Another season, another series of newspaper articles opining the dwindling reproductive efficiency of the national dairy herd. It’s a problem, a real problem. There are not really any insightful and learned generalisations that can be uttered on this topic, only that every farm is different. Virtually every herd can do with improving reproductive performance. System 1 to system 5, high producing cows to lower producing cows, once a day herds or robotic milking herds – it can always be better.

And that’s the crux of the issue, when examining reproductive performance, the issues on every farm are different and the emphasis on each issue is different. So, we must break down the process. Winter feeding, calving management, milk fever and ketosis control, trace element sufficiency, energy sufficiency and utilisation over calving and strong positive energy input leading up to mating.

Primarily, the first goal is to get cows bulling. In my view, the current expectation of 6 weeks for a cow to bull from calving is too long. It is entirely feasible for cows to bull within a month. Furthermore, (and herd size logistic aside) if you need anything expensive and electronic to pick bulling cows then cows are just not displaying heat strongly enough and this is indicative of a problem. Once we know we have cows bulling effectively and the heats are picked effectively we can then move onto bull side issues if necessary.

As the hoary old saying goes, “You can’t manage what you can’t measure”. So, for each of these aspects the extent to which these animal health conditions and energy balance issues are acting on the individual herd need to be measured. This can be done by dietary analysis, analysis of previous reproductive performance issues via, for example MINDA data, and milk production and quality data. Together a picture can be gleaned of the likely issues that need to be addressed to work toward better reproductive efficiency.

The answers can be as simple as a trace element deficiency or as complex as a fundamental system change. It may take a mindset change on feeding cows or provide the impetus for impending change. It may be simply fixed in one season or a may take a major infrastructure change over several seasons. No one said this was easy.

Our genetic companies have been outstandingly successful in selecting a productive cow. Perhaps the most profound impact has been that energy distribution is prioritised to milk production at the expense of most other physiological systems. Meaning that energy deficiencies and the factors that influence efficient energy utilisation will limit reproduction well before they limit milk production.

We have bred magnificent animals, we just haven’t quite figured out how to manage them yet.

Milk fever continues to be a serious syndrome affecting dairy cows across New Zealand. The industry target for clinical milk fever is less than 1 in 100 cows but we know that many farmers have higher numbers than this. At Mineral Systems we focus on managing milk fever risk. Farmers following our recommendations are reporting;

Clean, simple calvingsGood, healthy appetites and strong milk production curvesEarly cycling and feeling positive about upcoming mating

The graph above shows clinical milk fever rates in client herds over the previous three seasons. The data show that managing milk fever risk is achievable and results can be repeated. In particular, the first two farms at 0% milk fever illustrate that gaining and maintaining a milk fever free farm is a realistic goal that all farmers can reach.

This graph also shows that even with just one season of adjustment in supplementation, milk fever rates can be cut by more than half. The goal for these clients is to continue managing supplementation in their stock to achieve even better results for the season to come. However, one size does not fit all and supplementation plans need to be farm specific in order to get results.

If you're ready to tackle milk fever on your farm, give us a call, 0800 765 854.

Every dairy farmer wants to produce more milk. To get a cow to produce firstly she must have the feed in front of her. Sadly, this is not always the case. How farmers think about feeding cows is deeply ingrained in their psyche and in many instances to suggest cows are underfed is to question the very essence of a farmer’s being. And, it’s a good way for a consultant to get the sack. So, in the interests of diplomacy it’s assumed that every herd is fed to requirements!

Fundamentally, a cow has got to want to eat. And, once eaten, that feed must be turned into milk as efficiently as possible. When you boil all this down, it’s the same three issues affecting appetite and feed conversion efficiency and all of them are acting on the cow at spring time.

The first (and yes, I am banging on about it again) is milk fever. Interventions at calving e.g. drenching with fresh cow products, may control clinical milk fever but it does not mean that milk fever is not acting on the herd. Additionally, such “prevention” only acts at the point of calving whereas milk fever can affect the herd throughout the season. For this reason, we should be very interested in the factors causing sub-clinical milk fever in our herds.

An interesting statistic is that there is a 70% reduction in the strength and frequency of contraction of smooth muscle (muscle of the gut and uterus) before any clinical signs of milk fever are seen. That’s a lot of cows not eating enough and we wouldn’t even know. Subclinical milk fever can also result in increased numbers of assisted calving, infected uterus, greater risk of retained membranes, dead and weak calves, mastitis and more. We have just about every issue faced by cows and farmers in the spring all wrapped up in this one syndrome and we haven’t even mentioned down cows.

Second is ketosis. Ketosis is often dismissed as a normal phenomenon that we can’t do anything about. Negative energy balance is something we can’t do anything about but when negative energy balance doesn’t resolve we have ketosis. Ketosis can be hard to pick in a herd. Appetite (again) is reduced, weight loss in enhanced and milk production profiles can be confusing. A ketotic herd will peak earlier but will not peak as high or as long i.e. milk production can seem reasonable at the time. Ketosis will also increase the risk of milk fever, mastitis and infected uterus.

And thirdly, trace elements. Trace element supplementation is not just preventing a deficiency but rather providing sufficient amounts to meet production demands. A 600kg Friesian is a different beast from a 400kg jersey. Soil type, fertiliser choices, sward composition, ration choices all affect trace element intakes. The same product off the shelf for all these scenarios is really a nonsense. Trace elements drive energy efficiency and deficiencies and toxicities enhance disease processes. Getting them right is simple and cost effective.

Cows have got to want to eat. Factors limiting intakes include milk fever, ketosis and trace element levels. Production and dietary data will reveal how these factors are acting on your herd. Get them eating, they’ll frighten you how much they can stack away and they’ll reward you in the vat!

Currently, the discussion about production animal welfare is driven and defined by animal rights activists. It is largely limited to identifying casual violence against animals by individuals who no doubt have other issues in their lives. It is not defendable and it has smeared all farmers. However, there is so much more to the welfare landscape that needs to be addressed.

Welfare ethics impact on every area of farming. Downstream considerations such as consumer demands, product quality, and market access also need to be addressed. Welfare can and should drive farm profitability by integrating farm systems through the lens of animal requirements. It is proactive and aims to reduce loss and optimise production within whatever system the farmer may use. Yet this discussion is not currently happening. And if it’s not happening, expect the rights activists to lead the way.

By way of an example of proactive welfare, in my MAF (MPI) days I was heavily involved in the welfare of animals at slaughter in the freezing works. If we have any humanity at all about us then making damn sure that these animals meet their death with no pain and with minimal stress is an absolute priority. The science is sound and by ensuring the process was properly carried out we could be confident that the final act of welfare was delivered.

The key was to ensure that the gear worked and the operators knew their job before the first animal was killed. It was just not good enough to wait until stuns looked wrong before anything was done. Neither was it acceptable to stun a few animals to see if gear worked. We had to be confident everything was good to go before the first animal arrived.

We can and should apply the same sentiments to our farming systems. We do get the milking machines tested, crowd up the races and clean and disinfect the calf pens. However, there is way too much risk accepted in feeding systems. One size fits all supplementation programmes and often unnecessary anionic salt supplements force cows to operate at the edge of their physiological ability to cope. Cows go down, mastitis and empty rates go up and cows die. Does guessing and trying something else next year constitute good welfare if the outcome is likely to be more death and disease?

A Mineral Systems nutrition analysis and measurement of the herd energy profile reveals a lot about the risks the herd is subject to. A diverse range of farm systems are then necessarily questioned; diet construction, feed management and pasture quality, sward composition, fertiliser and effluent nutrient use, shelter systems and young stock performance.

Reframing production diseases in terms of animal welfare forces an upfront examination of the farm system with risks to animal health and production identified and corrective actions applied. The outcomes are transparent, can predict animal health outcomes and inform ongoing management decisions which builds better animal health and performance.

Good for the animal, good for the farmer, good for dialogue with consumers and good at leading the way in the animal welfare discussion. It also marginalises the rights activists particularly when it is not clear if it’s the animals they care about or their own agendas.

The Three Types of Lies

“There are three kinds of lies”, Mark Twain wrote in 1905, “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”. Originally attributed by Twain to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disreali, the derivation of the quote pre-dates Disreali to Leonard Huxley in 1885 with his exclamation, “liars, damned liars and experts”. It seems that a healthy scepticism of consultants goes a long way back.

But why do five consultants deliver six different opinions? When someone claims to be “unbiased” are they really? How are farmers expected to sort through competing claims? The answer to all these questions is - it depends. Why does “it depend”?

Why isn’t there a simple universal truth?

Animal science is extraordinarily complicated. It is fiendishly hard to run a trial that standardises all inputs and also takes into consideration individual animal responses. If you run a trial you will get a response. But if you run the exact same trial say 100 times you may well get 100 different answers. If you graph those results against the frequency of any result what you get is a “bell curve” i.e. some results will occur more frequently than others. Crucially, any one trial result in isolation may sit at either end of the spectrum and as such we have to be cautious in our interpretation.

This diagram shows a typical Bell Curve. Each section represents the probability of a result falling within a section of the curve. Less common results plotting at either end of the curve will not be representative of the "norm".

Any trial undertaken, provided it is done well, is like a piece of a jigsaw puzzle. Sometimes it supports your position, sometimes it contradicts it. So it is incumbent on the expert to try to make sense of the whole picture even though there are a number of jigsaw pieces missing or pieces that just don’t seem to want to fit. However, the human mind has difficulty with this preferring instead to not see the wood for the trees.

The “Einstellung Effect”

The “Einstellung Effect”, or more commonly “confirmation bias”, is the resolute determination to stick to one solution and ignore simpler or more effective alternatives. This tendency was documented as far back as 1620 by Francis Bacon when he wrote, “The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion … draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances found on the other side, yet these it either neglects or despises”.

At its most cynical pharmaceutical companies are guilty of confirmation bias when they promote trial data that supports their product but conveniently ignore or even suppress trial data that doesn’t. But confirmation bias is a facet of normal brain function and can confound even the most diligent researcher.

Choose Your Philosophy

We are all biased - farmers, consultants, researchers, veterinarians. The trick is to draw your information from the “expert” that is philosophically in line with your own general approach. For example, if you are biological / organically inclined then there is not much point in consulting a hard-out urea, super and Roundup man. And secondly, are you achieving your farming goals? If not, change your consultant and expose yourself to another set of lies, damned lies and statistics.

To check if your philosophy aligns with ours, give Mineral Systems a call now: 0800 765 854.

Source: Scientific American

A client posed a question this week when we were discussing fertiliser options. He said, “I can buy a heck of a lot of magnesium oxide to supplement the cows in spring with what you are proposing we spend on magnesium fertiliser this autumn why not just supplement the cows directly?” It’s a good question.

Magnesium deficiency in Taranaki is famous. There are even some old timer names for it – “Taranaki anaemia” and “leather bag”. Magnesium is a requirement of just about every biochemical process. Deficiencies then, even marginal ones, have the potential to limit animal performance in many different ways other than grass staggers and milk fever. All dairy farmers know this. Cows are drenched, bulleted and injected with the stuff. Tonnes of it is dusted over pastures and poured into water troughs. The amounts used are often not rational – more is better! There are a few problems though and important ones.

I call the problem “supplementation risk”. It is rooted in the way magnesium deficiency works in the cow. Cows have a pump mechanism in the rumen that can suck magnesium out of the rumen fluid and into the bloodstream. As such, a cow can function on low dietary magnesium. However, increasing potassium content degrades the effectiveness of this pump. At 3% potassium in feed the pump function is reduced by 30%. At 3.5%, magnesium absorption by this mechanism is ineffective.

The other method of magnesium absorption relies on maintaining a magnesium concentration in the rumen so that it just floods into the bloodstream. With potassium above 3% (and just about every dairy pasture is) the herd becomes increasingly reliant on a magnesium intake high enough to influence blood levels i.e. a total reliance on the efficiency of the supplementation programme.

Additionally, magnesium supplements generally taste terrible and cows will go to some lengths to avoid it. Dusting is hugely inefficient and worse in wet weather and water treatment is similarly inefficient in wet weather. Which is why calvings and metabolics are so much more severe in wet springs. At the other end of the scale magnesium toxicity is a real problem notwithstanding the sheer waste and cost of magnesium through indiscriminate use.

Planning on achieving the lowest potassium content and highest magnesium content in pastures over calving takes all the sting out of supplementation risk and consequently a major source of risk for milk fever and the long list of related issues is also mitigated.

Controlling magnesium deficiency in the spring begins with considered fertiliser choices in the Autumn. Simply pumping more magnesium into cows in the spring just does not work overly well.

Related: Why Pasture Sampling is a "Must Do" this Spring

What will dairy farming look like in another 10 years? One strategy to answer this question is to chart the current pressures on the industry and extend those trends. Environmentally, nitrate leaching, phosphate and effluent runoff will be increasingly regulated. Antibiotic resistance issues will reach tipping point and as such antibiotic use in production animals will be curtailed. And, animal welfare regulation will fundamentally change our management systems.

Anticipating these sorts of changes is critical. Fighting to merely stay as we are is doomed to failure and will damage, perhaps fatally, the credibility of the industry. But how do we promote healthy and productive animals without the widespread use of antibiotics and hormones? How do we manage nutrient such that ecological attributes of waterways are enhanced while contributing positively to the climate change problem? And finally, how do we have an industry that is sustainable and enjoyable?

Just ask the cows! What do they need? What is limiting to their health and performance? Great farmers are great observers. Mix that with more detailed analysis of their milk production parameters, mating data, diet, what diseases affect them and what the pattern of disease is, and pretty soon we find they tell us an awful lot.

Being led by this information takes us down an intriguing trail. It requires us to control our use of phosphate fertiliser. It requires us to control the nutrient level in effluent blocks, and to use this resource more wisely. It requires us to control nitrogen inputs to avoid pastures with excess crude protein. It asks us how better to manage the nitrogen cycle. This in-turn requires us to grow mixed swards with more clover. It promotes improving soil carbon to better manage nitrogen, promote clover and reduce nitrogen loss.

Responding to cow needs requires us to ensure they have sufficient and consistent energy intakes, and good weight management in the framework of balanced nutrition so that our cows work in their comfort zone rather than, as happens far too often, at the limits of their physiological ability to cope. It asks us about ensuring feed provision and promotion of feed utilisation even in extended periods of bad weather. We then think about the promotion of shelter and methods of feeding to promote intakes and as such promote cow comfort.

Welfare wise, what are our disease rates and severity? What is our process for continuous improvement and how can we anticipate and prevent conditions that may cause pain, suffering and loss? What are the practices we have in place to carefully transition a cow from the trauma of calving to getting her into the best shape for a strong lactation and to get in calf nice and early?

Who would have thought that being driven by cow needs would arrive at a discussion about promoting soil carbon, effluent management and the amenity value of our farms? It also maximises the nutrient value and the food safety of our animal products. Not to mention a very strong ethical and welfare centred approach to the management of food producing animals.

This is the Mineral Systems way.

Back in July we held a very successful Animal and Farmer Welfare Seminar in Stratford. Speakers included Pat Poletti (Mineral Systems), Tom Butler (Busing Russell), Kate Litten (Manager Animal Welfare, MPI) and Marcia Paurini (Co-ordinator for the Taranaki Rural Support Trust). The breadth of speakers allowed for a multipronged approach to animal and farmer welfare, covering topics such as animal health, animal welfare guidelines, financial welfare and mental health.

It was a fantastic turn out from local farmers and everyone agreed it was an informative session and a great opportunity to get together and discuss these topics in a relaxed atmosphere.

If you'd be interested in attending a similar seminar in your area please let us know.

Starting spring with more confidence that milk fever was under control ensured Craig & Alice Knowles got some decent sleep during calving.

Craig milks 240 crossbred cows on his 107 Ha block in Inglewood, Taranaki. This is Craig’s fifth season on the current farm, after 5 years on a different farm with the same herd. Milk fever during calving has been an ongoing issue for the herd on both farms. They’ve had up to of 30 downer cows each season and the first year on the new farm saw 10 cows lost to milk fever.

“We tried all sorts of different people and different ideas and I guess they have all helped in a way… you think you have your ducks in a row and everything is fine and then it tips over”- Craig Knowles

Despite having tried different approaches over the years they had no success tackling milk fever until now. Along with an 80% reduction in downer cows this season, for the first time no cows were lost to milk fever - Those that did go down responded well to treatment.

Craig describes this success as“… a weight off your shoulders, not wondering what you are going to find in the morning when you get out of bed”.

So how have they achieved this?

With the help of Mineral Systems, they sampled pasture and feed to understand if this was contributing to milk fever. Although generally accepted risks to milk fever were absent, extended periods of negative calcium balance, a potential for ketosis and critically low iodine were all identified as contributing to milk fever in the herd.

Craig & Alice implemented the recommendations, including using more magnesium sulphate and a lot less magnesium oxide, in addition to calcium sulphate, which hadn’t been done before. Mineral Systems calculated a specific trace mineral blend to fill the gap between minerals supplied through the diet and herd demand.

Craig’s farm borders the Egmont National Park and is very wet over spring. A herd home provides 24hr shelter for the springers, which historically have been fed maize, grass silage, and palm kernel. This year Pat recommended letting them out to pasture a couple of times a week to improve the transition from the dry cow to the milking cow diet. Craig feels it’s important to keep the diet consistent, making sure feed supplements are measured properly so they are not getting too much one day and not enough the next.

In addition to reducing milk fever, Craig had experienced other benefits from this process. He says he now has a much better understanding of what he needs to feed to meet milking demand and has more confidence using his Farm Source data to make management decisions.

After such a successful calving the cows were better prepared for mating. Most of the later calvers were cycling within 4 weeks and 94% cycled pre-mating (in line with top industry performers @ >85%). With results like these it was not necessary to use CIDR’s, historically Craig has had to CIDR 9% of his herd. Craig and Alice have also seen a significant drop in SCC across the herd with levels tracking the lowest they’ve ever been.

SCC data shows a significant drop in this year’s counts. This is often in response to prescription trace mineral supplementation which ensures mineral sufficiency, resulting in a well-supported immune system .

Going forward Craig plans to:

Cut back on supplementary feed - he runs a System 3 farm with 12 % brought in feed,Take a closer look at fertiliser choice to reduce the dietary risks from pasture, andRe-assess the risk at critical times of the season (mating, mid-lactation and in preparation for calving) to make informed decisions around feeding and mineral supplementation.

Craig’s suggestions for other farmers wanting to break the milk fever cycle is to get away from using standardised mineral supplement rates. “Every feed is different; every paddock is different; and you need to work with what you’ve got on your farm”. Mineral and feed supplementation should be “tailored to your farm and what your feed is, rather than a one bag approach”, says Craig.

If you feel like the “one size fits all” approach isn’t working for your farm, give us a call. Now is the time to act and set yourself up for next season. Who knows, we might even have you sleeping through the night!

Everybody loves a success story. Even better is when you get more than one! That’s why we want to share the amazing results we had resolving milk fever in herds this spring.

We know many farmers struggle daily with down cows and sleep can be scarce during calving. Many farmers accept this as a normal part of calving but this doesn’t have to be the case.

Herds with historical levels of 10 to >30% milk fever are tracking at 2-4% this season after following Mineral Systems guidelines. In fact, the number of cows down due to milk fever was reduced on average by 80% for our new clients. The impact that this has had on animal and people welfare is self-evident, not to mention the potential animal performance gains and cost savings.

So what’s the answer?

Well that depends on your farm and the feed you’re offering your herd. No two farms are identical and the answer to reigning in milk fever lies in managing the dietary risk. Macro and trace mineral levels in your pastures and supplementary feed will contribute to this risk. Measuring these levels through pasture and feed sampling allows us to assess the milk fever risk in the diet and respond to it accordingly.

"Been a massive improvement on past years" - Craig Knowles, Taranaki

Grant Holmes, Taranaki

If milk fever is an issue at any level, we recommend you contact us 0800 765 854. We can help you resolve these issues for good. Act now and set yourself up for next season.

Our goal is to change your experience of farming to the way it should be – more time, happier people and an improved bottom-line!

Find out the story behind Craig Knowles' milk fever success... Click here.

I went to a DairyNZ field day last week where the results of an investigation into feed conversion efficiency were presented. Some animals just manage to achieve more production from less food eaten with the difference between the best and worst highly significant – so it’s well worth a look at the issue.

The researchers found that the contribution played by genetics to the difference between the best and worst performers was between 14% and 19%. It was concluded that further research to explore the possibility of breeding for this higher efficiency was worthwhile.

However, research dollars are limited and choices need to be made. So, is it better to pursue the genetic line or is it better to look at the 81% to 86% of the cause of difference that is not genetic i.e. environmental influences? “Environment” in this sense isn’t climate change or saving the whales but what exactly is happening in the animal related to its diet, stressors and stress level, production level etc. There is an opportunity to improve the feed conversion efficiency in the animals we already have now, not at some undefined point in the future when the vagaries of genetic gain might eventually come into play.

One interesting aspect the researchers found was that the lesser efficient animals converted more of their energy intake into heat rather than growth or milk production. Immediately we are talking about thermoregulation - the process that animals use to control their heat production and how they partition energy between keeping warm and growing or making milk.

There has been quite a bit of work done on thermoregulation. The thyroid gland and corresponding thyroid hormones play a very important role here. If we take a cursory look at what influences the effectiveness of these processes, we immediately find a tie up with two trace elements that are more often than not deficient; iodine and selenium.

Iodine is the core of the thyroid hormones and selenium is actively involved in the conversion of inactive to active forms of these same thyroid hormones. And incidentally, the level of selenium required for full activity of the proteins needed for this conversion is around 10 times higher than the currently accepted dietary selenium minimum i.e. status quo advice regarding selenium intakes will result in less efficient thyroid function and less efficient thermoregulation.

Poor feed conversion efficiency is already high on the list of effects that iodine and selenium deficiency are associated with – nothing new there. The initial work done to identify the genetic versus the environmental contribution to feed conversion efficiency has been extremely valuable. But where will the research dollars return the most benefit – the 80 plus% environment or less than 20% genetic? That’s a strategic question for those who approve the funding. In the meantime, the rest of us can ensure our stock are eating a diet that is sufficient in iodine and selenium and we may just head the scientists off at the pass.

It must be spring. Cows are calving, ewes are lambing and Doug Edmeades has had his annual rant at the “pseudo-science” of Albrecht ratio theory. Yes, there are problems with the ratio theory and (wash my mouth out) there are also problems with Liebig’s Law of the Minimum – the theory that underpins Edmeades’ argument (which states a plant will grow at a rate limited by the most deficient nutrient). Sadly, Liebig’s Law does not take into consideration a major stakeholder – the animal. The Law neither considers the effect of too much nutrient nor does it consider nutrients and levels that the animal may need irrespective of what the plant needs.

Easy answer from Team Edmeades is to just apply any deficient mineral as supplement direct to the animal on one hand and ignore any effects of toxicity on the other. But, minerals have a habit of interacting with each other in any number of complex ways. A high level of one mineral reduces the absorption of another, e.g. potassium is highly antagonistic to magnesium. The higher the pasture potassium content the more magnesium the cows will need so the more supplement you’ll need to get into the cow. The greater the supplement demand the greater the risk of failure to provide enough, particularly if you rely on inefficient methods such as dusting. Get it wrong and health and production is compromised. And don’t forget about the cost of the supplements.

Similarly, for other minerals. High phosphorus is a milk fever risk and magnesium antagonism increases at higher levels. High sulphur affects pasture palatability and appetite, is highly copper and selenium antagonistic, and is responsible for most of the anti-nutritional problems with brassica crops. All this suggests a better answer would be to control these high levels in grass in the first place and perhaps save some dollars on nutrient.

Conversely, calcium and magnesium content of pasture is generally low. Can we lift the levels of these minerals in pastures to minimise the supplementation problems? As Bob the Builder said before Barack Obama, Yes We Can! But to do it we have to lift soil levels higher than the minimum to grow grass. What should we lift them too? How much is too much? How do we calculate how much we need?

Clearly, besides a Law of the Minimum we also need a Law of the Maximum. There is one body of work that provides some guidance. Yes, William Albrecht. Albrecht was Emeritus Professor of Soil Science at the University of Missouri. He identified relationships between poor soil health and diseases of crops and animals, and human food quality, and published extensively from 1938 to 1970 – the guy deserves some respect. Yes, cation ratio theory has been found wanting with respect to plant production but it becomes very useful across the spectrum of soil-plant-animal. Particularly when there is no other “science” we can draw on.

The annual pseudo-science diatribe by Edmeades is symptomatic of a polarised debate that is severely limiting animal health and production in New Zealand. Better to keep an open mind I would think.

This is a fresh approach to interpreting your daily data. We’ll help you improve your understanding, gain insights and feel more confident about making decisions for better performance outcomes.

We’ll take a good look at:Production The story told by your protein to fat ratio The shape of your production curve & insights Filling the feed gap & getting the response you expectReproduction How MINDA graphs help identify problem areas Why the mineral content of pasture & feed is so important The link between calving & reproductionDecision Making How to apply your new knowledge

Getting tight for grass going into the second round creates a few more problems than we give it credit for. A step in the production curve is easy to see but the effect on reproduction is subtle no matter what farm system you run. A cheap and easy way to help this problem is a later calving date. But only a discussion on stocking rate causes more apoplexy in farmers.

With different farm systems, different scenarios do develop with grass deficiency. System one and two farms manifest as a simple feed deficiency – no surprises there. The herd will be prone to persistent negative energy balance after calving, be slow to cycle, have an increased number of short returns and more phantom pregnancies. High rates of urea to boost low covers drives up protein content at times to very high levels. In association with an energy deficiency, these high pasture protein levels cause additional problems for cows at mating.

At higher farm system inputs, supplementary feed aims to bridge the feed gap before balance date. But grass deficiency still creates problems with repro, particularly in high producing cows. Notwithstanding a raft of issues come into play with system four and five farms. These include quantity and quality of supplementary feed, how you feed it, how well you can mix it, and changes in mineral profile. These are all potential ways for it to go wrong. Increase these inputs further in a tighter spring and before you know it, in contrast to all-grass systems, a protein deficiency develops. And in more extreme situations the effects are devastating.

Maize silage is the most common bulk feed used, with grass silage, PKE or combinations of the three. Maize silage is very low in protein. Grass silage is highly variable and often much lower than expected. There is a common misconception that PKE is a protein source – it’s not. At best there is just enough protein in its own right. At worst PKE protein is largely indigestible. But the reality remains, adding PKE to maize silage does little to improve the protein situation.

Protein rich feeds such as soya meal, DDG, canola and cottonseed are expensive at around $1.50 a kg of protein. However, leafy spring grass is an excellent protein source and it costs about 60 cents a kg of protein. Given the expense of protein supplements, there is a tendency to hang tight and box through the lack of grass – because it will grow soon won’t it? However, when low protein hits the production curve and impacts on reproductive performance, being short on grass is a very expensive problem and an expensive problem to fix.

Clearly, a cheap solution is to put the calving date back a bit and better match grass supply with demand. Even 10 days can make a considerable difference. Lost lactation days will be more than made up by promoting a compact calving. And, milking later into the season becomes an option with a lot of flexibility to milk on or dry off depending what the season offers. Worth thinking about eh?

“I don’t believe in minerals”, said the farm owner with barely concealed impatience. “My rule”, he added, “If anyone comes up the drive talking minerals is to keep one hand on my wallet and my other hand pointing to the gate”. Oh dear.

Normally I would have been happy to walk away. But, I was there on the behest of the sharemilker. A 20% down cow rate, a very high death rate of newborn calves and real problems with weight management in the herd was causing a lot of grief for the young couple. So I persisted. “What’s all that stuff in the bags over there?” I enquired indicating the pallets of causmag, limeflour, salt and DCP. “Sure is a lot of minerals for someone who doesn’t believe in it”, I pointed out. “Those aren’t minerals.” He explained, “Those over there are minerals”. He pointed to a rotting half- full bag of hardened substance lying beneath a pile of empty causmag bags. The penny dropped, the minerals he was alluding to were the ‘trace elements’

And to be charitable to him, the trace element market is full of dealers each with their unique pitch on the subject. This one has organic copper, this one has yeast selenium, this one has amino acid zinc for extra absorption. Not to mention manganese, boron, nickel, chromium and don’t forget the extra vitamins, more vitamins, different vitamins. Biological! Scientific! Quantum! Oh jeez! I guess, ignorance can really be bliss.

So anyway, you made the purchase (because you really needed that crockpot) and ran them though the dispenser. After three months you couldn’t quite put your finger on any change, ran out of minerals, never got around to reordering and didn’t really notice too much difference. Hmmm, not believing in trace elements can be understandable.

Current approaches to trace elements are plagued by gross generalisations, old wives’ tales, and lazy science which has been repeated often enough to now be accepted as fact. This state of affairs does farmers and our animals a huge disservice. It’s a shame really because undiagnosed trace element deficiencies (and I diagnose plenty of them) are a critical risk factor in all of the production diseases.

What is happening at the cellular level of the animal? How do the biochemical pathways work? What influences energy efficiency? What impacts on the immune response? This is the stuff of trace elements. Make no mistake, ensuring trace element sufficiency is a key driver of health and efficiency of our producing animals.

Implementing a rational supplementation programme is simply essential. Unfortunately, a few blood samples don’t give you the full picture. Matching feed mineral supply and animal demand means you get it right for your herd and see results.

There is an old African proverb,"Not to know is bad. Not to wish to know is worse"

I had coffee with a bloke the other day who was a former dairy company director and a director of several corporate dairy farms. I tugged on his coat about the acceptance of production diseases. He called it “balance sheet farming”. Rampant pay outs and easy credit meant that in the board room you didn’t really have to worry about the cows themselves. But things have changed.

Historically, corporates never survived the down turns. Whereas, the family farm just pulled the belt in another couple of notches. But tightening the belt is not the only reason. The farming family was interested in their cows. Really interested. Why? Simply because the cows were also a part of the family. Intuitively, the family farmer considered their cows as individuals and knew how to get the best out of them. They anticipated and limited the effects of production diseases and as such avoided the significant costs of these diseases. This allowed them to achieve a greater degree of production efficiency – the key to profitability.

What constitutes efficiency? And, how do we get it? Measures of efficiency include conversion of feed to milk solids, reproductive efficiency (not only empty rate but also a compact calving), feed utilisation, number of heifer replacements, minimization of disease rates and herd weight management – there are others. Each of these elements are complicated in themselves but there are fundamental factors that tie all these issues together.

The only way to achieve efficiency is to identify and assess the risk factors, which accrue on each farm individually, that impact on a cow’s desire and ability to eat and utilise the energy most efficiently from that feed. The foundation (surprise surprise) is the mineral profile of the diet. For example, subclinical effects of milk fever (not only down cows) reduce cow appetite, not just in spring but throughout the lactation.

This complex disease is 90% a mineral problem and involves the interaction of every single one of the nine essential macro elements. Effective management of negative energy balance and weight control are inextricably tied to the four trace elements that are most often deficient; copper, cobalt, selenium and iodine. Mineral excesses such as sulphur, potassium and phosphorus are all too common and will directly reduce intakes and limit production. What’s your profile?

Manipulation of feed mineral profiles in order to remove barriers to intake and efficiency creates the basis of a strategic approach to fertiliser use, and a rational approach to both macro and trace mineral supplement selection and dose rate. No intervention to reduce the impact of production disease will be effective until some control is exerted over the mineral profile. This is the key to efficiency.

Balance sheet farming does not do justice to the cows largely because losses from inefficiency and disease don’t appear on the balance sheet. However, the costs are enormous. Now is the time for a fundamental reassessment of the drivers of profit in animal production. These are turbulent times but as F D Roosevelt said, “A smooth sea never made a skillful sailor”.

“Every day begins with an act of courage and hope: getting out of bed” quipped US writer Mason Cooley. He may have had a milk fever problem. Milk fever has been recognised as a specific disease of dairy cows for over 200 years – and it’s still a serious problem. The science is difficult and contradictory. Ask Mr Google what he thinks and you’ll get a run down on low blood calcium, parathyroid hormone and vitamin D. Include DairyNZ in the search and you’ll get condition score, DCADs and magnesium (and lots of it).

Down cow rates vary widely. The DairyNZ target is less than 1%. Most farms are around 2-5% and a significant number of others can be much higher – 20% and in one case currently under study – 40%. At the 2%-5% rate nearly every cow in the herd will be affected. Apart from the clinical cow, the side effects of milk fever (calving problems, retained membranes, infected uterus, slow return to first heat, increased risk of mastitis and ketosis) are immense.

The most minor effect and perhaps the most important will be simply reduced appetite. If we bear in mind that for a 450kg cow the difference between 1.8kg milk solids and 2.0kg is only 1.4kg of dry matter (11ME) and, that milk fever is not just confined to calving time but can occur at any time during lactation, we should be pretty interested in how milk fever affects our herd throughout the year even if the clinical syndrome is not that dramatic.

Anionic salts and copious magnesium only deal with the risk posed by low dietary magnesium and high potassium. There are also risks such as excessive phosphorus, very low calcium to phosphorus ratio, very high and very low dry period calcium as well as a few intriguing issues such as thyroid gland changes after winter feeding of brassica crops or chronic iodine deficiency.

If you don’t drench, the more that you have to supplement via the water, feed and dusting, the greater the risk that supplementation will fail e.g. if you run a very high pasture potassium you will need a lot of magnesium. The more magnesium you need the more the cows will seek to avoid it. As their ability to avoid it increases, the greater the risk of disease.

Reducing the reasons for a lot of supplement then reduces the supplementation requirement and mitigates risk. As this risk is commonly derived from fertiliser policy the ability to adjust fertiliser practices presents a real mechanism to manage milk fever risk and reduce the cost of mineral supplements.

Cows are on a tight schedule. Not only on a tight seasonal schedule to calve, cycle, and get in-calf, but a tight daily schedule to eat, sleep, walk and be milked. Everything we can do to assist this annual and daily schedule is critical. Managing milk fever risk at all stages of the season gives cows the critical time they need. And for the rest of us makes it a little easier to get out of bed in the morning.

Whole herd dry cow therapy is still very commonly used to prevent high SCC and clinical mastitis at drying off, however with growing concern over antibiotic resistance, is it time to reconsider our options?

Last year The Centre for Disease Dynamics, Economics and Policy released a report on the current state of the worlds antibiotics*. This report looks at antibiotic use and resistance in humans and animals around the globe.

The good news is that compared to other countries around the world New Zealand has low rates for antibiotic resistance to Staphylococcus Aureus (Fig. 1), the major contributor to mastitis cases in NZ (Dairy NZ Farmfact 3-10). However, this doesn’t mean we’re off the hook.

Figure 1. Percentage of Staphylococcus Aureus that are Methicillin resistant, by country (most recent year 2011-2014).*

The report suggests a number of major national-level strategies to help countries combat antibiotic resistance. The most applicable to the agricultural sector were to:

Change incentives that encourage antibiotic overuse and misuse, to incentives that encourage antibiotic stewardship and,Reduce and eventually phase out antibiotic use in agriculture.

While the latter statement seems ambitious, they do go on to say that “minimizing antibiotic use in disease prophylaxis (prevention) need not jeopardize human or animal health”, and we would agree!

At Mineral Systems we support the reduction of antibiotic use in disease prevention (including whole herd dry cow therapy) and encourage the sustainable use of antibiotics. If you’re interested in why whole herd dry cow therapy is not the real answer to your SCC and mastitis issues read these articles:

Uncommon Yet Effective Mastitis and SCC Control for Dairy Cows

Minimising Disease Risk at Dry Off

*Centre for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy. 2015. Sate of the World’s Antibiotics, 2015. CDDEP. Washington, DC.

It’s been a particularly bad Facial Eczema (FE) season for dairy farmers across the North Island and now that the worst is almost over you might be left thinking what now? It is estimated that for every cow with clinical FE, another 10 cows will have subclinical symptoms, including reduced milk production and damage to the liver.

So what should you expect going forward and what are some practical steps to reduce further production and stock losses?

If you’ve stopped other trace mineral supplementation while treating with zinc (highly recommended), now is the time to start it up again. By now your stock may not have received any other trace elements for 2 months or so, and although they may not be visible, the effects of this will be beginning to take hold.A further complication is that zinc therapy induces a secondary copper deficiency, the symptoms of which can include increased somatic cell counts and clinical mastitis, reduced growth rates in young stock and decreased fertility. Restoring copper levels post-treatment is imperative and supplementing with a customized trace mineral blend will ensure copper levels are gradually restored and unwanted side effects of copper insufficiency are minimized.The greatest stress on the liver is over calving. Liver function is typically compromised even in healthy animals over this time. Cows going down pre-calve and cows losing condition really fast immediately post calving will be common outcomes. The pre-calving downer is a real problem and an early decision on this cow is essential to prevent a lingering issue. A blood sample to assess liver function will assist the decision.

As there is no cure for FE, prevention through risk management is key to protecting your stock. If you have any queries around facial eczema and the health of your stock give Mineral Systems a call now:

Free call: 0800 765 854.

For more information of facial eczema read these articles:

Is Your Facial Eczema Treatment as Effective as it Could Be?

Facial Eczema, Zinc and Copper

What costs are you cutting this year? Dry cow? Rota virus vaccine? CIDRs? In lieu of these interventions what management changes are being made?

The high pay-out did assist in alleviating (perhaps) the clinical manifestation of production diseases by throwing money at the problem, e.g. whole herd dry cow. But if whole herd dry cow works why do you need it every year?

Similarly, hormone interventions don’t fix fertility issues and treating every cow with a bag of stuff at calving doesn’t reduce milk fever pressures on herds. “For every complex problem” wrote the American journalist HL Mencken, “there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong”. Which neatly sums up the over-played and not altogether inexpensive pharmaceutical solutions that are on offer to the farmer.

To survive into the future, we have to take into account the implications of the current and forecast pay-outs, the increasing assurance requirements for food safety, residue control and animal welfare. Also to be factored in are the inevitable limitations on antibiotic use in production animals due to concerns of antibiotic resistance in humans. Clearly, short term band aids are starting to look unsustainable.

Quick fixes rarely solve the underlying problem. As an example, solving infertility issues requires, among other things, assessment of ketosis control, metabolic disease control and trace element sufficiency. Similarly, mastitis investigation requires assessment of the same issues as well as shed set-up and milking management.

Yes, it takes a bit of effort and the findings may challenge current beliefs and practices. However, the opportunities created for production efficiency right across the farming system are enormous. Yes, pharmaceuticals are handy tools. Generally easy to use, deliver a useful short term result and a persuasive cost benefit analysis can be made. But beware the easy solution. As Malcolm Forbes (of Forbes Magazine fame) wrote “It’s easier to suggest solutions when you don’t know too much about the problem”.

If the low pay-out becomes a driver to rationalise pharmaceutical and fertiliser use, and to better understand and control production diseases at a fundamental management level then the pain will not be in vain. The industry will emerge ahead of the game - more profitable, more effective at meeting and exceeding customer demands for food safety and welfare, more adept at environmental nutrient management and a lot less stress for cow and farmer alike.

Last month Fonterra announced a 65% jump in its organic milk price for the 2016/17 season in response to worldwide rising demand for the “pure” white stuff. The forecast organic payout at $9.20/kgMS makes converting to organics seem like an attractive option.

But organic farming is not without its challenges and to profit from this payout, production and performance need to be the best they can be. In a system where inputs are limited, sustaining optimal production in the long term requires careful management and informed decision making.

Back in 2000, Condron et, al.* published a paper comparing soil and environmental quality under conventional and organic farm systems. This paper aimed to answer questions around the sustainability of organic farming in New Zealand. In conclusion the authors found that while organic farming under a well-managed Bio-Gro system, with sufficient supply of nutrients is sustainable over the long term, there were concerns over trace element supply. In fact, they stated:

“For the successful organic farmer a knowledge of the trace element status of the soil and the requirements of crops and animals is essential”.

We completely agree with this and would argue that it doesn’t just apply to organic farmers!

The following factors (and more) all contribute to trace element imbalances:

Decreased plant availability over time due to reactions within the soilChange in availability with pH variation due to lime applicationSeasonal fluctuations in trace element content of pastureComposition of the swardStock type and ageInteractions with other elements in the digestive system

This mineral interaction chart gives idea of the complexity of interactions between trace and macro elements in the animal, plant and soil.

At Mineral Systems we take all of the above and more into consideration when determining trace element sufficiency on your farm. We can prescribe Organic certified mineral blends and recommend approved fertiliser options.

Ensure every decision you make is well informed. Whether you farm organically, biologically or conventionally we can help you get your trace element balance sorted for the profit of your farm.

Call us today to discuss your options - 0800 765 854.

*L. M. Condron , K. C. Cameron , H. J. Di , T. J. Clough , E. A. Forbes , R. G.McLaren & R. G. Silva (2000) A comparison of soil and environmental quality under organic andconventional farming systems in New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 43:4, 443-466.

The Risks of Brassicas

Consistent among the alarming lab results we receive from testing stock feeds are the high sulphur levels in brassica crops, notably kale and swedes. Mixed pasture levels are generally between 0.3 and 0.4%. Some limitation in animal appetite and feed palatability is expected at this content and there is a significant contribution to copper antagonism. But, for the most part, the impact on stock performance isn’t immediately discernable.

However, above 0.4% animal health issues are noticeable and as levels head toward 0.5% and beyond overt animal health problems accrue. These include reduced growth rates in young stock and the disturbing neurological condition polioencephalomalacia (polio) also referred to as thiamine (Vitamin B1) deficiency. Dairy goats are particularly sensitive to this condition and we have documented lambs deaths with polio on plantain crops with sulphur content of 0.5% and over.

Therefore, when the lab results from brassica crops roll in with sulphur content routinely well over 0.6% and up to and over 1% it’s a wonder the stock actually eat it. But eat the stuff they do and lots of it. So is there something about brassicas that somehow negate the effect of such high sulphur contents? Or, are negative impacts more subclinical and don’t necessarily manifest in the 60 odd days that brassicas are routinely fed? The illness and deaths of cows in the winter of 2014 from glucosinolate toxicity, and a general feeling of discomfort by farmers at the health status of their stock while on brassicas would suggest something is up.

Dairy cattle grazing swede. Managing sulphur levels is extremely important for animal performance, not only on brassica crops but in any ruminant feed. Photo from Fairfax NZ.

Toxicity

There are in fact three ways to poison animals with brassicas. Glucosinolates as mentioned, S-methyl cysteine sulphoxide (SMCO) and of course nitrate which many farmers are familiar with. Glucosinolates and SMCO are, or derived from, sulphur containing amino acids. Increased levels reduce animal intakes, with liver disease and thyroid dysfunction (glucosinolates) and anaemia (SMCO) the clinical manifestation.

In the glucosinolate poisoning cases the increased level of glucosinolates was attributed to a mild winter and as such a greater ratio of leaf to bulb in swedes. This may well have been the case. But given the propensity for brassica crops to concentrate high sulphur levels is there another opportunity to control the concentration of glucosinolates and SMCO through the control of fertiliser nutrient use? As it turns out the answer is yes.

Controlling Sulphur Levels in Brassicas

Concentration of glucosinolates and SMCO can be manipulated by control of soil sulphur and nitrogen. The interplay between sulphur and nitrogen soil status is complex and not entirely straight forward. But in a nutshell, higher soil levels of sulphur lead to greater levels of glucosinolates and SMCO.

A 2010 trial [1] by Plant and Food Research found that kale did not respond to fertiliser sulphur on a low anion storage capacity soil when the soil sulphate sulphur was 5 (this is not high). Similarly, RJ Hills laboratory data indicates that a herbage sulphur less than 0.3% is diagnostic for sulphur deficiency in brassicas i.e. this crop doesn’t need much sulphur.

In the Plant and Food research trial at no time did Glucosinolates or SMCO reach critical levels on the low sulphur site compared to a site with a sulphate sulphur of 19 where SMCO exceeded the critical level particularly with high nitrogen inputs.

To cut a long story short control of sulphur is of utmost importance for animal performance not only on brassica crops but in any ruminant feed.

[1] Fletcher et al. Proceedings of the NZ Grasslands Association 2010

Two weeks ago the local Liquorland billboard said “It’s a great winter we’re having this spring”. Thankfully now in the second week of October the grass is growing and spring is finally here.

NIWA climate maps (see below) confirm that temperatures for September were lower than average across most of NZ, varying by up to 2 degrees below the monthly mean. One dairy client in the Ashburton region reported the lowest soil temperature ever recorded for this time of the year! Rainfall has been highly variable over the past month ranging from 20% to 400% of the average for September. In some parts of NZ sunshine hours only reached 85% of the monthly average, and when combined with low temperatures and/or low rainfall - lead to slow pasture growth.

Rainfall has been highly variable across NZ with 20-40% of average rainfall experienced in much of the south island and 60%-400% of the average rainfall for September across the North Island. Much of NZ experienced above average sunshine hours. However, Coromandel, Auckland, the south of the North Island, and parts of mid-Canterbury and Waitaki experienced only 85-95% of the average sunshine hours for September. Temperatures across NZ were mostly below average for September, with Canterbury, Otago and the south east of the North Island suffering the most with temperatures -2 degrees below the average.

This spring has highlighted concerns around adequate feed supply and accurate mineral supplementation. Consider the following:

Ensure sufficient grass after calving to establish a decent lactation curve, particularly if you’re trying to respond to poor reproductive efficiency. If your calving date is too early and there isn’t adequate grass supply you’re forced to be reliant on supplement to fill the feed gap. Slow grass growth this spring has seen more supplement being fed with some negative effects on production and cow health. For example, the feed profile of maize silage means the production response will be limited if fed in large amounts.Having more grass on hand after calving allows you to shift supplement use to mid-late lactation when the cow is in calf, is off peak production, has lower protein requirements and is more resilient to feed changes.If you’re calving, kidding or lambing and feeling under pressure with lack of grass supply then consider matching the start date better with higher grass growth rates.Check you are using the correct amount of mineral supplementation to prevent animal health problems. The mineral recommendations made are unique to your farming situation and your animal’s needs. If your SCC is running higher than expected or you’re experiencing unexpected animal health issues, weigh the minerals and check you’re supplementing as prescribed.

While it’s impossible to change the weather, results from our client farms show a partnership with Mineral Systems puts you in control of animal health outcomes. By following Mineral System’s mineral supplementation and fertiliser recommendations you can reduce the impact of adverse weather on animal health and performance, helping to minimise your losses.

As you spread your fertiliser, spare a thought for the animals who will be grazing the grass. While farming publications applaud new innovations helping to improve nutrient management, animal production losses still continue to plague the industry.

Fertiliser nutrients taken up by the plant create their own unique mineral profile for grazing animals, and therein lies the problem- it seems the connection between fertiliser and production problems continues to be overlooked.

Farmers working with Mineral Systems are part of growing group who are looking more closely at the impact of their fertiliser choice on animal performance and losses.

John Heald (Pohuetai Farms, Dannevirke) engaged Mineral Systems to investigate the concerning number of cast ewes at lambing. John, Daniel Preece and their team run 1800 MA Highlander Elite ewes for Focus Genetics, 8000 commercial breeding ewes and a large beef breeding herd and young stock. The five year scanning percentage averages 185% on the two tooth’s and mixed ages ewes and hoggets range from 110% to 145% all counted.

"One of the things we have been trying to achieve is higher survivability in triplets and Hogget lambs by making sure the minor minerals are up to the mark” says John, who is embracing the new focus from Mineral Systems. "One thing is, that if you keep doing the same thing year on year and hope for a good season then production will never improve”.

View overlooking Pohuetai.

Cast ewes can be an indicator of metabolic disease, along with ewe deaths at lambing and an increased number of lambs born dead. Analysis of pasture samples taken from 2014 & 2015 lambing paddocks at Pohuetai indicated a severe metabolic risk was present An extensive sheep and beef system has its own set of challenges when it comes to managing risk, however successful strategies for Pohuetai included;

Understanding the soil characteristics, such as the low Anion Storage Capacity and how this can contribute to high phosphorus herbage levels.Considering product choice and timing of fertiliser application to minimise the risk of accelerating the phosphorous levels even higher.Encouraging pasture species into the sward that concentrate high levels of calcium and magnesium yet limit levels of potassium eg. plantain and chicory.Managing the sulphur levels of the pasture to minimise the effect of high sulphur which can reduce appetite and palatability.

“As our budget tightens up we are looking more closely at what fertiliser is going on the paddocks and asking is it having the right effect? With the help of Pat last season we added 15kg of Boron to our applications and cut back on the sulphur, and now after coming through a cold slow growth winter we are now seeing more clover appearing at this time of the year than we have seen for a few years".

A separate investigation into sporadic deaths in the hogget blocks identified excessive sulphur levels to be the root cause of a diagnosed thiamine deficiency.

Many of the common disease syndromes are mediated by mineral metabolism - particularly calcium, magnesium, selenium, iodine, cobalt and copper. These minerals are commonly deficient in NZ and the levels are antagonised by conventional fertiliser practice.

Analysing pasture and soil samples at critical times of the year when animal losses are highest will provide insight into the risks facing your grazing animals. For John and his team at Pohuetai they are managing the mineral status of their sheep based on knowledge of the risks present on their farm.

“This season most ewes and all the hoggets have had a 4 gram copper cap plus a shot of iodine. With Pat’s background and science now looking at our soil and herbage samples we have more confidence in what we are doing", John Heald.

What’s your motto this spring? How about “Test and Save”?

Mineral Systems encourages spring pasture testing to evaluate the risks of dietary changes and check supplementation and fertiliser requirements. Pasture testing gives the detail you need to make informed decisions around animal health, feeding and the effects of fertiliser use.

Below is a breakdown of the operating expenditure for Dairy and Sheep & Beef farms.

Dairy Operating Expenses* Beef & Sheep Operating Expenses*

These pie charts have been created from the Farm Expenses Price Index data for 2013/14 season (Interest costs excluded from these plots) and each category is represented as a relative proportion of total weighted expenditure. As you can see fertiliser, feed and animal health (in green) make up 24-49% of all farm operating expenditure. These three categories directly impact on animal performance and all are inextricably linked.

The good news is that by ‘informing’ your decisions, pasture testing can help you save money this spring… And you can have your answer in 10 days! Consider the scenarios below:

1. Do you continue supplementing with magnesium?

Changes in the mineral composition of spring flush pastures raises the question of whether current levels of macro mineral supplementation are appropriate. Do you need to continue supplementing? What’s the risk to animal health if you don’t?

Spring pastures are generally higher in phosphorous, potassium and sulphur (these are more soluble and easier for plants to uptake), and lower in magnesium and calcium. To prevent subclinical and clinical metabolic disease it’s critical to get supplementation right going into peak production and mating. The only way you’ll know this is to confirm the mineral levels in the pasture.

If you enter mating with inadequate magnesium nutrition your mating could be affected even though the cows seem to be milking okay. For one client in Taranaki empty rate was reduced from 16% to 9% purely by providing sufficient magnesium supplementation. Considering the cost of an empty cow is estimated by Dairy NZ at $1000, this makes for a significant saving of $21,000 for this 300 cow herd.

2. Is your supplementary feed filling the gap?

The pie charts above show that feed makes up a significant portion of expenditure, particularly for Dairy farmers, where it represents the largest category at 25%. However, there’s opportunity to reduce this spend by asking some pointed questions. What is the gap you’re trying to fill, and will the supplementary feed you’re using fill this gap? For example, do you need more energy, fibre or protein?

The table below is derived from analysis of pasture and feed samples from a dairy farm. It highlights the risks and benefits of each feed component - important to understand when planning a diet that will support optimum production. Knowing your pasture profile allows you to be strategic and economic about your supplementary feed choices.

3. Can you reduce your fertiliser expenditure?

One new dairy client stands to almost halve their fertiliser expenditure from $50 000 to $30 000 based on our recent recommendations, while still delivering the nutrients required to support optimal animal health.

Choosing fertilisers that encourage plant uptake ensures that the nutrients reach the plant and don’t stay bound to the soil. The only way you’ll know this is to take a paired soil and pasture test. Whether your goal is to encourage pasture growth or to ensure optimal animal health, understanding the pasture mineral profile allows you to adjust your fertiliser choices. Being tactical about your nutrient use may also help you save you money on unnecessary fertiliser.

To read more about the importance of pasture testing when considering your fertiliser programme click here.

“I came to Mineral Systems with poor lamb growth rates, pasture persistence and a “shotgun” approach to fertiliser use. Since engaging Mineral Systems I feel we have make progress with improvements in animal health and more targeted fertiliser spending”. North Canterbury Drystock Farmer

Are you prepared for the changes in spring flush pastures? Would you like to reduce a piece of your expenditure pie?

Call us now on 0800 765 854 to arrange a pasture test and Mineral Systems will have an answer for you in 10 days.

* Derived from Farm index input weights 2014 spreadsheet, Statistics NZ.

Here’s one simple step to reduce straining, collapse or death at calving or lambing.

Don’t graze springing cows or spread out ewes on too high potassium pastures. Heard it before? But how do you know and what level is high anyway?

Grazing any pasture with potassium levels over 3.0% dramatically increases your risk of metabolic disease. This is not just downer cows or dead sheep but extends to difficult births, slow suckling (low colostrum intake), reduced milk production and a whole list of related issues including mastitis, metritis and ketosis (sleepy sickness). And while you think you’re safe by adding plenty of magnesium to the diet (dusting pastures, water treatment, or in-shed feeding), when your pasture potassium increases by just 10% you nearly double your dietary magnesium demand.

Grazing pasture with potassium levels over 3.0% dramatically increases your risk of metabolic disease in the animals

What Are Your Typical Risky Paddocks?

Effluent Block: Everyone knows about this but still farmers take the risk. Why? Because calving closer to the shed is easier and the risk is not usually known in advance. Grazing management in autumn may leave these as the paddocks with the best cover and temptation is high.

Paddocks Fertilised with Potassium: The cause is very similar to effluent blocks, but because the potassium source comes in the form of a commonly recommended fertiliser regime, the risk is not connected. Potassium may be an essential part of your fertiliser program, but consideration of animal health must be given to time of application, strategic use of pastures for calving or lambing and keeping good fertiliser and management records.

For example when silage, baleage or hay is taken, standard practice is to add back potassium fertiliser. Harvesting your supplement from the effluent blocks and feeding out into other paddocks can shift nutrient effectively around your farm. Similarly, if hay was harvested late and autumn potassium support fertiliser was applied, consider avoiding these paddocks at ewe spread out. Make sure you understand your underlying soil types and their potassium reserve status. This is important because if natural mineral cycling will replace nutrient removed, then applying potassium fertiliser might be a cost and an animal health risk you can avoid.

Cereal Green Feed: Plant potassium levels vary widely and cereals are commonly high – often climbing over 4%. At this level the active magnesium pump in the rumen has all but stopped and magnesium absorption is totally reliant on passive transport, i.e. the concentration of magnesium in the diet.

Very few pastures we test have magnesium levels over 0.3%, most in the low 0.2’s and some lower than this. Ah “But I’m dusting and have mag in the water!” or “I’ve got a high magnesium lick/block or tub” we hear you say. While these help, the better strategy is to avoid the challenge.

Not only do you not want to have to drive the ambulance to the bottom of the cliff, you might consider putting up a fence 100 meters back from the cliff edge.

So How Can You Avoid The Stress?

Know your pasture levels.

Yes pasture levels change. Yes there is a cost. And yes it takes some time.

But the information is invaluable. You can go from using boxes and boxes of high pressure stressful ambulance delivered electrolyte bags to driving around the farm with a more relaxed grin.

And What If The Results Come Back High?

There is an optional emergency plan. Foliar application of salt is the most economical way of reducing foliar potassium but the science is not exact and high pasture sodium can also be a metabolic risk factor in its own right. Please call if you find yourself in this situation – 0800 765 854.

To Your Stress-free Spring!

Last Saturday dawned fine and sunny in Taranaki, calving was underway and all was well with the world. Or was it? In the space of a 10km drive, I witnessed a downer cow, vets attending to a beef cow calving and I heard a farmer’s story of assisting a slow calving heifer. No farmer wants calving to be this way.

If I said to you that these conditions were preventable, would you believe me?

These animals are already compromised for this season and the cost is into the thousands. Our research into industry losses reveals figures that are sobering. At a loss of $500/cow for a metabolic incident, a 400 cow herd with 5% metabolic rate will be looking at a $10,000 cost in lost opportunity. Add in some lameness, mastitis and a grumbling empty rate, and costs creep quickly into the tens of thousands of dollars.

These numbers are invisible on your balance sheet. Described as opportunity cost this is ‘the benefit you could have received by taking an alternative action’.

We believe these losses are manageable, preventable and there is potential to make additional income that is currently being ‘left on the table’. It’s important to remember this opportunity is independent of payout, so in this tough environment where the outlook is determined by market forces, there’s still plenty of gains to be made on farm. Payout can fluctuate but recovering the cost of losses is still completely within your control.

What's your lost opportunity cost?

In the table above the farmer has $150 000 of unrealised income due to animal performance issues. From our experience working with clients throughout NZ, we can set a realistic target of $50 000 of extra income by applying the Mineral Systems programme.

If this farm shows a potential ROI of 1:5 what then would be the ROI for the farmers with calving problems I witnessed last Saturday?

It’s not too late to take action now to reduce losses through calving. If you want to ensure your season’s profit is full cream not skinny – give us a call today on 0800 765 854.

Mineral Systems and LIC Reproduction Solutions recently teamed up to provide farmers with insight into their reproductive data and offered potential solutions to any reproductive challenges they may be facing.

A series of workshops run in Taranaki and Canterbury targeted farmers looking for answers to their reproductive problems. These sessions were kindly hosted by local farmers and provided an opportunity for attendees to gain visibility into their herd’s reproductive performance data. The nutritional risks impacting on reproduction and how these can be avoided were also discussed. All the sessions were very well attended – despite the bitterly cold weather in the South!

We all know it’s important to gather reproductive data and often a lot of effort goes into this. But how many of us are then actually using this information effectively? The LIC reports on MINDA Web and MINDA Pro are a fantastic tool for accessing your reproductive data and using it to identify areas for improvement. These reports allow farmers to identify problem groups within their herd –bringing to light potential issues such as sub-clinical metabolics and sub-clinical ketosis. It’s only once the causes of poor reproductive performance have been properly identified that appropriate action can be taken.

Managing feed and minerals can improve reproductive outcomes which is why pre-mating herbage tests are so important - To read more about why you should pasture sample pre-mating click here. Reviewing your fertiliser program is another strategy that can be used to improve the success of your herd’s reproductive performance.

Local farmers gather round to learn how they can improve their herds reproductive performance this spring.

If you’re not happy with your reproductive performance then there is more that you can do. Do you use all of what MINDA has to offer? Does sub-clinical metabolics or ketosis impact reproduction on your farm? Have you identified the impact of nutritional risks to reproduction? If you’d be interested in hosting one of these workshops or would like to have a chat to find out more, give us a call: 0800 765 854.

A 2.5% empty rate is a welcome result for Phillip Barrett after dealing with huge reproductive loss in a system that just wasn’t working for him.

Phillip’s coastal Taranaki farm is BioGro certified and has been farmed organically for 10 years. Prior to conversion to organics Phillip was experiencing significant reproductive loss. Inductions and CIDRs were standard practice, with up to 40% of the herd needing intervention to cycle. High urea use underpinned a higher stocking rate and Phillip described it as a ‘system heading downwards'.

A major shift in philosophy has now revolutionised the way Phillip farms. Prevention is the main focus and every aspect of the whole farm system is considered. Phillip acknowledges the value of monitoring and making intelligent decisions based on sound science. Analysing the mineral profile and supporting the animal’s immune function with the correct mineral balance is vitally important.

Pat and Phillip discussing management choices for cow condition in late summer.

A 2.5% empty rate is a terrific result in any farming system. Attention to the following factors is helping to drive his reproductive success:

Cow health and production continues to improve supported by the establishment of strong mixed species pastures. Tree fodder also provides a dietary choice for the cows to nibble at along fence lines and races. Phillip mulches seaweed and comfrey to provide a tonic to the cows and for fertiliser. He is further looking to lower fertiliser costs and improve soil health through a worm composting operation which will recycle his own farm’s green waste.

Phillip believes he is ‘half-way’ to achieving the full potential of the land. He is heartened by the response of his soils and pastures and resulting cow performance. Most importantly, he is enjoying farming more.

Phillip Barrett on his coastal Taranaki farm

If you’d like to achieve similar results but are unsure what to do next, call us for a chat on 0800 765 854.

John King is Director of Succession. Succession organises and facilitates a range of activities to help farming families and discussion groups explore sustainable agriculture and the technical, financial, and social features that make it a success.

Australian farmers David and Mary Marsh know a thing or two about surviving drought. Despite 9 years of drought conditions they survived and prospered by changing their farming focus. Over this time, these ideas saved the business over A$500,000 in feed costs.

Public often underestimate the effect of drought on farmers. Rural suicide doubles the background rate during times of drought in Australia. Throughout drought farmers are torn in three directions; rising tension within the family, increasing debt, and despair at watching the landscape they love blow away due to choices they’ve made.

University of Sydney research shows farmers who understand how to strengthen land function are happier. Having environmental goals during droughts provides another way of measuring progress, especially resilience. However, understanding goes beyond planting trees and fencing off riparian areas.

The Marsh’s property is located near Boorowa, on the NSW southwest slopes about 90 minutes northwest of Canberra. David has been running it since 1971.

Farmer David Marsh on his property at Boorowa in southern NSW. Picture: Ray Strange Source: News Corp Australia

Financial analysis showed while crops generated lots of cash they were least profitable. They focused on grazing merinos but as the 2002 drought began biting, David revisited strategies for coping with drought. Adequate rains never arrived until 2010.

David’s advice for surviving drought is pretty straight forward. Regularly assess feed; be aware of how many livestock you can run and for how long. Make decisions before you have to, which means controlling optimism.

However, the biggest change he made was his mind set; David switched to watching pasture plants and soil cover. Animal production while very important became less of a driver. Instead of thinking enterprises are his business, he became a grass and soil farmer; matching his business to its landscape, not the other way round. This dropped production costs and boosted flexibility.

Rotational grazing itself didn’t save the Marshs it was how they used the technique to strengthen their land. If the flock left bare soil, they destocked further as it revealed feed calculations were wrong for rotation length. Sheep eating pasture litter covering soil surfaces reduces effectiveness of any future rainfall. Litter slows surface runoff and shades against evaporation. Bare soil represents lost fertility as topsoil is the true wealth of a farming property.

David and Mary Marsh are top farmers in their district because they demonstrate how livestock enhance environment and strengthen resilience. Improving land function lifts bottom lines, soil health, and peace of mind. The Marshs enjoy their way of life.

To find out more about John King and the services Succession offers, visit the website at: www.succession.co.nz.

Beware Fertiliser Decisions Driven by Fear or Habit

With drought conditions only just breaking over much of the South Island and a low dairy pay out, there are several reasons to control costs more closely this season.

There are many decisions that must be made on a farm but fertiliser choice is a big item (third largest expense according to Dairy NZ). It often gets left to the supplier’s advisors or the “let’s keep doing what we’ve always done – it’s worked till now” philosophy is followed.

Not enough fertiliser will become apparent within 1-3 years, however too much is rarely measured, often never detected, and infrequently associated with common animal performance issues.

Not only is this spend preventing other areas of investment on the farm, but it can also cause an increase in other costs such as higher metabolic disease, lower reproductive performance, or in extreme cases death. The latter is not as rare as you might expect. Just this season a client lost 12 lambs with nervous disorders from grazing a finishing crop that had been over fertilised with sulphur, as part of a foliar application to drive DM yield/Ha.

Trust the Science, Acknowledge the Art

Soil and fertiliser advisors often quote science as their guiding principle, but this science (the soil analysis) is not exact. The soil analysis in the laboratory is repeatable, at reputable labs. Their testing is done to international standards and their equipment is regularly calibrated. However even with all this technology the Olsen P test itself, as an example, has an accuracy rate of + or – 20%.

The portion of the sample sent to the lab and actually tested is less than a couple of teaspoons (10 grams). A 2 hectare paddock contains 1.2 million kilograms of soil just in the top 7.5cm of surface soil when it has a volume weight of 0.8 (clay dominant). The sampling itself is therefore the greatest source of variability.

Consider the variation in Olsen P tests obtained from this grid sampling (diagram below) of a dairy farm in Victoria. Each number represents a grid from which 20 soil plugs were collected.

So the sampling art is understanding how the paddock is grazed, looking at trough and gate placement and being aware of slope and underlying soil type changes relative to total paddock or block area. Soil generally has a large capacity to buffer in the short term and so the challenge here is to sample from a consistent transect, and observe the trend over several years. Watch grazing behaviour and stock congregation within a paddock and look at plant growth – all things only observed with time on the farm.

Knowledge Gives Confidence

Just because a soil test shows a certain level it does not mean the pasture will reflect that. However if the picture is mirrored then you can be more confident of your fertiliser decision. Taking paired soil and pasture samples is a good way to gain confidence about your decision and is very helpful to avoid fear of failure when a decision not to apply fertiliser is made.

A potential example of such a situation arose when reviewing the recommendation given to a North Island farmer for a per hectare application of the following product:

675 kg 20% Potash Serpentine Super which delivered the following per Ha kg nutrient levels -

P K S Mg Ca

36 67 45 27 89

When you consider the growing focus on nutrient management alone there is reason to pause, however, when you consider the information below it is hard to understand.

There is no need for more phosphorus in this current year – not only is the Olsen P above requirements but there are large reserves, a moderate ASC and top end of acceptable pasture levels.Potassium is also in excess with a MAF quick test at 13 and pasture levels above upper end ideal of 3.0.Sulphur soil levels are acceptable although the sulphate sulphur test is very high (this test can vary by + or – 40%) so it is given little attention.Pasture magnesium levels could benefit from being higher, despite soil levels being adequate, however a reduction in plant available potassium would benefit.

Before reading on – what would you do if this was your farm?

Our Recommendation

Addition of lime and salt is the simplest, easiest and most cost effective current intervention here, which addresses both soil and animal health concerns, not to mention freeing up approximately $10,000 from the budget in a year where it is welcome.

World class performance on farm requires world class attention to nutrition which means leaving no stone unturned. So when did you last consider manganese?

Never? Then let’s put it another way…

Are your lambs finishing as early as possible? orHow can you decrease your empty rate? orCan your farm produce more tonnes of dry matter per hectare?

Plentiful (even toxic) Manganese

Many local scientists advise that manganese is present in abundance in New Zealand and some go as far as to state there are “No known deficiencies of manganese in NZ”, Dr Edmeades (Superior Minerals vs Watt – initial ruling against Superior overturned on appeal).

Indeed I’ve found several clients with excessive pasture manganese levels (levels close to and over 400 mg/kgDM) that will prevent getting optimal lamb growth rates. These high manganese pastures are implicated in reduced lamb growth by as much as 25% (Grace) and some suggest even lower levels may negatively impact lamb finishing.

High pasture manganese levels usually appear in summer, when conditions are drier, soil is warmer and more acidic. Right when you want your lambs to be gaining the most weight.

The solution is economical and effective. Simply lime your paddocks to ensure pH between 6.0 to 6.5, with a range of 6.2-6.3 being ideal.

So Is Manganese Insufficiency In Animals Possible?

What counts is dietary manganese levels and the answer is definitely yes. On some farms under certain circumstances in New Zealand, it is likely to be a totally undiagnosed insufficiency.

A couple of months ago I was in Auckland visiting my nephew’s small citrus farm – many of the trees were showing signs of distinct ill thrift, stunted growth, severe yellowing of leaves, low fruit yield and poor fruit shape. I suggested we sample the leaves which we did from four different zones (limes, lemons, oranges and mandarins) and what we found surprised and delighted me.

Lemon leaves showing marked yellowing between the veins in more mature leaves. When trace minerals are involved as in this case, the old leaves are unlikely to recover quickly if at all due to reduced mobility of zinc and manganese, so the focus is on supporting new growth with the full spectrum of required minerals.

My first thoughts of magnesium and nitrogen deficiency proved correct but were not universal (magnesium adequacy did exist). However the added finding of significant and universal manganese and zinc deficiencies gave clear direction for intervention.

But What’s A Citrus Grove Got To Do With Production Animal Farming?

The principles of investigation are exactly the same.

We look at the problem (either what we see or often – what we don’t) and relate it back to the causes.The animal output will always be limited by any shortfall of input, so diagnose the shortfallWhile we must consider the soil – just because a nutrient is in the soil, it does not mean it will be in the plant.Understand the difference between species, media (soil, plant or animal) and locations.

Why Is Manganese So Important?

This trace element is crucial in animals to enable use of carbohydrates and fats, for bone and cartilage development and importantly for efficient reproduction. Insufficiency will slow growth rates and lower reproductive performance. Deficiency will show as shortened and even deformed legs in young stock, disturbed oestrus and abnormalities in the newborn – typically staggering due to inner ear development failure.

In plants, manganese is an essential co-factor in the photosynthetic process. It is generally required in higher levels in plants than animals and because of this is generally overlooked when considering animal performance in New Zealand. Fair enough, in general, but if any of the following apply to your farm then further consideration is warranted.

Why Knowing Your Soil Type Is Essential

If your farm has significant areas where top soil is of these types:

podzols,gley podzols, ororganic soils,

then consider manganese insufficiency as a potential contributor to lower than desired or expected animal performance.

What Is The Impact of Liming?

Manganese availability to plants is driven significantly by pH as shown on the chart to the right. The blue line indicates a reasonable target for soil pH.

So if you lime regularly or over zealously in any one application (rates in excess of 1T/ha) consider the impact on other nutrients such as manganese, as a period of induced deficiency may follow.

Is Animal Supplementation Required?

There are distinct differences between feed types and the levels of manganese they typically contain and with more farmers adding grain as a supplement the total dietary manganese intake should be considered.

While it would be rare to require additional manganese as direct animal supplementation under New Zealand farming systems, what is important is to consider the potential requirement for manganese fertiliser in some areas to ensure manganese is not limiting pasture yield.

Diagnosis of fertiliser requirement is done by considering both soil and pasture testing in context with the fertiliser history, the season, pasture yield history, the budget and the improvement being sought.

Whangarei dairy goat farmers, Allan & Lynne Karels’ story is impressive. In their first season working with Mineral Systems they’ve achieved a 30% increase in production/doe, and a 35% increase in production for the season, including increased doe numbers.

This is a substantial lift in production and resulting profitability, and the improvements are continuing into the current season.

This graph shows the average litres/doe milked over a 10 day period for each season. 2013 saw on average an increase of 1L/doe. Litres/doe also continues to lift into the 2014 season.

This graph shows the total production in litres for the 2012 & 2013 seasons.

The Silver Bullet?

There isn’t one of course. Improvements in production of this scale are not made without close scrutiny of, and significant investment in animal health and management. Three major factors contributing to these positive changes are:

Improved feed managementPersonalised trace element and vitamin supplementation to support dietary and goat requirements

“Mineral Systems have given us more insight into the mineral status of our farm and a better understanding of nutrition in our goats” – A & L Karels

Additional improvements continue to be made into the 2014 season. These include:

Improved fertility in the 2013 season - 1100 does kidded in 7 days, up from 800 does in 5 days the previous yearReduced somatic cell count (See graph below)Improved condition and goat healthOptimisation of protein:fat ratio

Graph showing total somatic cell count at pickup, averaged over a 10 day period. A cell count of below 900 000 was achieved throughout much of the season.

Where to from here?

Despite a cold and wet start to the season production has continued to lift in 2014. The Karels’ are continuing to enjoy improved animal health in what has been a tough and challenging season in the north.

They are aiming for further increases in production and managing diet through feed analysis is how they will achieve this. For Dairy Goat Co-op suppliers there is a minimum requirement of 75% forage based feed, which includes grass and silage/baleage. The more information you have on your alternative feed contributions, the more accurately you can adjust the ratios to get maximum value from these inputs. As the Karels’ are supported by our monthly monitoring programme the ability to interpret feed analyses and make informed decisions is all within the agreed monthly investment.

“Mineral Systems are easy to deal with and always available for advice” – A & L Karels

Mineral Systems is on the move! The North Island branch is heading to town, setting up camp in Hobson House, New Plymouth from January 2015.

Our new office will be located at 337 Devon Street East, on the corner of Devon Street and Hobson Street (locally known as the Abacus building). With easy parking, it is a welcoming place to call in, have a cuppa and talk farming!

After 20 years in the Taranaki hill country, Pat and I are heading to the beach. The lure of great fishing off the Taranaki coastline is the sweetener but with the farm leased, weekend bush retreats are still on the cards!

The Taranaki hill country holds great significance for Mineral Systems as this is where our philosophy evolved. Twenty years ago, fresh faced and armed with top genetics and a set of scales, we set out to achieve good production on our new farm. But it didn’t happen. In frustration Pat decided to administer extra selenium, despite blood tests indicating there were no issues. A sudden 20% scanning increase sent him back to the books - why did this happen? The answer then had to be in the diet.

Where it all began... Overlooking our dam at Patui Farm

Responding to the mineral profile of our own farm and supplementing our animals in relation to this was a huge breakthrough. We have consistently achieved good animal performance in our sheep, beef and small dairy operation and have our farm to thank for the success Mineral Systems is bringing to your farming systems today.

Pat and I look forward to working with you in 2015, and if you’re in town, please call in and check out our ‘office’!