New suckler scheme on per hectare basis!!

farawaygrass

Are people solely coming around to the scheme? I think the fear mightn't be as bad nod when people find out the stars of their stock. Anyone at the meeting last night in claremorris with the minister?

poor farmer

farawaygrass wrote: »

Are people solely coming around to the scheme? I think the fear mightn't be as bad nod when people find out the stars of their stock. Anyone at the meeting last night in claremorris with the minister?

I was in claremorris ,Huge crowd . The minister spoke well as did henry burns.

farawaygrass

poor farmer wrote: »

I was in claremorris ,Huge crowd . The minister spoke well as did henry burns.

He is sticking by his guns I'm sure and won't change? Was their much anger from farmers?

GiveMeStrength

I was there last night.

The key points made by the minister were.

1. The scheme is fixed at 6 years. There will be a mid term review to see how it is progressing. This 6 year term will not be changed.

2. The only way to leave the scheme without claw back is through force majeure or if you retire from farming and pass the farm on. If you change your type of farming full claw back will be enforced.

There was a lot of good questions.

One person made the point in relation to making a 6 year commitment that if you had been in the scheme for 4 years and had complied in full but decided it was no longer for them that they should be allowed sell these new 4* cows on and let the next guy continue on. The answer to this was that the commission is investing in this person and now they want to pull out and so claw back. These new 4* animals seemed to no longer exist.

Another point made was that if a person has a 1 or 2 star cow currently producing 1000 euro weanlings can the minister guarantee that a 4* heifer/cow will be producing 2000 euro animals. Of course he couldn't but saying that 4* animals give a better return.

Another brilliant question was could the minister guarantee that the money in the scheme would not be reduced in say year 3 and again in year 5 for example as had happened previously and he could not give that guarantee. Mentioning that there was a budget for the scheme but future ministers ....

People were not happy with 2014 been the reference year and wanted that changed but that's also set in stone. He did say though that if you felt you had extenuating circumstances and should have had more stock in 2014 to contact the department.

A 20% reduction in herd size over the 6 years is allowed.

The general feeling in the room was that people were grateful for a sucker scheme but that at the moment it is an unrealistic scheme with targets set too high.

Kovu

Talking to the AI man today and he said the AI companies were only given a 5 week warning of the scheme. Hence all this years AI catalogs only have a couple of each breed with good stars on both terminal/replacement.
How true would that be d'ye think? He's up in arms because every Tom, Dick and Harry wants X bull as it's got all the stars and he can't keep the straws in stock.

mayota

I was in claremorris. Hugh crowd, Henry burns spoke well but I thought the minister was very poor. You can now use 2015 as the reference year ( contact the dept.).

GiveMeStrength

I think 5 weeks might even be too long as the IFA chap who sits on the board of icbf said that they only had 2 days notice of the scheme before it was announced.

High bike

I joined Herd PLus today and now I'm more confused than ever ,when I look at the euro stars e.g a cow that has producer 3 u grade and 1 r grade from her last 4 calves has a 2 star rating because there's no sire recorded for her,a leggy Angus cross that has all R grade calves is 4 star.To make matters worse a 4 star cow crossed with a 5 star bull has a heifer calf that's 3 star.Can anyone throw any light on this madness

Kovu

High bike wrote: »

I joined Herd PLus today and now I'm more confused than ever ,when I look at the euro stars e.g a cow that has producer 3 u grade and 1 r grade from her last 4 calves has a 2 star rating because there's no sire recorded for her,a leggy Angus cross that has all R grade calves is 4 star.To make matters worse a 4 star cow crossed with a 5 star bull has a heifer calf that's 3 star.Can anyone throw any light on this madness

Was the bull 5* for Terminal instead of Replacement value? It seems anything that has AA/FR breeding in them are coming out as high replacement stars despite not always being the case.

Anything that has no sire recorded seems a bit up in the air going by the threads here anyway!

GiveMeStrength- His exact words were that they were all called to a meeting in the midlands and were told what was happening in five weeks, no prior warning before that at all.

tanko

Kovu wrote: »

Talking to the AI man today and he said the AI companies were only given a 5 week warning of the scheme. Hence all this years AI catalogs only have a couple of each breed with good stars on both terminal/replacement.
How true would that be d'ye think? He's up in arms because every Tom, Dick and Harry wants X bull as it's got all the stars and he can't keep the straws in stock.

Did he say which Bulls farmers are looking for?

Kovu

tanko wrote: »

Did he say which Bulls farmers are looking for?

I didn't ask but he'll be here again soon enough judging by the swab out of a cow in the yard today. He rolled his eyes when I asked for THZ/KJB though if that's any help

High bike

Kovu wrote: »

Was the bull 5* for Terminal instead of Replacement value? It seems anything that has AA/FR breeding in them are coming out as high replacement stars despite not always being the case.

Anything that has no sire recorded seems a bit up in the air going by the threads here anyway!

GiveMeStrength- His exact words were that they were all called to a meeting in the midlands and were told what was happening in five weeks, no prior warning before that at all.

yes the bull was 5 star terminal and 3 star replacement,but my understanding was either terminal or replacement was ok so long as the stare were 4 or 5.On the no sire recorded thing I have a 10 year old cow who has no sire recorded but she's 5 star???????

Kovu

High bike wrote: »

yes the bull was 5 star terminal and 3 star replacement,but my understanding was either terminal or replacement was ok so long as the stare were 4 or 5.On the no sire recorded thing I have a 10 year old cow who has no sire recorded but she's 5 star???????

That's why she's a three star calf. The replacement & terminal stars are totally different and can't crossover if you get my drift.
For example take a cow that is a 4 Replacement & 3 Terminal
Crossed with a bull who's a 2 Replacement & 5 Terminal.
Any progeny will be 3 Replacement & 4 Terminal.

(4+2/2 and 3+5/2)

I bet anything that 10 yr cow has some fr or AA in her on her dams side!

High bike

Kovu wrote: »

That's why she's a three star calf. The replacement & terminal stars are totally different and can't crossover if you get my drift.
For example take a cow that is a 4 Replacement & 3 Terminal
Crossed with a bull who's a 2 Replacement & 5 Terminal.
Any progeny will be 3 Replacement & 4 Terminal.

(4+2/2 and 3+5/2)

I bet anything that 10 yr cow has some fr or AA in her on her dams side!

well fcuk me every day's a school day,I thought they could be crossed over back to the drawing board so:D. yeah she's Angus on the card but definitely friesan in there somewhere judging by the milk she has.Would rear 2 calves no prob if she was'nt such a bitch

Mad4simmental

mayota wrote: »

I was in claremorris. Hugh crowd, Henry burns spoke well but I thought the minister was very poor. You can now use 2015 as the reference year ( contact the dept.).

What reason do you need to use 2015 as the ref year? If I could do that it consider joining.

High bike

Mad4simmental wrote: »

What reason do you need to use 2015 as the ref year? If I could do that it consider joining.

so the goal posts are being moved even before it gets off the ground,I wonde what other changes are in the pipe line?

GiveMeStrength

I'm not sure that's correct about using 2015. I heard him say that 2015 could not be used as this scheme was not intended or could not be used to drive people to increase production.

He definitely did say though that if you felt through extenuating circumstances you should have had or would have had more cows in 2014 than you did you could contact the department.

I presume he meant by this sickness or if you had to sell cattle due to a fodder shortage or maybe a disease outbreak on the farm.

mayota

GiveMeStrength wrote: »

I'm not sure that's correct about using 2015. I heard him say that 2015 could not be used as this scheme was not intended or could not be used to drive people to increase production.

He definitely did say though that if you felt through extenuating circumstances you should have had or would have had more cows in 2014 than you did you could contact the department.

I presume he meant by this sickness or if you had to sell cattle due to a fodder shortage or maybe a disease outbreak on the farm.

A lot of people wanted a rolling reference year and this was a definite NO. However he said 2015 could be used if you feel it would suit better, he said talk to the department, he did'nt give reasons but I'd imagine disease, new entrant, ect.

LivInt20

The very fact that guys are now talking about €urostars and looking for 4 & 5 stars bulls shows that the scheme is working before it even starts.

1. Farmers are trying to improve their stock by using better bulls.

2. Farmers are looking at the €urostar values of their own cows and while not agreeing with all the figures, this will level out over time with genotyping.

3. Farmers are trying to understand the stars and the methodology behind them.

4. By breeding from the better bulls the replacement heifers in time will be better cows and the overall suckler herd will be improved.

That's progress already.

Kovu

What about all the bulls and straws in AI stations that are now not fit for the purpose they were intended for? Not to mention having a much larger selection of AI bulls to choose from this year and following years. The ch selection we have to choose from this year is abysmal for a start.
I still feel that this scheme has been sprung too quick on people. How much better would it have been if all farmers had been educated on stars for the last few years? Farmers wouldn't be trying to understand the scheme. They'd know it.

Alibaba

GiveMeStrength wrote: »

I was there last night.

The key points made by the minister were.

1. The scheme is fixed at 6 years. There will be a mid term review to see how it is progressing. This 6 year term will not be changed.

2. The only way to leave the scheme without claw back is through force majeure or if you retire from farming and pass the farm on. If you change your type of farming full claw back will be enforced.

There was a lot of good questions.

One person made the point in relation to making a 6 year commitment that if you had been in the scheme for 4 years and had complied in full but decided it was no longer for them that they should be allowed sell these new 4* cows on and let the next guy continue on. The answer to this was that the commission is investing in this person and now they want to pull out and so claw back. These new 4* animals seemed to no longer exist.

Another point made was that if a person has a 1 or 2 star cow currently producing 1000 euro weanlings can the minister guarantee that a 4* heifer/cow will be producing 2000 euro animals. Of course he couldn't but saying that 4* animals give a better return.

Another brilliant question was could the minister guarantee that the money in the scheme would not be reduced in say year 3 and again in year 5 for example as had happened previously and he could not give that guarantee. Mentioning that there was a budget for the scheme but future ministers ....

People were not happy with 2014 been the reference year and wanted that changed but that's also set in stone. He did say though that if you felt you had extenuating circumstances and should have had more stock in 2014 to contact the department.

A 20% reduction in herd size over the 6 years is allowed.

The general feeling in the room was that people were grateful for a sucker scheme but that at the moment it is an unrealistic scheme with targets set too high.

The 20 % reduction in herd size ;

Is that 20% in the number of cows in the reference year

Or

Is it 20% in the Ha declared on sps form divided by 1.5

I assume it's the last one. Sorry if I make it sound confusing

LivInt20

Kovu wrote: »

What about all the bulls and straws in AI stations that are now not fit for the purpose they were intended for? Not to mention having a much larger selection of AI bulls to choose from this year and following years. The ch selection we have to choose from this year is abysmal for a start.
I still feel that this scheme has been sprung too quick on people. How much better would it have been if all farmers had been educated on stars for the last few years? Farmers wouldn't be trying to understand the scheme. They'd know it.

If they are not fit for purpose now then they were not fit for purpose before the scheme.

Most AI bulls were strong on terminal traits and weak on maternal traits. That is why our suckler herd now needs to be improved on the maternal side.

Kovu

LivInt20 wrote: »

If they are not fit for purpose now then they were not fit for purpose before the scheme.

Most AI bulls were strong on terminal traits and weak on maternal traits. That is why our suckler herd now needs to be improved on the maternal side.

It's funny how they managed to get into AI stations then if they weren't proven to breed well :rolleyes: Most were well fit for the weanling trade. Look at the bull Indurain, hailed as the best CH bull in the country, yet now he's a poor 3 1/2 stars for terminal?
Looking at an AI book from 2011 earlier and there's a hell of a lot of discrepancy between what was said about certain bulls and how they are starred now.

tomieen jones

Most people are very happy with the star ratings the have when they looked to receive the star status of their herd ! Is the irish suckler herd in as bad a shape as we are led to believe! Anyway is all good and genomic s definitely the way forward ! Just of interest !! What is the least number of days interval a cow can have between calvings without being a miracle? ????JUST ASKING? ?😄

GiveMeStrength

I took it to mean 20% reduction in cows.

I don't know I'm still in two minds about this scheme. I'm not convinced that when I take my weanlings out to the mart I will have any more cash home with me from a 4* animal than from some of the current 2* cows already on the farm.

On the other hand I have 6 cows to be replaced this year regardless.

Also the price of these 4 and 5* replacements. You know well as soon as you ask what's the star rating of that animal the price just went up:)

Any gains from been in the scheme won't go too far purchasing all these replacements. The minister said that realistically over the course of the scheme farmers would end up replacing 100% of the herd when other factors such as age of other cows was taken into consideration.

GiveMeStrength

My final thought on this for the day is that would I be signing up to something for 6 years with relatively small financial return and a big outlay on replacements to make someone else up I. E. The factories.....

votuvant

tomieen jones wrote: »

Just of interest !! What is the least number of days interval a cow can have between calvings without being a miracle? ????JUST ASKING? ?😄

Depends on breed. Some AA have a gestation of less than 280 days and add 3 weeks or so. Minimum is probably 300 for Aa or 320 for continental.

votuvant

LivInt20 wrote: »

2. Farmers are looking at the €urostar values of their own cows and while not agreeing with all the figures, this will level out over time with genotyping.

4. By breeding from the better bulls the replacement heifers in time will be better cows and the overall suckler herd will be improved.

That's progress already.

How will genotyping change a cows rating. Is the genotyped female to be at least 4* at testing? If so is it not just reinforcing the way the ratings are done as is?

I've been using maternal Bulls on 50% of my cows for the last 5 years in order to breed replacements. Invariably what is recommended this year by ICBF figures and AI companies is way down the next year. How the hell can you plan with this crap going on.

One thing for sure is it will create a market for heifers off the dairy herd ...... maybe intentionally

Farmer

With inbreeding from the reduced gene pool, give it a few years and it's legs and heads ye'll be counting, not stars:D

LivInt20

votuvant wrote: »

How will genotyping change a cows rating. Is the genotyped female to be at least 4* at testing? If so is it not just reinforcing the way the ratings are done as is?

I've been using maternal Bulls on 50% of my cows for the last 5 years in order to breed replacements. Invariably what is recommended this year by ICBF figures and AI companies is way down the next year. How the hell can you plan with this crap going on.

One thing for sure is it will create a market for heifers off the dairy herd ...... maybe intentionally

If farmers are keeping what they believe to be their best cows this will be proved in time with genotyping. Having a cow genotpyed is the equivalent to having 70 calves on the ground. So if a farmers belief is correct then this will be proved in time, but a lot quicker than if there was no genotyping.

A bulls star rating is based across all pedigree stock in his breed. So if he is a five star within breed then he is in the top 20%. If his rating drops to four star then he in is the top 40%. The movement on star rating is based on his performance compared to others. A bull dropping in stars means his performance is dropping compared to other bulls in his breed.

There is no link to the dairy herd. Conformation, carcass weigh, weaning weigh, fat score are positive for the continental vrs the dairy herd. There is no reason that a market will be created for the dairy heifer.

ellewood

Why can't the base for this year b 3 star and once you can show an increase in star rating over the next few years be enough
Straight to 4 and 5 star is a big jump

annubis

seems like there wont be any changes to this scheme anyway at this stage, does anyone know what conditions the french farmers have to adhere to for their suckler cow payment , think they get approx 180 per cow

Charliebull

mayota wrote: »

A lot of people wanted a rolling reference year and this was a definite NO. However he said 2015 could be used if you feel it would suit better, he said talk to the department, he did'nt give reasons but I'd imagine disease, new entrant, ect.

did he mention the possibility of stock bull going to 3.5 star

Kovu wrote: »

It's funny how they managed to get into AI stations then if they weren't proven to breed well :rolleyes: Most were well fit for the weanling trade. Look at the bull Indurain, hailed as the best CH bull in the country, yet now he's a poor 3 1/2 stars for terminal?
Looking at an AI book from 2011 earlier and there's a hell of a lot of discrepancy between what was said about certain bulls and how they are starred now.

he was and still is a super bull, I have a stock bull with Indurian, Mogodor and Diamant in his back breeding , 3 of the top CH bulls in the country at one stage, yet he is only 3.5 star, he is only young but id guarantee he would stand toe to toe with any 5 star bull

Farmer wrote: »

With inbreeding from the reduced gene pool, give it a few years and it's legs and heads ye'll be counting, not stars:D

some lads call that line breeding;)

LivInt20

Charliebull wrote: »

he was and still is a super bull, I have a stock bull with Indurian, Mogodor and Diamant in his back breeding , 3 of the top CH bulls in the country at one stage, yet he is only 3.5 star, he is only young but id guarantee he would stand toe to toe with any 5 star bull


At this moment he in not in the top 40% compared to other Charolais bulls.

Charliebull

LivInt20 wrote: »

At this moment he in not in the top 40% compared to other Charolais bulls.

Who isn't

tanko

LivInt20 wrote: »

At this moment he in not in the top 40% compared to other Charolais bulls.

According to ICBF he's not in the top 40% of Charolais Bulls. This doesn't make it a fact. It's just their opinion and in this case is pure rubbish like much of their figures.
According to ICBF the Sim bull APZ was a four star maternal bull at 72% reliability and within 4 months be became a one star maternal bull at 78% reliability. The country is full of his heifers and I can't see how any of them will be classed as 4/5 star replacements.
ICBF would want to get their own house in order before they start telling farmers how to breed cattle.

Alibaba

GiveMeStrength wrote: »

I took it to mean 20% reduction in cows.

I don't know I'm still in two minds about this scheme. I'm not convinced that when I take my weanlings out to the mart I will have any more cash home with me from a 4* animal than from some of the current 2* cows already on the farm.

On the other hand I have 6 cows to be replaced this year regardless.

Also the price of these 4 and 5* replacements. You know well as soon as you ask what's the star rating of that animal the price just went up:)

Any gains from been in the scheme won't go too far purchasing all these replacements. The minister said that realistically over the course of the scheme farmers would end up replacing 100% of the herd when other factors such as age of other cows was taken into consideration.

I kinda feel the same as you.
I was thinking of getting out but maybe if I can get the full payment with the minimum number , it might be worth it.
That's why I was asking about the 20 % reduction.

Some of ts & cs seem vague to me.

Have applied anyway and we'll see.

LivInt20

Charliebull wrote: »

Who isn't

The stockbull you are talking about with 3.5 stars

LivInt20

tanko wrote: »

According to ICBF he's not in the top 40% of Charolais Bulls. This doesn't make it a fact. It's just their opinion and in this case is pure rubbish like much of their figures.
According to ICBF the Sim bull APZ was a four star maternal bull at 72% reliability and within 4 months be became a one star maternal bull at 78% reliability. The country is full of his heifers and I can't see how any of them will be classed as 4/5 star replacements.
ICBF would want to get their own house in order before they start telling farmers how to breed cattle.

It's the opinion of the database and records recorded on the bull vrs all other bulls in the database.

APZ dropped because of calving interval and survivability of his daughters.

He is likely to move up again once more daughters calve and stay in herds.

LivInt20

Alibaba wrote: »

I kinda feel the same as you.
I was thinking of getting out but maybe if I can get the full payment with the minimum number , it might be worth it.
That's why I was asking about the 20 % reduction.

Some of ts & cs seem vague to me.

Have applied anyway and we'll see.

Why do some many people want to reduce cow numbers?

Charliebull

LivInt20 wrote: »

The stockbull you are talking about with 3.5 stars

i never said he was

Charliebull

LivInt20 wrote: »

It's the opinion of the database and records recorded on the bull vrs all other bulls in the database.

APZ dropped because of calving interval and survivability of his daughters.

He is likely to move up again once more daughters calve and stay in herds.

so ICBF is only as good as the information that was recorded and hence does not provide a true reflection of the given animal in question. probably explains why the older bulls are so low

lets home the new scheme changes all that

ganmo

LivInt20 wrote: »

Why do some many people want to reduce cow numbers?

They want the option to reduce

Limestone Cowboy

LivInt20 wrote: »

It's the opinion of the database and records recorded on the bull vrs all other bulls in the database.

APZ dropped because of calving interval and survivability of his daughters.

He is likely to move up again once more daughters calve and stay in herds.

If doubt he'll ever move up to 4 or 5 star again, have seen plenty of stock off him and been impressed by very few of them.

LivInt20

Charliebull wrote: »

i never said he was

From an earlier post
"he was and still is a super bull, I have a stock bull with Indurian, Mogodor and Diamant in his back breeding , 3 of the top CH bulls in the country at one stage, yet he is only 3.5 star, he is only young but id guarantee he would stand toe to toe with any 5 star bull"

LivInt20

Charliebull wrote: »

so ICBF is only as good as the information that was recorded and hence does not provide a true reflection of the given animal in question. probably explains why the older bulls are so low

lets home the new scheme changes all that

Exactly.

With more information recorded and genotyping of more animals the €urostars will become more accurate.

That is why there is little point in reducing the 60% genotyping requirement.

The quicker we improve the accuracy of the database and €ursotars, then the quicker we can improve the national suckler cow herd.

Nettleman

LivInt20 wrote: »

Exactly.

With more information recorded and genotyping of more animals the €urostars will become more accurate.

That is why there is little point in reducing the 60% genotyping requirement.

The quicker we improve the accuracy of the database and €ursotars, then the quicker we can improve the national suckler cow herd.

why don't ICBF, as ive suggested many times before, return the free cash they have pocketed from beef farmers cattle tags since incorporation, abolish the 60 annual fee, offload a few directors and I think that would be a massive contribution to improving the PROFIT of the suckler herd, and lowering our cost base. Then, if ICBF want to charge commercial rate to any farmer who, by their own choice, want to avail of ICBF services, then they can do so. If their services are relevant, then the organisation might survive, if not, then they run out of cash, and out of business. On Databases, Maybe you could you put together a database of the positive reaction and another database of the negative reaction to your much defended scheme and see which database is bigger, starting with the headline on front page of todays rag. Im still not applying as this scheme is a con job, being peddled to benefit farmers, but there are so many others who benefit. more text messages received here too, even adds in the rag paid for by Teagasc encouraging signup. Thanks but no thanks

Charliebull

LivInt20 wrote: »

From an earlier post
"he was and still is a super bull, I have a stock bull with Indurian, Mogodor and Diamant in his back breeding , 3 of the top CH bulls in the country at one stage, yet he is only 3.5 star, he is only young but id guarantee he would stand toe to toe with any 5 star bull"

yea but i never said "he is in the top 40%"

i simply said i cant understand why he is only rated as 3.5 star

LivInt20

Nettleman wrote: »

why don't ICBF, as ive suggested many times before, return the free cash they have pocketed from beef farmers cattle tags since incorporation, abolish the 60 annual fee, offload a few directors and I think that would be a massive contribution to improving the PROFIT of the suckler herd, and lowering our cost base. Then, if ICBF want to charge commercial rate to any farmer who, by their own choice, want to avail of ICBF services, then they can do so. If their services are relevant, then the organisation might survive, if not, then they run out of cash, and out of business. On Databases, Maybe you could you put together a database of the positive reaction and another database of the negative reaction to your much defended scheme and see which database is bigger.

Well clearly the negative database will be bigger.

However the positive ones will have their payment by December and have a better suckler herd over the next six years.

So two positives for the farmers in the scheme.

Also there will be about 30000 farmers signed up out of a total 70000 suckler farmers so not much difference between for and against.

The negative database will spend the next six years complaining that they can't get in to the scheme and saying if they had know how easy it was going to be they would have joined.

I'm glad I'm in the positive basket.

LivInt20

Charliebull wrote: »

yea but i never said "he is in the top 40%"

i simply said i cant understand why he is only rated as 3.5 star

Do you want to PM me his tag number or name and I will take a look for you.