- Email: [email protected]
Feeding Dairy Cows in Drylot
Feeding Dairy Cows in Drylot DONALD L. BATH Animal Science Extension, University of California, Davis 95616 Drylot Feeding
Dairy cattle in southern California are fed almost exclusively in drylot. Proximity to the Los Angeles metropolitan area. and subsequent high land prices and taxes have been a major reason for this. Dairymen cannot afford to grow dairy feeds on land which can be used either for higher-value crops or, in some cases, for subdivision purposes. Consequently, ahnost all feeds, both forages and concentrates, used for dairy cattle in southern California are produced elsewhere and shipped into the area for feeding in drylot. Even in more rural areas of California drylot feeding predominates, and for many reasons. Land prices and taxes, although not so high as in the Los Angeles area, are still high for agricultural purposes. When land has been suitable, many former pastures have been converted to alfalfa hay, corn, cotton, or other higher-value crops because of the economic necessity to obtain higher returns per acre. Uniform Production Essential
I n 1966 there were 590 dairies in California with 200 or more cows (8). Size alone of these dairies makes pasture management very difficult and pasture quality variable. The high and low periods of production resulting from variations in pasture quality do not fit in economically with the contract system of selling milk in California (2). Processors allot to dairymen vaz'ing amounts of Class I contract dependent upon the processor's needs. Under this system, a dairyman must ship a minimum amount of milk each day to preserve his contracted Class I base. Excess amounts usually sell for Class I I or I I I prices, which are $1.35 to $1.50 less per hundredweight. I n many instances, surplus milk sold at Class I I or I I I prices is produced at a loss. Therefore, it behooves a dairyman to produce up to his contract, but not much over. I f there are large periodic variations in milk production due to pasture variability, a dairyman will find it difficult at times to fulfill his contract and may be penalized by the processor by a loss of some of his Class I base. Limitations of Pasture
Cow traffic and distance between milk barn and pasture also are real problems for large herds. The energy used by cows travelling long distances to pasture is lost for possible
milk production. Even more important, the time involved in travel reduces the time available for eating, which is particularly important for the exceptionally high-producing cow in early lactation. Cows in this category find it difficult to eat enough feed to stay in energy equilibrium under the most ideal conditions. Cows that must forage for their food lose valuable time and energy in the process that could be conserved under drylot feeding conditions. Another factor which affects the use of pasture is tile variable dry matter content. The cow has only so much rumen capacity. I t will be filled to capacity with high-moisture feeds before the cow can consume enough dry matter to fulfill her nutrient needs. More concentrated forms of feeds can be fed in drylot which allow her to consume more total dry matter. Again, this is particularly critical for the high-producing cow. Many dairymen who previously pastured dairy cows now use the ]and for hay silage, or soilage production. All three require more mechanization for feeding than pasture, but most dairymen in California feel that it is well worth the cost. Hay quality can be controlled very easily through proper cutting intervals and good hay-making procedures (7). Rain damage is very rare, because very little falls from May through October in the major alfalfa-producing areas of California. Irrigation is practiced extensively and six to eight cuttings of alfalfa per year are common. Alfalfa Forage Alfalfa has been and remains the major dairy forage in California. However, larger acreages of corn for silage are harvested each year and silage promises to become a more important forage in the future. Dairymen have found that a combination of alfalfa hay and corn silage or alfalfa s~)ilage, when available, result in more economical production than from any of them fed singly (5). Variability in soilage quality and dry matter can result in the same problems encountered with pasture, if soilage makes up a high proportion of the total forage intake. Many dairymen restrict soilage feeding to once a davy, with the other feeding made up of dry alfalfa hay. Although still a problem, soilage quality can be controlled more easily than pasture. Cutting of all the forage periodically reduces the amount which gets rank with maturity. Waste from cows trampling the forage and from defecation
876
SY:~I)OSlU:M: and urination is eliminated. However, feeding the forage as soilage does not allow the cow to select the more desirable parts and leave the rest. Therefore, proper timing of cutting to reduce the amount of over-mature and less nutritious forage is essential. Alfalfa Cubes
Feeding of alfalfa cubes continues to increase in popularity in California. More dry matter consumption and subsequent higher milk production have resulted frmn several California trials when cubes were compared with baled alfalfa hay from the same field and cutting (1, 6, 9). Several methods of feeding cubes in drylot have proven quite successful. Self-feeding cube barns (3) are used successfully in the northern area of the state. -Very little labor is needed for this type of feeding system. Self-unloading wagons and trucks are popular in the south, where herds tend to be larger. Several dairies in the 1,500~2,000 cow range now feed in this manner in only a small fraction of the time previously required when baled hay was fed. W i t h labor costs continuing to rise, reduction in labor for feeding as well as milking is essential for efficient milk production. One of the results of faster milking in parlor barns is that high-producing cows are not in the parlor long enough to consume adequate amounts of concentrates to fulfill their energy needs. Many dairies are combating this problem by feeding some grain with roughage outside of the parlor. Large herds in drylot can be divided according to production levels and various levels of grain fed to the different strings. Some dairies are even eliminating all concentrate feeding in the milking parlor and feed it with the roughage as is done in beef feedlots. H a y shredders, have been developed which are equipped to add concentrate, molasses, and water to the hay as it is shredded, resulting in a very nutritious and palatable total ration. A trial is in progress on a cooperating California dairy to compare production from cows fed in this manner against the conventional method of feeding concentrates in the milking parlor and roughage outside. I f no decrease in milk production occurs, it may be more efficient to feed cows in this manner rather than trying to allot concentrates according to production. High-producing cows probably will eat more total feed and maintain high production. Lower-producing cows would be subject to culling. Therefore, rather than feeding according to production, the herd would be culled according to production.
877
Shredded Hay
Shredded hay works well in the system, but is not the only form that can be used successfully. Top dressing alfalfa cubes with grain is a popular practice for two reasons: First, it facilitates getting extra grain to the cows that need it; and secondly, it results in all fines being cleaned up before the next feeding. Fines can be a problem when cubes are handled extensively before feeding. However, proper manager design or addition of grain eliminates the problem emnpletely. Another aspect for the future is the possibility of including grain with alfalfa in a cube. This would result in a cube which could comprise the entire ration for the dairy cow. W o r k along this line is planned for the future by the University of California. Problems in Drylot Feeding
Up to now, the reasons for, and advautages of drylot feeding have been discussed. There are some serious problems encountered with the system, however. Probably the most pressing problem at the present time is solid waste disposal. W h a t can be done with the manure, urine, and water involved in a 300- to 500-cow operation located on just a few acres of land? I f crops are available, manure can be used to good advantage as fertilizer. When near a city limits with no place to put it, it is a real liability. Neighbors complain of flies and odor and soon the health department insists that the dairyman eliminate the problem. Dairymen in the Los Angeles area have attacked the problem by forming a fertilizer cooperative. All the manure is scraped from the members' pens periodically and hauled to a central location. Here it is piled and allowed to dry. The manure eventually is bagged and sold through nurseries and supermarkets. The operation has not made a profit for the dairymen to date but is about breaking even. I f they can break even on the operation, the members are way ahead from the standpoint of public relations, even if not monetarily. This program in combination with spray programs and good sanitation has resulted in a minimmn of problems due to flies and odor from dairies in suburban areas. Sanitation
Another major problem in drylots is the winter mud. Most of the rainfall in California comes from November through April. Unless corrals are paved, mud is very prevalent on most dairies during this time. The problem can be reduced significantly by grading corrals J . DAIRY ~CIENCE ~OL. 52, NO. 6
878
J O U R N A L OF D A I R Y SCIENCE
on a slope for better drainage. Mounds in the middle of corrals where grading is not feasible provide the cattle with at least part of a corral that is relatively dry during this period. A t best these are only improvements, however, and the basic mud problem remains when cattle are confined to a small area during wet weather.
of a large dairy farm preclude the manager from having other manual duties. He should be free to perform the management duties and available for emergencies which do come up frequently in a large operation. When organized and operated in this manner, labor management problems on large drylot dairies are greatly minimized.
Stall-housing Individual-stall housing (4) has shown promise as a measure for keeping cattle cleaner and more comfortable in wet areas. When given a choice between individual stalls and a dry corral though, cattle usually prefer the corral if shade is available. Several new dairies which are completely on concrete have included individual stalls in their installations. The dairies are usually located on a slope with the milking parlor at the top. Wash water is collected behind a dam and released periodically to wash down the feeding and stall areas. When properly designed, the system does an excellent job of cleaning the alleys. The water and manure are collected in a tank at the bottom of the slope and pumped out on to land behind the dairy. Some problems with clogged pipes result when baled hay is fed. This problem is eliminated when cubes are the principal form of roughage. There is practically no waste in the alleys when cubes are fed. I n some cases, cows involved in these new, all-concrete installations have experienced sorefoot problems for awhile. Some were so serious that dirt corrals were made available to the cows as well as the individual stalls. Others have renmined entirely on concrete and report that foot problems disappear after the rough concrete is worn down by the cattle. Labor Problems Labor efficiency in large drylot operations has been a problem in some cases. It is not possible to operate a large dairy in the same manner as a small one where one or two men do everything. Specialization has been the key to success. I t is common for milkers to do nothing besides the actual milking and clean-up ol~erations. Other employees take care of feeding and other care of the cows. I f farming is conducted in conjunction with the dairy, in many cases separate sets of employees are involved. In this way, each man knows his job and responsibilities better and becomes more efficient. The management of a large operation is a full-time job. Analysis of records, decision making, and supervision of the various phases Y. DAII~Y SCIEIgOE "V-eL. 52, No. 6
Costs
Cost of equipment required for feeding" in drylot is a major factor to consider, but is not necessarily a liability if labor cost is reduced or efficiency is increased. Feeding cubes, shredded or chopped hay, silage, soilage, and concentrate outside of the milking parlor all require equipmerit and facilities not needed for baled hay or pasture. Reduction in waste, increased feed intake, higher milk production, and reduction in labor due to feeding' these products in drylot tend to compensate for the extra expenses. Therefore, it is expected that the trend toward feeding dairy cows in drylot will continue in all but a few isolated dairy areas in California. Pasture will be used only where it continues to be a low-cost feed or where nothing else can be raised. References (1) Bath, D. L. 1966. Nutritional value of Mfalfa cubes anl wafers for dairy and beef cattle. Prec. Alfalfa Cubing and Wafering Conf. p. 33. Ca]ifornla Grain and Feed Ass. and Univ. of California, Davis. (2) California Department of Agriculture. 1964. California Milk Stabilization Laws. California Office of State Printing, Sacramento. (3) Engvall, W. L. 1966. Self-feedlng wafer barn. AXT-179. Univ. of Calif. Agr. Ext. Ser. (4) Holtz, E. W., R. G. Curley, and G. S. Gob]e. 1967. Individual-stall housing for dairy cattle. AXT-233. Univ. of Calif. Agr. Ext. Ser. (5) Hutton, G. A., Jr., and D. L. Bath. 1967. Corn silage and alfalfa hay for lactating dairy cows. California Agr., 21(6) : 5. (6) tIutton, G. A., Jr., M. Ronning, and J. B. Dobie. 1964. High- and low-moisture content alfalfa wafers compared to baled hay for milk production. J. Dairy Sci., 47: 156. (7) Meyer, J. H., and L. G. Jones. 1962. Controlling alfalfa quMity. California Agr. Exp. Sta., Bull. 784. (8) Pelissier, C. L. 1968. Management of large herds in California. J. Dairy Sci., 51: 132. (9) Ronning, M., and J. B. Dobie. 1962. Wafered versus baled alfalfa hay for milk production. J. Dairy Sci., 45: 969.
Dairy cattle in southern California are fed almost exclusively in drylot. Proximity to the Los Angeles metropolitan area. and subsequent high land prices and taxes have been a major reason for this. Dairymen cannot afford to grow dairy feeds on land which can be used either for higher-value crops or, in some cases, for subdivision purposes. Consequently, ahnost all feeds, both forages and concentrates, used for dairy cattle in southern California are produced elsewhere and shipped into the area for feeding in drylot. Even in more rural areas of California drylot feeding predominates, and for many reasons. Land prices and taxes, although not so high as in the Los Angeles area, are still high for agricultural purposes. When land has been suitable, many former pastures have been converted to alfalfa hay, corn, cotton, or other higher-value crops because of the economic necessity to obtain higher returns per acre. Uniform Production Essential
I n 1966 there were 590 dairies in California with 200 or more cows (8). Size alone of these dairies makes pasture management very difficult and pasture quality variable. The high and low periods of production resulting from variations in pasture quality do not fit in economically with the contract system of selling milk in California (2). Processors allot to dairymen vaz'ing amounts of Class I contract dependent upon the processor's needs. Under this system, a dairyman must ship a minimum amount of milk each day to preserve his contracted Class I base. Excess amounts usually sell for Class I I or I I I prices, which are $1.35 to $1.50 less per hundredweight. I n many instances, surplus milk sold at Class I I or I I I prices is produced at a loss. Therefore, it behooves a dairyman to produce up to his contract, but not much over. I f there are large periodic variations in milk production due to pasture variability, a dairyman will find it difficult at times to fulfill his contract and may be penalized by the processor by a loss of some of his Class I base. Limitations of Pasture
Cow traffic and distance between milk barn and pasture also are real problems for large herds. The energy used by cows travelling long distances to pasture is lost for possible
milk production. Even more important, the time involved in travel reduces the time available for eating, which is particularly important for the exceptionally high-producing cow in early lactation. Cows in this category find it difficult to eat enough feed to stay in energy equilibrium under the most ideal conditions. Cows that must forage for their food lose valuable time and energy in the process that could be conserved under drylot feeding conditions. Another factor which affects the use of pasture is tile variable dry matter content. The cow has only so much rumen capacity. I t will be filled to capacity with high-moisture feeds before the cow can consume enough dry matter to fulfill her nutrient needs. More concentrated forms of feeds can be fed in drylot which allow her to consume more total dry matter. Again, this is particularly critical for the high-producing cow. Many dairymen who previously pastured dairy cows now use the ]and for hay silage, or soilage production. All three require more mechanization for feeding than pasture, but most dairymen in California feel that it is well worth the cost. Hay quality can be controlled very easily through proper cutting intervals and good hay-making procedures (7). Rain damage is very rare, because very little falls from May through October in the major alfalfa-producing areas of California. Irrigation is practiced extensively and six to eight cuttings of alfalfa per year are common. Alfalfa Forage Alfalfa has been and remains the major dairy forage in California. However, larger acreages of corn for silage are harvested each year and silage promises to become a more important forage in the future. Dairymen have found that a combination of alfalfa hay and corn silage or alfalfa s~)ilage, when available, result in more economical production than from any of them fed singly (5). Variability in soilage quality and dry matter can result in the same problems encountered with pasture, if soilage makes up a high proportion of the total forage intake. Many dairymen restrict soilage feeding to once a davy, with the other feeding made up of dry alfalfa hay. Although still a problem, soilage quality can be controlled more easily than pasture. Cutting of all the forage periodically reduces the amount which gets rank with maturity. Waste from cows trampling the forage and from defecation
876
SY:~I)OSlU:M: and urination is eliminated. However, feeding the forage as soilage does not allow the cow to select the more desirable parts and leave the rest. Therefore, proper timing of cutting to reduce the amount of over-mature and less nutritious forage is essential. Alfalfa Cubes
Feeding of alfalfa cubes continues to increase in popularity in California. More dry matter consumption and subsequent higher milk production have resulted frmn several California trials when cubes were compared with baled alfalfa hay from the same field and cutting (1, 6, 9). Several methods of feeding cubes in drylot have proven quite successful. Self-feeding cube barns (3) are used successfully in the northern area of the state. -Very little labor is needed for this type of feeding system. Self-unloading wagons and trucks are popular in the south, where herds tend to be larger. Several dairies in the 1,500~2,000 cow range now feed in this manner in only a small fraction of the time previously required when baled hay was fed. W i t h labor costs continuing to rise, reduction in labor for feeding as well as milking is essential for efficient milk production. One of the results of faster milking in parlor barns is that high-producing cows are not in the parlor long enough to consume adequate amounts of concentrates to fulfill their energy needs. Many dairies are combating this problem by feeding some grain with roughage outside of the parlor. Large herds in drylot can be divided according to production levels and various levels of grain fed to the different strings. Some dairies are even eliminating all concentrate feeding in the milking parlor and feed it with the roughage as is done in beef feedlots. H a y shredders, have been developed which are equipped to add concentrate, molasses, and water to the hay as it is shredded, resulting in a very nutritious and palatable total ration. A trial is in progress on a cooperating California dairy to compare production from cows fed in this manner against the conventional method of feeding concentrates in the milking parlor and roughage outside. I f no decrease in milk production occurs, it may be more efficient to feed cows in this manner rather than trying to allot concentrates according to production. High-producing cows probably will eat more total feed and maintain high production. Lower-producing cows would be subject to culling. Therefore, rather than feeding according to production, the herd would be culled according to production.
877
Shredded Hay
Shredded hay works well in the system, but is not the only form that can be used successfully. Top dressing alfalfa cubes with grain is a popular practice for two reasons: First, it facilitates getting extra grain to the cows that need it; and secondly, it results in all fines being cleaned up before the next feeding. Fines can be a problem when cubes are handled extensively before feeding. However, proper manager design or addition of grain eliminates the problem emnpletely. Another aspect for the future is the possibility of including grain with alfalfa in a cube. This would result in a cube which could comprise the entire ration for the dairy cow. W o r k along this line is planned for the future by the University of California. Problems in Drylot Feeding
Up to now, the reasons for, and advautages of drylot feeding have been discussed. There are some serious problems encountered with the system, however. Probably the most pressing problem at the present time is solid waste disposal. W h a t can be done with the manure, urine, and water involved in a 300- to 500-cow operation located on just a few acres of land? I f crops are available, manure can be used to good advantage as fertilizer. When near a city limits with no place to put it, it is a real liability. Neighbors complain of flies and odor and soon the health department insists that the dairyman eliminate the problem. Dairymen in the Los Angeles area have attacked the problem by forming a fertilizer cooperative. All the manure is scraped from the members' pens periodically and hauled to a central location. Here it is piled and allowed to dry. The manure eventually is bagged and sold through nurseries and supermarkets. The operation has not made a profit for the dairymen to date but is about breaking even. I f they can break even on the operation, the members are way ahead from the standpoint of public relations, even if not monetarily. This program in combination with spray programs and good sanitation has resulted in a minimmn of problems due to flies and odor from dairies in suburban areas. Sanitation
Another major problem in drylots is the winter mud. Most of the rainfall in California comes from November through April. Unless corrals are paved, mud is very prevalent on most dairies during this time. The problem can be reduced significantly by grading corrals J . DAIRY ~CIENCE ~OL. 52, NO. 6
878
J O U R N A L OF D A I R Y SCIENCE
on a slope for better drainage. Mounds in the middle of corrals where grading is not feasible provide the cattle with at least part of a corral that is relatively dry during this period. A t best these are only improvements, however, and the basic mud problem remains when cattle are confined to a small area during wet weather.
of a large dairy farm preclude the manager from having other manual duties. He should be free to perform the management duties and available for emergencies which do come up frequently in a large operation. When organized and operated in this manner, labor management problems on large drylot dairies are greatly minimized.
Stall-housing Individual-stall housing (4) has shown promise as a measure for keeping cattle cleaner and more comfortable in wet areas. When given a choice between individual stalls and a dry corral though, cattle usually prefer the corral if shade is available. Several new dairies which are completely on concrete have included individual stalls in their installations. The dairies are usually located on a slope with the milking parlor at the top. Wash water is collected behind a dam and released periodically to wash down the feeding and stall areas. When properly designed, the system does an excellent job of cleaning the alleys. The water and manure are collected in a tank at the bottom of the slope and pumped out on to land behind the dairy. Some problems with clogged pipes result when baled hay is fed. This problem is eliminated when cubes are the principal form of roughage. There is practically no waste in the alleys when cubes are fed. I n some cases, cows involved in these new, all-concrete installations have experienced sorefoot problems for awhile. Some were so serious that dirt corrals were made available to the cows as well as the individual stalls. Others have renmined entirely on concrete and report that foot problems disappear after the rough concrete is worn down by the cattle. Labor Problems Labor efficiency in large drylot operations has been a problem in some cases. It is not possible to operate a large dairy in the same manner as a small one where one or two men do everything. Specialization has been the key to success. I t is common for milkers to do nothing besides the actual milking and clean-up ol~erations. Other employees take care of feeding and other care of the cows. I f farming is conducted in conjunction with the dairy, in many cases separate sets of employees are involved. In this way, each man knows his job and responsibilities better and becomes more efficient. The management of a large operation is a full-time job. Analysis of records, decision making, and supervision of the various phases Y. DAII~Y SCIEIgOE "V-eL. 52, No. 6
Costs
Cost of equipment required for feeding" in drylot is a major factor to consider, but is not necessarily a liability if labor cost is reduced or efficiency is increased. Feeding cubes, shredded or chopped hay, silage, soilage, and concentrate outside of the milking parlor all require equipmerit and facilities not needed for baled hay or pasture. Reduction in waste, increased feed intake, higher milk production, and reduction in labor due to feeding' these products in drylot tend to compensate for the extra expenses. Therefore, it is expected that the trend toward feeding dairy cows in drylot will continue in all but a few isolated dairy areas in California. Pasture will be used only where it continues to be a low-cost feed or where nothing else can be raised. References (1) Bath, D. L. 1966. Nutritional value of Mfalfa cubes anl wafers for dairy and beef cattle. Prec. Alfalfa Cubing and Wafering Conf. p. 33. Ca]ifornla Grain and Feed Ass. and Univ. of California, Davis. (2) California Department of Agriculture. 1964. California Milk Stabilization Laws. California Office of State Printing, Sacramento. (3) Engvall, W. L. 1966. Self-feedlng wafer barn. AXT-179. Univ. of Calif. Agr. Ext. Ser. (4) Holtz, E. W., R. G. Curley, and G. S. Gob]e. 1967. Individual-stall housing for dairy cattle. AXT-233. Univ. of Calif. Agr. Ext. Ser. (5) Hutton, G. A., Jr., and D. L. Bath. 1967. Corn silage and alfalfa hay for lactating dairy cows. California Agr., 21(6) : 5. (6) tIutton, G. A., Jr., M. Ronning, and J. B. Dobie. 1964. High- and low-moisture content alfalfa wafers compared to baled hay for milk production. J. Dairy Sci., 47: 156. (7) Meyer, J. H., and L. G. Jones. 1962. Controlling alfalfa quMity. California Agr. Exp. Sta., Bull. 784. (8) Pelissier, C. L. 1968. Management of large herds in California. J. Dairy Sci., 51: 132. (9) Ronning, M., and J. B. Dobie. 1962. Wafered versus baled alfalfa hay for milk production. J. Dairy Sci., 45: 969.