Cut and carry

A best-practice guide


Contents
3 Foreword
4 Key messages
5 Introduction
10 In-field management
18 In-shed management
22 Performance and economics
26 Appendix – Description of studies
31 Appendix – Calculating DM of samples

Photography and graphics: AHDB, AFBI and

AgriSearch.

AHDB is grateful to all those who have commented

on and contributed to this publication.
Foreword
Interest in cut and carry systems, often referred to as
zero grazing, has increased considerably over recent
years, with many farmers either using it during the
shoulders of the season or throughout the grazing
season. Key drivers for adoption of this technology have
been to increase the proportion of fresh grass included
in the diet and as a management tool for fragmented
grazing land, wetter summers, expanding herd sizes
and, in some cases, robotic milking systems.
Until recently, there had been almost no research
commissioned on cut and carry systems. With this and
the increasing popularity of the system in mind, AHDB
Dairy and AgriSearch commissioned separate but
complementary research studies on cut and carry at
Scotland's Rural College and the Agri-Food and Dr Debbie McConnell
Biosciences Institute. Dairy grassland scientist, AFBI

SRUC
AFBI

This research sought to answer key questions as to the

potential role of cut and carry systems on UK dairy farms,
as well as to establish best-practice guidelines for farmers.
This publication summarises the findings of these research
studies, with further descriptions of how these studies
were conducted available in the appendix (p26).
Information in this booklet aims to aid farmers with
decisions around implementing a cut and carry system
and allow farmers to decide if a cut and carry system
is right for them and provide practical advice on
best-practice management to capitalise on the benefits.

Cut and carry, also referred to as zero grazing, is a

feeding system where fresh grass is cut daily and
fed to housed cows throughout the grazing season.
Throughout this publication, it will be referred to as
cut and carry.

3
Key messages

• Introducing well-managed fresh grass into the • Providing adequate feed space and pushing up
diet of dairy cows can reduce feeds costs and regularly is key to achieving good intakes of cut
improve profitability (p5) and carry grass (p18)
• Cut and carry is a viable option to increase the • A network of good access points to fields will
proportion of grass in the dairy cow diets, but minimise soil damage in wet-weather
good grassland management is essential (p10) conditions (p11)
• Cut and carry systems can increase grass growth • Avoid cutting swards that have recently been
and utilisation (p22) grazed to reduce the risk of manure
contamination (p11)
• Keeping pre-cutting covers below 4000 kg
DM/ha is essential to ensure good-quality forage, • Fresh grass should be fed to cows at least once
dry matter intake and cow performance (p13) every 24 hours to minimise spoilage and
wastage (p19)
• Using specialist cut and carry machinery can
lead to improvements in animal dry matter in • Compared with grazing, cut and carry can
takes and cow performance (p14) improve cow performance and margin over feed
and forage per hectare, but additional housing
• A flexible approach to the time of day of cutting
costs must be considered (p22)
is required to optimise grass dry matter content,
especially in wet conditions (p14)

4
Introduction
The value of home-grown forage
Each additional 1,000-litre increase in milk from
forage is equivalent to a £10,798 difference in net
•  ell-managed grazed grass is the cheapest
W profit on a 100-cow dairy farm.
feedstuff available on-farm
•  aximising home-grown forage has the ability
M
Benchmarking results from GB indicate that since 2013,
to reduce the cost of production
the top 25% of farms ranked on net margin have been
• Better use of home-grown forage drives profitability £886/cow more profitable than the bottom 25% of farms
(Table 1b).

Feed and forage is the biggest cost on UK dairy farms, Table 1b. Benchmarking data for the period 2013–2017
ranked on net margin
which on average accounts for 33% (9.5 ppl) of the total
production cost. Maximising the use of home-grown
Bottom 25% Top 25% Difference
forage and reducing the cost of feed and forage
on-farm continues to be the largest driver for Yield per
increasing farm profitability. 7,115 7,984 869
cow (litres)
Concentrate
Feed and 2,420 2,531 111
fed (kg/cow)
forage
Milk from
forage per 2,065 2,385 320
cow (litres)
33%
Net profit
Proportion COP -482 404 886
(£/cow)
assigned
to feed and *2 years’ worth of data only
forage costs **Net profit, including imputed costs

67% The majority of farms in the UK are located in areas with

the potential for high grass production. Well-managed
grazed grass remains the cheapest feedstuff for UK
dairy herds (6p/kg DM) when compared with grass
Other COP silage (10p/kg DM) and purchased concentrates (25p/kg
DM). Utilising this potential and increasing the amount
Figure 1. Proportion of the COP assigned to feed and forage costs of home-grown forages fed to cows could reduce the
on GB dairy farms feed and forage cost, reduce the effect of external
markets’ volatility, reduce environmental impacts
Benchmarking results from Northern Ireland indicate
and thereby increase farm sustainability, resilience
that since 2000, the top 25% of farms ranked on milk
and profitability.
from forage have been 3.8 ppl (or £264/cow) more
profitable than the bottom 25% of farms (Table 1a).
Table 1a. Benchmarking data for the period 2000–2016 ranked on
milk from forage per cow

Bottom 25% Top 25% Difference

Yield per
6,893 6,943 50
cow (litres)
Concentrate
2,675 1,597 -1,078
fed (kg/cow)
Milk from
forage per 949 3,394 2,445
cow (litres)
Net profit
292 556 264
(£/cow)
Source: CAFRE, 2017

5
Cut and carry systems
Cut and carry is a feeding system where fresh grass is
cut daily and fed directly to housed cows. The fresh
grass is typically cut standing by one machine, which
transports the grass instantly from the field. Cut and
carry can be fed with grass silage or total mix ration
(TMR). The system is used across mainland Europe,
although its use in the UK has been limited so far.
A cut and carry system provides an alternative way to
increase the amount of home-grown, high-quality forage
used on dairy farms during the growing season
compared with grazing and feeding grass silage or TMR.
Although well-managed grazed grass is the most
economical feed available for dairy cows, there is
growing interest in the role of a cut and carry system
and its potential to reduce feed and forage costs.

250

225
227
200

175

150

125 37
Production costs (£/t Utilised DM)

26
100
31 91 99
75

50
66

25

0
Grazed grass Grass silage Parlour Cut and
(1st cut) conc 18% carry*

Cash costs (£/t DM) Fixed costs (£/t DM)

Figure 2. Total production costs (£/t DM) of home-grown forages

against bought-in concentrates for GB farms

*based on 4 cutting rotations

Source: Kingshay forage costings report, 2017

Figure 3. The process of cut and carry

6
Benefits and challenges • Avoids opening silage/changing diet when cows
Over recent years, many dairy farmers have require sporadic summer housing and improves cow
implemented a cut and carry system to increase the performance in comparison with grass silage (p24)
proportion of fresh grass included in the diet and as a • Ability to buffer-feed high-yielding cows with grass
management tool for fragmented grazing land, silage (p19)
expanding herd sizes and robotic milking systems. However, as with any system, there are some
Cut and carry provides valuable opportunities for dairy challenges. These include:
farmers, including:
• Higher capital investment for specialised machinery
• Improvement in grassland productivity, with up to and increased fuel costs relative to grazing
25% increase in grass growth rates and 15%
improvement in grass utilisation when compared with
• Large daily variation in grass dry matter (DM) content
and dry matter intake (DMI) in comparison with grass
grazing (p22) silage, impacting on animal performance (p19)
• Increased stocking rate possible, which reduces the • Cut grass spoils within 18–24 hours, particularly in
total area needed for grazing (read Aidan’s story on p9) warmer summer temperatures (In-shed management
• On wetter farms, more flexibility of the grazing section, p18)
platform and the potential to offer fresh grass earlier
and later in the season compared with grazing (read
• Added cost of slurry handling, storage and spreading
in comparison with grazing system (p22)
Tom’s story on p21)
• Greater feed space requirements for feeding fresh
• Extension of the grazing platform to fields which are grass indoors when compared with silage (p18 for
difficult for cows to access infrastructure recommendations)
• Easier to achieve constant grass residuals to • High labour demand (estimated one hour/100 cows)
maintain grass quality throughout the season (read for cutting grass on a daily basis
Parry’s story on p17)
• Potential reduction in damage to grass if appropriate
machinery and practices are used in correct weather
conditions and the avoidance of poaching and
rejection sites in pasture (In-field section, p10)

7
Cost of cut and carry grass • Labour costs
As with all feeding systems, the costs will vary widely • Infrastructure costs
from farm to farm and it is best to calculate the cost for
each farm when deciding if it is economically viable for
• The utilisation rate of grass

your business. Within a cut and carry system, there are However, to give an indication of likely costs, some
a number of variables that can influence how much it example costs for generating cut and carry total costs
costs to grow and harvest the grass. These include: relative to grazing and grass silage systems are outlined
below in Table 2. Further information on the economics
• Type of machinery used, including the initial are available in Performance and economics on page 22.
purchase price and depreciation, or the use of
a contractor
Cash cost estimate for cut and carry grass is
• The proximity of cutting fields to the farmyard £97 per tonne of DM.
• The productivity of fields and the number of In comparison, typical cash costs estimates for
rotations achieved grazed grass range from £52–£66 and three-cut
silage costs from £87–£97 per tonne of DM.
Table 2. Calculating cut and carry costs in 2019

Grazing Cut and carry Silage1

Establishment costs (£/ha)
Seedbed preparation and sowing2 £216 £216 £216
Seed (@35 kg/ha) £132 £132 £132
Lime, fertiliser and spray 3
£227 £227 £227
Total £575 £575 £575
Lifespan of sward (years) 10 10 10
Annual establishment costs £57.54 £57.54 £57.54
Growing costs (£/ha)
Fertiliser (+ application)3 £269 £338 £240
Spray (+ application) £15 £15 £15
Grass management (topping) £30
Slurry application 4
£68 £204
Grass harvesting 5
£200 £476
Ensiling (Additive + Polyethylene) £107
Annual growing costs £313.44 £620.16 £1041.60
Other costs
Land charge (£/ha) £246 £246 £246
Depreciation costs (£/ha) £134 £150 £184
Feed-out costs (£/t DM)6 £4.91 £14.17 £14.17
Grass production
Annual harvested yield (t DM/ha) 10.6 12 13.8
Utilisation rate 75 82 84
Utilised yield (t DM/ha) 7.95 9.84 11.5
Cash cost grown (£/ha) £371 £678 £1,099
Total cost grown (£/t ha) £751 £1,074 £1,530
Cash costs per tonne fed and utilised (£/t DM) £52 £83 £110
Total cost per tonne fed and utilised (£/t DM) £99 £123 £148
1
Standard three-cut silage system with tractor and grab feed-out. 2Includes ploughing, 2x power harrow, sowing and rolling.
3
All nutrients supplied to The Fertiliser Manual (RB209) recommendations for Index 2 soils in GGC and High SNS. 4Assumes one slurry application for cut and carry,
three applications for silage. 5 Assumes seven rotations for cut and carry using owned equipment. Assumes complete three-cut silage system delivered by contractor.
6
Typically not included in other costings. Grazing feed-out costs include labour costs associated with droving and grass allocation. Cut and carry and silage costs
assume feed-out with a tractor and grab. Note: cut and carry machines with delivery conveyors would reduce this cost slightly.
Source: AFBI, 2018

8
SPot Scotland – Bruce Farms, Meigle, Blairgowrie, Perthshire
Case study: cut and carry improves milk from forage
in the
Host low-yielders
– Geoff Bruce and Kerr Howatson

Farmer: Sam McElheran

Farm: Stranocum, County Antrim

High rainfall, heavy clay land and a long narrow farm farm’s costings, this is seen
layout meant cut and carry was a logical decision for in a concentrate usage per
the 200 ha farm in County Antrim. The routine today litre of 0.39 kg in 2014 to
on the McElheran family’s farm is to complete the 0.34 kg/litre in 2017. This has coincided with an
morning milking and cut two loads of grass for the increase in stocking rate from 2.20 cows/ha in 2014
low-yielding group. to 2.72 cows/ha in 2017. Grass growth also
One bonus from the feeding system includes an increased at Stranocum farm, which grew 12.7
increase in milk from forage from 1,336 litres in 2014 tonnes of DM per hectare in 2017.
to 2,338 litres in 2017. “I’d like it to be more and it’s For anyone considering cut and carry, Sam says: “If
still going up, but these changes don’t happen your farm is fragmented like ours, I would give it a go.
overnight,” Sam says. Don’t do it if you think it’s going to be an easy option,
Alongside the extra milk from forage, there has been because it isn’t,” he adds. “You have to do the
a cut in concentrate use, which has declined from fetching, the carrying, the bringing it up to the cows
roughly 3 t/cow/year to 2.55 t/cow/year. On the – there’s a lot of labour involved."

SPot Scotland – Bruce Farms, Meigle, Blairgowrie, Perthshire

Case study: fresh grass supports high milk production
Host – Geoff Bruce and Kerr Howatson
Farmer: Aidan McManus
Farm: Clonliff, County Fermanagh

Aidan introduced a succession of management ME. The cut and carry

changes to his 120-head milking herd from 2013. system has led to cleaner
Changing to a cut and carry system was the first of swards with fewer weeds
these, which saw production jump from roughly and better grass utilisation
6,000 to 7,000 litres. A new cubicle house shortly at Clonliff farm. This has resulted in stocking rates
followed and finally the instalment of two robots in rising from around 2.5 cows per hectare to 4.8 cows
2016. per hectare.
The cutting season typically begins in early April and Aidan believes that the trick to maintaining intakes
extends until early November at Clonliff. During that with cut and carry is to cut twice a day, minimise
time, the rotation length ranges from around 35 days grass damage by using a suitable mower, push up
at the outset to 25 days at times of peak growth, regularly and have an adequate length of feed face
while grass quality has been found to remain high for the cows. From a nutritional perspective, Aidan
throughout. balances the grass – particularly important when the
“We have found spring grass usually analyses at a sward is young and leafy – with a high-fibre, low-
metabolisable energy (ME) of 13 MJ/kg DM and protein nut in the robot.
crude protein (CP) is 22–23%. Nothing you can buy “With cut and carry, we feel we get the best of all
comes anywhere near that analysis!” Aidan says. worlds,” he says. “On our farm we have better soil
To maintain grass quality, Aidan avoids going into structure, improved grass utilisation and better
covers higher than 3900 kg DM/ha as the grass will nutrition for the cows, giving 9,500 litres at 3.9% fat
be more mature and less leafy and will have a lower and 3.3% protein.”

9
In-field management
The primary benefit of cut and carry systems is an improvement in grass utilisation, offering potential to increase
stocking rates and increase farm output and net margin per hectare. However, to achieve these improvements in
grass utilisation, there are three key areas to consider:

1. Field selection 2. Grass 3. Cutting

• Size • Varieties • Growth stage
• Previous use • Nutrients • Time of day
• Access • Machinery

1. Field selection

Has the field been grazed

within the last month?

YES NO NO

Wait at least one month Does the field have Consider field
before using the field for appropriate access NO infrastructure to avoid
cut and carry points? soil compaction

YES

Will it take more than seven

days to finish the field?

YES NO

Subdivide large fields into

Harvest grass at covers
smaller areas to allow earlier
between 3,000–4,000 kg DM/ha
fertiliser application

Figure 4. How to select fields for a cut and carry system

10
When selecting appropriate fields for cut and carry, 2. Grass
it is important to take account of: The frequent cutting used in cut and carry systems can
Field size – Although using large fields for cut and carry change the structure of the grass, influencing the
often makes cutting easier, employing very large areas management of cut and carry grass. It is important
can delay fertiliser applications and reduce growth rates. to consider:
Square or rectangular fields will ease cutting and Variety selection – Recent research in Northern Ireland
improve grass utilisation. has shown that, compared with grazing, cut and carry
reduces the density of ryegrass plants over the course
As a general rule of thumb, if it takes over seven of a season by up to 16% (Figure 6).
days to finish a field, it is worth subdividing this
into smaller areas. 3,500

Perennial rye grass density (plants/m2)

3,000
Previous use – Using fields which have been grazed
within the past month is best avoided as it carries a risk 2,500

of harvesting grass which has been contaminated with 2,000

manure. This has the potential to lower cow intakes
1,500
and increase the rate of spoilage of fresh grass at the
feed trough. 1,000

Access – Having appropriate access points is key 500

to minimising the risk of soil compaction in any field. 0

AHDB-funded research carried out in Scotland has Grazing Cut and carry
shown that compaction from machinery and livestock
Figure 6. The impact of cut and carry on perennial ryegrass
can reduce grass yields by as much as 22%, also density in leys after one cutting season
impeding soil drainage and nutrient efficiency. Source: AFBI, 2018

A Although this may not have a negative effect on grass

yield, it creates a more open sward and may increase
the risk of soil damage, particularly on wet soils. When
reseeding, selecting varieties with a higher sward
density may help combat this.

“Using a similar checklist to that which you would

use for selecting a multi-cut type ley is beneficial for
cut and carry. The desired traits to consider are:
• High grass quality

B • Early season growth

• Good ground cover
• Narrow heading date for easier management
Current guidance is to use a 50/50 diploids and
tetraploids mixture of 50/50 intermediate and late
perennial ryegrass.”
– Helen Mathieu, Germinal

For more information, see the Recommended Grass

Figure 5. Uncompacted (A) vs compacted (B) soils and Clover Lists, available at britishgrassland.com/rgcl
Within cut and carry systems, having multiple wide
entrance and exit points is essential to minimise any risk
of soil damage. Research has shown that with a good
network of entrance points to paddocks, cut and carry
could reduce overall field compaction by 10% when
compared with grazing systems.
More information on identifying and managing soil
compaction is available from AHDB’s Healthy
Grassland Soils guide.

11
Weed control – Spraying for weed control in the main Phosphate may be applied in several small applications
grass-growing season can be challenging as many plant throughout the season, although positive responses can
residues can be harvested with the cut and carry grass, sometimes be seen from early-spring applications.
which may negatively impact animal intakes. Spraying
Potash may be applied in several small applications
management at the shoulders of the season will reduce
during the season. Where there is a known risk of grass
this risk.
staggers, application of potash in spring should be
Nutrient management – Nutrient requirements for avoided and nutrients applied the previous autumn.
swards managed under cut and carry systems will be
greater than those under grazing systems, due to the Table 4. Example fertiliser requirements for a cut and carry field
lack of nutrient returns from grazing animals. It is crucial yielding 10 t DM/ha.
to take into account the lack of nutrient returns when
P or K index
developing a nutrient management plan. The best
method to consider nutrient requirements for cut and 0 1 2 3 4
carry swards is to work backwards from the
recommendations from silage swards, taking account of Phosphate
110 90 70 150 0
(kg/ha)
the lower yield of cut and carry swards (typically 70–
75% of silage yield) and the need to distribute this more Potash 240 (2-)
300 265 80 0
frequently throughout the season. (kg/ha) 150(2+)
Source: Adapted from Nutrient Management Guide (RB209) to take into account
lack of nutrients returns by grazing animals
As with all nutrient management planning, an
up-to-date soil test every 3–4 years is vital to For more information on nutrient content
allow the most effective and cost-effective use of of manures, see Section 2 Nutrient Management
fertilisers and manures. Guide (RB209).
Nitrogen – When calculating nitrogen requirements for
cut and carry grass, the supply from other sources
Phosphate and potash – Requirements for cut and
needs to be considered (Figure 7).
carry swards can be calculated by considering expected
offtake yield. Typical values of phosphate and potash It is also important to take into account the factors
content in grass and expected offtake at three different below when calculating nitrogen:
grass yield levels are shown in Table 3.
• Soil nitrogen status
Table 3. Plant nutrient content and total nutrient offtake at three • Grass growth class
different grass yield bands throughout one season
• Yield potential
Total nutrient offtake Again, when calculating nitrogen requirements for cut and
(kg/ha/year) at different carry swards, it is worthwhile reviewing silage
yield levels recommendations and adjusting this for the lower yield
Plant 7.5 t 10 t observed under cut and carry swards and the need for
12 t
content DM/ DM/ more frequent applications. As an example, typical silage
DM/ha
(kg/t DM) ha ha nitrogen requirements for swards at different yield levels
are presented in Table 5 – these have been split into
Phosphate 7 52 69 82
different months to reflect more frequent cutting.
Potash 24 181 241 289
Source: Nutrient Management Guide (RB209) Remember to deduct all nutrients applied as
animal manure when calculating how much
Using Table 3, we can see that if 10 t DM/ha of grass is artificial fertiliser to apply.
removed, 69 kg of phosphate and 241 kg of potash need
to be replaced. In addition, if soils are below index 2,
additional phosphate and potash are required. Where soils
are in excess of index 2, only a small amount of nutrient is
required to support adequate plant growth. Example
nutrient requirements for a grass field yielding 10 t DM/ha
at different soil indices is presented in Table 4.

12
 Supply from soil

– =
Supply from manures
Crop requirement Fertiliser requirement
Supply from air

Supply from clover

Figure 7. Example of other sources of nitrogen to consider

Full details of this process and nitrogen recommendations can be found in the Nutrient Management Guide (RB209).
Table 5. Example of nitrogen application rate for different yields for a cut and carry system.

Indicative Nitrogen application rate (kg N/ha) per grazing rotation and
approximate application date* Total N
DM yield
application
(t/ha)
Feb March April May June July Aug

7-9 40 30 30 30 130

9-12 20 40 40 50 40 30 30 250

*The recommendations are applicable to grass swards with low clover content in a very good/good grass growth class (GGC) and moderate soil nitrogen supply (SNS)
situation. Target dry matter yield will be different for individual farms, dependent on grass growth class and livestock requirements. Good/very good GGC sites with
2–10-year-old swards are likely to achieve target dry matter yield values at the higher end of the range. New leys with modern varieties may exceed the upper dry matter
yield range by 10–20%. Poor/very poor GGC sites are likely to achieve dry matter yield levels towards the lower end of the range in most years.
Adapted from: Nutrient Management Guide (RB209)

3. Cutting However, care must be taken not to use very high grass
Grass growth stage cover for cut and carry as this can impact overall grass
Cut and carry offers the potential to cut at a higher level quality and cow performance as shown by a recent trial
of grass cover than typical target grazing covers. conducted to determine optimum pre-cutting height.
Research in Northern Ireland has shown that pre-cutting Two groups of cows were fed fresh grass via a cut and
covers on commercial farms using cut and carry tend to carry system in Northern Ireland, either from:
be 450 kg DM/ha higher on average when compared
with grazing farms. This allows higher offtakes while
• Low-grass covers (3,650 kg DM/ha)

achieving good residuals. • High-grass covers (4,750 kg DM/ha)

Feeding high-grass covers negatively impacted growth
rates and grass quality, see Table 6. An additional 1.86 t
Pre-cutting covers target for cut DM/ha was produced from the low-grass cover
and carry is between 3,000–4,000 kg DM/ha. compared with the high-grass cover over the 90-day
Cutting within this range is important in order to study. In both cases, grass utilisation was greater than
maximise grass and animal performance. that measured in grazed swards (75–80%) and there
was higher wastage at the feed trough by the
high-grass-cover group. This reduced overall grass
utilisation by 5.7% compared with the low-grass cover.

Table 6. Impact of pre-cutting grass cover on grassland performance

Low-grass cover High-grass cover

Grass growth rate (kg DM/ha/day) 82.1 61.4

Rotation length (days) 25.9 46.1

Total grass utilisation (%) 91.9 86.2

Grass acid detergent fibre (ADF) content (%) 30.2 31.3

Grass metabolisable energy (ME) content (MJ/kg DM) 11.1 10.9

Source: AFBI, 2018

13
Cow performance was also lower by using high-grass- In wet conditions, flexibility is key! If possible, it is worth
cover swards, with reductions evident in both milk yield cutting later in the day after conditions improve. It can
and milk fat and protein yield (Table 7). be challenging in bad weather conditions and might be
worth looking at providing buffer feed.
The accuracy of a plate meter decreases at high covers
(>3500 kg DM/ha) and quadrant cutting may be Machinery – Although specialist machinery has been
beneficial for an accurate grass growth measurement. developed for cut and carry systems, some farmers
have opted to use cheaper alternatives, such as double-
chop harvesters. Recent research in Northern Ireland
“I go into covers of 3,500–3,800 kg DM/ha. Grass involved assessing grass and animal performance
is cut to a residual of 1,800 kg DM/ha to avoid resulting from different cutting machines. Two groups of
hitting stones. By maintaining these targets, I find dairy cows were fed fresh grass harvested either by
that grass recovers faster.” double-chop or specialist cut and carry machinery
– Sam McElheran (more details in appendix, p26).
Key results (Table 8):

Rotation length – Targeting pre-cutting covers will help • No difference in grass growth or utilisation
achieve high palatability of fresh cut grass. To achieve between machinery
this on-farm, aim for a rotation length of 21 days in May, • Quality of grass offered was marginally lower from
increasing to around 28 days in August. When double-chop, with grass DM content and WSC
calculating rotation length, remember to take into decreasing more rapidly in the 48-hour period
account rate of grass growth and herd demand. post-cutting
Time of day – The DM content and the sugars and • Grass DMI was 0.6 kg DM/cow/day lower from
fructans, known as water-soluble carbohydrate (WSC), double-chop techniques compared with the
content of grass increases throughout the day, with specialist machinery
peak DM content usually observed in the early–mid-
afternoon (around 2pm) in dry conditions.
• Daily milk yields were 0.5 litre/cow/day lower from
the double-chop technique, but there was no impact
Harvesting at this time will minimise the risk of grass on milk quality
spoilage, which deteriorates more rapidly with low
DM forages. “Using a specialist machine, which just lifts and
cuts, helps prevent damage to the fresh grass,
which reduces heating and refusals”
“Cutting is always undertaken after 2pm, by
which time DM of grass has increased and WSC – Aidan McManus
has accumulated”
– Parry Walters

Table 7. Impact of pre-cutting grass cover on dairy cow performance

Low-grass cover High-grass cover

Grass growth rate (kg DM/ha/day) 13.8 12.9

Milk yield (kg/cow/day) 25.5 23.7

Milk fat (%) 4.4 4.4

Milk protein (%) 3.5 3.4

Milk fat + protein yield (kg/cow/day) 2.0 1.8

Source: AFBI, 2018

14
Table 8. Sward characteristics and performance of dairy cows fed grass harvested by either double-chop or specialist
cut and carry machinery

Double-chop technique Specialist machinery

Pre-cutting cover (kg DM/ha) 4,177 4,135

Post-cutting cover (kg DM/ha) 1,901 1,898

Total grass utilisation (%) 76.1 76.2

Total grass utilisation 14.2 14.8

Grass ME content (MJ/kg DM) 10.9 11.0

Grass chop length (cm) 13.8 26.5

Grass intake (kg DM/cow/day) 13.7 14.3

Milk yield (litres/cow/day) 31.5 31.9

Source: AFBI, 2018
Worksheet – calculating the amount of fresh grass to
cut daily
A
Table 9. Dry matter percentage ranges for fresh grass based on
weather conditions

Weather DM %

Continuous rain 10–12

Mixed sunshine and rain (Small

13–16
amount of surface moisture)
Mainly dry
17–19
(No surface water)
More than five dry days and
20–22
high temperatures

Drought 23–24

See appendix Calculating DM of samples (p29) for

step-by-step guide on how to calculate DM content of
fresh grass for a more accurate estimation.
B
Table 10. Daily dry matter intake estimator*

Estimated intake
Live weight (kg)
(kg DM/day)

450 13.5–15.8

500 15.0–17.5

550 16.5–19.2

600 18.0–21.0

650 19.5–22.8
*High-yielders will require an additional source of fresh grass to achieve target DMI.

Typical Holstein/Friesian cows can eat

approximately 3–3.5% of their body weight in
Figure 8. Double chop (A) vs cut and carry grass (B) DM each day.
Source: AFBI

15
Cut and carry pasture cover targets
Pre-cutting cover 3,000–4,000 kg DM/Ha
Post-cutting cover 1,800 kg DM/Ha
Example
Step 1: Calculate grass DM available:
3,500 (Pre-cut cover) - 1,800 (Post-cut cover) = 1,700 kg (DM available)[A]
Step 2: Calculate daily dry matter requirement for herd:
Cow demand: (cow live weight) 600 kg[B] x 3.5% 21 kg daily requirement per cow[C]
21 kg DM[D] x 100 (No. of cows) = 2,100 kg DM (10% surplus)[E] = 2,310 kg DM required[F] + 210 kg DM
Step 3: Calculate area to cut:
1 hectare divided by 1,700 kg DM (DM available) = 0.0006[G]
0.0006*2310[F] (herd requirement) = 1.36 ha (area required to be cut)[H]

Input your own figures here to calculate the area required

to be cut:
Step 1: Calculate grass DM available:

(Pre-cut cover) - (Post-cut cover) = [A] kg DM/ha (DM available)

Step 2: Calculate daily dry matter requirement for herd:

Cow demand: (cow live weight) [B] kg x 3.5% = [C] kg

[D] kg DM x (Number of cows) = kg DM + [E] kg DM (10% surplus) =

[F] DM (total required)

Step 3: Calculate area to cut:

1 ha divided by kg DM (grass available) = [G]

[G] Multiply by [F]

= [H]
ha (area required to be cut)

16
SPot Scotland – Bruce Farms, Meigle, Blairgowrie, Perthshire
Case study: top-notch grassland management key to success
Host – Geoff Bruce and Kerr Howatson
Farmer: Parry Walters
Farm: Manor Farm, Warwickshire

Cut and carry is not often associated with beef between April and August
farming systems, but as Midlands beef and sheep but extend to as much as
producer Parry Walters approaches his sixth season 27 days later in the season.
of the practice, he says he would never look back.
“We started cut and carry
Having switched from a more traditional UK grazing- because we knew we had to increase the output of
based system, stocking rates have increased from the farm,” says Parry. “We considered a year-round
2.5 livestock units/ha to 3.5 LSU/ha. The key to total mixed ration as an alternative, but I’m very
achieving good results has been to harvest high- happy we chose the grass-based option.”
quality grass, and in this endeavour, grassland
However, his advice to other producers is not to
management is at the top of the agenda. Target
embark on the system unless they have their
annual grass production of over 17 tonnes DM/ha is
grassland management right from the start. “Grass is
routinely exceeded through the cutting season, which
the cheapest feed source on the farm and every
runs from early April until late November. Rapid
blade of grass is a contribution to each kilogram of
regrowth of the swards leads to short summer
meat per animal.”
rotations, which are generally around 19 days

17
In-shed management
A cut and carry system offers the opportunity to feed more home-grown forage. Due to the variable quality of grass
and the higher nutrient requirements of cows, there are three key areas of management to consider when feeding
fresh grass:

1. Infrastructure 2. Feeding management 3. Diet

• Space allowance • Inclusion • Grass quality
• Feeding area • Mixing time • Testing fresh grass
• Feed delivery • Low DM content
• Feed face

1. Infrastructure Feeding area

Space allowance Ensuring that the feed barrier and neck rail is correctly
Cows will typically spend between four and six hours positioned will help improve cow comfort and DMI.
eating a TMR, and possibly even longer for high Observe cows for hair loss, swelling and/or wounds on
volumes of fresh grass fed via cut and carry. Cows their necks as this may indicate that adjusting the neck
prefer to eat as a group and, ideally, there should be rail in either the feeding area or cubicles would be
enough space for all of the cows to feed together at beneficial.
the same time. The Red Tractor feed space width
recommendations are highlighted in Table 11. It is likely Lining feeding areas with ceramic tiles, plastic coatings,
that cut and carry fresh grass will encourage highly floated concrete, stainless steel or a gel-coat
simultaneous feeding, so sufficient feeding space is finish will provide a smooth surface, which will
recommended. encourage DMI and ease of cleaning refusals.
As cows may spend longer eating a fresh grass diet, it is
Table 11. Feed space width recommendations for cattle of
important to consider the standing surfaces at the
different weights
feeding area to optimise cow comfort and to encourage
Animal Width of feed barrier Specialist visits for feeding. Raising the feeding area by 10 cm
weight (kg) (mm per animal) machinery above the standing surface will increase consumption
rate and reduce refusals.
200 400 150

300 500 150

400 550 190

500 600 240

600 650 280

700 700 320

800 750 320

Source: Adapted from Red Tractor Dairy Assurance Standards 2017

“We allow 70 cm of feed space for every cow. If

you don’t have at least that, the grass is so bulky
in the feed trough that you’ll find you spend the
whole day pushing it up.’’
– Aidan McManus

18
2. Feeding management 28

Maintenance-Plus value (kg/cow/day)

Inclusion rate 26

If cows are cleaning up all of the fresh grass offered with 24

no refusals after 24 hours, investigate if you need to 22

increase the amount of fresh grass offered as you may 20

be limiting their production by not providing an actual 18

ad-lib diet. It is worth noting that TMR composition, 16
grass quality and management can vary, so the optimal 14
rate of fresh grass inclusion may 12
change accordingly. 10

Mixing time 8

Common advice is to feed grass separately and not to 24

May
19
Jun
15
Jul
10
Aug
05
Sep
01
Oct
mix it into the wagon with the TMR. Overmixing grass
and TMR in the mixer could lead to a loss of structure in Grass alone Grass and supplementation
the grass and increase the risk of overheating in the
Figure 9. Theoretical milk from grass
feed trough, resulting in refusals. If fresh grass is mixed
with a TMR, it is important that mixing time is short once Source: AFBI, 2018

the fresh grass has been added.

Grass quality
Knowing the grass quality is a critical aspect of feeding
Fresh grass is best fed alone, but if using a feeder fresh grass to dairy cows. It is important to understand
wagon only mix fresh grass for 2–3 minutes. that implementing a cut and carry system will not
improve the nutritional value of low-quality grass.
It is important that the fresh grass offered through cut
Feed delivery
and carry is of the same quality as what you would offer
Ideally, fresh grass should be cut and delivered at least
cows to graze. Grass quality data collected from
once a day and fed as often as necessary to avoid
AHDB’s Forage for Knowledge contributor farms
heating as this will lead to refusals.
demonstrates how grass quality varied across the
Managing the feed face 2018 grazing season.
Ensure cows have continuous access to feed to help
increase DMI. Avoid over-piling fresh grass and clean 100

out any refusals daily to avoid quality deterioration. 90

Grass growth rate (kg DM/ha/day)

Fresh grass should ideally be pushed up 3–4 times 80

per day. 70

60

‘’We can have 200 cows fed in an hour with the 50

specialised machinery, which probably takes 40
no longer than herding that number of cows out
30
and in to paddocks each day. Then we spend 10
minutes twice a day pushing grass up to cows.’’ 20

10
– Sam McElheran
0
24 19 15 10 05 01
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

The delivery and management of fresh grass

Grass growth 2018 Grass growth 2017
is critical and good practice can improve feed
intakes by 10%. 2009-2017 average

Figure 10. Average grass quality across Forage for Knowledge

contributor farms in 2009–2018
3. Diet
A number of research studies have investigated the yield
of milk that can be sustained from grazed grass when For information on the sustainable control of
offered as the sole feed, with these studies indicating parasites, visit Control Of Worms Sustainably
that approximately 25 kg milk/cow/day can be sustained (COWS) cattleparasites.org.uk
in late May, with this value declining to approximately 14
kg/cow/day by mid-September. However, where high-
yielding cows are consuming fresh grass, assuming
more modest maintenance-plus levels of 21 kg milk/
cow/day in late May, falling to 11.5 kg/cow/day in
mid-September is often more realistic (Figure 9).

19
 Be aware of factors that can cause low DMI when
“I plate meter every six to nine days, and as part feeding fresh grass:
of the AgriSearch GrassCheck project, I have
the grass analysed every two weeks. This April, • Wet grass will be low in DM and will fill up the rumen
analysis of 20% DM, ME 12 MJ/kg DM, crude before the cow has satisfied her hunger
protein 23.5% and WSC 17.1% is typical for • Low digestibility of grass
the season”
• Chop length
– Sam McElheran If low dry matter intake is an issue, consider:

Sign up to GrassCheck for Northern Ireland and Forage

• Buffer feeding with high-DM silage

for Knowledge for GB weekly grass-quality updates. • Cutting fresh grass more regularly throughout the
day
The oil content of fresh grass, either cut or grazed, can
be high, above 5%, especially in spring, and can reduce • Adjusting the cutting height of the grass
butterfat content. When introducing fresh grass into the diet of dairy cows,
it is important to understand any changes in cow
Top tips for prevention: behaviour that may occur as these may contribute to
1. Measure grass growth weekly. shifts in feed intake, milk yields or milk quality.
2. C
 ut pasture at the three-leaf stage, as less leaves will Recording cattle performance makes it much easier to
supply insufficient amount of structural fibre. manage the cut and carry system. A successful cut and
carry system should measure and monitor:
3. C
 ut down to the target residual, 1500–1600 kg DM/
ha, to harvest the stemmy part of the plant. • Rumen fill
4. A
 nalyse fresh grass for an indication of quality. • Manure consistency

Testing fresh grass – A basic laboratory analysis of •  ody condition changes – act on cow condition
B
fresh grass will provide useful information on various changes immediately, by altering concentrate fed
nutritional parameters (ME, D-value, DM, CP, NDF and •  obility – intervene at the first signs of cows with an
M
WSC). This is useful guidance to use when formulating imperfect gait to prevent loss of
diets and to decide if, and what level of, body condition
supplementation is needed. Additional fibre and/or a
different energy source may be necessary for more
efficient feed utilisation and to support high-yielders’
requirements.
Managing low dry matter intake – Knowing the DM
content of grass can help you determine the potential
DMI. To measure DM content of fresh grass on-farm,
see appendix (p29).
Monitoring DMI is key to achieving the best cow
performance. Unlike grazing, a cut and carry system
allows you to estimate and monitor herd DMI and to
promptly recognise any drop in feed consumption.
The reasons for a decreased DMI may be varied and not
necessarily related to the diet. Common feed-related
factors that can negatively influence fresh grass intake
are poor digestibility (low D-Value) and low fresh grass
DM. Fresh grass with a low DM will decrease the overall
nutrient consumption as a larger quantity of grass will
be needed to achieve the target daily nutrient intake.
Physical constraints will limit how much of a low-DM
grass cows can eat.

20
SPot Scotland – Bruce Farms, Meigle, Blairgowrie, Perthshire
Case study: cut and carry flexibility extends the grazing season
Host – Geoff Bruce and Kerr Howatson
Farmer: Tom Kimber
Farm: Stavordale Farm, Somerset

The Kimber family’s 220-head herd of Friesians and housed at night and, eventually, during the summer
Shorthorns receive cut and carry grass to extend the they will graze full-time and only
grazing season at their 210-hectare farm in receive concentrates in the parlour.
Somerset. Stavordale Farm comprises a mix of light
and heavy land, benefiting from the flexibility a cut “We have some heavy clay soils and sometimes have
and carry system offers, particularly during a wet to bring the cows back in when the summer is very
season. wet, but rather than opening a silage clamp and
changing the diet, we now keep them on cut and
Using a second-hand specialised machine, the grass carry grass from our better-drained fields,” Tom says.
is cut at covers of around 3,000–3,200 kg DM/ha and
leaving residuals of 1,900 kg/ha usually from March The system goes into reverse in the autumn months,
onwards when one feed of fresh grass replaces one with cows continuing to graze by day and given cut
feed of TMR. This sees yields boosted by 1.5–2 litres/ and carry by night.
cow/day.
After the herd are fully housed, they will have one
A further benefit of this change is the high protein feed of TMR and one of cut and carry grass, which
introduced through the fresh grass. This has allowed continues as the season allows – often to late
a lower protein and cheaper blend to be fed in the October – before finally moving on to the full TMR.
TMR. Switching from a 36% crude protein blend to
“For us, cut and carry will always be for the shoulders
one containing 16% protein usually saves them
of the season as our Friesian/Shorthorn herd –
£50/tonne.
currently giving 7,000 litres at 4.4% fat and 3.45%
As the summer approaches, the cows go out by day protein – need to be out grazing.”
and only receive the cut and carry grass while they’re

21
 Performance and economics
Research studies in Northern Ireland and Scotland have 100

looked at a range of feeding systems in comparison with

cut and carry, including grass silage, grazing and TMR

Daily grass growth rate (kg DM/ha)

80
systems of feeding. Cow performance is summarised in
Table 12, but for more details on each study, please see
the appendix (p26). 60

Table 12. Average* daily cow performance

40

Grass Cut and

Grazing TMR
silage carry
20

Forage intake
11.2 11.6 11.3 12.1
(kg DM/day)
0
Concentrate
7.5 7.5 8.0 7.5 Study 3 Study 4
intake (kg/day)
Grazing Cut and carry
Daily milk yield
27.9 25.7 36** 29.5
(kg/day)
Figure 11b. Grass growth rate from cut and carry and grazing
Milk-fat-plus- systems in two studies in Northern Ireland during 2016 and 2017
protein yield 2.01 1.82 2.44 2.15 Source: AFBI, 2018
(kg/cow/day)

Live weight (kg) 585.5 589.1 635 616.9 The improvements in grass utilisation offer the
potential to increase stocking rate and/or reduce
*These values are averages and the performance and production the total area required for grazing.
will vary for each individual farm.
**Maize silage was included in the TMR diet.
Source: AFBI, 2018 As an example, a 100-cow herd, eating 15 kg DM/cow/
day of fresh grass throughout the season would require
Cut and carry vs grazing
10.4 ha less under a cut and carry system (assuming a
Operating a cut and carry system has been found to 10% increase in grass growth rate and 15% increase in
benefit both grass growth and utilisation when grass utilisation from cut and carry; Table 13).
compared with traditional grazing systems. Studies
carried out in Northern Ireland have shown an average Table 13. Potential differences in land area requirements and
stocking rates with cut and carry systems compared with grazing
increase of 15% in grass utilisation (measured by
accounting for wastage in-field and at the feed trough) Cut and
and increases in grass growth rate of between 11 and Grazing Difference
carry
35% (Figure 11).
Total area required (ha) 34.2 23.7 -10.4
100
Stocking rate cows (ha) 2.9 4.2 +1.3
Source: AFBI, 2018
80
Farmers may be considering moving to cut and carry
systems from grazing. A study conducted in Northern
Grass utilisation (%)

60
Ireland assessed dairy cow performance from grazing
compared with cut and carry systems, during the 2016
40
grazing season. In the study, cows were split into two
groups and managed either on full-time grazing using
24-hour paddocks, or cut and carry fed daily. Both
20 treatments were supplemented with concentrates in
the parlour.

Study 3 Study 4

Grazing Cut and carry

Figure 11a. Measured grass utilisation from cut and carry and
grazing systems in two studies in Northern Ireland during 2016
and 2017
Source: AFBI, 2018

22
 Cow performance • Both grass growth (+8 kg DM/ha/day) and utilisation
• Both groups were offered 14 kg DM/cow/day. Grass (+15%) were higher on the cut and carry system
dry matter intake was 0.9 kg DM/cow/day higher on compared with grazing. This improvement in grass
cows fed cut and carry grass compared with productivity and utilisation led to an increase in
grazing cows stocking rate on the cut and carry system (4.45
cows/ha) compared with grazing (3.57 cows/ha)
• This additional forage intake (plus a reduction in
energy expenditure due to grazing and walking) • This higher stocking rate increased milk output per
resulted in better milk yields (+1.6 kg/cow/day) hectare (+5,000 kg/ha) and margin over feed and
compared with grazed cows forage costs by £505/ha for cut and carry systems
• Milk quality was also significantly improved on cut However, if shifting to cut and carry from full-time, there
and carry diets, with an additional +0.14 kg fat and will also be additional costs associated with housing
protein yield per cow per day cows. These include:
40 • Additional slurry storage and spreading costs.
Typically, spreading costs equate to £0.85 per 1 m3.
35
A dairy cow yielding 6000–9000 litres on average
Daily milk yield (kg/cow/day)

30 produces 1.59 m3 per month. Over a 180-day

25 summer period, additional spreading costs would be
equivalent to £5.10 per cow
•
20
Electricity usage. Although small, additional costs for
15
automatic scrapers and lighting will need to be
10 considered in any costings
5 • Bedding costs. These will vary depending on the
0
material used; however, typical costs for sawdust
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 bedding equates to £3.20 per cow per month. Over a
Week of study 180-day summer period, this equates to approximately
£20 per cow
Figure 12. Daily milk yields for dairy cows managed under cut
and carry systems or full-time grazing
Table 15. Cost comparison of dairy cows managed on cut and
Source: AFBI, 2018
carry systems or full-time grazing

Table 14. Dairy cow performance from animals managed on cut Cut and
and carry or full-time grazing systems Grazing
carry
Cut and Concentrate cost (£/cow) 207 207
Grazing
carry
Forage cost (£/cow) 246 141
Concentrate intake (kg
5.3 5.3
DM/cow/day) Total feed costs (£/cow) 453 348
Forage intake
12.1 11.2 Margin over feed and forage (£/cow) 750 793
(kg DM/cow/day)
Milk yield Stocking rate (cows/ha) 4.45 3.357
29.5 27.9
(kg/cow/day)
Margin over feed and forage (£/ha) 3,336 2,830
Milk fat (%) 4.32 4.05 Source: AFBI, 2018

Milk protein (%) 3.46 3.39

Even if the costs of additional slurry spreading,
Milk fat + protein yield
2.15 2.01 bedding and electricity are included in the 22-
(kg/cow/day)
week study above, the cut and carry system still
Source: AFBI, 2018
retains a higher margin over feed and forage of
Financial implications +£390/ha over the study period.

• Estimated total costs per kilogram of forage DM were

19% lower for grazed grass (£0.10/kg DM) compared
with cut and carry systems (£0.12/kg DM), reducing
overall feed costs by 66p/cow/day
• However, for cut and carry, improvements in milk
yield and quality accounted for an increase in milk
income of 39p/cow/day, resulting in a lower margin
over feed and forage per cow per day of £4.71 for
cut and carry compared with grazing (£4.99)

23
 Cut and carry vs silage • Improved animal performance from cut and carry
For some farmers, moving to cut and carry may involve a was driven by higher animal forage intakes. The
simple switch of replacing straight grass silage, fed in difference between systems was, on average, +0.5
blocks or via an easy-feed system, with fresh grass. kg DM/cow/day greater forage intakes on cut and
Recent research has shown that this can have a positive carry systems across the whole grazing season
impact on cow performance. • There was no impact of diet on BCS or animal
live weight
Cow performance
• In two separate trials conducted in Northern Ireland, Financial implications
cows were managed on either full-time cut and carry
or grass-silage-based diets, and fed supplementary • In both studies, total feed costs were higher from the
silage treatment, driven by a higher total cost of
concentrates
production of silage (£0.15/kg DM) relative to cut and
• Cut-and-carry-fed animals had higher milk yields and carry (£0.12/kg DM)
quality than those fed grass silage and concentrate.
On average, milk yields increased by 10%, while milk • Improvements in cow performance from cut and
carry resulted in an increase in an average margin
protein improved by 0.22% (Figure 12)
over feed and forage of +£1.36 per cow per day from
35 cut and carry compared with a silage and
35
30
34.1 concentrate diet

25
29.5 • While milk production per cow can be a major driver
25.7 of efficiency within dairy systems, land availability is
Milk yield (L)

20 a limiting factor on many local dairy farms. As a

result, it is important to consider the effect of feed
15
systems on milk output per hectare
10
• Stocking rates were, on average, 0.68 livestock units
5 higher per hectare under silage management, due to
higher grass yields from silage production. Forage
0
utilisation rates were similar across both treatments
Study 3 Study 4 (Silage = 0.84, Cut and carry = 0.82)
•
Silage Cut and carry
Although increased stocking rates from silage
12 feeding increased output per hectare, significantly
12.1
Forage DM intake (kg/cow/day)

11.6 better animal performance from cut and carry again

10
9.7 10.2 resulted in this having the greatest margin over feed
8 and forage per hectare

Cut and carry vs TMR

6

4
Some farmers may be considering moving to cut and
2
carry systems from TMR. Studies were conducted in
Scotland to assess dairy cow performance from TMR
0
compared with cut and carry systems in spring 2014
Study 3 Study 4 (see table 17 overleaf).
Silage Grass

Figure 12. Daily milk yield per cow from two studies of cows fed
either silage or cut and carry grass-based diets
Source: AFBI, 2018
Table 16. Dairy cow performance from animals fed either grass silage or cut and carry grass in two separate trials in Northern Ireland

Study 5 – lasting for 7 weeks Study 6 – lasting for 22 weeks

Silage Cut and carry Silage Cut and carry

Concentrate intake (kg DM/cow) 467 488 836.9 845.6

Forage intake (kg DM/cow) 457 443 1,901 1,991

Total milk (kg/cow) 1,384 1,472 3,840 4,481

Milk fat (%) 4.67 4.52 4.29 4.32

Milk protein (%) 3.32 3.45 3.14 3.46

Milk fat + protein yield (kg/cow/day) 2.72 2.81 1.82 2.15

Source: AFBI, 2018

24
Table 17. Total cost* comparison of dairy cows managed on diets with silage or cut and carry grass as the sole forage source
Study 5 – lasting for Study 6 – lasting for
7 weeks 22 weeks

Silage Cut and carry Silage Cut and carry

Concentrate cost (£/cow) 112 108 205 207

Forage cost (£/cow) 68 54 281 246

Total feed costs (£/cow) 180 162 486 453

Margin over feed and forage (£/cow) 166 214 475 750

Stocking rate (cows/ha) 7.31 6.40 5.10 4.45

Margin over feed and forage (£/ha) 1,215 1,372 2,417 3,336

*Cost assumptions: concentrate cost = £243/t DM, base milk price = 25 ppl.
Source: AFBI, 2018

Cow performance Adding fresh grass to a TMR diet as part of a cut and
• Cows were managed either on full-time TMR or diets carry system was demonstrated to reduce milk yields
without affecting milk quality but at a lower cost of
providing 25% or 50% of the DMI as fresh grass
production. Cut and carry is most cost-effective for
• Cut-and-carry-fed animals had lower milk yields than systems with high feed costs. Increasing the proportion
those fed a full TMR diet, by an average of 12% for of fresh grass in the diets of higher-yielding cows can be
cows fed 50% fresh grass, and 15% for cows fed a viable option to reduce feed and production costs.
25% fresh grass (Figure 13)
Financial implications
100
• TMR-fed cows delivered higher milk yields but at
90 higher costs of production than the grass-fed groups
80
• During the study, TMR were costed at £84.12 per
70 tonne and £15 per tonne for the cost of grass. These
60
are total costs, including costs of production, land
Mean (kg/d)

rental and equipment depreciation

•
50
Under these costs, if the milk price was 32 ppl or
40
lower, then the low-cost 50% grass-fed strategy
30
delivered the highest surplus
20
• If the milk price was 33 ppl or higher, then the
10 high-yielding TMR-fed group delivered the
0
highest surplus
•
Milk yields FW in take DM in take
When comparing cost, TMR-only diet was the least
100% TMR 25% fresh grass 50% fresh grass profitable over a range of milk prices from 17–35 ppl,
Figure 13. Average milk yields, fresh weight intake and dry matter despite the higher milk production
intake for dairy cows managed under three different diets
• TMR-only system deliver margin over feed per cow
per day at 22 ppl
• Intakes of feed by fresh weight were highest for 50%
• Cut and carry system feeding 6 kg grass DMI
grass-fed cows, lower for 25% grass-fed cows and
returned margin over feed at £2.24/day
were lowest for TMR-fed cows. However, intakes of
DM were lowest for 50% grass-fed cows, higher for • Fresh grass in the diet at 50% of the DMI reduced
25% grass-fed cows and highest for TMR-fed cows feed costs per cow by £16.80 over a 16-week study
period, equating to just over £25,000 for a typical
• This resulted in a reduction in milk yield of 4.3 litres/
150-cow herd
cow/day, compared with an average 35.7 litres/cow/
day on the full TMR • Mixing TMR with grass, in particular in a combination
of 50% grass and 50% TMR, can deliver a higher
• All cows gained weight over the 12 weeks and
margin over feed costs than a TMR alone, depending
differences between dietary treatments were
on the relative costs of grass and the TMR, as well
relatively small. On average, cows in the grazing
as milk price
group gained 0.18 kg/week more than those in the
cut and carry group and 0.64 kg/week more than
those in the TMR group

25
Appendix – Description of studies
This cut and carry best-practice guide has been There was no effect of diet on the weight of the cows.
compiled using six studies recently carried out in Body weight remained consistent across the 16 weeks
Scotland and Northern Ireland and more detail is of the trial. For all three groups, cows lost condition over
provided on each study here. the 16-week trial, but there were no differences in body
condition loss between groups.
Study 1: Investigating the effects of
increasing the proportion of grass in the
diets of high-yielding dairy cows
Key cow parameters:
• 30+ litres per day
• Recently calved cows
• DMI of different treatments: TMR 20.0 kg/cow/day; 25%
grass 19.0 kg/cow/day; 50% grass 18.0 kg/cow/day
Forty-eight Holstein-Friesian cows yielding 30+ litres per
day were allocated to one of three diets as part of this
16-week trial (Figure 14). These diets varied in the ratio
of fresh grass to TMR, with a proportion of the TMR DM
replaced by fresh grass every morning. By balancing the
grass inputs on a DM basis, the proportion of fresh
grass included was increased without increasing the Study 2: Investigating the value of fresh grass
total amount of DM available to the cows. in the diet of high-yielding dairy cows
The diets were: Key cow parameters:
1. 100% of DMI was from the TMR, which was based on
grass silage, maize silage, straw and concentrates and
• 37.9 litres per day

formulated to provide sufficient nutrients to high-yielding • 110 days in milk

cows. No fresh grass was included (100%TMR). • DMI of different treatments: TMR 24.1 kg/cow/day,
cut and carry 23.0 kg/cow/day and grazing 24.1
2. 25% of the DMI was provided as fresh grass and
kg/cow/day
remaining 75% as TMR (25% grass).
3. 50% of the DMI was provided as fresh grass The purpose of this study was to explore the value of
and remaining 50% as TMR (50% grass). fresh grass in the diet of the high-yielding dairy cow and
to compare different delivery methods of feed during the
day. The grass was offered through a cut and carry
feeding system or grazed in the field. Forty-eight
100% 25% 50% Holstein-Friesian dairy cows yielding 37.9 litres per day
TMR Grass Grass and averaging 110 days in milk were allocated to one of
three diets as part of this 12-week trial (Figure 15 and
Table 18).
Total mixed 25% grass + 50% grass + 1. One hundred per cent TMR, based on grass silage,
ration 75% TMR 50% TMR
maize silage and concentrates, with no grass offered.
The cows in this group were housed 24 hours per day.
48 cows, 16 weeks
2. Cut and carry, based on fresh grass offered once per
day (from morning to evening) using cut and carry.
Overnight, the cows were given access to a TMR.
Figure 14. Three diets were offered to recently calved high-yielding
dairy cows over a 16-week period starting on 28 April 2014 The cows in this group were housed 24 hours per day.

Table 18. Daily diet allocation and location

TMR Cut and carry Grazing

Morning–afternoon TMR Grass Grazing Pasture

Afternoon–night TMR Housed Grass Housed Grazing Pasture

Night–morning TMR TMR TMR Housed

Source: AFBI, 2018

26
3. Grazing whereby cows were turned out to graze Table 19. Cow performance and grass quality throughout the study
between milking’s (morning to afternoon and Low-grass High-grass
afternoon to night). The cows were housed cover cover
overnight and given access to TMR.
Daily milk yield (kg/day) 25.5 23.7

Milk-fat-plus-protein yield
2.0 1.8
(kg/cow/day)
TMR CC G Grass growth rate (kg
82.1 68.1
DM/ha/day)
Total grass utilisation
Total mixed Cut & Grazing (Field + Feeding, %)
91.9 86.2
ration Carry
Grass ME content
11.1 10.9
48 cows, 16 weeks (MJ/kg DM)
Grass CP content
175 162
(g/kg DM)
Figure 15. Three diets were offered to high-yielding dairy Source: AFBI, 2018
cows over a 12-week period starting on 11 May 2015

Study 3: Impact of harvesting technique on

animal performance and grass utilisation in
cut and carry systems
Key cow parameters:
• 27.8 litres per day
• 119 days in milk
• Dry matter intake of different treatments:
low-grass cover 13.8 kg/cow/day, high-grass
cover 12.9 kg/cow/day
This study involved 40 spring-calving Holstein-Friesian
cows, 16 of which were in their first lactation, and took
place between June and September 2017. Cows were
full-time housed and offered fresh grass from one of
two treatments:
• Low-grass covers at an average of 3,650 kg DM/ha (LGC)
• High-grass covers at an average of 4,750 kg DM/ha (HGC)
Grass was harvested each morning using specialised
cut and carry machinery and offered twice daily
following the morning and afternoon milkings. Average
rotation length was 26 and 46 days for LGC and HGC
treatments, respectively. All cows received additional
concentrate feeding in the parlour at a rate of 7.5 and
5.5 kg/day for cows and heifers respectively. Animal
performance and eating behaviour, along with grass
quality, utilisation and growth, were monitored
throughout the study.
As shown in Table 19, results indicated improved grass
quality, utilisation and production with the low-grass
cover. An increase in grass intake, milk yield and
milk-fat-plus-protein yield was also observed in the
cows offered grass from low-cover swards.

Figure 16. Low- and high-grass covers

Source: AFBI, 2018

27
Study 4: Impact of harvesting technique on As shown in Table 20, providing cows with grass
animal performance and grass utilisation in cut harvested using specialised cut and carry machinery
and carry systems resulted in improvements in daily intake and milk yield.
However, there were no improvements in milk quality.
Key cow parameters:
Cutting grass with the double-chop harvester resulted in
• 34.7 litres per day a marginal reduction in grass quality when compared
• 102 days in milk with grass harvested with specialised cut and
carry machinery.
• Dry matter intake of grass differed between
treatments, with double-chop group eating 13.7 kg/ Table 20. Cow performance and grass quality throughout Study 4
cow/day and specialised cut and carry machinery
group at 14.3 kg/cow/day Double chop Cut and carry
This study involved 40 spring-calving Holstein-Friesian
Daily milk yield (kg/
cows, 10 of which were in their first lactation, and took 31.5 31.9
day)
place between May and August 2017. Cows were
full-time housed and split into two groups and fed fresh Milk-fat-plus-protein
2.35 2.36
grass harvested, using either: yield (kg/cow/day)

• Double-chop harvester Grass DM content

(%)
14.2 14.8
• Specialist cut and carry machinery
Grass ME content
Grass was harvested each morning using specialised 10.85 11.00
(MJ/kg DM)
cut and carry machinery and offered twice daily
following the morning and afternoon milkings. Average Grass ADF content
31.5 30.7
(g/kg DM)
rotation length was 28 days across treatments.
Fresh grass chop
All cows received concentrates via out-of-parlour 13.8 26.5
length (cm)
feeders (7 and 4 kg/day for cows and heifers
respectively), plus an additional 4 kg/day in the parlour Source: AFBI, 2018
during milking. Animal performance, feeding behaviour
and activity, as well as grass quality and utilisation, were Study 5: Cut and carry vs grazing
monitored throughout the study. vs silage over a whole season
Key cow parameters:
• 34.3 litres per day
• 89 Days in milk
• Forage intake differed between treatments: grazing
11.2 kg DM/day, grass silage 11.6 kg DM/day and
cut and carry 12.1 kg DM/day
This study involved 114 spring-calving Holstein-Friesian
cows, 29 of which were in their first lactation, and took
place between April and September 2016. Cows were
split into 3 groups and assigned to either:
• Conventional grazing system
• Full-time housing and offered grass silage
• Full-time housing and offered cut and carry grass
Grazed cows were managed in a rotational system and
offered fresh grass daily. Targeted pre- and post-grazing
grass covers were 3,200 and 1,800 kg DM/ha
respectively. For cows on the cut and carry treatment,
fresh grass was cut on a daily basis using specialist cut
and carry machinery, with targeted pre-cutting herbage
masses of 3200–3800 kg DM/ha. Cows on all
treatments received 7.5 kg day concentrates through
the parlour. Animal performance, milk production and
milk quality, along with grass growth and utilisation,
were measured throughout the study.
Figure 17. Feed boxes at AFBI used to monitor DMI

28
As shown in Table 22, offering housed cows cut and Table 21. Cow performance throughout the study
carry grass resulted in improvements in forage intake, Cut and
milk yield and milk quality when compared with cows Grass silage
Carry
maintained in a conventional grazing system or housed
Daily milk yield (kg/day) 34.1 35.5
and offered grass silage. Cows offered cut and carry
grass also maintained a consistent weight advantage Milk-fat-plus-protein yield
2.72 2.81
over those managed in a grazing system. (kg/cow/day)

Table 22. Cow performance throughout the study Grass DM content (%) 118 122
Cut and Grass ME content
Grazing Grass silage 629 648
Carry (MJ/kg DM)
Forage intake (kg Grass ADF content (g/kg DM) 2.6 2.6
11.2 11.6 12.1
DM/day)
Source: AFBI
Daily milk yield (kg/
27.9 25.7 29.5
day)
For more details and full reports, visit dairy.ahdb.org.uk
Milk-fat-plus- and afbini.gov.uk
protein yield 2.01 1.82 2.15
(kg/cow/day)

Live weight (kg) 585.5 589.1 616.9

Source: AFBI

Study 6: Cut and carry vs silage in making the

most of autumn grass
Key cow parameters:
• 34.8 litres per day
• 76 days in milk
• DMI differed between treatments, with grass-silage-
based-diet group having a total intake of 18.7 kg
DM/cow/day, compared with the cut and carry
group at 20.5 kg DM/cow/day
This study involved 60 autumn-calving Holstein-Friesian
cows, 16 of which were in their first lactation, and took
place between September and October 2016. Cows
calved onto the study were full-time housed and
allocated to either:
• Grass-silage-based diet
• Cut-and-carry-grass-based diet
Concentrate feeding amounts were the same across
treatments, with heifers increasing from 4.75–9.75 kg/
day and cows increasing from 6–13 kg/day in the first
15 days post-calving via in- and out-of-parlour feeders.
Animal performance, including feed intake, live weight,
milk production and milk quality, was measured over
the seven weeks of the study.
As shown in Table 21, offering fresh grass to cows
improved dry matter intake, milk production and milk
quality compared with those offered grass silage. Cow
live weight and body condition score were similar across
treatments. Although grass quality has previously been
considered to be of low nutritive value over the autumn
period, metabolisable energy content was consistently
over 11 MJ/ kg DM during September–October.

29
Appendix – Calculating DM of samples
The procedure described below is a simple test that can Example: If the DM of the forage goes from 30% down
be performed on-farm to measure DM; ideally on a to 26% and the feed offered was 3,600 kg then:
weekly basis.
3600 x 30
In the field: = 4,153kg
26
1. If weather conditions are stable, a weekly sample will
suffice. However, where weather is variable, then So our need feed allocation will be 4,153kg
samples need to be taken more frequently to adjust
pasture DM allocation.
2. Using clippers, take a sample representative of the
grazing area.
3. Cut the sample into manageable lengths (50 to
100 mm) and put sample into the bucket.
4. Mix the sample by hand so that the sample is
evenly distributed.
In the feed kitchen:
5. Pre-weigh the microwave dish (Weight 1) and then
zero the scales.
6. Accurately weigh approximately 100 g or a quantity
that comfortably fits in the microwavable dish and
record weight (Weight 2). Ensure all sample is
contained within the dish as any ‘overhang’ may fall off
and give a false DM.
7. Place approximately 100 ml of water in a glass and
put it in the back of the microwave oven. This is
important as it prevents the sample from setting
on fire.
8. Place the sample in the microwave oven and set to

Formulae for calculating DM:

Weight 4 - Weight 1
x 100
Weight 2

80% of power rating.

9. Set the time to 10 minutes.
10. Remove the sample and weigh(Weight 3).
11. Dry for a further 2 minutes, remove and weigh. If the
weight is the same as Weight 3, then the sample is
dry (Weight 4). If it is lower, then dry for a further 2
minutes and repeat the weighing. Drying time will
ultimately depend on microwave power.
Once you have analysed the forage for DM content, it is
important that one acts upon the information gathered.
This will involve readjusting the allocation of forage,
whether it is in the paddock if one is using cut and
weigh for pasture allocations.

Previous forage
allocation x old DM
= New forage allocation
new DM

30
31
Produced for you by: While the Agriculture and Horticulture
Development Board seeks to ensure
AHDB Dairy that the information contained within
Stoneleigh Park this document is accurate at the time
of printing, no warranty is given in
Kenilworth respect thereof and, to the maximum
Warwickshire extent permitted by law, the Agriculture
CV8 2TL and Horticulture Development Board
accepts no liability for loss, damage
T 024 7647 8834 or injury howsoever caused (including
E [email protected] that caused by negligence) or suffered
W dairy.ahdb.org.uk directly or indirectly in relation to
information and opinions contained
@AHDB_Dairy
in or omitted from this document.
If you no longer wish to receive this © Agriculture and Horticulture
information, please email us on Development Board 2019.
[email protected] All rights reserved.