Grass & Forage Growers shift to more progressive
ways of making grass silage • First cuts being taken earlier • Improvement in grass quality • Some fi bre may be necessary
T
rends towards more pro- gressive grass silage-mak- ing practices identifi ed in a new dairy farmer survey should help UK producers improve milk from forage performance – but care is needed to ensure produc- ers maximise the benefi ts. This was the joint message from Germinal and Volac at a briefi ng on the results of a new multi-cut grass silage-making survey, which points to the in- creasing popularity of taking fi rst cuts earlier and making more fre- quent subsequent cuts.
An overwhelming 89% of the 150 dairy farmers surveyed ex- pressed a desire to increase their milk from forage. Some 60% stat- ed that fi rst cuts have become ear- lier over the past three years and 44% reported shortening their cut- ting intervals.
There is less need for short chop lengths with younger, leafi er crops
Good reasons “We are clearly seeing a signifi cant shift towards a more progressive approach to grass silage-making amongst UK dairy farmers,” said Germinal’s Ben Wixey. “And the clear majority are making these changes for very good reasons.” Farmers taking or intending to take more silage cuts per year gave a number of justifi cations for doing so. All revolved around making their businesses more ef- fi cient and generating bigger mar- gins without compromising busi- ness sustainability. Reasons included making bet- ter quality silage (71%); making
“
Farmers are making these changes for very good reasons
Derek Nelson (left) and Ben Wixey.
more milk from grass silage (68%); and reducing bought-in feed costs (65%). Far fewer – just 40% – were doing it to increase their overall grass silage quantity.
Of the 44% of respondents who had already changed to a shorter cutting interval in the past three years, the survey also found that 92% were seeing a level of im- provement in grass silage qual- ity, with 54% saying quality was much better.
Early adopters
“This shift to multi-cut appears to be working for these early adop- ters,” said Mr Wixey. “This is great news, but we want to ensure that as the practice moves into the mainstream, the changes in man- agement needed to maximise the potential benefi ts of the system are fully understood.
“Success starts by ensuring leys are in the best possible condi- tion, which for many means more frequent reseeding than common- ly practised on most dairy farms. It will then include everything from how fi elds are managed the previ- ous autumn through to how high- er energy grass silage is fed.” Echoing this, Volac’s Derek Nelson highlighted silage preser- vation as a key example of where clarity was required with a mul- ti-cut approach. Although the steps involved in making silage didn’t change, some steps needed extra attention to detail. “Because individual cuts are likely to be lighter, you can reach
the optimum 28-32% dry matter for ensiling much quicker – so it’s important not to over-wilt. Simi- larly, because crops are cut young- er, they are likely to be higher in protein and metabolisable ener- gy (ME).”
Fermentation Higher protein was a good thing, but it could negatively affect fer- mentation. “There’s a clear case for boosting fermentation effi ciency with a proven additive. Yet only 35% of respondents in the survey recognised that taking more cuts can increase the need for a silage additive.”
Interestingly, the cost of addi- tive treatment per cut was likely to be lower with a multi-cut system, said Mr Nelson, because individu- al cuts would weigh less and addi- tives were applied per tonne rath- er than by the area mown. “Another area to pay attention
to is chop length,” explained Mr Nelson. “Younger, leafi er crops are likely to be easier to consolidate in the clamp than older, stemmy ones, so there’s less of a need to strive for very short chop lengths.”
Saving money
The resulting silage is likely to have a higher energy density – so money can be saved in terms of bought-in feed costs – but it may still need supplementing with ad- ditional fi bre. This means ley com- position is an important prereq- uisite to success with a multi-cut system.
MARCH 2018 • ANGLIA FARMER 49
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
