic interest

17. AverageMF 25% lower MF 25% higher  Milk per cow, kg/y83738028 a 8580 b +552 Milk fat, %4.054.064.05-0.01 Milk protein, %3.353.37 a 3.34 b -0.03 Calving interval, d424430 a 422 b -8 Replacement rate, %31.132.4 a 30.3 b -2.1 Results from 381 herds from AgritelWeb (2009-11) Milk from forage – Animal performance

18. AverageMF 25% lower MF 25% higher  Feed efficiency1.121.06 b 1.20 a +0.14 Forage intake, T/cow5.455.21 b 5.46 a +0.25 Forage crude protein, %16.316.416.3-0.1 Forage NE L, Mcal/kg1.341.33 b 1.35 a +0.02 TMR, %4857 b 28 a -29 Results from 381 herds from AgritelWeb (2009-11) Milk from forage – Animal performance

19.  Farms with high Milk from forage have: Better margin/cow (lower feeding cost and more milk per cow) Forage of better quality Higher forage intake Higher feed efficiency Milk from forage – Summary

20.  Farms with high Milk from forage and low adjusted cost of production Similar animal performance with even better economic outcomes Lower milk cost of production 10.40 $/hL Higher income of 20 132 $/ full time equivalent Milk from forage with inexpensive forage

21.  Farms with high Milk from forage and low adjusted cost of production Similar animal performances with even better economic outcomes Lower milk cost of production 10.40 $/hL Higher income of 20 132 $/ full time equivalent Milk from forage with inexpensive forage Difference of around 55 000$ between the farms in our study

22.  Would decreasing concentrates increase Milk from forage?  When high quality forages are fed, it can be an option… An experiment was conducted to test the concept (Pellerin et al., 2000) Milk from forage – Research

23.  Cows receiving low concentrates diet Ate 1000 kg  concentrates per lactation  their forage intake by 24%  Targeted difference of 2000 kg per lactation between groups could not be met No significant differences in milk production No difference in milk composition Increase in milk urea for cows with low concentrates Concentrate amount Production performance maybe more related to type of concentrate than the amount

24. Physical and chemical characteristics of diet associated to Milk from forage production –90 farms (22 with corn silage) –Chemical analysis (ADF, NDF, CP,…) –Particle size of forages –Processing of concentrate feeds Feed characteristics (St-Pierre et al., 2002)

25. 25 Days in milk Milk (kg/d) Relationship between Milk from forage and DIM Milk Milk from forage Feed characteristics (St-Pierre et al., 2002)

26. Silage-based diet (no corn silage) –Grinding of concentrate increases Milk from forage, mostly in early and mid- lactation –Small forage particle size decreases Milk from forage in early lactation but increases it in late lactation –Forage quality increases Milk from forage for every cow Feed characteristics

27. Corn silage-based diet –Increasing RDP from concentrates increases Milk from forage –No effect from concentrate grinding, forage particle size or forage quality on Milk from forage Feed characteristics

28. Effect of carbohydrate degradability on Milk from forage when alfalfa silage is used 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Cracked corn Ground corn StarchDried whey Permeat Milk from forage (kg/d) MF energy ; P=0.73 MF protein ; P<0.01 MF average ; P=0.09 b b a a b a a b Concentrate type (Charbonneau et al., 2006)

29. Conclusions

30.  It is worth working on forage cost of production and their utilization Difference of 55 000$ between the top and the bottom groups  To decrease cost of production Machinery cost Yield  Think in terms of yield adjusted for quality Conclusions

31.  To increase Milk from forage Good quality forages  But its not enough, you have to use them… Increase forage intake Adequate amount of concentrates for each cow Adequate choice of concentrates for the forages in the ration (type, processing,…) Conclusions

32.  An evaluation tool was developed to assess forage management and utilization on dairy farms  Helps to point out the strength and the weakness in forage management and utilization  Already available in Quebec  Will soon be available in English for all Canadian provinces Conclusions

35. Thanks!! Questions ? edith.charbonneau@fsaa.ulaval.ca

36. Rendement ajusté - Quoi viser? - RégionNiveau acceptable (eq t MS/ha) Niveau à viser (eq t MS/ha) Bas St-Laurent4,35,2 Chaudière- Appalache 5,16,1 Centre du Québec 5,87,0 Montérégie6,47,6 Coulombe, 2012

37. Simplified method: Milk concentrates = Commercial mix (kg AF)x 1.0 + Corn grain, dry (kg AF) x 0.8 + Corn grain, hi-must (kg AF) x 0.7 + Small grain (kg AF) x 0.9 + Commercial supplement (kg AF) x 1.7 + Soybean meal (kg AF) x 2.0 - (Mature weight(kg) x cows nb x culling rate x 0.55) MF(kg) = [Milk(kg) – (Milk concentrates(kg AF) x 2)] Number of cows Milk from forage

38.  With corn silage degradability of protein in concentrate feed should lead to a better energy utilization  With a mixture of forages (legume and corn silage) the concentrate complementarities needs to be verified in order to fit well with the forages Concentrate type

39.  Objective: Long term comparison of production performances of cows receiving more concentrates  Methods Split a herd in 2 equivalent halves over a 2 year- period Feed first half of the cows for 9000 Kg milk and the other half for 7000 kg Concentrate amount (Pellerin et al., 2000)

40. Corn and alfalfa silage trial 1) 85-CC:Cracked corn based diet providing 85% of NRC 2001 RDP req.; 2) 100-CC:Cracked corn based diet providing 100% of NRC 2001 RDP req.; 3) 115-CC:Cracked corn based diet providing 115% of NRC 2001 RDP req.; 4) 115-GC:Ground corn based diet providing 115% of NRC 2001 RDP req.; Concentrate type

41.  Increasing RDP, with cracked corn  MF protein  Milk yield  Milk Fat concentration  Lower levels of RDP were sufficient for milk production.  Ground vs. cracked corn with high level of RDP  MF protein  Milk yield  Milk Fat concentration  Milk Protein concentration  With the highest level of RDP, grinding corn resulted in better performances. Concentrate type (Charbonneau et al., 2007)