query??

wiggy123

Reviewing Officer
Suckler Welfare Section
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and food
Government Buildings
Portlaoise
Co. Laois

To whom it may Concern,
I am writing to you in reply to your letter dated the 6th August 2009.
In relation to that letter, I am making an appeal for payment under the Suckler Welfare System, of a calf. Tag No: IE26112268055.
You give the reason of Dam being sold before weaning.
I agree totally that the dam was sold before weaning, the Dam was sold the 16/5/09 and I only weaned the above-mentioned calf along with another calf, IE261122670054 on the 22/6/09. I understand the discrepancy.
I will explain now as best again, as they reasons for such a discrepancy. When the above dam Tag IE121419490172 of the calf in question calved, she had a hard job, so we took the calf by calving jack. Being a first calver - she never really bonded with the calf greatly, so the calf was fed manually, via teat and for a week or two the cow was restrained, for the calf to drink, she gradually let the calf drink a little, only when someone was with her though. I then turned her out with other cows and calves. At the time another first calver Tag IE261122630034, had calved a few days previously, and was a quiet cow, she would occasionally let the calf in question drink her (from behind), when her calf (0054) was a feeding. The original Dam 0172 never fully bonded with the calf. She actually let another calf drink her, as on the day of her calving, another month old calf (Tag IE2611122660053) was around her, during the process, she seemed to bond with it, and would let her original calf drink only when he drank. Error on my part, not maybe having the separated, Complicated I know.
They were all penned together over the winter period, and the same happened calf in question would get a little bit of milk from her original dam when the other calf (0053) drank her. And the calf would drink Cow (0034) when her calf drank. The above cows were all ai’d before Christmas, and were then scanned at the start of March, and both cows proved empty. I decided then to take cow (0172) out, as she by now wouldn’t let her original calf drink, as calf (0053) had died, you can see that from your records, it died 20/2/09.
So upon let out from the sheds, the calf in question was suckling Cow (0034), along with her own calf, and they were left together. They were then weaned of that said cow on the 22/6/09. And in the meantime the original Dam was sold to a man privately, on the 16/5/09
I’m sorry for maybe the confusion of the above writing/explanation, but that is the truth of it. Is hard to explain fully though.
Finally I have followed all the rules under the Suckler Welfare system, and have done since it’s beginning, last year.
Hoping this might explain the whole situation and help my appeal.
Any further queries, I can be contacted either by phone, 0863918988 or by email cgorman@agriculture.gov.ie

Regards,
Patrick O’ Gorman

Rant over!
above is the letter i sent to the suckler section,in reply to a query they give me-of not paying for my calf,in 2008..
I have since recieved a letter,about a month ago from them-saying!they understood my appeal,but it was unsuccessfull-thus i will not recieve the €82..for the said animal in question..
They said i can write/appeal to the ombudsman,within 3 months-if i wanted to take the matter further! What would you do?????
The only think i'd be afraid of,is if you appeal further-be like opening a tin of worms,they'd b down on ya1 checking everything in sundry and waiting for them to get ya good,if you get me feeling!
i was told to let it sit--its only €82..but it annoys me greatly! as i believed i had a good case!

cheers

Rujib1

Holy Mozes, with all that sucking and non sucking, and calves stealing milk from other cows, I'm surprised you are not brought up for cruelty. There is every chance that the calf at the centre of this saga, has been psychologically damaged, and you could be help technically responsible under the good farming practice act:D

I suggest you have bored the brain out some dept box ticker with your long winded writen appeal. How on earth do you expect somebody to read a whole half page in one day:rolleyes: If you had only attached a flow chart to simplify matters, you could be spending the €82 today:D

R

wiggy123

true!
probably was to much for them..but i was asked to clarify a matter! so i wrote a long letter!
didn't work!
but it is,what happened...

leg wax

why did you not send in the weaning date before you sold the cow? it would have been all right then, you are wasteing your time because you did not follow the simple rules

wiggy123

i never figured that..stupid mistake i know!
cow was sold fast,forgot about the form's etc...
i know i had a weak case then!
but i thought once a animal calved-u follow the rules,hav done since came in-but slipped up with this!
ah its over now anyway!

Rujib1

Aside from that the number of calves going through the marts which are supposed to have been weaned and declared as having been weaned, but are clearly NOT weaned is a joke.
I cannot understand why there is no big clamp down by the dept.

R

wiggy123

agree totally--not much control being done on that!
alot of dealers gettin away with that!

vanderbadger

sure that scheme is on the way out isnt it, they probably cant be bothered at this stage, alot of creep feeders bought around the country based on payments from the scheme in the coming years

wiggy123

think it is...
money back from €80 to €40
+ from 5 yrs to 4 yrs i think
was a good idea-but then again farmer should hav been doing the tasks(they ask for)anyway! as it gives u better weanlings in every way-thus giving you better prices!
my opinion anyway!

pakalasa

wiggy123 wrote: »

think it is...
money back from €80 to €40
+ from 5 yrs to 4 yrs i think
was a good idea-but then again farmer should hav been doing the tasks(they ask for)anyway! as it gives u better weanlings in every way-thus giving you better prices!
my opinion anyway!

Another 4 years to go - I thought it was finishing this year.
It was a great scheme alright. A loss less weanlings with pneumonia, yearlings being polled in the spring .... and all that.