A DairyNZ article saying supplementing pasture isn’t profitable and suggesting underfeeding may maximise profit has been slammed by the NZ Feed Manufacturers Association, some advisers and even a few farmers.

‘There are some very dogmatic statements in there,’ NZFAM executive director Michael Brooks says.

‘It seems to be an all-or-nothing approach.’

Brooks says several of the association’s members have voiced concerns about the article’s content, not least the implication underfeeding cows is acceptable.

‘Underfeeding for five weeks or more isn’t what I would call ‘not ideal’; I would say it is completely unacceptable. I would expect the animal welfare groups and MAF Animal Welfare would have something to say about that.’

Mid Canterbury dairy farmer Willy Leferink echoes that.

‘Personally, I can’t handle starving my cows. You have to treat them well and hope they respond to you. A happy cow looks after you.’

Leferink, who is New Zealand’s farmer representative on the International Dairy Federation (see story on this page) through his role as vice-chairman of Federated Farmers Dairy, says underfeeding as a deliberate policy could damage New Zealand’s reputation overseas.

And while he endorses the article’s points about maximum production from pasture – ‘grass is the most valuable and cost-effective feed’ – he says the statement supplementing pasture won’t be profitable won’t necessarily be right.

‘There is a lot more variation in profit between farms within the same system than there is between systems.’

Even within his farms, which use supplements extensively, cows respond differently to feeding so it has to be targeted accordingly.

‘We have some cows doing 60 litres and others doing 20L. And the 60L cow is nine years old too.’

Average response to supplement across his herds is 5.7-5.8gMS/MJME, considerably better than the 3.5g-4.5g New Zealand average highlighted in the Dairy NZ article.

‘And I think we can still do way better. Our best cows are doing seven to eight grams (MS/MJME) but our bottom 40% of cows don’t get any extra feed at all. They’re on the waiting list to be ‘transferred’.’

Recent rapid expansion in the industry means many farms carry cows which are far from efficient producers, he says. ‘If we culled the bottom 10% we would probably increase productivity overall.’

Recently he calculated he could pay $300 to $320/t for wheat if need be and make money on a $5/kg payout even after allowing for management costs.

‘That leaves money in it for us. We are not doing it for the love of it.’

Dairy NZ’s John Roche, lead author of Feeding for profit – now more than ever, says the article wasn’t advocating underfeeding.

‘What we were saying is these are the likely responses to supplement in these different situations.’

A key point is that supplements will not be profitable if cows have sufficient pasture, as stated in the first bullet point of the article.

Stocking rate, which wasn’t mentioned in the article, does influence that, he acknowledges, though the higher the stocking rate, the more grass grown as a rule.

‘I am not for a moment suggesting it’s pasture, pasture, pasture. But you need to assess all your costs when you change your system and not just assume it will be more profitable with higher inputs.’

Work by Massey University, and more recently a survey of 14 Mid Canterbury dairy farms, is where that 3.5-4.5gMS/MJME response range comes from, demonstrating figures achieved on farm generally fall way short of those in research trials.

‘People selling feeds to farmers continue to highlight higher responses. This article was trying to level the playing field.’