Early cut makes a critical difference
From the September 2007 edition of Agriculture Today.
Trial work recorded in the Successful Silage manual - the best text on silage making you could possibly find - shows a dramatic change in cattle production if delays are made in cutting fodder.
Next month we should see livestock producers come up with as much conserved fodder as possible in the form of silage and hay and the key consideration is how to get it cut and stored as early as possible in the season.
Cutting earlier usually means you’ll get less of it per hectare but its quality and the subsequent livestock performance will be better. Most reserves are very low, thanks to the dry seasons we’ve had, particularly last year as well as this autumn and winter.
The rain we get over September and October will have a big effect on the amount of fodder made.
Whether it’s silage or hay, all the data shows that the earlier the forage is cut, the better the quality.
Younger, less mature plants are higher in digestibility, energy and protein, and lower in fibre.
When this is related to livestock production, and there’s not many other reasons to make the stuff, the earlier cut fodder produces better results.
In one trial documented in the Successful Silage manual, silage was cut when the plant was at boot stage, and a replicate paddock cut two weeks later.
Both were fed to 300 kilogram steers and their intake and weight gain recorded.
Everything else being equal, the steers on the early cut ate more and gained 1.14 kilograms a day.
The steers fed the later cut silage ate less and gained only 0.65 kg/day.
These are dramatic differences in weight gain and hence profitability.
They were due to differences in quality, particularly digestibility.
Yet many producers would not consider a difference of only 14 days delay in cutting too significant.
Often the first seven days can be slowed up by a machinery breakdown or a contractor delay.
This trial also reflected why cattle generally don’t do as well on pasture hay as on pasture silage.
It’s related to the substantial difference in quality of the two products.
