20

D A Clark, J W Penno
DRC, Hamilton
An average South Auckland dairy farm
grows 14.3t DM/ha/year, of which 10.0t
DM/ha/year is eaten. Direct costs of
growing this pasture are $426/ha (3 c/
kg DM grown, or 4.2 c/kg DM eaten).
Uneaten pasture qui ckl y di es and
decays, so that wastage goes unnoticed.
Pasture lost through decay on highly
utilised farms is 3 t DM/ha/year (16% of
total).
Uneaten pasture dies and accumulates
during late spring and summer to give
pasture dead matter contents of 35-
40%, even in well-utilised swards.
Stocking rate is the key determinant of
pasture utilisation.
Attempts to i ncrease total farm
productivity by lowering stocking rate
and feeding supplements are doomed
to failure because no supplements are
available that have substitution rates
close to zero when cows are fully fed
pasture.
The extra money being spent on bought-
in supplements, grazing off, N fertiliser
and summer crops, can only return a
profit if stocking rate is increased.
Summary Introduction
Table 1 shows the estimated cost of pasture DM
grown and eaten for an average South Auckland
dairy farm in 1994/95. Pasture is obviously a
low cost feed compared to any bought-in
supplement. A comparison of costs of pasture
grown and pasture eaten shows that the cost of
pasture eaten can be significantly reduced by
increasing pasture utilisation.
This paper reviews some of the unique
features of pasture that offer both challenges
and opportunities in dairying, and uses the No 2
Dairy farmlet experiment to illustrate the effect
of different stocking rate and N fertiliser use on
seasonal pasture dynamics.
How Do Pastures Grow?
Pasture grass pl ants, such as perenni al
ryegrass, are made up of several ti l l ers
consisting of three live leaves. Leaves originate
from a growing point close to the soil surface.
Grazing only very rarely removes this growing
point and, therefore, the tiller can persist under
grazing. In late winter the growing point is
transformed and will produce a single stem that
will flower.
The rates of leaf appearance and death are
closely related, which accounts for the relatively
constant number of three leaves per tiller.
Consequently, increased pasture green leaf (kg
DM/ha) can only occur if leaves increase in size
and/or ti l l er densi ty (number/uni t area)
increases. Rate of leaf appearance is much
The Importance Of
Using Pasture
Grown
21
Table 1: Pasture grown and the direct cost of grazing pasture on an average South Auckland
dairy farm (data from Livestock Improvement (1995) and New Zealand Dairy Board
(1995)).
Milksolids (kg/ha) 738
Conversion efficiency (kg DM/kg MS) x 13.6
Pasture eaten (kg DM/ha) 10,037
Pasture grown (kg DM/ha) 14,339 (assumes 70% eaten)
Pasture costs ($/ha)
Fertiliser (incl. N) 270
Pasture renovation and conservation 140 (assumes 50% of published value -
Weed and pest control 16 excludes meal and grazing off costs)
TOTAL COST 426
Cost of pasture eaten (c/kg DM) 4.2
Cost of pasture grown (c/kg DM) 3.0
faster in spring (seven days) than in winter (30
days). But because of the linkage between
appearance and death, leaf life spans are only
approximately 21 days in spring, compared with
90 days in winter. Even before death, leaves
export nutrients to other plant parts, so that dead
leaves have a much lower nutrient content than
live ones. Warm, moist, fertile conditions
encourage the rapid decay of dead leaves, but
the opposite environment leads to accumulation
of dead matter in the sward.
This flow of leaf appearance and death is
interrupted when the growing point of a tiller
produces a flowering stem. Hormonal changes
and changes in leaf placement on the stem lead
to increased DM production and increased leaf
life span. However, the mature stem contains
higher levels of lignin and lower levels of crude
protein and soluble carbohydrate than leaves.
Therefore, the nutritive value of pastures
containing mainly flowering stems is decreased.
In addition, the growing point is now elevated
and removal by grazing or cutting results in the
death of the tiller. Intensive grazing means that
a large proportion of the largest tillers die at the
same time, and DM production may slump as
new, small, vegetative tillers struggle to establish.
The brief summary above shows the dynamic
nature of both DM production and nutrient
content in a pasture. The use of such material
to feed cows, optimise profitability, and maintain
long term ecological stability, presents a major
challenge.
How Can We Maximise Pasture
Eaten?
McMeekan (1961) concluded that no more
powerful force exists for good or evil than the
control of stocking rate in grassland farming. If
maximum pasture is to be eaten, the choice of
stocking rate is critical. However, optimum
stocking rate will differ for every farm because
of soil type, fertility status, topography, and
climate, as well as cow factors such as breed
and breeding worth. The efficiency with which
pasture is converted into milk can be expressed
as:
Milksolids produced x Pasture eaten
Pasture eaten Pasture grown
or Feed conversion efficiency x Pasture harvesting efficiency
(from Holmes and Macmillan 1982)
An increased stocking rate increases pasture
harvesting efficiency. Feed conversion efficiency
can be increased by increasing per cow intake,
and hence milksolids (MS) yield, resulting in a
lower maintenance cost per unit of milksolids.
However, attempts to do this experimentally
nearly always result in a decline in pasture
harvesting efficiency that is larger than the
increased feed conversion efficiency.
Substitution
Attempts to improve feed conversion efficiency
on pasture by supplementary feeding invariably
decrease total efficiency unless stocking rate is
22
Table 2: Summary of annual pasture, intake and milksolids yield for Farmlet 1 (3.4 cows/ha,
no N fertiliser), Farmlet 3 (3.4 cow/ha, 400 kg N/ha/year) and Farmlet 5 (4.4 cows/
ha, 400 kg N/ha/year).
Farmlet
1 3 5
Pasture grown (t DM/ha) 18.6 21.7 23.6
Pasture eaten (t DM/cow) 4.44 4.74 4.22
Pasture eaten (t DM/ha) 15.1 16.1 18.6
Pasture decay (t DM/ha) 3.00 3.23 3.54
Conservation (t DM/ha) 0 1.80 0.57
Change in pasture cover (t DM/ha) 0.5 0.6 0.9
Milksolids yield (kg/cow) 327 369 315
Milksolids yield (kg/ha) 1094 1235 1389
Feed Conversion Efficiency (kg MS/t DM eaten) 72.5 76.7 74.7
Pasture Harvesting Efficiency (t DM eaten/t DM grown) 0.81 0.74 0.79
Total efficiency (kg MS/t DM grown) 58.8 56.9 58.8
i ncreased. Thi s occurs because cows
consuming supplements reduce their intake of
pasture, and hence decrease pasture harvesting
efficiency (see Figure 1). At pasture intakes
above 13 kg DM/cow/day, substitution rates
close to one occur when pasture silage is fed.
This means that pasture equivalent to the silage
fed will be ungrazed and, in all probability,
eventually wasted. Unless silage is of very high
quality, per cow milksolids yield will decline when
substitution rates are close to one.
When pasture intakes are below 10 kg DM/
cow/day, substitution rates of 0.3-0.6 are
commonly recorded. This implies that the
supplement is making a significant contribution
to the cows diet, but also that pasture is being
spared. This may be exactly the response
required in autumn when pasture is being saved
for winter and condition score of cows improved.
However, in spring, the pasture saved is likely to
contribute to unwanted surpluses.
Figure 1: Effect of base pasture intake on
substitution rate for cows fed
silage (from Phillips, 1988).
Pasture Dynamics at No 2 Dairy
1995-96
Pasture cover, accumulation rate, and cow intake
measurements were measured weekly in the No
2 Dai ry experi ment (Penno 1996, thi s
proceedings). Data from Farmlets 1 (3.4 cows/
ha, no N fertiliser), Farmlet 3 (3.4 cows/ha, 400
kg N/ha/year) and Farmlet 5 (4.4 cows/ha, 400
kg N/ha/year) were combined with pasture death
and decay rates based on published data for
perennial ryegrass-white clover pastures (Hunt,
1972; Korte and Sheath, 1978) in a spreadsheet
model. This model was used to estimate the
dynamic changes in live and dead matter content
of the pasture through the year, under
contrasting stocking rate and N fertiliser options,
in the No 2 Dairy Farmlet experiment. Green
DM was assumed to contain 12.5 MJ ME/kg DM
in winter and spring, 10.7 MJ ME/kg DM in
summer, and 12 MJ ME/kg DM in autumn; dead
DM was assumed to contain 7 MJ ME/kg DM
(Hoogendoorn and Holmes 1992). A summary
of the annual pasture, intake and milksolid yield
data is given in Table 2.
Table 2 shows that where N fertiliser was
used, but stocking rate not increased (Farmlet
3), pasture grown was increased by 3.1 t DM/ha
compared with Farmlet 1. But pasture eaten
per cow increased by only 0.3 t DM, hence
pasture eaten per ha by only 1.0 t DM. Intensive
pasture monitoring allowed surpluses to be
identified quickly and conserved as silage so that
less material was available to decay later in the
season. However, it is unlikely that the amount
of silage made will be required within the system,
-1
0
1
2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
S
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

(
k
g

p
a
s
t
u
r
e

D
M
/
k
g

s
i
l
a
g
e

D
M
)
Pasture intake (kg DM/cow/day)
23
and net returns from its sale would not match
the return made if converted directly to milk. The
marginal efficiency of the extra DM grown from
N fertiliser is 45.5 kg MS/t DM grown, compared
with overall efficiencies of 58.8 and 56.9 kg MS/
t DM grown for Farmlets 1 and 3.
Where N fertiliser was used, but stocking rate
was increased (Farmlet 5), pasture grown was
increased by 5.0 t DM/ha, compared with Farmlet
1, but pasture eaten per cow decreased by 0.22
t/DM. However, the increased stocking rate
meant an increase of 3.5 t DM/ha in pasture
eaten. Pasture surplus conserved as silage in
spring was only 0.57 t DM/ha, but pasture cover
over the year increased by 0.9 t DM/ha, which
suggests that loss through subsequent decay
could be underestimated in this system. The
marginal efficiency of the extra DM grown from
N fertiliser is 59.2 kg MS/t DM grown.
rapidly and, within two months, most of the
accumulated dead matter has decayed. During
this period it is possible that the decay rate of
dead matter exceeds that of new green DM
growth, so that negative accumulation rates are
recorded. From Table 2, the pasture lost from
decay as a proportion of that grown is 16.1, 14.9
and 15.0% for Farmlets 1, 3 and 5 respectively.
Pasture Loss
Predicted pasture growth and decay are shown
in Figures 2 a, b and c for Farmlets 1, 3 and 5
respectively. Predicted pasture growth rates
were -1.1%, -0.9% and +8.8% of measured
annual pasture accumulation rates. Differences
between predicted pasture grown and measured
pasture accumulation on a monthly basis were
often significant. This is to be expected because
predicted pasture growth is attempting to
estimate new green DM growth, while pasture
accumulation is measuring the balance between
new green DM grown and DM disappearance
resulting from decay of dead matter.
In Figures 2 a, b and c, the difference between
the pasture growth and decay curves represents
pasture accumul ati on. Pasture death i s
proportional to pasture growth, as explained in
the introductory section and, in spring, dead
matter is assumed to disappear within one
month. This means that although substantial
amounts of DM may be lost through death and
decay, there is little accumulation of dead matter
in the swards. In summer, death rates accelerate
but decay is effectively halted in dry conditions
as earthworm activity ceases and microbial
activity declines. This combination leads to rapid
accumulation of dead matter in the pasture.
With the onset of warm, moist conditions in
late summer-autumn, decay processes increase
Figure 2: Predicted seasonal changes in
pasture growth and decay rates
for Farmlets 1 (Fig. 2a), 3(Fig. 2b)
and 2(Fig. 2c) of No 2 Dairy
experiment for 1995-96.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
J
u
n
A
u
g
O
c
t
D
e
c
F
e
b
A
p
r
Decay Growth Fig 2b
(
k
g

D
M
/
h
a
/
d
a
y
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
J
u
n
A
u
g
O
c
t
D
e
c
F
e
b
A
p
r
Decay Growth
Fig 2a
(
k
g

D
M
/
h
a
/
d
a
y
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
J
u
n
A
u
g
O
c
t
D
e
c
F
e
b
A
p
r
Decay Growth
Fig 2c
(
k
g

D
M
/
h
a
/
d
a
y
)
Figure 3 shows the annual pattern of dead
matter content in the pasture for the three
farmlets. Even in highly stocked, well managed
pastures, the dead matter content in February
can reach nearly 40%. The effect of this on
green DM allowance per cow is shown in Figure
4. Green pasture allowance peaked at 32-46
24
kg DM/cow/day in November. At cow intakes of
17 kg DM/day this implies that 37-53% of green
DM must be eaten at each grazing. From
November, green DM al l owance decl i nes
through summer and autumn.
Figure 3: Predicted seasonal changes in
dead matter content of pasture on
Farmlets 1, 3, and 5 of No 2 Dairy
experiment for 1995-96.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
J
u
n
A
u
g
O
c
t
D
e
c
F
e
b
A
p
r
Farmlet 1 Farmlet 3 Farmlet 5
%
Figure 4: Predicted seasonal changes in
green pasture al l owance on
Farmlets 1, 3, and 5 of No 2 Dairy
experiment for 1995-96.
1.0
11.0
21.0
31.0
41.0
51.0
A
u
g
S
e
p
O
c
t
N
o
v
D
e
c
J
a
n
F
e
b
M
a
r
A
p
r
Farmlet 1 Farmlet 3 Farmlet 5
(
k
g

D
M
/
c
o
w
/
d
a
y
)
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
J
u
n
A
u
g
O
c
t
D
e
c
F
e
b
A
p
r
Farmlet 1 Farmlet 3 Farmlet 5
(
M
J

M
E
/
k
g

D
M
This effect on cow nutrition of the fall in green
DM allowance offered is further compounded by
the decline in the ME content of the pasture
(Figure 5). This decline is predominantly due to
increased dead matter content, rather than a
decline in the quality of green pasture.
Figure 5: Predicted seasonal changes in
metabolisable energy content of
pasture on Farmlets 1, 3, and 5 of
No 2 Dairy experiment for 1995-
96.
Implications
The data from the No 2 Dairy experiment
reiterate the importance of the balance between
stocking rate and pasture grown for high and
profi tabl e mi l ksol i ds output. The recent
emphasis on improved cow nutrition (Edwards
and Parker, 1994) has often failed to consider
whole farm implications. A decrease in stocking
rate will allow increased pasture allowance per
cow. However, the dynamic nature of pasture
growth and decay processes mean that either
surpl us pasture must be conserved, wi th
associated losses of both DM and ME content;
or, pasture dead matter content increases with
initial decline of pasture ME content, followed
by DM loss as pasture decays.
Short-term feed deficits should be met by
management decisions on culling, or by the use
of N fertiliser or cost-effective supplements,
rather than by decreased stocking rate. If
stocking rate is increased, the likelihood of
surpluses occurring is decreased, but they
should be conserved when they occur because
at present payout levels silage supplementation,
especially at the end of lactation, will be profitable
(Clark 1994).
Smal l er surpl uses can be removed by
topping. There is some evidence that topping
has beneficial effects on MS yield (Bryant 1982).
Topping should be done immediately before
grazing. This will allow the topped material to
be readily eaten, and will remove developing or
existing reproductive stems, and hence reduce
current pasture growth rates. If topping is done
after grazing, topped material may simply
increase the dead matter content rather sooner
than would have occurred naturally.
Conclusion
Pasture remains the cheapest form of total feed
for the New Zealand dairy cow. Profitable
dairying requires that base stocking rate has the
potential to use 85% of annual pasture growth.
Nitrogen fertiliser and supplements should be
25
used to support a high base stocking rate.
Attempts to increase per cow milksolids yield to
high levels by reducing stocking rate and using
high quality rations balanced for nutrients will
only succeed at the expense of wasted pasture.
Research should urgently address ways to
increase per cow intake from a pasture-only diet,
or from pasture plus supplements. However, no
suppl ements are yet known that have a
substitution rate close to zero when used with
ad libitum high quality pasture.
Korte CJ, Sheath GW, 1978. Herbage dry matter
production: the balance between growth
and death. Proceedings of the New
Zealand Grasslands Association 40: 152-
161.
Livestock Improvement, 1995. Dairy Statistics
1994-1995.
McMeekan CP, 1961. Pros and cons of high
stocking rate. Proceedings of the Ruakura
Farmers Conference 184.
Phillips CJC, 1988. The use of conserved forage
as a supplement for grazing dairy cows.
Grass and Forage Science 43: 215-230.
References
Bryant AM, 1982. Effects of mowing before or
after grazing on milk production. In Dairy
Production From Pasture. Eds. Macmillan
KL, Taufa VK. New Zealand Society of
Animal Production. Pp 381-382.
Clark DA, 1994. Silage for milk production.
Proceedings of the Ruakura Farmers
Conference 45: 41-46.
Edwards NJ, Parker WJ, 1994. Increasing per
cow milksolids in a pasture-based dairy
system by manipulating the diet: a review.
Proceedings of the New Zealand Society
of Animal Production 54: 267-273.
Holmes CW, Macmillan KL, 1982. Nutritional
management of the dairy herd grazing on
pasture. In Dairy production from pasture.
Eds. Macmillan KL, Taufa VK. New
Zealand Society of Animal Production. Pp
244-274.
Hoogendoorn CJ, Holmes, CW Chu ACP, 1992.
Some effects of herbage composition, as
i nfl uenced by previ ous grazi ng
management, on milk production by cows
grazing on ryegrass/white clover pastures.
2. Milk production in late spring/summer:
effects of grazing intensity during the
preceding spring period. Grass and
Forage Science 47: 316-325.
Hunt WF, 1971. Leaf death and decomposition
during pasture regrowth. New Zealand
Journal of Agricultural Research 14: 208-
218.