Reducing cattle herd to get through a drought

Although the trauma of selling their valued herd hurt, they were more concerned about maintaining ground cover besides reducing the costs of supplementary feeding.

The rationale for their destocking decision lies at the heart of their conversion to regenerative agricultural practices as a means of continuing to farm through periods of low rainfall.

Since the couple embraced the concept of regenerative agriculture, they have made interesting changes to their aggregation of 1000 hectares based at Somerset, Pulletop, which was bought in 1988.

The most noted is a rethink of their production strategy, taking a right-hand turn from the traditional approach of high inputs and high expectations of carrying capacity.

"We were heavily into production ag," Mr Davis said.

"We were applying as much as 300kg single super per hectare and trying to run a cow to the hectare. It was unsustainable."

Mr Davis pointed out it was a system which worked well during good seasons, but the system crashed as soon as it stopped raining.

"It was a very expensive operation and we weren't making any money," he said.

"At the start of the 2000 drought we had 1000 tonnes of silage underground which we thought was a good drought backup."

The couple were also involved in benchmarking their operation and were being told they had too much money tied up in conserved fodder.

But by the end of the decade the silage pit was depleted and they were buying in fodder to maintain their cattle.

"I was thinking it is not sustainable, something has to change," Mr Davis recalled.

"Anna and I had previously done a course on regen ag which emphasised the reduced reliance on inputs, not a sudden change from one practice to another."

Mrs Davis noted they changed gradually, easing their way and as they became more confident with the system they were aware of the benefits.

"You might not necessarily be producing more, but we were making as much money because of the lower cost of inputs," she said.

"You are using your animals as tools and that was one of the revelations of the process."

By using concentrated stocking numbers the couple found they were utilizing available pasture growth to a greater extent compared with their previous regime of fairly static stocking rates.

"They eat some of the grass, they trample some making compost for the soil and they fertilize the soil," Mrs Davis said. "And the paddocks have the chance of a long spell between grazing."

Producers Phillip and Anna Davis at Pulletop accepted the challenge of ensuring their business survived drought and did so by changing their grazing strategy.

"We started with 180 day rotations, because we had to start somewhere," Mr Davis said. "With our experience, that has changed. When the grass is growing quickly, your animals quickly trim the new growth encouraging stooling and when the pasture has matured that is when you allow the cattle to have more time in the paddock."

That regime allows a longer time for grazed pasture to recover, ensuring the care of the paddock ground cover but also has highlighted the ease with cattle can be handled.

"I used to dread mustering when we set stocked," Mrs Davis said.

"But now I can go out to move a mob and they see me coming, so they start heading towards the gate because they are used to being moved."

Mr Davis said monitoring pasture production was one of the benefits of the new management.

"You know well in advance of when you are going to run out of grass," he said. "And because you have such a big wedge of feed in front of you, when your growing season finishes you can assess your carrying capacity going forward."

Mr Davis said the golden rule was 100 per cent ground cover all the time, something they had achieved despite below average rainfall for 12 months.

"In October 2018 we made a big decision," he said.

"It was a tough decision after breeding these cattle for 30 years, but didn't have any feed in front of us and hay was becoming hard to source."

Purchased fodder was also increasing in cost and the Davis's were looking at having to feed for a long time once they started.

"I worked out it was going to cost $640 per head for six months until our expected next break," Mr Davis said.

"That was only the fodder costs, not including our time, fuel etc.

"So we made the big decision."

Their cattle were in prime condition, and although trucking them caused a lot of heartache, at least the stock were sold for a good return.