FROM THE FARM REPORT: BALANCING PRODUCTION & PROFITABILITY VIA HOUSING & FEEDING STRATEGIES ON PASTURE-BASED FARMS

Uruguay is a leading country in South America’s dairy industry, with average farms housing 144 cows and producing over 736,000 liters (194,430 gal) of milk annually. Uruguay’s temperate climate means that cows can be pastured year-round, though heavy rains can pose a challenge for pasture availability. Farmers typically feed mixed diets where 56% of intake is from grazing and 44% is from supplemented roughages and concentrates. Dairy intensification in Uruguay is driven by increased milk production and utilization of more farm-grown forages to improve profitability.

The Journal of Dairy Science recently published a paper from la Universidad de la República in Uruguay which investigated the production and economic performance of Holstein cows in different housing systems and feeding strategies. Their intent was to compare indoor vs. outdoor pens, and feeding conventional TMR vs. mixed feeding.

They enrolled 192 cows over a two-year period following the fall (March-April) and spring (July-August) calving seasons. During the far-off and close-up periods, all cows were managed equally. After calving and throughout their subsequent lactation, cows were housed in pens of four and randomly assigned to one of three treatments:

CB-TMR: housed in a compost bedded-pack barn (CB) and fed only a conventional TMR ad-libitum 2 times/day. This housing method is growing in popularity to improve animal welfare through protection from adverse weather, but research is limited on long-term economic and production impacts.

CB-GRZ: housed in a CB and grazed in a rotational grazing system at a stocking rate of 2.5 cows per hectare for 7-8 hours/day, accounting for approximately 37% of their total intake (GRZ). They were supplemented with a conventional TMR fed once/day.

OD-GRZ: housed outdoors (OD) in a soil-bedded pen that was partially shaded by a nylon roof and grazed under the same conditions as the CB-GRZ group. This is the historically and widely used system of housing and management.

There were 16 cows assigned to each treatment per season per year. Economic analysis was performed to compare economic performance of the treatments based on the average Uruguayan dairy farm. All results were compared by treatment and calving season.

CB-TMR cows outperformed cows on the GRZ treatments, likely because the TMR provided a more stable and consistent nutrient supply compared to the varied quality of pasture forage. Their milk yield (75 lb/cow/d) was ~15 lb/d higher in the fall and ~19 lb/d higher in the spring. Their 305-d milk fat, protein, and total solids were 35% higher in the fall and 18% higher in the spring. CB-TMR cows produced 15 lb more energy-corrected milk per day and ate 5 lb more per cow per day so their feed efficiency was significantly higher. Additionally, CB-TMR cows recovered body condition faster after calving, had higher body condition scores, and increased more in body weight over their lactation. This effect was more notable in the fall than the spring.

Cows on the CB-GRZ and OB-TMR treatments performed very similarly with no difference in milk yield or energy-corrected milk. CB-TMR cows had higher 305 d protein and total solids than OD-GRZ cows in the spring, but lower 305 d protein and total solids in the fall. There was no difference in the way their body condition score or body weight changed through the study.

The economic evaluation showed no difference in income over feed cost across treatments ($5.41/cow/d). CB-TMR had almost 2 times the gross income ($5,568/ha) and economic costs ($5,278/ha) than the GRZ treatments, which were nearly equal ($2,950/ha income and $2,500/ha costs). Conversely, the operating profit for OD-GRZ was over $200/ha higher than the other treatments because of its decreased infrastructure costs. As a result, the return on assets for OD-GRZ (7.0%) was much higher than CB-TMR (2.1%) or CB-GRZ (2.9%), making OD-GRZ the most profitable system.

The search for balance between increasing milk production (by using supplementary feedstuffs) and utilizing more farm-grown forages (while not limiting milk production) has been happening globally. In a mixed feeding system, low-cost infrastructure did not sacrifice productivity. For pasture-based farms, allocating funds toward higher supplementation rates may improve production more than investing in high-cost infrastructure. This is not considering animal welfare, which is an important determining factor as well.

— Alexandria Bartlett

abartlett@whminer.com