Why efficiency is the route to dairy farm sustainability

Every time dairy farmers think about sustainability, they should be thinking instead about efficiency.

This was the conclusion of a roundtable of farmers, independent experts and industry representatives who gathered in Shropshire to examine the findings of Farmers Weekly’s recent sustainable dairy survey.

See also: What makes a sustainable dairy farm – survey results

The survey revealed that the biggest challenge facing UK dairy farmers was investment in infrastructure or to meet legislation.

“Farmers are worried about the broad impact of legislation and infrastructure, and they’re probably right to be,” said Ben Williams, Leprino Foods’ sustainability manager.

“Not only are they worried about what they do know, they’re aware there is lots of stuff they don’t know.”

Independent nutritionist Hefin Richards agreed farmers were rightly concerned. 

“Nitrate vulnerable regulations in Wales will be game changing,” he said.

“In England, Environment Agency activity has ramped right up. [Investment] is a huge issue for tenants.

“And there are river action groups that might have started out targeting water companies, but which have very much got farms on their radar.”

Training and recruitment

While investment in infrastructure had moved to the top of the list of farmers’ challenges, at 61%, independent grassland consultant Dr George Fisher noted that staff recruitment and retention remained stubbornly high, at 40%.

Hefin added: “And it becomes a bigger issue with expansion.”

Andrew Palmer, Lantra’s head of agriculture, said: “It’s also about employers: their language and communication, how they treat people, the facilities provided, expectations on staff and so on.

“The ones that have done training don’t struggle for staff. They have a good reputation; they have a waiting list.”

All were encouraged, however, by the survey finding that 34% of respondents had done people management training in the past year.

Keith Davis, who runs a family dairy business with his brother, milking 120 high-yielding Holsteins in Gloucestershire, and manages the Lydney Park Estate herd of spring calvers, said he had done three such courses in the past 12 months.

Wiltshire dairy farmer Robert Mallett, who is preparing to hand over the reins of his 230-cow high-yielding herd to the next generation, said he was concerned his son, 27, lacked the necessary management and financial skills to take over the business.

This chimed with Ben, who thought agricultural courses too often tried to be “all things to all people, rather than providing the skillset needed to manage a business”.

Dr Ginny Sherwin, farm vet and researcher at the University of Nottingham, was also concerned at the lack of skills among some survey respondents.

“We’ve got proactive farmers [responding to the survey] and yet 20% are not recording financial KPIs. It goes back to that business model and business training,” she said.

Feed efficiency

The survey showed that 94% had taken feed efficiency measures, with 65% of farmers growing more clover and multispecies leys.

While the roundtable agreed financial incentives played their part in encouraging use of more diverse swards, shifting weather patterns caused by climate change were also a factor.

“Forage data has changed so much in the past four years,” said Nacia Bonnick of Trouw Nutrition’s ruminant nutrition team.

“We used to say, that’s not a typical trend; now we say, the trends aren’t typical anymore – and we have a range of scenarios we can plan to.”

Commenting on the finding that 39% of respondents had replaced soya in dairy diets, Ben said this had to be driven by milk processors. “There’s at least three of us [processors] that are heavily pushing for no soya.”

However, Hefin pointed out that farmers were also driving this change.

“I’ve got quite a few clients who, five or six years ago, were feeding less and less soya and thought they may as well scrap it. It worked; they moved on. A lot of it is confidence led,” he said.

The roundtable acknowledged that methane inhibitors – used by 4% of respondents – had their place, but only once all efforts had been made to tackle inefficiency.

Measures such as improving age at first calving or feed efficiency had the potential to make more money while also reducing methane, said Hefin.

Dr Liz Homer, sustainability manager for ruminants at Trouw Nutrition, agreed.

“Feeding methane inhibitors should be profitable and benefit the farmer. Optimise the herd first; then they are the cherry on the cake – and they should be a choice,” she said.

Production efficiency

Asked which production measures they had taken to improve their sustainability, 64% of respondents mentioned improved herd fertility. Robert reckoned new technology (such as heat detection collars) had helped this.

“It’s had a massive effect on cow fertility in my herd,” he said, adding that his vet had seen a “step change” because of automatic heat detection.

Andrew wondered how much improved herd fertility (and reduced calf mortality, at 47%) was health driven and how much was skills driven. Keith questioned whether herd fertility was a valid metric.

“Cows nowadays are far more healthy and will last longer, but farmers choose not to keep them. What drives cull rate is the price of a barren cow,” he said.

Ben agreed. “The challenge is what we don’t see: the lost opportunity cost and lost litres in the tank from getting rid of productive animals,” he said.

“I think there is a role for genetics companies, advising 30% replacement rates to push genetic gain, to have an honest conversation about what that does to milk yield, which is what you’re paid for.”

Ginny was clear that reducing calf mortality depended on having good staff. “With the right staff, you can rear calves in not great conditions [and get good results],” she said.

“With the best facilities, you can have horrendous problems with the wrong staff.”

Robert said calf mortality was one of his bugbears. “It’s a massive waste, and there’s massive potential to improve sustainability,” he reckoned.

Use of bought-in fertiliser

The survey showed 74% of farms were using less artificial nitrogen fertiliser than three years ago. Keith said his usage had dropped from 220kg/ha to 150kg/ha.

He added, though, that he was also growing less grass, “partly from not reseeding enough ground and some leys getting tired”.

Ben Wixey, Germinal’s agricultural director, reported that annual reseeding rate was about 6%. “That’s a 15-year rotation and why – when you cut fertiliser – it doesn’t produce as much as under a five-year ley,” he pointed out.

Hefin thought the 2023 fertiliser price had been “a shock to the system and a catalyst for change”, adding that “in a way, it was a good thing”, because it made people look at improving accuracy, moving to liquid applications and so on.

George said: “Fertiliser is a big-ticket item on dairy farms in terms of carbon footprint, at 10-12%. It’s bigger than energy use [at 1-5%, according to Leprino audits, because of renewables].”

The biggest factor, however, was enteric fermentation, said Ben Wixey. “Then it’s feed, then fertiliser – and these two will overlap. Fertiliser is as low as 6% of carbon footprint on some of our farms, and as high as 25% on others,” he said.

Milk from forage

Average milk from forage was 3,258 litres, according to the survey. This figure compared with a national average of 2,100 litres, according to Ben Wixey.

Keith, who dropped from 3.5t to 2.5t concentrate a cow to survive a low milk price, with no adverse effect on milk yield, said milk from forage was “really about how inefficiently you’re feeding your concentrates”.

“We went to 5,000 litres from just under 3,000 litres [milk from forage].”

“You must have good-quality forage, though,” Hefin pointed out. “If you’ve got quality forage, you’ve got options.”

Heifer retention

On average, respondents said 80% of their heifers calved for a second time. Ginny pointed out that this was lower than the national average of 84%, which had been static for 15-20 years.

Hefin said it would help farmers if herd management software calculated heifer retention automatically.

However, Robert, whose second calving rate for heifers is 97%, said this figure was “relatively easy to work out”. Liz added that it was another factor “that massively affects sustainability because it’s about herd optimisation”.

Carbon footprint

Only 38% of respondents knew their carbon footprint, which averaged 1.08kg carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)/kg milk. (The UK average is about 1.2kg CO2e.) Of these, 77% said it was prompted by their milk processor.

“We’re one of the 32% who measured carbon footprint because we were interested, because we cottoned on that it was an efficiency measure,” said Keith.

Robert agreed. “It’s about business efficiency at the end of the day – but it’s hard to make something called a carbon audit translate to that,” he said.

While only 5% had been prompted by their bank to measure carbon footprint, Ben Williams said he thought banks would be the next to force big change.

“They want to offer loans to farms with the lowest carbon footprints so they can decarbonise their loan book. They are under huge pressure to do so,” he reckoned.