Improving Dairy Profitability by Pasture Management

 W. L. Shockey, WVU Extension Service, Kingwood WV

G.A.Gibson and M. H. Gibson, Mason Run Farm, Bruceton Mills WV

J. S. Hauser, WV State Soil Conservation Agency, Kingwood WV
9/2001

 Abstract

 Thirty-five acres of continuously grazed pasture were dividedinto six, five to eight-acre paddocks in summer 1999.  Previous use of this pasture was primarily as a nighttime loafing lot for an80 cow, Holstein milking herd.  Paddocklayout, water development, and walkway construction was completed according to plansprepared by Natural Resources Conservation Service.  In1999, drought conditions reduced availability of pasture to negligible amounts, someasurements were continued to 2000.  Productioncomparisons were between 1998 and 2000.  Lactatingdairy cows were allowed access to the paddocks approximately 5 hours each day in 2000 toprovide about one-third to one-half of their forage intake as pasture.  Each paddock was used for approximately 5 days,and then animals rotated to another paddock.  In1998 total purchased feed costs were $45,891 compared to $42,359 in 2000.  Between April 1998 and October 2000, rolling herdaverage increased from 22,886 to 24,254.  Consideringonly purchased feed costs and rolling herd average ($14.00 per cwt on 74 cows), farmprofitability increased $17,704 from 1998 to 2000.  Itcost $2.71 in purchased feed to produce 100 lbs of milk in 1998 vs $2.36 in 2000, asavings of $.35/cwt of milk produced.  Additionalbenefits of using improved pasture as part of a dairy management program, not included inthese calculations were reduced forage harvest costs, reduced veterinary costs, andreduced feet and leg problems.

 Introduction

 In 1998, the owners of a Preston County dairy farm set goals toimprove grazing production, quality, and distribution; reduce soil erosion, improve waterquality, improve animal health and performance; and improve nutrient management.  These goals were consistent with best managementconservation practices.  Cooperators includedthe WVU Extension Service, WV State Soil Conservation Agency (WVSSAC), USDA NaturalResources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Monongahela Soil Conservation District.

 Two pastures totaling 38.9 acres of grassland were selected toimplement practices to meet these goals.  Previously,this land area was used only for a nighttime loafing area for lactating dairy cows, whilemaintaining free access to the confinement feeding facility for the balanced ration andwater.  Other animals such as dry cows andgrowing heifers were also used the pasture. The land was essentially unimproved pastureused in a continuously grazed situation with no fence divisions or intensive managementpractice.

 Soil samples were taken on two pastures totaling 38.9 acres ofgrassland that were normally continuously grazed.  Pastureswere fertilized according to WV Soil Testing Standards.  Forage species were evaluated, and where necessary, no-till seeding ofdesirable forages was conducted.  Desirableforage species were red clover, white clover, orchardgrass, and timothy.

 The water development sites were evaluated and developmentactivities were carried out according to designs proposed by the Natural ResourcesConservation Service (NRCS) and West Virginia State Soil Conservation Agency (WVSSCA).  Two types of water containment systems wereinstalled.  One was a cistern system in which2, 1200-gallon cement cisterns were used to collect runoff from a barn roof.  The water was delivered to troughs by way of apipeline.  Three springs were developed toprovide water to three troughs.

 Approximately 800 feet of stabilized walkway was installed toallow animals to be moved from the barn to paddocks.  Gravel was used to stabilize the walkway with fencing provided on eitherside.  The pastures were fenced into 6paddocks ranging in size from 5 to 8 acres.  Thislayout maximized the water development potential while changing the pasture managementfrom a continuous to a “semi-intensive” rotational grazing system.

Preston County WV was severely affected by drought conditions in 1999and pasture growth was very poor.  The herdwas fed from purchased feed sources and the contribution of pasture to the herd’s drymatter intake was less than 5%.  Therefore, afair evaluation of the effects of implementing a rotational grazing system on this farmcould not be made in 1999.  Production records(DHIA) and financial (tax reports) were evaluated after the 2000 grazing season andcompared to those of 1998.

 Herd Performance

The attached graphshows the rolling herd average (RHA) for the period April 1998 through October 2000.  The start and stop points were chosen to includedata for three time periods.  1) A grazingperiod when cows were fed, primarily, in confinement facilities, and used the 35 acres ofpasture as an exercise area with little management effort directed to pasture utilization(May – Oct 98).  2) A grazing period whencows were fed primarily, in confinement facilities, and used the 35 acres, divided intoseven, 5 to 8 acre paddocks, as an exercise area because a drought caused insufficientpasture growth to make a significant contribution (< 5% of diet dry matter) to the cowsdiets (May – Oct 99).  3) A grazingperiod similar to 2, except there was sufficient pasture growth to make a significantcontribution (> 20% of diet dry matter) to the cows diets (May – Oct 00).

 During theperiod between May 98 and Dec 99 the RHA remained relatively constant, ranging between22,700 and 23,100 pounds. Between Dec 99 and Mar 00 the RHA increased more than 1,000pounds to 24,300.  Two reasons for thisimprovement were low “days-in-milk” and forage quality.  “Days-in-milk” were low because of anunplanned calving period.  By chance, a highproportion of the herd (mature cows and heifers) conceived in winter 1998-1999, causing anunusually high proportion of the milking herd to be in early lactation in early fall 1999.

Forage quality infall 1999 was higher than normal because of conditions surrounding the drought.  There were two reasons for high forage quality:  1) Although forage yields were very low, theforage that was harvested was in an immature growth stage; 2) Because forage yields werevery low (< 40% of normal), it was necessary to purchase hay from outside sources.

 Forage yieldsin other parts of the US had excellent growing conditions, so purchased forages werereasonably priced and of high quality (RFV > 130).  High quality forage became a significant portion of the lactating cow dietin Oct – Nov timeframe.  Improved foragequality increased dry matter intake and stimulated the rise in RHA through late April2000.

 In late April2000, lactating cows were turned into the paddocks.  Intakefrom pasture was estimated to be about 20% of diet dry matter.  Animals were rotated to a new paddock about every4 to 5 days.  This allowed approximately 30days for recovery.  Pasture quality andavailability maintained milk production at levels equivalent to the levels achieved duringthe winter months when cows were fed high quality purchased forages.  This trend continued through the summer months,when herd “days-in-milk” increased higher than normal, and when hightemperatures usually result in lower milk production.

 It appears thatthe relatively high herd production in summer 2000 compared to previous summers was due tothe quality and availability of the “semi-intensively” managed pastures.  In 1998, the herd’s RHA was 22,886 pounds andtotal purchased feed costs (85  to 90% of allpurchased feed was fed to lactating dairy cows) were $45,891.  In 2000, the RHA was 24,254 pounds and purchasedfeed costs were $42,359.  For milk at $14.00per cwt and an average herd size of 74 animals, the combination of lower feed costs andincreased production increased annual income $17,704.  Expressed on a purchased feed per cwt milk basis, in 1998 it cost $2.71 ofpurchased feed per cwt of milk.  In 2000, thecost was reduced to $2.36 per cwt.

 Conclusions

 Production dataon this farm supports the concept that increased grazing management intensity improvesprofitability of animal enterprises.  In thison-farm demonstration project, purchased feed costs per cwt of milk produced was reduced$.35, a decrease of 13%.

 Acknowledgements

 This program was supported by a grant from the Northeast RegionSustainable Agriculture Research and Education program, a grant from the West VirginiaState Soil Conservation Agency, and funds from the Monongahela Soil Conservation District.

 Personnel that supported this project were Mark Malone and JimAllen, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service; Joe Hatton, WV State SoilConservation Agency; and Frank Glover, Monongahela Soil Conservation District.