FEI What does it Mean On-Farm?

Transcription

1 FEI What des it Mean On-Farm? Kim Rbinsn AgFirst FEI What is it? The Fat Evaluatin Index has been develped by Fnterra t mnitr the likely effect f PKE feeding n the cmpsitin and manufacturing prperties f milkfat prduced n farm. Farmers will receive an FEI classificatin fr each cnsignment f milk, based n a rlling 6 day average screening test. If this result is ver a certain threshld, the milk will be tested via a mre accurate methd and demerit grades may be applied. Hw Shuld Farmers Mnitr their FEI? It is crucial that farmers mnitr the trend f their FEI rather than just the classificatin, that they receive n the daily dcket. This trend is shwn via the FEI graph which is available n the OnFarm App r the FarmSurce website. The fllwing graph has the daily PKE levels added t shw hw much the FEI can vary within a classificatin band at certain feeding levels. The range bars crrelate t the feeding level scale (kgpke/c/d) n the left hand side f the graph. As this graph shws, at relatively steady levels f PKE feeding (3-4kg/c/d) the FEI can vary cnsiderably within the A range. This is likely due t variatins in ttal intake, usually due t a rise r fall in the amunt f 1

2 pasture available. Fr example, during very wet weather, the pasture utilisatin may fall and ttal intake may drp. As a result the PKE will be a higher percentage f the diet and the FEI may rise. This dilutin factr may als ccur in the summer r autumn when pasture cvers are drpping and PKE is intrduced. The FEI culd rise rapidly and pass frm A thrugh the B band t a penalty level within a few days. It is difficult t see this simply n the dcket classificatins. Mnitring the graph each day will allw yu t predict the prblem befre the FEI reaches C r D levels. Actin can then be taken t avid any demerits befre they ccur. Strategies fr Managing FEI There are many changes farmers can make t reduce their FEI if needed. These range frm shrt term feeding changes t larger system changes in stcking rate r calving date. All changes shuld be evaluated frm an ecnmic viewpint. The main factr influencing FEI is the prprtin f PKE in the diet f the lactating cw. PKE fed t drystck des nt affect FEI in milk after calving. S anything that reduces the percentage f PKE in the ttal intake f milking cws will reduce FEI. Aim t keep PKE feeding at 20% f ttal intake. 2

3 Farm management strategies include: - Save alternative supplements fr milking cws and feed drystck nly PKE - Make mre high quality silage by using mre N and feeding PKE fr lnger int late spring - Feed lw rates f PKE thrughut lactatin and spread ther supplements ut fr lnger - Cnsider crpping ptins eg, maize silage, chicry, turnips but beware f the ecnmics f this. Fdder beet may push FEI slightly higher than ther crps and is relatively expensive s may nt be a gd ptin - Cnsider alternative supplements and blends but beware f the ecnmics - Graze dry cws ff in winter and push pasture cver higher at calving - Cnsider stcking rate and calving date changes if prfitable - Calculate the ecnmics f feeding PKE at dwngrading levels fr shrt perids t get thrugh a temprary feed shrtage - Beware f OAD milking especially in late lactatin as this tends t push FEI higher - Cnsider drying ff pr prducers and light cws and save ther feeds fr milking cws Always cnsider the lnger term ecnmics f any changes. The cst f purchasing alternative feeds r grwing crps des nt always add t the prfitability f a business. The cst f the extra milk prduced frm these ptins can be surprisingly high and has been calculated at well ver $6/kgMS in ur Imprted Feed Trial at NARF. Full details n this are in the fllwing paper by Dr. Jhn Rche. 3

4 Marginal ecnmics are yu making mney frm milk, r milk frm mney? Jhn Rche, Principal Scientist, Animal Science, DairyNZ Key lessns learned frm the 2 nd year f the current experiment at the Nrthland Agricultural Research Farm Pasture-nly farmlet In year 2, perating prfit at $6.12/kg MS was $2,728/ha, with an perating cst f $3.68/kg MS. Despite a wet spring in 2016, high MS prductin/cw and per ha were achieved with n purchased supplement; Strict decisin rules arund drying ff cws fr pasture cver and cw bdy cnditin scre in autumn ensured that the farm achieved pasture and cnditin scre targets at planned start f calving fr Year 3; Palm kernel farmlet In Year 2, perating prfit at $6.12/kg MS was $2,726/ha, with an perating cst f $4.05/kg MS; High MS respnses t supplementary feeds can be achieved when there are strict decisin rules that ensure high pasture utilisatin; In Year 1, the PKE farm prduced 36 kg MS/cw and 159 kg MS/ha mre than the pasture-nly; In Year 2, the PKE farm prduced 20 kg MS/cw and 153 kg MS/ha mre than pasture-nly; Hwever, MS respnses vary frm year t year; in tw cnsecutive years, with the same decisin rules in place, respnse t supplements varied frm 110g t 125 g MS/kg PKE DM (100 t 115 g MS/kg PKE purchased); In Year 2, when MS respnses t supplements were gd (96 g MS/kg Palm Kernel; PKE) and PKE was relatively inexpensive ($267/t delivered), the cst f the extra milk prduced frm using PKE was: $5.53/kg MS, if n allwance was made fr the capital cst assciated with running the system; $6.38/kg MS, if an allwance f 6.5% was made fr the cst f capital; Unless milk price was mre than $6.38/kg MS, the MS frm PKE COST mney t prduce. Crpping farmlet In Year 2, perating prfit at $6.12/kg MS was $2,154/ha, with an perating cst f $4.47/kg MS; The respnse t crpping was variable and very dependent n crp yield; In Year 1, the Crpping farm prduced 6 kg MS/cw and 15 kg MS/ha mre than the PKE farm; In Year 2, the Crpping farm prduced 23 kg MS/cw and 65 kg MS/ha less than the PKE farm; 4

5 The marginal cst f the MS prduced in the crpping farmlet during Year 2 was: $11.79/kg MS, if n allwance was made fr the capital cst assciated with running the system; $13.08/kg MS, if an allwance f 6.5% was made fr the cst f capital; The value f crps in any prductin system is very dependent n the cst f establishing the crp and the yield at the time f grazing/harvest; The strategy f using crps t increase stcking rate and ensure cws are well fed thrugh the summer and early autumn must be carefully cnsidered. What d we mean by marginal ecnmics? In marginal ecnmics, we attempt t measure the cst f prducing an extra kg MS and cmpare this with the MS price. This is based n the principal that the increase in MS prductin assciated with inputs is large t begin with, but gets smaller and eventually flattens with increasing inputs. Fr example, applying P fertiliser t very lw Olsen P land will lead t a large increase in pasture prductin; hwever, the increase in pasture prductin declines as the Olsen P f the sil increases; applying P fertiliser t sil with abve ptimum Olsen P grws very little additinal pasture. This is the law f diminishing returns. Similarly, the first 100 kg f supplement prvided t a cw results in greater marginal MS prductin than the secnd 100 kg, which is greater than the third 100 kg, and s n. The danger in marginal analyses There is a danger with marginal analyses; all the csts assciated with system change may nt be accunted fr. Fr example, peple ften talk abut the margin ver feed, which accunts fr the milk prductin assciated with supplementing the cw and the cst f the feed, but des nt accunt fr any ther cst. Analyses f databases in New Zealand and in ther cuntries have highlighted that many csts increase, with increasing use f nn-pasture feeds (e.g., fuel and il, labur, repairs and maintenance). The experiment at the Nrthland Agricultural Research Farm ffers us a great pprtunity t quantify sme f thse csts. Fr example, between 50 and 60% f the perating expenses n a dairy farm relate t each individual cw. Therefre, increasing the stcking rate leads t an increase in the majrity f expenses/ha (e.g., animal health, breeding expenses, rearing csts, etc.). Csts assciated with an increase in stcking rate must be accunted fr in additin t the cst f the purchased feed/crpping in any evaluatin f the system change. Irrespective f the chsen farming system, it is imprtant t understand the pint at which further milk prductin is csting yu mre than the price yu are receiving; in technical terms, this is the pint at which 5

6 the marginal cst f milk prductin (i.e., marginal cst) is greater than the milk price (i.e., marginal revenue; Figure 1). Differences between the farmlets At NARF, we are examining differences in MS prductin between tw self-cntained farmlets and a third farmlet imprting PKE t fill any shrtfall in pasture prductin (PKE farmlet). The tw self-cntained farmlets are: 1) pasture-nly, with surplus pasture cnserved as silage and fed back when the herd is shrt f feed, and 2) a pasture farmlet with apprximately 25% f the farm being used t grw turnips, fdder beet, and maize silage (Crpping farmlet). The Pasture farmlet has a stcking rate f 2.6 cws/ha and the PKE and Crpping farmlet have stcking rates f 2.9 cws/ha. As well as MS prductin and feed use measurements, machinery use and labur hurs/farmlet were recrded. By allcating csts apprpriately, we can estimate the cst f the marginal milk prduced n the PKE and crpping farmlets. Figure 1. The relatinship between marginal cst and marginal revenue. When marginal cst is less than milk price (marginal revenue), prfit/ha increases with greater prductin. When the marginal cst is greater than the marginal revenue, the increased prductin reduces farm prfitability (nte: the farm may still be making a prfit). In thery, prfit increases with increasing MS/ha until marginal cst = marginal revenue (the X n the graph). In arguing abut which system f farming is best, many peple have lst sight f this basic ecnmic principle. 6

7 Results marginal cst f extra milk prduced The milk prductin n the different farms and the ttal cst f prductin separated int the cst f milk prduced frm pasture and the marginal cst f the additinal milk prductin in the PKE and Crpping farms are presented in Figure 2. The average cst f prductin fr the Pasture, Crpping, and PKE farms was $3.69, $4.40, and $4.06/kg MS in Year 1, and $3.68, $4.47, and $4.05/kg MS in Year 1, respectively. S, cst f prductin was relatively cnsistent acrss years and there isn t a large difference between the farms. Hwever, the average cst f prductin hides the cst f prducing the extra MS; n average, each kg f additinal (i.e., marginal) MS n the Crpping farm cst $7.97 t prduce in Year 1 and $13.08 t prduce in Year 2; each kg f additinal MS n the PKE farm cst $6.05 t prduce in Year 1 and $6.38 t prduce in Year 2. These results are cnsistent with analyses that we have undertaken n ther experiments. Figure 2. Milkslids prductin/ha in the Pasture, Crpping, and PKE farms, the cst f prductin in the pasture farm, and the marginal cst f the additinal milk prduced in the Crpping and PKE farm in Year 1 and 2. 7

8 Difference between strategic and tactical use f purchased feed There is a difference between the strategic and tactical use f feed. The strategic use f feed is planned frm the start f the year. Fr example, if smene increases stcking rate by 0.25 cws/ha, they will either plan t imprt 1 t DM supplement/ha (i.e., assumes a cw eats 5 t DM/year) r feed each cw less. In this scenari, the farm gets bth the benefits and additinal csts assciated with the change t the system (e.g., greater milk prductin/ha, but greater herd replacement, animal health, and breeding expenses/ha). In farm system analyses, n average, the ttal increase in csts assciated with the system changes needed t use purchased feeds is apprximately 50% greater than the cst f the feed. S, fr example, if purchased feed is $1/kg MS, ttal csts will increase by apprximately $1.50/kg MS, n average. It is this strategic respnse t imprted feed that is being investigated at NARF. This is different t the tactical use f feed. Tactical use f feed is where a farmer purchases unplanned feed t minimise a shrt-term feed deficit (e.g., cld and wet August, dry February). In this situatin, they dn t capture the benefits f an increase in stcking rate, but they als d nt incur many f the csts assciated with change t the system. Hwever, the ttal cst is greater than the marginal cst f the feed, because there is an increase in assciated csts (e.g., labur, fuel and il, repairs and maintenance, electricity, etc.). These csts are included in DairyNZ s Supplement Price Calculatr ( which will help calculate the value prpsitin f purchasing supplementary feeds in a range f situatins. Cnclusin The average cst f milk prductin can be a misleading statistic in evaluating the cst/benefit f system change. It is imprtant t fcus n the marginal respnse, while accunting fr all csts that will change t achieve the additinal prductin. It is this metric that determines whether yu are making mney frm milk, r making milk frm mney. It is imprtant t distinguish between strategic (i.e., planned, practive) and tactical (i.e., unplanned, reactive) use f supplementary feeds. The large respnses t supplementary feed in the NARF experiment are a result f changes t the farm system and nt just a respnse t purchased PKE. These are the results f tw year s data. The experiment is nging and will prvide a great pprtunity t evaluate the effect f system change in Nrthland and ther regins f New Zealand. 8