Increasing dairy farm profit by
maximising forage utilization
Edith Charbonneau,
Ph.D, agr.
Collaborators:
M.C. Coulombe
R. Roy
D. Pellerin
Content
Having high quality forage in quantity
– Adjusted yield for quality
– Cost per adjusted ton
Forage utilisation
– Milk from forage
– Its impact
– How to increase Milk from forage
Assess forage management and utilization
Importance of forage management
 Forage management is a key factor to increase dairy
farm’s net income
• Up to around 50 000$ higher net income for
farms having more efficient forage management
₋ High yield
₋ Good quality
₋ Low cost of production
₋ High Milk from forage
(Roy et al., 2008)
Importance of forage management
$/T DM
 Good forage utilisation decreases the need for
concentrate feeds
 Price in concentrate feeds varies greatly in time
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1987
Corn
Barley
1997
2007
2017
Adjusted yield for quality
 Value of forages estimated from corn grain and
soybean meal prices and compositions
350
300
250
200
Mature
150
Mid-mature
100
Immature
50
0
Low
concentrate
prices
High
concentrate
prices
Adjusted yield for quality
 Value of forages estimated from corn grain and
soybean meal prices and compositions
350
300
250
200
Mature
150
Mid-mature
100
Immature
50
0
Low
concentrate
prices
High
concentrate
prices
Cost of forage production
Adjusted cost of production
Yield
Quality
T DM/ha
Adjusted yield
eq DM/ha
• Adjusted yield
– Correct the yield for the nutrient content (quality)
• Adjusted cost of production
– Cost of forage production /Adjusted yield
(Coulombe, 2012)
Adjusted cost of production
• Quality Calculation
– Relative quality _ based on energy (RQE)
RQE = TDN (%DM) / 1.24
– Relative quality _ based on protein (RQP)
Digestible protein (%DM) / 0.32
– Global quality index
(RQE+RQP) / 2
• Coefficients are calculated using a reference forage:
– Weighted mean from average chemical analysis of a midmature silage (2/3) and a mid-mature hay (1/3)
(Coulombe, 2012)
Quality-adjusted cost of production
- relationship with the cost of production Results for the adjusted forage cost of production from dairy farms
Average
Cost Prod.
25% higher
Cost Prod.
25% Lower

Adj. cost of production, $/T
202
259b
165a
-94
Variable cost, $/ha
494
530b
447a
-83
Fertilizer and other
improvements, $/ha
96
96
89
-8
Machinery cost, $/ha
666
754b
588a
-166
Labor cost, $/ha
211
224b
188a
-36
Results from 381 herds in AgritelWeb (2009-11)
Quality-adjusted cost of production
- relationship with the cost of production Results for the adjusted forage cost of production from dairy farms
Average
Cost Prod.
25% higher
Cost Prod.
25% Lower

Yield, T/ha
5.9
5.1a
6.5b
-1.4
Adjusted yield, eqT/ha
6.1
5.1a
7.1b
-2.0
NEL, Mcal/kg DM
1.34
1.35
1.34
-
Crude protein, %
16.3
15.8b
16.9a
+1.1
Area, ha
74.6
69.3b
81.7a
+12.4
Results from 381 herds in AgritelWeb (2009-11)
Forage utilisation
Forage utilisation
 Milk from forage
• Concept was developed in the 70’s by AgriGestion Laval at Université Laval
• Milk from forage (MF) is an estimation of the milk
produced from forage by subtracting milk
production theoretically allowed by concentrate
from the total amount of milk.
Milk from forage
MFaverage= (MFenergy + MFprotein) /2
MFenergy= ECM – [Conc NEL (Mcal) - NELfor growth (Mcal)]
0.75 (Mcal/kg milk)
MFprotein= PCM – [Conc CP (kg) – CP for growth (kg)]
0.088 (kg CP/kg of milk)
(Charbonneau, 2002)
Milk from forage
Objectives for Milk from forage (kg/cow)
Average cow
weight (kg)
Acceptable
Level
Target
> 650
2650
3200
550 to 650
2550
3100
< 550
2450
3000
Milk from forage – Economic interest
Results from 381 herds from AgritelWeb (2009-11)
Average
MF
25% lower
MF
25% higher

Milk from forage, kg/cow
2266
919b
3 629a
+2700
Margin/cow (std), $/cow
3516
3268a
3763b
+495
Feeding cost, $/hL
34.51
35.83a
33.04b
-2,79
Milk sold, hL
5439
6166a
4996b
-1170
Number of cows
73.3
80.8a
67.2b
-13.6
Milk from forage – Animal performance
Results from 381 herds from AgritelWeb (2009-11)
Average
MF
25% lower
MF
25% higher

Milk per cow, kg/y
8373
8028a
8580b
+552
Milk fat, %
4.05
4.06
4.05
-0.01
Milk protein, %
3.35
3.37a
3.34b
-0.03
Calving interval, d
424
430a
422b
-8
Replacement rate, %
31.1
32.4a
30.3b
-2.1
Milk from forage – Animal performance
Results from 381 herds from AgritelWeb (2009-11)
Average
MF
25% lower
MF
25% higher

Feed efficiency
1.12
1.06b
1.20a
+0.14
Forage intake, T/cow
5.45
5.21b
5.46a
+0.25
Forage crude protein, %
16.3
16.4
16.3
-0.1
Forage NEL, Mcal/kg
1.34
1.33b
1.35a
+0.02
48
57b
28a
-29
TMR, %
Milk from forage – Summary
 Farms with high Milk from forage have:
• Better margin/cow (lower feeding cost
and more milk per cow)
• Forage of better quality
• Higher forage intake
• Higher feed efficiency
Milk from forage with inexpensive forage
 Farms with high Milk from forage and low
adjusted cost of production
• Similar animal performance with even
better economic outcomes
• Lower milk cost of production 10.40 $/hL
• Higher income of 20 132 $/ full time
equivalent
Milk from forage with inexpensive forage
 Farms with high Milk from forage and low
adjusted cost of production
• Similar animal performances with even
better economic outcomes
• Lower milk cost of production 10.40 $/hL
• Higher income of 20 132 $/ full time
equivalent
Milk from forage – Research
Would decreasing concentrates increase Milk
from forage?
When high quality forages are fed, it can be
an option…
• An experiment was conducted to test the concept
(Pellerin et al., 2000)
Concentrate amount
 Cows receiving low concentrates diet
• Ate 1000 kg  concentrates per lactation
•  their forage intake by 24%
 Targeted difference of 2000 kg per lactation between
groups could not be met
• No significant differences in milk production
• No difference in milk composition
• Increase in milk urea for cows with low concentrates
Production performance maybe more related to
type of concentrate than the amount
Feed characteristics
• Physical and chemical characteristics of diet
associated to Milk from forage production
– 90 farms (22 with corn silage)
– Chemical analysis (ADF, NDF, CP,…)
– Particle size of forages
– Processing of concentrate feeds
(St-Pierre et al., 2002)
Feed characteristics
Relationship between Milk from forage and DIM
Milk
Milk from forage
Milk (kg/d)
50
40
30
R2 = 0.356
20
R2 = 0.003
10
0
0
-10
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Days in milk
(St-Pierre et al., 2002)
25
Feed characteristics
• Silage-based diet (no corn silage)
– Grinding of concentrate increases Milk
from forage, mostly in early and midlactation
– Small forage particle size decreases Milk
from forage in early lactation but
increases it in late lactation
– Forage quality increases Milk from
forage for every cow
Feed characteristics
• Corn silage-based diet
– Increasing RDP from concentrates increases
Milk from forage
– No effect from concentrate grinding, forage
particle size or forage quality on Milk from
forage
Concentrate type
Effect of carbohydrate degradability on Milk from forage
when alfalfa silage is used
14
a
a
Milk from forage (kg/d)
12
10
b
b
a
8
6
a
b
b
4
MFenergy; P=0.73
2
MFprotein; P<0.01
MFaverage; P=0.09
0
Cracked
corn
Ground
corn
Starch
Dried whey
Permeat
(Charbonneau et al., 2006)
Conclusions
Conclusions
 It is worth working on forage cost of production
and their utilization
• Difference of 55 000$ between the top and
the bottom groups
 To decrease cost of production
• Machinery cost
• Yield
 Think in terms of yield adjusted for quality
Conclusions
To increase Milk from forage
• Good quality forages
But its not enough, you have to use them…
• Increase forage intake
• Adequate amount of concentrates for each
cow
• Adequate choice of concentrates for the
forages in the ration (type, processing,…)
Conclusions
 An evaluation tool was developed to assess
forage management and utilization on dairy
farms
 Helps to point out the strength and the
weakness in forage management and utilization
 Already available in Quebec
 Will soon be available in English for all Canadian
provinces
Thanks!!
Questions ?
edith.charbonneau@fsaa.ulaval.ca