Milk vs milk replacer: Weighing up the costs of calf nutrition
But there's a lot more to weighing up the options than the bare cost comparison, explains Teagasc Ruminant Nutrition Specialist Aisling Claffey.
Whole milk to feed a calf costs €3.21 per day, compared to only €1.95 for milk replacer, according to Teagasc. But there's a lot more to it than the bare comparison, explains Teagasc Ruminant Nutrition Specialist Aisling Claffey.
For example, the comparison includes a 20kg bag of milk replacer costing €52. Some might buy a cheaper replacer; for example, a €48 bag would save them €10.50 per calf, over 70 days of feeding.
But that might be a false economy, according to Ms Claffey. She said the extra is "a small price to pay if the more expensive milk replacer delivers the performance required on farm, or an expensive cost to recover if the cheaper, less suitable milk replacer leaves us with heifer calves behind target from an early stage”.
Highlighting the key requirements of a milk replacer, she advised: “Check the label for both the broad spec of nutrient content but also the ingredients used to achieve this. The milk replacer should have a protein content of 23-26%, an oil content of 16-20%, preferably a blend of coconut and palm oil, fibre content should not exceed 0.15%, and no more that 8.5% ash should be contained within.
“Where the protein stems from also warrants attention. Dairy-based proteins are the most digestible. Young calves younger than one month cannot utilise vegetable protein sources. These milk replacers may be more appropriate for use on rearing farms where the calves are a more suitable age when arriving on farm to utilise this, although some vegetable proteins are more digestible than others, for example, hydrolysed wheat protein. Other ingredients to be mindful of are starch and sugar sources, which should be kept to a maximum of 10% inclusion.”
She said farmers can expect to pay more for milk replacers this spring, but ensuring the milk replacer meets the required specifications should take precedence over cost.
Another caveat: “Where farmers choose to use milk replacer, consistency is key, and the person feeding must ensure it's reconstituted at the correct rate, feed at the correct time, and sufficient volumes are offered".
“Similarly, with whole milk, it is important that the herd has a good health status, and we avoid feeding high somatic cell count milk, antibiotic milk, etc, to our replacement stock, to minimise the risk of disease transmission and antimicrobial resistance.”
Johne's is one of the diseases that could be spread in sub-standard whole milk.
“Both saleable whole milk and a quality milk replacer are effective at meeting the growing calf’s needs, providing the nutrients to fuel growth, organ development, and supporting the developing immune system and rumen,” said the Teagasc expert.
Along with effective colostrum management and ensuring the calf is provided with the correct environment, optimum nutrition is essential.
The cost comparison is built on a number of assumptions.
Firstly, it uses an assumed base milk price of 50c per litre for February and March, and co-op average solids. If your farm exceeds the co-op average solids, expect the price differential to increase. Secondly, it is assumed that calves are being fed six litres (6.18kg) per day of whole milk, versus 750g of milk replacer per day (six litres at 12.5% concentration). The replacer specification in the comparison includes 23% crude protein and 18% fat content.
