Central Scotland Dairy Monitor Farm Sandy Milne East Pitforthie Brechin Angus DD9 7PQ Tel: Meeting report Thursday 3 February 2011

Transcription

1 Central Scotland Dairy Monitor Farm Sandy Milne East Pitforthie Brechin Angus DD9 7PQ Tel: Meeting report Thursday 3 February 2011 Sophie Kinnear- DairyCo facilitator Mobile: sophie.kinnear@dairyco.ahdb.org.uk Useful Contacts Heather Wildman - DairyCo facilitator Mobile: heather.wildman@dairyco.ahdb.org.uk Peter Beattie Technical Projects Manager QMS Mobile: pbeattie@qmscotland.co.uk QMS Monitor Farm website:

2 Meeting report: Slurry Management Attended: 16 community group members to the 7 th Monitor Farm meeting held at the Northern Hotel Brechin, Thursday 3 February. Speakers: Chris Coxon, DairyCo South West Extension Officer Mobile: chris.coxon@dairyco.ahdb.org.uk Meeting Structure: 1 Update from Sandy 2 Current slurry management at East Pitforthie 3 Nutrients in Manure 4 Savings available for accounting for manures 5 Matching Nutrients to crop needs and RB209 6 Breakout groups 7 Summary 8 Future meeting topics/dates Meeting objectives: Slurry management is an issue on most dairy units; knowing how much you have, it s nutrient value and where and when to apply are key in maximizing the use of this valuable resource. Further strain is added when within a nitrate vulnerable zone (NVZ), as many in the community group are. At east Pitforthie both the slurry and dung are utilized very well between the dairy and arable units. The main aim of this meeting includes reviewing the current system, identifying areas of improvement and ensuring the community group members also know what best practice is when it comes to management of slurry and land potential.

3 1 Some changes have been happening at the dairy since the last meeting in January. Ration presentation One of the changes followed on from the group feeling like the ration may be over processed. Action was taken to correct this by greatly reducing the number of revolutions the mixer was allowed for each ration. This was discussed with the Keenan representative and the changes were made, Sandy feels this has been an improvement. Hopefully this will be apparent in the feed conversion efficiencies (FCE). Somatic cell counts (SCC) and Bacto scan Relatively high SCC and Bacto scan results encouraged changes to be made. Firstly extremely high SCC/Bacto scan contributors were identified and their milk dumped and used to feed bull calves. Those who had consistently high SCC/Bacto scan were removed from the herd. It is useful to use records to look back at the milk quality history of cows to identify them as repeat offenders or simply first time high SCC/Bacto scan contributors; this may be the deciding factor between culling from the herd or simply withholding her milk for a time. Parlour maintenance Following on from the elevated SCC/Bacto scan it was highlighted as a benefit to have an independent specialist in mastitis and parlour routines spend 24hours at East Pitforthie. Ian Ohnstad from the Dairy Group has completed his first visit and reported on his findings; these along with results form on farm changes will be reported. Following on from this, the relevant changes will be carried out on farm and any improvements recorded. It is hoped we will see positive results in the near future and the community group will have the chance to hear form Ian and put questions to him late Infectious Bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) The group was interested to find out, following vaccination against IBR if any visible affects apparent in either the physical appearance or productivity of the milking herd. This was due to some members experiencing high IBR levels in milk tests but not clinical signs in the cows. Sandy feels there have been no significant signs of improvement, in actual fact there was a slight drop in milk following the vaccination but has since recovered. Maize analysis Following on from the maize being lifted in early November, a decision was made to feed it to young stock. This was on the basis of having such low quantities and the logistics of integrating it in the high yielding diet and inability to fully appreciate it s affects on yields due to the amounts grown. The maize analysis is available as an addition to the 14 October meeting report.

4 2 Current slurry management at East Pitforthie Source and storage The current storage at East Pitforthie equates to 22 months storage, but in reality it is closer to 7 months storage. This is between two separate stores holding parlour washings and slurry. The first is a gallon store at the main steading beside the parlour/cubicle house; the second is gallon satellite store 1mile from the main dairy unit. 1mile of 6 pipe, fitted with a Doda pump allows direct transfer to the second store and allows for more instant accessibility to the slurry for direct application to fields Cows are housed on 230 cubicles, bedded with Envirobed and an area for 70 on loose bedding straw yard. The slurry is separated by a screen separator in order for the flush system to flow. Use of Slurry/FYM Farm yard manure (FYM) is spread on 650 acres of arable land away from the dairy unit. Slurry is spread on the land surrounding the main dairy, requiring minimal movement. Spreading of the slurry is between two methods, firstly the farm tanker with gallon capacity and 20 meter dribble bar; also a contractor with an umbilical and 12 meter dribble bar.

5 3 Nutrients in Manure The potential nutrient value of slurry/fym depends greatly on the dry matter (DM) value, table 1. This is why it is important to have a good idea of your DM value when calculating how much to spread. Slurry FYM Kg/m 3 Units/ 1000 gall Kg/t Units/ tonne DM% N P K Table 1 Nutrient value in terms of different dry matter (DM) value Refer to Fertiliser Manual (RB209) for further information on organic manures.

6 4 Savings available for accounting for manures Potential availability to crop Potential Availability to next crop, 35%* for N indicated Table 2 is an average availability for spring application. Range throughout the year will be from 10% - 55% availability depending on weather, dry matter of slurry and application technique. Nutrient Slurry FYM N 35%* 10% P 50% 60% K 90% 90% Table 2, nutrient availability in slurry and FYM Available nutrients in a spring application of 40 m 3 per ha (3,600 gallons per acre), shown in Table 3 comparing available kg nutrient at 6% and 2% DM, this shows a large difference in available nutrients. 6% DM 2% DM Nitrogen Phosphate Potash Table 3, ranges in DM affects on nutrient levels So at the very least assess the dry mater to calculate nutrient content or get a WELL MIXED sample analysis carried out costing around 30

7 What does this mean for a tanker load of slurry? The spring application of 40 m 3 per ha (3,600 gallons per acre) of 6% DM slurry has the following values, shown in table 4. Total kg / ha Available kg / ha Available Units / acre Nitrogen Phosphate Potash (Sulphur) Table 4, spring application of 6% DM Slurry Equivalent fertiliser value Spring application of 40 m 3 per ha (3,600 gallons per acre) 6% DM Slurry is shown in table 5 below. Nutrient weight (kg) Nutrient levels (%) Value ( ) Total value ( /ha) 36 kg N 34.5% N 300/t 32 / ha 24 kg P 46% P in TSP 392/t 20 / ha 115 kg K 60% K in MOP 332/t 64 / ha Total potential value of slurry 116 / ha 2.90 / m³ Table 5, comparing the potential value of slurry against fertilisers

8 Equivalent slurry cost With the total potential value of slurry at 2.90/m³, how does this add up when all costs are taken into account? Working with a slurry value of 2.90/m³: Average tanker 2500 gall = 11.4m³ Total = 33 per load Cost of running tanker per hour Diesel 20l/h, 60ppl = Labour = Tractor/machine = Total = 34 per hour With the above costs in mind, breakeven is only at 1 load/hour; therefore it is worth hauling slurry around the farm in terms of saving on fertiliser value. The time to carry out the operation will be the limiting factor.

9 5 Matching Nutrients to crop needs and RB209 Timing of application Spring applications when the crop is actively growing will be the best time for application. Table 6 below shows clearly the nitrogen availability to the following crop. Season Autumn (Aug Oct) Winter (Nov Jan) Spring (Feb Apr) Summer (May June) Ground DM Slurry 6% Slurry 2% FYM Fresh & Old Sand Med All All All n/a Table 6, % availability of Nitrogen to the next crop As a broad rule of thumb when the crop is actively growing, any time from February through to June is a suitable time. Ammonia loss capturing more nitrogen for the plant The monitor farm and contractor both use dribble bar application techniques which contribute well to reducing ammonia loss whilst contributing to even application to crops. Standard losses are reduced as highlighted below, % reduction in ammonia losses Band spreader 26% reduction Trailing shoe 57% reduction Shallow injector 73% reduction (work by Misselbrook et al., 2002) It will also have a positive effect on creating a wider window for spreading on silage fields to reduce potential contamination of silage crops.

10 Balancing crop need- Nutrient planning, matching nutrient supply to crop need NITROGEN - to plan for its effective use you need to know: Soil types Annual rainfall Previous cropping Together they provide Soil Nitrogen Supply Index. Allows matching of nutrients from manures and fertiliser to crop need fertiliser manual RB209. Recommended that NITROGEN from manures should only account for 50 60% of total crop requirement to allow for variability of nutrient content Ratio of N: P Manure 2-6:1 Crop 7-11:1 So ratio of nitrogen and phosphorus in manure does not correlate well to crop need which will result in either a shortfall in nitrogen or excessive phosphorus applications. PHOSPHATE & POTASH - Target Soil Indices Arable, forage crops and grassland P index of 2 K index of 2- (Light sands index of 1) Try to run up or run down to achieve this Phosphorus at index 0 incorporate fertiliser Potassium more mobile so addressing low indices less of a problem Potash required in large amounts for bulky crops; aim to achieve correct index, then apply maintenance dressing only. Soil testing every 4 years to monitor is desirable Balancing cow need... Main issues Staggers Magnesium uptake depressed by Potassium Milk fever Magnesium required for mobilising Calcium Fertility & Health Phosphorus, Potassium, Magnesium, Sulphur (Calcium, Sodium, Chlorine) Target levels in forage 0.20% Mg in grass Dry matter 0.15% Na in grass Dry matter Reduced risk when nutrient balance correct K:Na and K:Mg are between 10:1 and 20:1 N:K ratio should also be 0.9:1 to 1.1:1

11 7 Breakout session discussion For this section of the meeting we split into two groups and attempted to come to some conclusion on current slurry use and water use, however as lunch seemed too much of a distraction we hope the following can help... The farm is has invested wisely in nutrient management already The construction of a lagoon away from the buildings with transfer via a pipeline ensures spreading costs are reduced and more importantly nutrients are taken away from the vicinity of the farm. The use of band spreading will reduce ammonia losses and will have increased application accuracy Slurry is used at the home farm for all silage cuts, some arable land whilst the high nutrient value FYM is carted to land away from the dairy to build organic matter and soil fertility on arable land. Group 1 Discussion East Pitforthie slurry production per year To plan slurry usage across the farm it is important to get an average production figure for the year. DairyCo slurry wizard will help with this farm report is summarised below Providing yearly totals Separated solid Dirty water/year System capacity Flood wash... Roof the stores? Nutrient planning

12 Feedback- slurry use, where and rates of application Currently good nutrient use as lagoon big enough to provide flexibility of spreading when needed Slurry sampling was mentioned throughout the meeting this is advised as the product to spread has been separated so nutient value will be higher for its relative dry matter than raw slurry The hosts are now keen to look at phosphorus and potash rates from the current slurry application regime to ensure crop performance is not being limited Difficult to maintain potash indices on the farm a look into potash use on the potato land is advised here due to this being a high demand crop of this nutrient More applications to growing arable crops will be considered better response to nitrogen and work carried out already indicates no long term yield or quality issues Group 2 Discussion - Water use, water harvesting and dirty water collection at East Pitforthie East Pitforthie is supplied by mains water, at a cost of 80p/m 3. Current usage, this includes parlour washings, flood wash, yard and clamp run-off 14,600 litres/cow in milk/year - Equivalent to 3,000+ gallon tanker load... for every cow This calculates to 4,670 m³/yr costing 1/m³ to spread. Irrigator likely to cost less, is all the water needed? Rainwater harvesting Cubicle shed - 85 x 55 = 4,675 m² Potential water Collection - 4,675 x 725 mm (rainfall) = *3,390 m³ *should allow for drainage and filter factors at 0.9 each Actual Collection (3,390m³ x 0.9 x 0.9) = 2,745m³ Annual Available = 2,745 m³ (3,390 x 0.9 x 0.9) Parlour Wash down = 4,672 m³ (40 litres/cow/day x 320 cows in milk) If all rainwater can be used for this purpose with limited filtration a saving of 3,700/year is possible off the water bill (at 0.80/m³) Storage: 1 3% of annual collection recommended, therefore m³ storage required

13 Feedback- water usage Potential to install an irrigator and remove some of the high volume of rainwater from the system silage clamps and dirty yard areas which come outside the NVZ areas would be good starting points This would reduce spreading costs and prevent too much dilution of slurry balance still required for quality of flood wash water and dry matter of slurry but host commented how quickly the slurry pit will fill during heavy rain periods so it is of current concern. Potential pricing of irrigator systems were discussed payback would need to be costed against reduced spreading costs at an average of 1/m³ Utilisation of water for dry cow shed needs to be re-assessed water quality issues have led to this not being utilised so far - but there is 2000m³ currently being collected each year which could offset the water bill by 1600/year. Reed beds to clean up dirty water were also discussed one in operation on group member farm so worthwhile to investigate this option further. The summary cost below, table 7 highlights that despite the higher spreading costs from larger surface area lagoons it is still a very cost effective option that the monitor farm has taken in building a new lagoon. Type Cost /m3 Cost /cow* Cost /100 cows Clay lined lagoon HDPE lined lagoon Steel tower Concrete store Slurry bag *Cost based on 15m3/cow for 22 weeks Table 7, cost of varying types of slurry storage

14 8 Summary Overall, on the slurry management aspect - very good management of current slurry system with the major recommendations coming from fine tuning of N, P & K to crop need across the whole rotation. Carrying out some slurry analysis carried to aid this process along would be recommended along with trying to apply more slurry to growing arable crops. On the water use side, for this farm there is a fine line to ensure that too much rain and dirty water isn t collected and stored this is ultimately dictated by flood wash quality. But at 1/m³ to spread water from unnecessary collection it should be borne in mind and an irrigator may be a useful addition to the system. Utilising the water from the dry cow shed to further reduce mains water costs is also a worthwhile project to finish off. Further nutrient planning and advise: PLANET nutrient management can be found at or contact planet.admin@adas.co.uk or Telephone the PLANET helpline on (Mon-Fri 9am to 5pm). For more information on the Fertiliser Manual RB209 8 th edition please contact: Sophie Kinnear or Sophie.kinnear@dairyco.ahdb.org.uk before Friday 11 March After this date: Online- Mail- TSO PO Box 29, Norwich, NR3 1GN Telephone orders: Fax orders: Textphone:

15 9 Future meeting topics/dates Next meeting: Grass Management -for grazing and use as a forage Guest speaker Piers Badnell Kindly hosted by James & Willie Taylor Venue: Baldoukie Farm, Tannadice, Forfar DD8 3SN 10.30am 2.00pm, lunch provided Trip to Ireland: Details to be confirmed We are hoping to take a two day one night trip to Northern Ireland in early May; a small fee will be required to aid in covering transport & accommodation costs. Places are of a first come basis and priority will be given to those who have signed up to or are already involved in the Milkbench+ benchmarking service or attended a minimum of three meetings over the past year. Please contact Sophie Kinnear on or Sophie.kinnear@dairyco.ahdb.org.uk for further information or to book your place Open day: There will be an open meeting held at East Pitforthie, marking the beginning of the second year as a monitor farm on Thursday 26 May, 10.45am- 2.00pm. This meeting will consist of a farm update from the Milne family and how being a monitor farm has helped them to date. We will be hearing from three highly regarded sources of relevant, influential and hopefully uplifting information these are NFUS, DairyCo Datum and Jimmy Goldie.