Fodder beet to support early and late lactation milk production from pasture, is it worth the risk?

Abstract

High yielding crops such as maize (Zea mays L.) and fodder beet (FB; Beta vulgaris L), are commonly used to extend lactation and increase animal productivity from pastoral dairy systems. Financial modelling to compare costs and benefits of different crops is useful for decision making, but such modelling often fails to account for potential animal health risks which can be associated with feeding supplements. A multi-component, whole-farm modelling approach was used to predict milk solids (MS, milk fat + protein) production and the economic farm surplus (EFS: operating surplus – adjustments) between 2016 and 2018 for an irrigated farm in Canterbury (South Island) and a non-irrigated farm in the Waikato (North Island), of New Zealand. The financial risk of the dairy business was measured using the ratio between mean return on assets (ROA) minus an assumed 5% risk-free ROA, and the standard deviation of ROA was calculated from 300 combinations of climate, milk, and feed price, land appreciation, and interest rate. Four scenarios of autumn and spring supplementation of pasture were considered at each geographical location; imported maize silage (Base), a crop of maize silage grown on the milking platform (MSC; area used to produce milk), a crop of FB grown on the milking platform (FBC), and a FB crop with an outbreak of acute (1% stock fatality) and subacute ruminal acidosis (5% decline of feed intake) across the entire herd (FBAC). The MSC scenario improved EFS by 5.8% compared with Base in both the irrigated and the dryland system. The predicted response to MSC reflected greater milk production, lower feed expenses, and shorter crop rotation, compared with either Base, FBC, or FBAC. While FBC increased EFS by 4.8% compared with Base under irrigation, EFS was similar to Base under dryland conditions ($2711 and $2759/ha, respectively). The limited advantage of growing FB under dryland conditions reflect reduced herbage supply due to the extended crop duration of FB compared with maize silage. Model predictions suggest that FBAC will increase the financial risk by reducing milk production and EFS by 6.5% (irrigated) and 7.1% (dryland) compared with Base. In the absence of any adverse health risks, farm performance from the FBC scenario was comparable to that of MSC under irrigated conditions. However, in dryland conditions, and when the potential economic cost of acute and sub-acute ruminal acidosis is considered, there is little advantage to growing FB on the milking platform.