Adopting accelerated beef finishing systems using grazed fodder beet crops

Summary

The Enhanced Producer Demonstration Site (EPDS) concept was developed in 2014 as a partnership between Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA) and Agriculture Victoria. The partnership brings the benefits of integrating with Agriculture Victoria’s  BestWool/BestLamb and BetterBeef network of producers and groups receive assistance from Agriculture Victoria extension staff throughout the demonstrations including monitoring, evaluation, reporting and communication.

This project comprised of two parts. Firstly, the completion of a suite of eight (Phase 1) demonstrations that commenced in 2014, and secondly, a further seven (Phase 2) demonstrations, established through an expression of interest (EOI) process that commenced in 2018 / 19. 

This EPDS project is investigating increased per hectare beef production by filling the late autumn/early winter feed deficit using high yielding, high quality fodder beet crops.

Objectives

Objective 1 – Equip producer group members with the knowledge and skills required to establish and manage a fodder beet crop.

Producer knowledge around fodder beet increased from 3.6/10 to 6.5/10, average skill levels also increased from 4.6/10 to 6.9/10.

Objective 2 – Benchmark the production of kilograms of beef per hectare from fodder beets.

For two of the three demonstration sites, establishment of fodder beet would have resulted in a decrease in beef production. Crop yields were compromised by low establishment counts and poor
crop performance.
Objective 3 - Promote the findings of the demonstration to the group and a wider audience to encourage adoption.

Whilst skills and knowledge increased as a result of the demonstration, producer attitudes towards fodder beet decreased from 4.5/10 to 2.8/10, no doubt a direct result of seeing the high costs to establish the crop and then the disappointing results of low plant establishment and poor DM
production. While some producers may have intended to adopt fodder beet prior to the demonstration, at the conclusion of the demonstration no producers had adopted fodder beet.

Key findings

Plant establishment was poor at all three sites, averaging 44,888 plants/ha (compared to a target of 85,000 plants/ha). Dry Matter production in the first season crops was highly variable and ranged from 2.42 t DM/ha through to 27.4 t DM/ha. In the second season, crop yields were poorer and ranged from 0.4 t DM/ha to 2.4 t DM/ha depending on weed control strategies. Crop establishment costs averaged $3,165/ha ($475 seed; $1,385 chemical; $1,305 fertiliser) excluding tractor hours and labour – with a 10 t DM/ha crop costing $317/tonne DM. Based on variable input costs a 12.4 t DM/ha fodder beet crop had the same cost of production as a 6 t DM/ha millet crop. COVID-19 travel restrictions impacted on the ability of group members to visit demonstration sites in the firstseason, however a paddock walk was undertaken at one site prior to grazing. A pre-grazing summary had been provided to group members electronically, including crop photos. A group
inspection of the second season crop was not undertaken as it had been grazed earlier than expected due to disappointing plant numbers and DM production. Producer knowledge, attitudes, skills and aspirations have been assessed through the use of pre and post demonstration surveys. While there had been a favourable shift in producer skills and knowledge, the shift in attitude was aligned to an increased awareness of the risks associated with fodder beet – which has ultimately ended up with no adoption of the crop as a means of managing the autumn/winter feed gap.

Benefits to industry

Our results indicate that the potential for fodder beet to fill the autumn/winter feed gap in the North East and upper Murray areas of Victoria is likely to be limited. Poor plant establishment and competition from weeds significantly reduced crop yields. These low yields combined with high up front establishment costs has resulted in a commercially unviable cost of production for two of three sites. While the potential benefit of fodder beet remains attractive (high value feed that can be held over until required in autumn/winter) the high establishment costs and risks of low DM yields due to low germination and/or competition from weeds are too great to allow for high levels of adoption.

Future research

The potential of a high yielding high quality fodder crop that can capitalise on late spring/summer rains and sit in the paddock until required to fill the autumn/winter feed gap remains an attractive proposition. The risks associated with low yields through a combination of high establishment costs, poor plant establishment and low yields are all significant. Further research into alternative chemicals that are more widely available and cheaper than the tested options would be beneficial. Alternative sowing methodologies that result in greater germination rates and higher plant densities in a commercial setting would also be of value – some producers had expressed an interest in
looking at broadcasting and harrowing fodder beet seed into a worked seedbed.