Acting the ostrich is not a viable strategy

The temptation to reduce fertiliser application must be avoided. Fertiliser is far too expensive, but without adequate amounts, spread regularly, especially in the first half of the year, there will be a major shortfall in next winter’s fodder supplies. First cut is the most important. It delivers the bulk of fodder needs at a time when grass production is peaking. At almost any cost, we cannot risk a fodder shortage. The economic implications, the animal welfare ramifications, and the negative productivity outcomes are too great to contemplate. Our reputation as competent farmers is on the line. Fertiliser is a critical input, even as the price has doubled. Either we ensure that adequate fodder is available for next winter – perhaps sooner in the event of extreme summer weather ranging from drought to deluge – or we must consider destocking over the coming months in anticipation of matching reduced fodder supplies with lower livestock numbers. There are no other cost-effective equations that safeguard our reputation and economic viability. Meanwhile, reduced chemical fertiliser for immediate grazing is also a false economy. Replacing fertiliser with concentrate feed is, even at elevated fertiliser costs, still an expensive course of action. Brendan Horan’s analysis of comparative feed costs clearly affirms the cost advantage of grass against all alternatives, and Matt Ryan’s Management Hints include details of the Moorepark researcher’s calculations. While the absolute costs are changing by the day, the comparative costs across grass, clover, silage and grain-based concentrates remain valid. With grazed grass used as the baseline cost, and given a score of 1.0, the only feed that outcompetes, in energy utilisation terms, is a grass/white clover sward mix carrying a comparative score of 0.6.
Pit silage scores 3.3, with its baled equivalent scoring 3.7 on the comparative cost scale. Red clover pit silage has a relative value of 2.7, with a three-cut red clover system giving a relative cost value of 3.1. Maize silage and fodder beet are viable fodder options at 3.2 and 2.8, respectively. The basic concentrate ingredient – rolled barley – incurs a relative cost of 5.2. Compounds carry a higher relative cost again.
The message is clear. Our much-promoted competitive advantage continues to be grazed grass, with the incorporation of white clover providing an additional refinement to further improve its cost competitiveness. For milk production so far this year, it has been more a case of keeping losses as close to break-even as possible, more than protecting profitability, which is beyond reach on most farms as costs increase and milk prices remain depressed. That only adds to the case for maximising the production and utilisation of grazed grass. The same emphasis holds for drystock production. The external challenges, be they war or weather, are outside of our control. That mantra of only being able to control the controllables holds true. Inside the farmgate we can influence outcomes. The Moorepark relative cost values of feed inputs point the way. Yes, the costs of all fodder production, from fertilisation to ensiling have exploded. We have two basic options. Plan our way through a truly horrific global trade disruption brought on by political and military over-reach or put our heads in the sand and hope it all goes away. Every day brings a sigh of relief with the latest cease-fire announcement, quickly followed by a gasp of dismay, with more bombs and bombast. Even as some semblance of peace may be on the horizon, it will take months if not years for some degree or global civil and economic normality to be re-established.