New suckler scheme on per hectare basis!!

Feckthis

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/payment-rates-for-new-suckler-scheme-revealed-179766/

What's a qualifying cow??

Kovu

Feckthis wrote: »

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/payment-rates-for-new-suckler-scheme-revealed-179766/

What's a qualifying cow??

1 LU i'd assume

Figerty

Feckthis wrote: »

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/payment-rates-for-new-suckler-scheme-revealed-179766/

What's a qualifying cow??

She has to be able to do 0 to 60 in 7 seconds..clear a 5ft wall in one go..and hear a bucket of nuts being filled from quarter mile away... Limousin cows qualify when startled..

Nah. anything that looks to have more beef than bones....specific beef breeds.

john mayo 10

Lads. What the story with the new terms. Cant log onto farmers journal.ie

Mad4simmental

Been looking all day on how to apply. Where have they the application forms hidden to apply??

Kovu

john mayo 10 wrote: »

Lads. What the story with the new terms. Cant log onto farmers journal.ie

paddysdream

The per hectare bit I would assume is ,like the sheep grassland scheme,a way of avoiding a direct link between numbers and money ie as coupling(for livestock) is not allowable in Ireland under the new BPS scheme,the per hectare basis is just a paperwork exercise by the Dept to satisfy the EU book keepers.
Also thought there was a 30 cow limit per herd number on this?

limo_100

what do they mean by apply sure we all applied for this scheme last year and tagged cows for it did we not. The feckers want us bogged in paper work

Grueller

limo_100 wrote: »

what do they mean by apply sure we all applied for this scheme last year and tagged cows for it did we not. The feckers want us bogged in paper work

I am delighted to hear that because I only got my own herd number after the deadline for this last year. I thought I was going to be locked out of it but this will allow me in.

dh1985

Between glas and a per hectare payment on this it looks like they want farmers to be unproductive

LivInt20

limo_100 wrote: »

what do they mean by apply sure we all applied for this scheme last year and tagged cows for it did we not. The feckers want us bogged in paper work

Last year was the 2014 scheme

This year is the 2015 scheme!!

Nettleman

I see now they want 20% of our herds to be 4 or 5 star in 3 years time to qualify...what bunch of clowns dream these things up, for that to happen, they need to be on the ground now, and related mother AI'd or bulled last summer....AND...I suppose they wil also want us to fork out 60 euro ++++ to ICBF ontop of our tags contribution to check our cows star numbers....and if last two active bull ratings are anything to go by, a load of bulls replacement ratings have dropped hugely including HCA.- It really is the lunatics running the asylum-how can a suckler farmer control any of these things???

LivInt20

Nettleman wrote: »

I see now they want 20% of our herds to be 4 or 5 star in 3 years time to qualify...what bunch of clowns dream these things up, for that to happen, they need to be on the ground now, and related mother AI'd or bulled last summer....AND...I suppose they wil also want us to fork out 60 euro ++++ to ICBF ontop of our tags contribution to check our cows star numbers....and if last two active bull ratings are anything to go by, a load of bulls replacement ratings have dropped hugely including HCA.- It really is the lunatics running the asylum-how can a suckler farmer control any of these things???

Why would they need to be on the ground now?

Heifer calf born March 2016 and calves herself in 2018 will qualify if she is a 4/5 star cow. Even if she is still a heifer then she will qualify, as the draft t&cs states 20% of cows/heifers. So only 1 in 5 has to be a 4/5 star.

Bull or AI the cow this year to a top bull and if a heifer calf she will qualify.

HCA rating hasn't dropped since December 2013. A five star on replacement index in December 2013 and still a five star now.

The scheme is voluntary so you don't have to enter if you think it is too tough for you.

Feckthis

How would you know if a cow you bought in is a 4 or 5 star cow?

Nettleman

LivInt20 wrote: »

Why would they need to be on the ground now?

Heifer calf born March 2016 and calves herself in 2018 will qualify if she is a 4/5 star cow. Even if she is still a heifer then she will qualify, as the draft t&cs states 20% of cows/heifers. So only 1 in 5 has to be a 4/5 star.

Bull or AI the cow this year to a top bull and if a heifer calf she will qualify.

HCA rating hasn't dropped since December 2013. A five star on replacement index in December 2013 and still a five star now.

The scheme is voluntary so you don't have to enter if you think it is too tough for you.

Are you one of the people involved in this 20% condition being included, and if you have a conflict of interest in this discussion, I believe you should disclose it so that your views can be weighed up by readers?
I, for one, don't swallow the waffle being peddled about 2 year calving for my herd, and imo, good continential heifers should only be calved between 30 and 36 months to ensure no stunt of growth and no large gap between first calving and 2nd breeding. so 2018 calving, the heifer calves need to be on the ground now, and that logic applied to 83% of the national herd.
In addition, ICBF's own data shows that only 17% of the national herd is calved down at 22-26 months, so is it the minority who the scheme is intended to benefit?

HCA's replacement ratings have fallen €33 in the last 4 months (€290 v €257) with reliability only increasing 3% (87% v 84%).

Stating that he scheme is too tough for me is frankly none of your business. It is the principles of the proposals, including restricting access/putting up hurdles which is raising its head again with this scheme, and that trend is all too common on other scheme-GLAS to name just one.

Some additional discussion points if I may
1.it looks like IFA's concerns about this scheme have been realised and lets see what they are going to do about it.
2. the Gneomics scheme for last year closed on 12 may , so similar timelines looks impossible with tomorrow being last day of April.
3. ICBF will have to make their system more accessible (free of charge) so that farmers can interact with it, but older farmers will struggle if their computer skills are basic or non-existent.

Nettleman

Feckthis wrote: »

How would you know if a cow you bought in is a 4 or 5 star cow?

Pay ICBF 60 euros a year, and if last farmer never recorded a sire for the cow, there maybe no rating currently.:mad:

dh1985

Nettleman wrote: »

Are you one of the people involved in this 20% condition being included, and if you have a conflict of interest in this discussion, I believe you should disclose it so that your views can be weighed up by readers?
I, for one, don't swallow the waffle being peddled about 2 year calving for my herd, and imo, good continential heifers should only be calved between 30 and 36 months to ensure no stunt of growth and no large gap between first calving and 2nd breeding. so 2018 calving, the heifer calves need to be on the ground now, and that logic applied to 83% of the national herd.
In addition, ICBF's own data shows that only 17% of the national herd is calved down at 22-26 months, so is it the minority who the scheme is intended to benefit?

HCA's replacement ratings have fallen €33 in the last 4 months (€290 v €257) with reliability only increasing 3% (87% v 84%).

Stating that he scheme is too tough for me is frankly none of your business. It is the principles of the proposals, including restricting access/putting up hurdles which is raising its head again with this scheme, and that trend is all too common on other scheme-GLAS to name just one.

Agree almost completely. The icbf star ratings are too dependent on milk for determining maternal score. Admittedly milk is important but its not everything.

Also have a couple of hca heifers on the ground this spring. They would do fierce well to be fit for two year old calving. Need some growth rate from now on as there like mice compared to charolaois counterparts

LivInt20

Nettleman wrote: »

Are you one of the people involved in this 20% condition being included, and if you have a conflict of interest in this discussion, I believe you should disclose it so that your views can be weighed up by readers?
I, for one, don't swallow the waffle being peddled about 2 year calving for my herd, and imo, good continential heifers should only be calved between 30 and 36 months to ensure no stunt of growth and no large gap between first calving and 2nd breeding. so 2018 calving, the heifer calves need to be on the ground now, and that logic applied to 83% of the national herd.
In addition, ICBF's own data shows that only 17% of the national herd is calved down at 22-26 months, so is it the minority who the scheme is intended to benefit?

HCA's replacement ratings have fallen €33 in the last 4 months (€290 v €257) with reliability only increasing 3% (87% v 84%).

Stating that he scheme is too tough for me is frankly none of your business. It is the principles of the proposals, including restricting access/putting up hurdles which is raising its head again with this scheme, and that trend is all too common on other scheme-GLAS to name just one.

Some additional discussion points if I may
1.it looks like IFA's concerns about this scheme have been realised and lets see what they are going to do about it.
2. the Gneomics scheme for last year closed on 12 may , so similar timelines looks impossible with tomorrow being last day of April.
3. ICBF will have to make their system more accessible (free of charge) so that farmers can interact with it, but older farmers will struggle if their computer skills are basic or non-existent.

No conflict of interest here, just a suckler farmer trying to improve my profit.

I calve heifers at two year old and they suffer no stunt in growth and calve again the second year. CI of the herd is 370 days and some cows weighing upto 850 kgs.

Two year old calving is a no brainer if you want to make a profit.

The only reason not to calve at two years old is if the heifer is not grown enough. This means either cow has not enough milk or grass and silage fed is of poor quality.

You are looking at the index values, but these do not apply to the new scheme. HCA is still in the top 10% in the country on replacement index, but if using values he has moved from €222 to €257 from 2013 to 2015 and reliability improved by 10%.
So either way HCA has improved, however the new scheme will still only look at the number of stars not the value put on the index.

The scheme is not a payment on every suckler cow in the country, but a measure to improve the genetics of the national suckler cow herd.

eg more milk = heavier weanlings = calving earlier = less cost = more profit.

better fertility = calf every year = more sales = more profit.

If the scheme was just a payment on every suckler cow then there would be no improvement in our suckler cows and every type of poor heifer would be put in calf to get the payment. That would result in no improvement in suckler farmers profit over the next five years.

Anybody who doesn't like the scheme can stay out and keep producing three year old heifers, of which only 8 out 10 have a calf each year.

LivInt20

dh1985 wrote: »

Agree almost completely. The icbf star ratings are too dependent on milk for determining maternal score. Admittedly milk is important but its not everything.

Also have a couple of hca heifers on the ground this spring. They would do fierce well to be fit for two year old calving. Need some growth rate from now on as there like mice compared to charolaois counterparts

Milk only accounts for 11% of maternal index.

http://www.icbf.com/publications/files/EuroStars_Explanatory_leaflet_140313.pdf

It should probably be more as a suckler cow with very little milk is not much good. She is just eating to feed herself.

Have the mothers of the HCA calves not enough milk to get the calf to 300kgs at weanling at 9 months, just 0.96 kgs per day.

The calf then has 6 months to gain 100 kgs. That's just 0.55 kgs per day to get to 400 kgs bulling weight.

LivInt20

Feckthis wrote: »

How would you know if a cow you bought in is a 4 or 5 star cow?

The marts are going to have to start showing the €urostar values of heifers being sold for breeding.

Farmers need also to record the sire of the calf when registering the birth.

Nettleman

LivInt20 wrote: »

The marts are going to have to start showing the €urostar values of heifers being sold for breeding.

Farmers need also to record the sire of the calf when registering the birth.

I think the marts and the farmers wouldn't be long telling you where to go.:rolleyes:

LivInt20

Nettleman wrote: »

I think the marts and the farmers wouldn't be long telling you where to go.:rolleyes:

It's already agreed and on the way.

Andy Gray

I hear that a lot of farmers are actually looking for these figures in marts. You wouldn't be expected to buy a car without looking at the mileage first now would ya?

On the scheme, I think it'll be great for breeding in this country. Will move fellas on from picking stock based on how many spots they have on their bellies or how fluffy their tails looked in a picture at some show.

I think Nettleman needs to stop being a hater and focus on the positives

LivInt20

More info on new scheme in this week's farmers journal.

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/irish-farmers-journal-weekly-podcast-new-beef-scheme-and-blackcurrant-rebirth-180108/

limo_100

I sold a heifer with a calf at foot in the mart the other day, she was 5star with an index of 242 i asked the mart should i bring the stars and put it up they told me no one has ever done it and no one has ever asked for it.

On a different topic if your worried about not having stock with stars dont worry both it its a silly system one that can be manipulated as easy as hell. When we first got an icbf profile most of the cows had no sire so me being younger at the time i gave them one a 5star one at the time, and if i a buy a suck calf and she has no sire she'll have a 5star one before he knows it so it just proves it a stupid system

dh1985

LivInt20 wrote: »

Milk only accounts for 11% of maternal index.

http://www.icbf.com/publications/files/EuroStars_Explanatory_leaflet_140313.pdf

It should probably be more as a suckler cow with very little milk is not much good. She is just eating to feed herself.

Have the mothers of the HCA calves not enough milk to get the calf to 300kgs at weanling at 9 months, just 0.96 kgs per day.

The calf then has 6 months to gain 100 kgs. That's just 0.55 kgs per day to get to 400 kgs bulling weight.

Cows are ffne for milk. Calves just not growing at the same rate as their counterparts. They will still make 400 kg easy at 15 months but I wouldnt bull them at that weight. If their growth rates are inherited by their progeny then they will be at a disadvantage straight away. I have a fear that HCA may be a little too maternal and his offspring may not provide a heavy enough weanling for sale. Time will tell. I just feel that the icbf ratings need to be taken with a pinch of salt as there are many variables outside the control of the primary producers which contribute to star ratings. At the end of the day I think I would rather trust my own instinct than inaccurate data been entered to number crunch a star rating.
And theres still people making a profit calving cows at 30 months.
Teagasc and the farmers journal can write what they want but paper doesnt refuse ink.

LivInt20

dh1985 wrote: »

Cows are ffne for milk. Calves just not growing at the same rate as their counterparts. They will still make 400 kg easy at 15 months but I wouldnt bull them at that weight. If their growth rates are inherited by their progeny then they will be at a disadvantage straight away. I have a fear that HCA may be a little too maternal and his offspring may not provide a heavy enough weanling for sale. Time will tell. I just feel that the icbf ratings need to be taken with a pinch of salt as there are many variables outside the control of the primary producers which contribute to star ratings. At the end of the day I think I would rather trust my own instinct than inaccurate data been entered to number crunch a star rating.
And theres still people making a profit calving cows at 30 months.
Teagasc and the farmers journal can write what they want but paper doesnt refuse ink.

Why will you not bull them at 400 kgs and 15 months?

I'm sure there's plenty making a profit calving at 30 months. The question is how much more profit could they make by moving to 24 month calving.

Feeding a heifer for an extra 12 months for no income for that 12 months makes no sense.

LivInt20

limo_100 wrote: »

I sold a heifer with a calf at foot in the mart the other day, she was 5star with an index of 242 i asked the mart should i bring the stars and put it up they told me no one has ever done it and no one has ever asked for it.

On a different topic if your worried about not having stock with stars dont worry both it its a silly system one that can be manipulated as easy as hell. When we first got an icbf profile most of the cows had no sire so me being younger at the time i gave them one a 5star one at the time, and if i a buy a suck calf and she has no sire she'll have a 5star one before he knows it so it just proves it a stupid system

That will change in the marts once buyers start asking for it because they need to get up to 20% 4/5 star.

The genotyping will identify the correct sire of an animal and this will be corrected on the database. So just recording any sire for a calf will not work.

Incorrect sires recorded and identified from 2014 testing is less than 5%

dh1985

LivInt20 wrote: »

Why will you not bull them at 400 kgs and 15 months?

I'm sure there's plenty making a profit calving at 30 months. The question is how much more profit could they make by moving to 24 month calving.

Feeding a heifer for an extra 12 months for no income for that 12 months makes no sense.

I think it's too light. You don't have to hold heifers for a full year but a few extra months should stand to them when it comes to calving . The fact that easy calving bulls are required on two year old calving leaves a weaker weanling at sale time anyway. You can push the boat out a bit more if they have a bit more age. I think the extra feed and care to get them to adequate size, weaker first calf, extra calving difficulties over the lifetime of the cow resulting in extra vet fees and reduced cull price for a smaller cow will negate the savings made calving at 24mths as opposed to 30mths. 1 avoidable caesarian over the lifttime of a cow will cover any costs of holding for a few months. Metrics that arent quantified when validating 24mth calving. It will cost less to hold a heifer for a year to give her a bit of age than it does to keep a suckler cow

limo_100

LivInt20 wrote: »

That will change in the marts once buyers start asking for it because they need to get up to 20% 4/5 star.

The genotyping will identify the correct sire of an animal and this will be corrected on the database. So just recording any sire for a calf will not work.

Incorrect sires recorded and identified from 2014 testing is less than 5%

If i was out to buy an a seen a 5star heifer on maternal or a 5star bull on terminal and they were both screws well i obviously wouldn't buy but a great weanling bull came in and he was 1star or even have a star thats the one id buy. I see it on icbf website some of our best calves are badly rated and some of the bad ones the opposite, the heifer i sold was really well rated as a maternal but if she was actually any good she'd be at home with her comrades as we speak, and the geno tags didnt change any of the sires of my cows

Farrell

limo_100 wrote: »

If i was out to buy an a seen a 5star heifer on maternal or a 5star bull on terminal and they were both screws well i obviously wouldn't buy but a great weanling bull came in and he was 1star or even have a star thats the one id buy. I see it on icbf website some of our best calves are badly rated and some of the bad ones the opposite, the heifer i sold was really well rated as a maternal but if she was actually any good she'd be at home with her comrades as we speak, and the geno tags didnt change any of the sires of my cows

Even when you look ay the latest beef excel report, in Charolais the bulls which have the highest weanling price are not 5 star for terminal.
Like above pointed on HCA drop in value, lots other bulls do likewise which can be a kick in the teeth 9 months after selecting a sire.

When the yellow tags first came out you could record the sire, as AI code or own bull.
Looking on ICBF recently that info appears to be lost

limo_100

Farrell wrote: »

Even when you look ay the latest beef excel report, in Charolais the bulls which have the highest weanling price are not 5 star for terminal.
Like above pointed on HCA drop in value, lots other bulls do likewise which can be a kick in the teeth 9 months after selecting a sire.

When the yellow tags first came out you could record the sire, as AI code or own bull.
Looking on ICBF recently that info appears to be lost

Is there even a 5star charolais out there, by that i mean nearly all the ch bulls were 5stars but with every update they keep slipping. I have a HKG cow shes top class in fairness 350-400 at weaning without being creep fed( one year i did creep i took the adx calf off the cow 505kg) shes rated at 1 star maternal and half star terminal

Wooly Admirer

I think its a great initiative anyway. Too many breeders out there spouting crap about rosettes and how curly the tail of their bull was in Tullamore. The reality is that alot of these superstar bulls are being cut out of cows, reared on Friesians and wedged into a creep feeder eating Red Mills pedigree honey nut cereal 99!! How is this situation relevant to profitable commercial suckler farming???

Unfortunately I would like a cow to calf without the need for a scalpel and get that calf to a decent sale price without the need to pass my margin onto the co-op to cover a meal bill. The more schemes and hurdles the better to improve the current state of the industry.

In relation to sire recording, I can understand a pedigree breeder recording incorrect sire details - they have a vested interest! A commercial farmer recording incorrect sires is nothing more than ignorant and idiotic. It's in every commercial farmers interest to record accurate data on these pedigree bulls to help wash over the bull**** being recorded by those few breeders trying to make tits of us buying their overfed bulls.........

tanko

HCA has the following stats, muscle 2%, skeletal 2%, functionality 13%, docility 35%, all within breed.
He has half a star out of five for carcase weight and carcase conformation within breed, width of hips in the bottom 5%, and two and a half stars for daughter calving interval.
He has five stars for daughters milk and a calving difficulty of 4.4

Even though most of these stats are really poor, he is given five stars within and across breeds for replacement index even though beef traits are supposed to make up 43% of the maternal index. This doesn't make sense to me.

I've used HCA a lot over the last few years. He is a good easy calving bull to use on heifers producing leggy calves that lack muscle.

But he produces heifers which have narrower hips than their mothers and less milk than their mothers (so far anyway).
If he's a five star replacement bull then I'm Elvis Pressley.

The euro stars are a step in the right direction and an improvement on what went before but they're far from perfect yet.

manjou

LIstened to journal podcast and then checked eurostars of herd and 2 problems cropped up.
1 The eurostars are changed twice a year and i have 5 star cows and heifers at the moment but by the time in 6 years the might not be as reliability at moment is around 30% so they may drop . So if you buy a 4 star heifer as weanling she might be 3 star when she calves.
2 You have to sign up for 6 years with alot of terms and conditions so simple scheme has now become complicated with penalities etc

Grueller

manjou wrote: »

LIstened to journal podcast and then checked eurostars of herd and 2 problems cropped up.
1 The eurostars are changed twice a year and i have 5 star cows and heifers at the moment but by the time in 6 years the might not be as reliability at moment is around 30% so they may drop . So if you buy a 4 star heifer as weanling she might be 3 star when she calves.
2 You have to sign up for 6 years with alot of terms and conditions so simple scheme as now become complicated with penalities etc

Ya. Problem 2 could affect me potentially. We have a place that would suit milking and are waiting for a couple of years to see what the post quota landscape is so six years is a big commitment.
Another issue that cropped up in my head. Is your payment tied to the number of cows you apply for in year 1 of the scheme? If so the price of sucklers is about to go through the roof.

Nettleman

Grueller wrote: »

Ya. Problem 2 could affect me potentially. We have a place that would suit milking and are waiting for a couple of years to see what the post quota landscape is so six years is a big commitment.
Another issue that cropped up in my head. Is your payment tied to the number of cows you apply for in year 1 of the scheme? If so the price of sucklers is about to go through the roof.

Just read the 7 conditions of the scheme in the rag this morning and I wont be doing it. They have made a pure balls of the scheme that was there last year which I was in, and it took 15% samples at a cost of 30 euro, which was ok.

limo_100

Nettleman wrote: »

Just read the 7 conditions of the scheme in the rag this morning and I wont be doing it. They have made a pure balls of the scheme that was there last year which I was in, and it took 15% samples at a cost of 30 euro, which was ok.

what are the condinions that dont suit? I haven't read it yet be 7 before i get a chance

Nettleman

limo_100 wrote: »

what are the condinions that dont suit? I haven't read it yet be 7 before i get a chance

1. Surveys as before but to be extended next year to include herd health and grassland mngt
2. Genetype of at least 60% of herd (remember 15% last year at cost of 30 per sample)-
3. record full animal details, calving difficulty as already
4. if using AI, 80% must be from 4 or 5 star bulls, if using your own bull, he must be 4 or 5 star
5. 20% of heifers/cows are 4 or 5 star, and by 2020, this must be 50%
6. Do a carbon navigator, grazing length, slurry, fertiliser
7. must attend training courses by oct 2016.

and its not 100 euro, its 95

smokey-fitz

Its all a load of crap anyway. You will never get true figures for anything, maybe some of you have been honest filling out the bdp last year but most just ticked the best. And as for buying in replacements that are supposed to be 5 star in a mart sounds ridiculous. Would you trust someone you dont know to out down the correct info when filling out icbfs forms?

Id like to think majority of farmers are honest but all these figures are decided by the farmer. What I class as a good cow might be alot different to the next fella.

blue5000

limo_100 wrote: »

I sold a heifer with a calf at foot in the mart the other day, she was 5star with an index of 242 i asked the mart should i bring the stars and put it up they told me no one has ever done it and no one has ever asked for it.

On a different topic if your worried about not having stock with stars dont worry both it its a silly system one that can be manipulated as easy as hell. When we first got an icbf profile most of the cows had no sire so me being younger at the time i gave them one a 5star one at the time, and if i a buy a suck calf and she has no sire she'll have a 5star one before he knows it so it just proves it a stupid system

This is why we have 5 star maternal bulls dropping to 3 stars very quickly. Later on more stats come out and the truth gets revealed as reliability % increases. It's not perfect, it should only be used as a guide. As genotyping increases the messers are being found out. Bad information knocks people back two or three generations when choosing a bull.

blue5000

Nettleman wrote: »

1. Surveys as before but to be extended next year to include herd health and grassland mngt
2. Genetype of at least 60% of herd (remember 15% last year at cost of 30 per sample)-
3. record full animal details, calving difficulty as already
4. if using AI, 80% must be from 4 or 5 star bulls, if using your own bull, he must be 4 or 5 star
5. 20% of heifers/cows are 4 or 5 star, and by 2020, this must be 50%
6. Do a carbon navigator, grazing length, slurry, fertiliser
7. must attend training courses by oct 2016.

and its not 100 euro, its 95

95 for first 10 cows then 80 after that, but all depends how many apply for it.

Cigarman

Oh yeah hammer HCA alright and not a word about other bulls with 20% calving difficulty and no milk. Hes not perfect but hes a hell of a lot better than a lot of what is currently available out there to breed suckler cows from.

Bringing in the Genomic testing is a great job - clowns who are knowingly putting wrong info into a system and then turning around and criticising the info that the same system spits out is just braindead behaviour...hope those lads get a fulltime job and give up suckling leave the rest of us alone who actually depend on it for a livelihood.

They only sent out letters to pedigree breeders who had wrong ancestry info - they havent changed back the wrong sires on the commercial cows yet but when they do...the cows that geniuses told lies about for a shortterm selfish gain will all have their sires removed and the system will be that bit better because of it.

Best thing to ever happen beef breeding...yes it will be difficult to adjust to depending on what your stars are at the moment but currently your average suckler cow is getting worse for milk and fertility and anything that turns this around especially when your putting bread on the table because of it is a good thing.

blue5000

Wooly Admirer wrote: »

I think its a great initiative anyway. Too many breeders out there spouting crap about rosettes and how curly the tail of their bull was in Tullamore. The reality is that alot of these superstar bulls are being cut out of cows, reared on Friesians and wedged into a creep feeder eating Red Mills pedigree honey nut cereal 99!! How is this situation relevant to profitable commercial suckler farming???

Unfortunately I would like a cow to calf without the need for a scalpel and get that calf to a decent sale price without the need to pass my margin onto the co-op to cover a meal bill. The more schemes and hurdles the better to improve the current state of the industry.

In relation to sire recording, I can understand a pedigree breeder recording incorrect sire details - they have a vested interest! A commercial farmer recording incorrect sires is nothing more than ignorant and idiotic. It's in every commercial farmers interest to record accurate data on these pedigree bulls to help wash over the bull**** being recorded by those few breeders trying to make tits of us buying their overfed bulls.........

Agree 100% best post on this thread, thanks.

Nettleman

blue5000 wrote: »

95 for first 10 cows then 80 after that, but all depends how many apply for it.

I have just done a comparision of my females ratings today (updated for april evaluations) versus December, and the swings are large, and uncontrollable. One maternal bull (NOT HCA btw) has fallen by €80 since I bought his straws in early 2014, resulting in his heifers dropping by €40 (assuming mother ratings doesn't change), and this is completely outside my control, so whether you are / are not in the 4 star category is out of your hands, and you could be ok today, and next evaluation your 3.5 and you miss the threshold. Another very sneaky one is that cross compliance penalties hit this scheme, but it also says "vise versa", which I read to mean if you have a breach in this scheme, your BPS could be hit as well...???? am I reading that right????

manjou

Wooly Admirer wrote: »

I think its a great initiative anyway. Too many breeders out there spouting crap about rosettes and how curly the tail of their bull was in Tullamore. The reality is that alot of these superstar bulls are being cut out of cows, reared on Friesians and wedged into a creep feeder eating Red Mills pedigree honey nut cereal 99!! How is this situation relevant to profitable commercial suckler farming???

Unfortunately I would like a cow to calf without the need for a scalpel and get that calf to a decent sale price without the need to pass my margin onto the co-op to cover a meal bill. The more schemes and hurdles the better to improve the current state of the industry.

In relation to sire recording, I can understand a pedigree breeder recording incorrect sire details - they have a vested interest! A commercial farmer recording incorrect sires is nothing more than ignorant and idiotic. It's in every commercial farmers interest to record accurate data on these pedigree bulls to help wash over the bull**** being recorded by those few breeders trying to make tits of us buying their overfed bulls.........

Agree thats its a good idea of a scheme but problem of using the star rating is the reliability of alot of bulls which means people using only high reliability bulls so you end up with smaller gene pool. This means all bulls appearing in sales from next year are all from same bulls and all related. If all information was collected over 6 years and at end then there would be better able to tell 5 star cattle from 1 star.
My best cow same breeding as rest except grandsire on mothers side different has only 1 star while sisters have 5 stars so all data from weight recording fertility etc not showing up.

LivInt20

Nettleman wrote: »

Just read the 7 conditions of the scheme in the rag this morning and I wont be doing it. They have made a pure balls of the scheme that was there last year which I was in, and it took 15% samples at a cost of 30 euro, which was ok.

Previous post, "The scheme is voluntary so you don't have to enter if you think it is too tough for you."

So the scheme is too tough for you?

LivInt20

Cigarman wrote: »

Oh yeah hammer HCA alright and not a word about other bulls with 20% calving difficulty and no milk. Hes not perfect but hes a hell of a lot better than a lot of what is currently available out there to breed suckler cows from.

Bringing in the Genomic testing is a great job - clowns who are knowingly putting wrong info into a system and then turning around and criticising the info that the same system spits out is just braindead behaviour...hope those lads get a fulltime job and give up suckling leave the rest of us alone who actually depend on it for a livelihood.

They only sent out letters to pedigree breeders who had wrong ancestry info - they havent changed back the wrong sires on the commercial cows yet but when they do...the cows that geniuses told lies about for a shortterm selfish gain will all have their sires removed and the system will be that bit better because of it.

Best thing to ever happen beef breeding...yes it will be difficult to adjust to depending on what your stars are at the moment but currently your average suckler cow is getting worse for milk and fertility and anything that turns this around especially when your putting bread on the table because of it is a good thing.

Excellent post.

smokey-fitz

Nettleman wrote: »

I have just done a comparision of my females ratings today (updated for april evaluations) versus December, and the swings are large, and uncontrollable. One maternal bull (NOT HCA btw) has fallen by €80 since I bought his straws in early 2014, resulting in his heifers dropping by €40 (assuming mother ratings doesn't change), and this is completely outside my control, so whether you are / are not in the 4 star category is out of your hands, and you could be ok today, and next evaluation your 3.5 and you miss the threshold. Another very sneaky one is that cross compliance penalties hit this scheme, but it also says "vise versa", which I read to mean if you have a breach in this scheme, your BPS could be hit as well...???? am I reading that right????

I think you could be right about bps, ive also read something about this somewhere. Ive also read the likes of glas infringements might also effect bps. At the end of the day they are all department schemes so if you get penalised on one thing it could easily effect the others.

Everyone on here is on about ai. What about the lads that run a bull. They buy a 5 star young bull (with low proven % due to not being used before) for 3 or 4k and a couple months down the line he becomes a 3 star? There is too much involved in this to backfire on alot of lads. No matter how good you are you will have to invest a bit of cash to up your breeding when your relying on numbers to stay put but is out of your control. For the money (that you may have to give back the full amount if you dont hit the targets) is not great and to me I dont think is worth it.

Dont get me wrong, improving is the best and only way forward, but to push improvement to fast and the risk of loosing payment and incur penalty in the process if anything goes wrong is going to be a big blow to anyone.

Nettleman

LivInt20 wrote: »

Previous post, "The scheme is voluntary so you don't have to enter if you think it is too tough for you."

So the scheme is too tough for you?

asked and answered.- 1 have nearly 50% of my females 4 star and above so not too tough. Theres too much small print, hidden costs involved here. Also a major information transfer involved from farmer to quango in cork-not interested in making quangos more relevant and making us dependent on them.

smokey-fitz

LivInt20 wrote: »

Previous post, "The scheme is voluntary so you don't have to enter if you think it is too tough for you."

So the scheme is too tough for you?

Why try rise someone over this when they dont agree with you? Is your opinion the right way for everybody?