Site

• Crops can be difficult to establish on very heavy clay soils. However, with adequate attention to detail, they can be grown on most soils in lowland areas of Ireland.
• Weather during ripening is less important than for grain crops, so whole crop cereals, particularly Triticale, may be grown in areas considered marginal for grain production.

Cultivations

• Aim to produce a seedbed is if it were a normal grain crop. It should be firm and fairly fine, so allowing good even plant stands to be achieved quickly.
• Direct drilling may be used where no compaction problems exist.
• After drilling, roll the ground well. This minimises slug damage.

Sowing

• Sow from early October until mid November for winter cereal crops. Spring sown crops should be put in as early as possible in February or March.
• If an undersown crop is desired, then a reduction in seeding rate will be required. However, this crop would only be suitable for spring-sown cereals and the final crop yield would be compromised. If possible avoid this practice.

Fertiliser and Sprays

• This should be carried out as if the crop were an arable grain crop. Allowances need to be made for previous cropping history and the use of slurry or FYM.
• Herbicide and fungicide sprays should be used according to best arable management practices. The aim is to achieve a crop with healthy flag leaves and a good ear fill. A healthy plant that is disease free will give the best feed values to whole crop.

Crop Management

• The objective is to maximise wholecrop yield and grain content. A high grain content is vital to ensure an adequate energy level is achieved.
• Keep the crop clean. Weed and disease infestations reduce the feeding value and may effect the ensiling process.
• Consider employing a Teagasc tillage crop adviser to walk the crops and ensure that spray applications are optimised - especially if your arable experience is limited.

Winter Wheat

Winter wheat has a high yield potential. Good management will produce crops with high DM and high starch content. The management of the crop will be similar to a commercial wheat crop.

Spring Wheat

Spring wheat has a high yield potential. Good management will produce crops with a good DM and high starch content. The management of the crop will be similar to a commercial spring wheat crop.

Winter Barley

Winter barley generally out yields spring barley and its early harvest is an advantage. Barley is generally less susceptible to soil-borne diseases such as take-all than wheat.

Spring Barley

Spring barley has the ability to deliver high yields with very simple and timely attention to husbandry practices.

Winter Triticale

Triticale is a cross between wheat and rye. Grows well in sites considered unsuitable for other cereals. High yields with good starch content are achieved from a single harvest.

Forage Maize

Maize produces high quality feed at lower cost than second or third cut grass silage giving improved animal performance. If Area Aid can be claimed cost of maize is nearly as low as grazed grass. A minimum yield of 12 tonnes/ha (5t/ac) DM silage with a silage DM% or 27% + 25% starch are essential.

Forage Peas

Forage peas can provide home-grown protein (18-22%) to complement whole crop cereal diets or replace bought in protein.

Guide to DM Content for Whole Crop and Moist Grain Harvest

Harvesting and Ensiling Whole Crop Cereal Silage

Urea Treatment

The urea is converted to ammonia, rendering the seed coat more digestible. The grain is ensiled in a sealed clamp/silo.

Caustic Treating Grain

The treatment of grain with sodium hydroxide disrupts the seed coat of grains so that the grain can be fed directly to cattle without further processing.

Innoculant Treating Grain

Innoculant treatment of grain (e.g. biograin) presents itself as an alternative to caustic treatment of grain. The innoculant treatment weakens the coat of the grain to make it more digestible. It is preferable to harvest grain at a moisture content of about 30-40%. Below this level, water needs to be added. The innoculant is added in the mixer wagon and then stored in a clamp.

Mechanisation

Feeding Value of Whole Crop Silage

Stage of development, cutting height and ratio of grain to straw will all impact on the feeding value of whole crop silage. To achieve high grain yields, the crop needs to be grown as for high yielding commercial grain production using best tillage practices.

The table presented below shows low and high protein forages. The decision to use any of these must be based on improved animal performance and increased margins from the enterprise/farm.

Beef Cattle (Whole Crop Cereal Silage)

• Whole crop silage must be produced from high yielding grain crops with good crop husbandry practices employed. There must be a high proportion of grain relative to straw in the crop.
• The aim is to have at least 20% starch in the harvested crop.
• The data presented below demonstrates the importance of grain content of whole crop cereal silage on animal performance. Carcass gains were 21% lower on low grain whole crop wheat silage than on good quality grass silage (74% DMD).
• Carcass gain was 19% higher on high grain whole crop wheat silage than on good quality grass silage (74% DMD).

Dairy Cows

There is no Irish research data on the feeding of whole crop cereal silage to the dairy cow. Teagasc, Moorepark will begin studies on this subject in the forthcoming winter feeding programme. Studies from the UK/Denmark suggest:

• High forage intakes are achievable where whole crop cereal silage (fermented or urea-treated) is included in the forage component of the diet.
• Intake and milk production appear similar for fermented and urea-treated whole crop wheat silage.
• Both forms of whole crop cereal can support milk yields and composition comparable to that achieved with good quality grass silage but not as good as other feeds including maize silage, fodder beet and brewers grains.
• As for maize silage, whole crop cereal silage made without urea addition is likely to require additional supplementation with protein-rich concentrates.
• One acre of whole crop wheat will feed 6 cows for 120 days at 50% inclusion in the forage DM.
• Based on the UK data, the decision to grow whole crop cereals for ensiling in place of grass silage should not be based on the expectation of higher milk yields or improved milk composition where adequate good grass silage can be made. Other factors, such as site suitability, production costs and forage quality should be considered. The effect on farm profitability is the ultimate decider.

Feeding Value of Moist Grains

The feeding value of moist grains will depend on a good grain, good preservation and good pit management at feed-out. The literature suggests that the feeding value of moist grains is similar to rolled/ground cereals on a DM basis, provided the grain is free from mould growth and mycotoxins. Therefore the cost of growing/buying and treating cereal grains should NOT exceed the cost of the corresponding rolled/ground grain on a DM basis.

Crimped Grain

• Crimped grain can be fed within 3-4 weeks of ensiling.
• Good management at the pit face is essential (keep well covered and minimise disturbance of pit face).
• It can be fed straight or mixed in a diet feeder.
• Crimped grain can be fed at high inclusion levels (10-12 kg as fed).
• Adaptation to the diet is important when feeding high levels of grain.

Urea Treated Grain

• The grain preserves well when the pit is open. Urea treated grain can be fed directly out of the storage pit.
• If there is not a very strong smell of ammonia when the pit is first opened then this suggests that the grain has been harvested too dry and the majority of the urea has not been converted to ammonia.
• When the pit is first opened, there are very high levels of free ammonia in the grain, resulting in animals being slow to start eating the grain. Opening the pit 2-3 days before it is to be used and pulling down some of the grain onto the floor, to allow the excess ammonia to vent off, will help.
• May get some grain passing through the animals if the grain is too dry. May need to process the grain in the initial few weeks after it is introduced on intensive systems.
• Can be fed ad lib to cattle in intensive systems. The maximum feeding rate for dairy cows is 3-4 kg as fed.
• Urea treatment lifts the crude protein content of the grain to 16-18%. This is primarily rapidly degradable protein. This may dictate the type of protein supplement needed, particularly for dairy cows. Undegraded protein should be added if cereals are fed ad lib (e.g. 5% soya) to finishing cattle.
• In intensive ad lib feeding systems, the mineral supplement should contain low levels of copper and sufficient sulphur.

Caustic Treated Grain

• Treated grain can be fed within 4 days.
• Treated grain would appear to have no nutritional advantage over rolled/ground grain when fed in complete diets, although it may have, if high levels of cereals are fed separately from silage.
• The maximum feeding level to cattle is approximately 3 kg and 4 kg to dairy cows.
• Check the sodium level in the diet.

Production, harvesting and storage costs (8.2t DM/ha grain, 12.4t DM/ha whole crop)

*WCW-F = fermented whole crop wheat, WCW-U = urea treated whole crop wheat, WCW-P = processed whole crop wheat

• Storing or ensiling losses must be taken into account. The effect on animal performance and enterprise profitability must be known before the true merits of the various options can be determined.
• Alternative forages such as maize silage and whole crop cereal silage are low in important nutrients such as crude protein and minerals. While the cost per tonne of DM of maize and whole crop silage may appear lower than grass silage, these forages need to be supplemented with additional protein and minerals. This adds an additional cost to the system, which must be taken into account.

The Dairy Situation

Grass silage continues to be the principal ingredient in the winter ration of Irish dairy cows. It's role is being challenged by substantial increases in harvesting costs. Area aid payments are making alternative forages attractive. Fundamental questions remain to be fully answered including:

1. What production responses are likely from alternative forages - particularly whole crop silages?
2. What yield can we expect to obtain from whole crop silages and how much will they cost to produce?
3. How does the bottom line change in a `whole farm' context when an alternative forage substitutes for a portion of the grass silage consumed on farm?

This paper attempts to address these questions by comparing the information available on grass silage and grass-maize silage milk production systems with the limited data available to the author on whole crop silage. This information is compared and economically analysed on a whole farm basis for spring milk and winter milk production systems.

Spring Milk Production System

Two alternative forages, maize silage and whole crop silage were compared with the `conventional' two-cut grass silage (72% digestibility first cut) system. The production unit was a 436,416 litre milk quota, 48.56 ha dairy farm carrying 80 spring calving cows and 20 replacement heifer units. A total of 31.5 ha were cut for grass silage in the conventional system (20 ha first cut) while 5 ha of good quality alternative forages (starch content greater than 20%) partially replace the grass silage area conserved in the alternative forage systems. I made the following assumptions:

• Milk production (and output) was held constant by adjusting energy allowances across the three winter forage systems.
• Concentrate inputs for grass, maize and whole crop silages were 500 kg, 360 kg and 430 kg /cow respectively.
• These concentrates cost €191/tonne in the grass silage system and €216/tonne in the alternative forage systems.
• The comparative variable costs of production per tonne of dry matter were €84/tonne DM for grass silage, €80/tonne DM for maize silage and €90/tonne DM for the whole crop silage (excluding Area Aid).
• The yields of utilised silage obtained were 2.2 tonnes DM/ha for first cut grass silage, 1.4 tonnes DM/ha second cut grass silage and 5 tonnes DM/ha for the alternative forages.
• Excess silage was sold out of the alternative forage systems returning a margin of €157/ha.
• Supplementary feed was purchased to feed the cows during the early spring and late autumn periods, as the land growing the alternative forage was not available for grazing by livestock.
• The land growing the alternative forage was eligible and Area Aid was obtained (€365/ha and €383/ha for maize and whole crop respectively).
• Fixed costs were constant across all systems of spring milk production.

Based on these assumptions, the following costs and margins were obtained:

* Adjusted for sale of second cut grass silage

The two-cut grass silage generated a net margin of €11.14/100 litres. This margin is based on the assumption that high quality grass silage can be conserved. A 5% reduction in DMD of the grass silage would reduce net margin to €11.00/100 litres because more concentrates are needed to maintain production.

Compared with the two-cut grass silage system, the maize silage system was a slightly higher cost system of production (€0.08/100 litres). Overall net margin was higher because of the Area Aid payments (worth €1,773) and €508 net generated by selling 3.24 ha of surplus second cut silage. Failure to obtain an Area Aid payment would still leave a similar net margin for the maize silage system compared with the two-cut grass silage system (€0.13/100 litres higher). These results are based on the assumption that a high yield (12.5t DM/ha) of good quality maize silage is obtained.

Compared with the two-cut grass silage system, the whole crop silage system is a higher cost production system (€0.56/100 litres). Concentrate costs are only marginally lower than those of the grass silage system (€92 and €95 per cow respectively) because although the quantity fed was intermediate between grass silage and maize silage; higher protein content and higher cost concentrates were required to meet the cows nutritional needs. Net margin with Area Aid payment was similar to the grass silage system (€0.08/100 litres higher). Again a high yield (12.5t DM/ha) of whole crop is assumed in the example. Loss of the Area Aid payment makes the system substantially less profitable (€0.35/100 litres) than the two-cut grass silage system of spring milk production.

Winter Milk Production System

Two alternative forages, maize silage and whole crop silage were compared with the `conventional' two-cut grass silage (72% digestibility first cut) system for a 487,331 litre milk quota, 48.56 ha dairy farm carrying 80 cows (32 autumn calving) and 20 replacement heifer units. A total of 31.5 ha were cut for grass silage in the base system (20 ha first cut) while 5 ha of good quality alternative forages (starch content greater than 20%) partially replaced the grass silage area conserved in the other two systems. Previously made assumptions hold in addition to the following:

• Concentrate inputs for spring calving cows are those from the Spring Milk Production Case Study, while the inputs for autumn calving cows fed grass, maize and whole crop silages were 1,180 kg, 945 kg and 1063 kg/cow respectively.

Based on these assumptions, the following costs and margins were obtained:

* Adjusted for land set

The two-cut grass silage generated a net margin of €13.48/100 litres. This margin is based on the assumption that high quality grass silage can be conserved. A 5% reduction in DMD of the grass silage would reduce net margin to €13.25/100 litres because more concentrates are needed to maintain production.

Compared with the two-cut grass silage system, the maize silage system had slightly higher total costs of production and overall higher net margin because of the Area Aid payments and the income generated by selling 2.02 ha of surplus second cut silage. Loss of the Area Aid payment would reduce the net margin of the maize silage system to €13.49/100 litres, a net margin similar to that obtained from the two-cut grass silage system.

Compared with the two-cut grass silage system, the whole crop silage system had higher costs of production (€0.55/100 litres) for the reasons outlined previously. Net margin was slightly lower than that of the grass silage system (€0.04/100 litres). Loss of the Area Aid payment would reduce the net margin of the whole crop system substantially reducing its profitability compared with the two-cut grass silage system.

Conclusions

A two-cut grass silage system is a relatively cheap system of providing forage for dairy cows. Producing high yields, quality silage is important in maximising margins particularly so for winter milk production systems.

Maize silage can lift overall dairy profitability. The economic advantage of incorporating maize silage is substantially influenced by arable aid payment and by system of production. Maize is considerably more valuable in winter milk production systems. The economic benefit is debatable for spring milk producers without eligible land except in particular cases such as in later grass growing areas or on farms with a small grazing area relative to cow herd size.

Whole crop silage appears to have a limited role to play in spring milk production systems whether land is eligible or not. The economics of the crop appears marginally better in winter milk production systems particularly in areas where consistently providing good quality grass silage is a challenge and where it is also difficult to grow high yielding crops of maize silage. Further research is urgently required to evaluate more fully the milk production response to the crop.

The profitability of both alternative forages depends on being able to claim Area Aid. Where the land farmed is ineligible for Area Aid or on farms where applying for Area Aid reduces cattle headage or premia payments, adopting an alternative forage is less attractive. The implications for premia payments on any farm must be examined individually before deciding whether or not to grow an alternative forage.

Neither alternative forage offers sufficient economic advantage to justify investing in additional machinery or buildings apart from a limited number of exceptional instances.

The Beef Situation

Maize silage, whole crop cereals and immature cereal grains properly preserved and treated can all be successfully used for cattle feeding. They have the further advantage of being easily handled by conventional cattle feeding machinery and they do not normally require storage facilities beyond those available on most farms. For these reasons these alternative feeds can fit comfortably into most cattle wintering set-ups. Whether or not they will find a place on individual farms will depend on relative cost, performance expectation and delivery and on their contribution to annual whole farm profit. Other factors that come into play are the feasibility of introducing a tillage enterprise to an all grass farm, the arable and livestock premium situations, the role of grass silage as a grassland management tool and most importantly, the cattle farming system practised.

All of these cereal crops when properly grown and conserved produce high quality, high starch feeds that are well suited to high performance cattle finishing systems. They have, however, little role in the nutrition of dry suckler cows or store cattle, where high winter gain will be penalised by reduced summer performance at grass. For this reason, the role of alternative feeds is examined here purely in the context of finishing beef cattle.

A critical test of finishing efficiency is the cost per kilo of carcass gained. This is a more relevant measure than feed cost per day, which is often used but is meaningless in the absence of performance data. In looking at figures like these some other facts need to be considered:

1. Premia - In some situations very high performance may not be desirable, if cattle will finish before retention dates are reached, or possibly, before an expected market change takes place.
2. Other costs - Generally, earlier finish (higher performance) carries extra rewards through reduced non-feed costs such as interest, machinery, slurry spreading etc.
3. High concentrate diets require some additional husbandry skills if digestive upsets are to be avoided.

The table below takes principally Teagasc, Grange experimental results and applies them to finishing steers of 550 kg fed to gain 120 kg liveweight, which is assumed to add 80 kg to carcass weight. The diets assumed are good quality grass silage supplemented with 5 kg of barley based concentrate, excellent quality maize or whole crop wheat supplemented with either 3 or 5 kg of concentrate suitably balanced for protein and an ad lib barley based concentrate, either crimped or rolled.

The costs per tonne of feed dry matter used in compiling the table were:

The figures suggest that in the absence of Area Aid for cereals there are relatively small differences in the cost of adding 80 kgs of carcass to finishing steers. Taking the Area Aid payment as a subsidy on the feed cost obviously changes the situation drastically and all cereal-based options are considerably cheaper than grass silage diets. This conclusion cannot be taken on its own, the effect on cattle premium claims and on extensification must be considered.

The high concentrate diets, whether based on crimped or rolled grain produce feed costs per kilo of carcass gained similar to grass silage with supplement without Area Aid and considerably lower when Area Aid is included. This is, for good managers, a highly predictable finishing system, but is only operable at these performance levels for 80 to 100 days. It can be built into a stepped feeding pattern with animals spending the first half of the winter on silage only and the second half on concentrates, as illustrated by Gerry Keane in Grange.

The Feed Costs for 80 kg Carcass Gain for a Finishing Bullock from 550-670 kg

GS = grass silage, MS = maize silage, WCW = whole crop wheat, Hi conc = high concentrate system

Conclusions

• Alternative feeds can have a realistic and cost efficient role in cattle finishing systems in certain circumstances.
• Not all maize or whole crop will be of excellent quality. Where starch levels are low the feeding value is inferior to good grass silage, and feed costs per kilo gain will be higher.
• Maize and whole crop have lower protein content than grass silage, and protein supplementation is necessary. Specific mineral supplementation is also required.
• On all-grass farms the introduction of an extra enterprise will complicate management and should not be undertaken lightly. Contractors and possibly contract growing could have a role here.

The grass silage costs above are for first cut. Where two cuts are taken the costs are higher and the attractiveness of the alternatives is increased.