• Aucun résultat trouvé

Economical evaluation of feeding costs in pilot farms at grazing.

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Partager "Economical evaluation of feeding costs in pilot farms at grazing."

Copied!
13
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

SME Farm DK

Thure and Susanne Worm

SME Farm IE

Economical evaluation of feeding

costs in pilot farms at grazing

F. Lessire – I. Dufrasne

(2)

Economical evaluation of feeding

costs in pilot farms at grazing

How to evaluate ingested grass?

Evaluation of grass available for the cows

(3)

Evaluation of grass available for the cows

Estimation of grass height

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

June - Grass Height:

measurements in/out

In Out

(4)

Evaluation of grass available for the

cows

Estimation of grass cover

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

May June July August September

Grass cover (kg DM/Ha)

(5)

Evaluation of grass available for

the cows

Door opening at 6 AM

Distribution TMR: 6 PM

TMR = 13 kg DM

(without conc.)

In average:

4 kg conc./cow/day

Parcel

Kg DM

/cow/day

1

5,71

2

8,33

3

5,80

4

3,30

5

4,05

Mean

5,4

(6)

Evaluation of grass ingested

How much grass ingested?

22 kg DM*– DM TMR – DM concentrates = DM

ingested grass

*: reference value based on feed consumption

in winter

(7)

Evaluation of grass ingested

DM TMR

DM TMR +

conc

ingested?

Grass

% grass

April

17,2

21,9

0,1

0,5%

7/5/2013 -

17/6/2013

12,6

17,2

4,8

22%

17/6/2013-16/7/2013

11,7

15,5

6,5

30%

17/07/2013-22/8/2013

13,2

17,2

4,8

22%

22/8/2013-16/9/2013

13,7

16,9

5,1

23%

17/09/2013

15,6

18,7

3,3

15%

October

17,9

21,1

0,9

4%

(8)

Feeding costs

2 methods for estimation

:

Addition of costs of TMR + concentrates (1)

Addition of costs of TMR + concentrates +

(9)

Feeding costs

Method 1

Method 2

Forages

Compensation

wildlife

Compensation wildlife

Other feeds (wheat,

corn, alfafa, …)

Accountancy

Accountancy

Concentrates

Accountancy

Accountancy

Grass

-

% of grass valorised for

grazing cows

% applied to costs (seeds,

fertilizers, energy, lease,..)

(10)

Feeding costs

Feeding costs method 1 et 2

Month

TMR

(kg DM)

1

2

4

17,2

5,58

5,59

5

12,6

4,87

5,16

6

11,7

3,52

3,92

7

13,2

3,84

4,13

8

13,7

3,73

4,03

9

15,6

3,67

3,87

10

17,9

4,02

4,07

0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14 0,16 0,18 0,2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Month

Feeding costs (€/kg milk)

calcul 1 calcul 2

(11)

Feeding costs: comparison of 2 pilot

farms

0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 0,14 0,16 0,18 0,2

May June July August September January

Feeding costs (€/kg lait)

in relationship with % grass during grazing

90% grass 30% grass

(12)

Conclusion

Calculation methods require a good

evaluation of

TMR

Quantity,

Refusals,…

Animal

Behaviour!

Pasture

Refusals

Palatability?

(13)

The research has received funding from the European

Union’s Seventh Framework Program under Grant Agreement

FP/-SME-2012-314879-AUTOGRASSMILK

Références

Documents relatifs

By defending territories near kin preferentially, both juvenile salmon and trout are able to reduce the frequency of aggressive interactions and the costs associated wilh

According to the documentation found in the Flight Training Department of ESMA [6], thirteen out of thirty-seven cadets were discharged from the school in the last course, the

Objective: The aim is to perform a pilot study evaluating the differences in healthcare service use and its associated costs by infant feeding mode in an infant’s first year of

John’s Pilot Program, the research objective of this thesis is a qualitative exploration of home sharing as it relates to participants’ experience of aging in place, social

(ii) variations in the production of the Mercosur sectors are unbalanced in the case of a free trade area with Europe (strong increase in agricultural production, significant

In France, the P4P program IFAQ (Incitation financière à l’amélioration de la qualité - Financial Incentive to Quality Improvement) coordinated by the French Ministry of Health and

Tripartite Framework Agreement signed in July 2006 between the Government of Canada, the First Nations Education Steering Committee, and the Province of British Columbia (BC) which

The present work evaluated the biohydrogen production from a 0.4 L upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor type (UASB) operating at psychrophilic temperature (21 ±2