Dairy Chitchat 3

K.G.

Reggie. wrote: »

That's the way tanks are sloped to let the slurry out.

But can they not be built to slope to the front,everything would be better for.traction.my own tank is very level on our tractor

Injuryprone

K.G. wrote: »

Why does the slurry have to come out the back?yeah the tank travelling on slurry would result in dirty grass i suppose

It would be more than just dirtying the grass. If the ground was any way soft, the tanker wheels would be churning up the soil alot quicker. Imagine if you were spreading today and you took a full load across the field and crossed over a bit that was already spread, you wouldn't be long seeing the difference between the tracks

roosterman71

Injuryprone wrote: »

It would be more than just dirtying the grass. If the ground was any way soft, the tanker wheels would be churning up the soil alot quicker. Imagine if you were spreading today and you took a full load across the field and crossed over a bit that was already spread, you wouldn't be long seeing the difference between the tracks

Ya have the same problem today. Position of the dribble bar would have no bearing on the tyre damage going across an already spread piece with a full tank

jaymla627

Hopefully no new entrants are following and banking on what their target farms are ment to achieve going forward as sound financial costings and achievable year in year out....
It's hard to have any faith our creditablility when you see them still coming out with crap like this

tanko

Who came up with those figures?
Teagasc i assume.

GrasstoMilk

jaymla627 wrote: »

Hopefully no new entrants are following and banking on what their target farms are ment to achieve going forward as sound financial costings and achievable year in year out....
It's hard to have any faith our creditablility when you see them still coming out with crap like this

What is wrong with it?

jaymla627

GrasstoMilk wrote: »

What is wrong with it?

Milk solids sold nearly doubled but 20% less silage made and half the meal fed, is fantasyland stuff, hours worked per cow also halved but hired in labour is magically lower along with only a small increase in other contracting fees bar silage which you'd imagen would be nearly double then the average farmer who puts in 30 hours a cow labour wise yearly.....

GrasstoMilk

jaymla627 wrote: »

Milk solids sold nearly doubled but 20% less silage made and half the meal fed, is fantasyland stuff, hours worked per cow also halved but hired in labour is magically lower along with only a small increase in other contracting fees bar silage which you'd imagen would be nearly double then the average farmer who puts in 30 hours a cow labour wise yearly.....

They went contract rearing which would reduce labour required aswell as reduce silage requirements.
First winter contract rearing our young stock and it's made a massive difference. Not running around the roads every day to bring meal or heading off in the tractor every second day to bed and feed them.
It probably also allows for the average farmer not grass measuring or budgeting or having a good handle on grass management. Getting that right can give great returns. To me its the main difference between the best and the worst guys. It's the single biggest difference that has brought our herd forward here.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Extra calf lairage being provided in Cherbourg.

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/additional-calf-lairage-facilities-increasingly-likely-in-cherbourg/

whelan2

Had a new vet out today, same practice. He was a bit older than me and foreign. Had 2 cows that held cleanings. One had twins last Tuesday and dropped her cleanings last night. He said he doesn't handle them as it brings in more infection. He took their temperature and listening to their bellies and said leave them be. Estrumate them when they are 3 weeks calved. Had another cow was bit off over the weekend and had done similar a few months ago. First thing he did was put a metal detector under her belly and it beeped. I asked would a magnet do anything for her, hs said no

alps

Jack Nolan..Dept of ag..

Half of the nutrient loss from farms occurs during the closed period..

alps

Paddy Wall...


In country towns, we're closing butcher shops and opening chemists

Buford T. Justice XIX

alps wrote: »

Jack Nolan..Dept of ag..

Half of the nutrient loss from farms occurs during the closed period..

Did he say where and how?

Mooooo

GrasstoMilk wrote: »

They went contract rearing which would reduce labour required aswell as reduce silage requirements.
First winter contract rearing our young stock and it's made a massive difference. Not running around the roads every day to bring meal or heading off in the tractor every second day to bed and feed them.
It probably also allows for the average farmer not grass measuring or budgeting or having a good handle on grass management. Getting that right can give great returns. To me its the main difference between the best and the worst guys. It's the single biggest difference that has brought our herd forward here.

While there are achievable metrics in the target performance figures some are relatively unrealistic. Contractor costs at that level having minimal machinery costs is unlikely for example. Stage of development then being a big thing with regard to achieving those figures as well. Make plans off your own figures and work from there. I aim to make small steps. Hope to reduce meal by 300kg a cow, grass growth dependant, as lads feeding a lot less than me achieving better output. Obv grass managements will have to improve to achieve that on my part

Waffletraktor

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Did he say where and how?

Flows off down the road most rain events.

GrasstoMilk

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Did he say where and how?

Heavy rain events washing phos off the top soil. It's worse in areas where water cant percolate through the topsoil and runs off instead.
It's the reason why the closed period will always be there.

Timmaay

Mooooo wrote: »

While there are achievable metrics in the target performance figures some are relatively unrealistic. Contractor costs at that level having minimal machinery costs is unlikely for example. Stage of development then being a big thing with regard to achieving those figures as well. Make plans off your own figures and work from there. I aim to make small steps. Hope to reduce meal by 300kg a cow, grass growth dependant, as lads feeding a lot less than me achieving better output. Obv grass managements will have to improve to achieve that on my part

And of course weather shocks can totally throw them targets, try skimping on labour in March 18, 500kg of meal wouldn't of fed much that year. The biggest problem though I see with national targets like this are they give the totally wrong impression to the processors, us farmers all jump 20 or 30% higher does that mean a milk price drop of similar??

Say my name

GrasstoMilk wrote: »

Heavy rain events washing phos off the top soil. It's worse in areas where water cant percolate through the topsoil and runs off instead.
It's the reason why the closed period will always be there.

On tillage soils with no ground cover. It's nitrates that leaches out of the soil over winter.
In the castledockrell catchment with all tillage. Nitrate leaching is the problem.

In the kilmuckridge area with the heavy ground and no tillage. It's phosphorus washing off the top of the ground.

Mooooo

Grand night out, calm and nice sky. Fleckveih 2nd calver after landing a heifer calf 10 days early. 80% heifers so far! Only 5 calves yet tho

alps

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Did he say where and how?

Didn't say,

I do know that county councils are at the end of their patience with out of season spreading. They have been turning a complete blind eye to it so far, but reckon that have come under pressure over the recent detioriatung river quality results. One council have declared that next year every farmer seen spreading out of date is just going to be reported for a full cross compliance..

Gawddawggonnit

alps wrote: »

Didn't say,

I do know that county councils are at the end of their patience with out of season spreading. They have been turning a complete blind eye to it so far, but reckon that have come under pressure over the recent detioriatung river quality results. One council have declared that next year every farmer seen spreading out of date is just going to be reported for a full cross compliance..

You mean that the ‘fine’ for spreading slurry out of season, is an inspection???
Jesus wept.

I’ve no idea what the fine is here but for a couple of ear tags missing the fine is €3300....

Safety inspection ongoing here now. Everyone wearing a high viz and reverse beepers on machinery plugged in. Job done, hopefully. .

Buford T. Justice XIX

alps wrote: »

Didn't say,

I do know that county councils are at the end of their patience with out of season spreading. They have been turning a complete blind eye to it so far, but reckon that have come under pressure over the recent detioriatung river quality results. One council have declared that next year every farmer seen spreading out of date is just going to be reported for a full cross compliance..

That's good news.

Maybe the council will report the discharges from our local villages sewage outlet before it travels downriver and becomes Ag pollution?

Nah, don't think so either.

Gawddawggonnit

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

That's good news.

Maybe the council will report the discharges from our local villages sewage outlet before it travels downriver and becomes Ag pollution?

....and threaten them with an inspection? Lol.

Gawddawggonnit

Asked one of the inspectors why they wear high viz and all other inspectors dont?
‘I can’t speak for other inspectors’ she replied.

In fairness they’re not a bad crowd.

Reggie.

alps wrote: »

Didn't say,

I do know that county councils are at the end of their patience with out of season spreading. They have been turning a complete blind eye to it so far, but reckon that have come under pressure over the recent detioriatung river quality results. One council have declared that next year every farmer seen spreading out of date is just going to be reported for a full cross compliance..

Someone is going to get nailed

whelan2

In fairness alot of lads had tanks full of water at the start of the closed period. They couldn't spread as the land was so wet. A bit of cop on on both sides. Sometimes rules don't work.

GrasstoMilk

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

You mean that the ‘fine’ for spreading slurry out of season, is an inspection???
Jesus wept.

I’ve no idea what the fine is here but for a couple of ear tags missing the fine is €3300....

Safety inspection ongoing here now. Everyone wearing a high viz and reverse beepers on machinery plugged in. Job done, hopefully. .

The fine is 6 or 7k straight out

yosemitesam1

GrasstoMilk wrote: »

The fine is 6 or 7k straight out

Have many ever been fined? Seen quite a bit this year and you'd wonder should they be reported as ultimately they give us all a bad name

Mooooo

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

Asked one of the inspectors why they wear high viz and all other inspectors dont?
‘I can’t speak for other inspectors’ she replied.

In fairness they’re not a bad crowd.

Went helping a lad testing one day, a fella wearing a hi vis wasn't exactly helping them go up the crush

Reggie.

whelan2 wrote: »

In fairness alot of lads had tanks full of water at the start of the closed period. They couldn't spread as the land was so wet. A bit of cop on on both sides. Sometimes rules don't work.

That's true but lads blatently driving around in dec on the roads with full slurry systems is asking for trouble from the bored eco warriors

whelan2

Reggie. wrote: »

That's true but lads blatently driving around in dec on the roads with full slurry systems is asking for trouble from the bored eco warriors

Yes I agree. I have enough storage for the closed period as long as it's not half full at the start.

Reggie.

whelan2 wrote: »

Yes I agree. I have enough storage for the closed period as long as it's not half full at the start.

Like it is done but try and be clever or discreet about it

GrasstoMilk

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Have many ever been fined? Seen quite a bit this year and you'd wonder should they be reported as ultimately they give us all a bad name

A good few from what I've heard. Wexford coco are still going around farms dishing out fines for lads that were reported over the closed period

Gawddawggonnit

GrasstoMilk wrote: »

A good few from what I've heard. Wexford coco are still going around farms dishing out fines for lads that were reported over the closed period

Any idea what the second and subsequent fines are?

I know that from here a second or subsequent infringement can invoke your ‘droit d’exploitation’ or your ‘right to farm’...don’t ask how I know.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

....and threaten them with an inspection? Lol.

I've no problem with lads getting fined for pollution but let's put everyone on a level playing field. Anyone living near discharge points around the country will readily tell you of the load of sh!te, condoms, sanitary pads, wipes, cotton etc etc etc that they find all along the banks of rivers downriver from discharge points.

Granted, it's not every scheme but there's a hell of a lot of plants being worked at high levels over their capacity. And it's being allowed. If I have to supply extra storage capacity for any increase in cattle numbers before having them to prevent pollution, why are the rules for Public Authority treatment plants so different to farmers requirements? I would be fairly sure that those discharges are being recorded as Agricultural pollution so I tend to ignore those clickbait headlines and stories.

There was a huge, massive, pollution discharge from a North Dublin sewage plant late last year. It made TV news and headlined the national papers for a few days. Iirc, a couple of hundred thousand gallons of partially treated waste was discharged into Dublin Bay due to excess rain.

When do you think the fines for that will be issued?

roosterman71

They won't be fined.
The argument allowing sewage discharge would be it's a public necessity or something along those lines. A farmer wanting to increase numbers wouldn't fall into that remit.
The trouble is that the councils aren't going to fine, or indeed even report themselves. You need an independent body (EPA?) to oversee this and apply the same rules to everyone.

And throw in the possibility of people able to walk into Woodies or similar and buy a can of round up to kill a few dandelions on the driveway. Where does that flow to if too much is used? Or if they don't use it all, how is the remainder discarded (my money is down the drain).

Gawddawggonnit

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

I've no problem with lads getting fined for pollution but let's put everyone on a level playing field. Anyone living near discharge points around the country will readily tell you of the load of sh!te, condoms, sanitary pads, wipes, cotton etc etc etc that they find all along the banks of rivers downriver from discharge points.

Granted, it's not every scheme but there's a hell of a lot of plants being worked at high levels over their capacity. And it's being allowed. If I have to supply extra storage capacity for any increase in cattle numbers before having them to prevent pollution, why are the rules for Public Authority treatment plants so different to farmers requirements? I would be fairly sure that those discharges are being recorded as Agricultural pollution so I tend to ignore those clickbait headlines and stories.

There was a huge, massive, pollution discharge from a North Dublin sewage plant late last year. It made TV news and headlined the national papers for a few days. Iirc, a couple of hundred thousand gallons of partially treated waste was discharged into Dublin Bay due to excess rain.

When do you think the fines for that will be issued?

It’s disgraceful carryon.

An Taisce should be screaming about it.

whelan2

If you ring the council it's not their problem its irish waters problem.....

Gawddawggonnit

whelan2 wrote: »

If you ring the council it's not their problem its irish waters problem.....

...pass the buck.

Friend of mine landed a plum job with Irish Water. He was a former County Manager in a small county, and he as good as broke the county. I remember him being very worried about future employment, and rightly so, because he bankrupted the county...but, fear not, a plum job was ‘fabricated’ for the poor man in Irish Water. He’s playing down the clock now until his golden parachute pension kicks in.
Great country!
(I just can’t understand how useless, inept people are highly rewarded)

alps

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

...pass the buck.

(I just can’t understand how useless, inept people are highly rewarded)

It's a very specialised profession, but if you get past the application process,its highly rewarding.

Just wish there had been proper career advise on this type of profession in school....after all most of the advisors had cracked it..

whelan2

alps wrote: »

It's a very specialised profession, but if you get past the application process,its highly rewarding.

Just wish there had been proper career advise on this type of profession in school....after all most of the advisors had cracked it..

I was told I should be a secretary

Reggie.

whelan2 wrote: »

I was told I should be a secretary

Theres an image

Buford T. Justice XIX

whelan2 wrote: »

I was told I should be a secretary

Looking at the requirements brought in the last few years, it's what I've ended up as:pac:

straight

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

I've no problem with lads getting fined for pollution but let's put everyone on a level playing field. Anyone living near discharge points around the country will readily tell you of the load of sh!te, condoms, sanitary pads, wipes, cotton etc etc etc that they find all along the banks of rivers downriver from discharge points.

Granted, it's not every scheme but there's a hell of a lot of plants being worked at high levels over their capacity. And it's being allowed. If I have to supply extra storage capacity for any increase in cattle numbers before having them to prevent pollution, why are the rules for Public Authority treatment plants so different to farmers requirements? I would be fairly sure that those discharges are being recorded as Agricultural pollution so I tend to ignore those clickbait headlines and stories.

There was a huge, massive, pollution discharge from a North Dublin sewage plant late last year. It made TV news and headlined the national papers for a few days. Iirc, a couple of hundred thousand gallons of partially treated waste was discharged into Dublin Bay due to excess rain.

When do you think the fines for that will be issued?

They only had to discharge that because of the heavy rain sure. And that's caused by climate change and you know who's causing climate change don't you? It's all the farmers fault basically.

straight

roosterman71 wrote: »

They won't be fined.
The argument allowing sewage discharge would be it's a public necessity or something along those lines. A farmer wanting to increase numbers wouldn't fall into that remit.
The trouble is that the councils aren't going to fine, or indeed even report themselves. You need an independent body (EPA?) to oversee this and apply the same rules to everyone.

And throw in the possibility of people able to walk into Woodies or similar and buy a can of round up to kill a few dandelions on the driveway. Where does that flow to if too much is used? Or if they don't use it all, how is the remainder discarded (my money is down the drain).

Half the country are spraying the edge of the road outside their houses. Plain to see and straight into the watercourse in many cases. Farmer fault too sure...

Water John

No need to worry about further milk expansion, PBP are going to half Ireland's dairy herd. Talk about being populist bull****ters, I'll take the Greens in Govn't any day.
https://www.thejournal.ie/solidarity-people-before-profit-climate-manifesto-4984610-Jan2020/

jaymla627

Water John wrote: »

No need to worry about further milk expansion, PBP are going to half Ireland's dairy herd. Talk about being populist bull****ters, I'll take the Greens in Govn't any day.
https://www.thejournal.ie/solidarity-people-before-profit-climate-manifesto-4984610-Jan2020/

For all the manifestos and promises the various parties are coming out with, none seem to want to bring up our ancient water infrastructure and the fortune it would cost to upgrade it, Irish water have their hands tied due to no water charges.the irony of having renewable energy and electric cars but no water in the taps in the future shouldn't be lost on people

Birdnuts

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Have many ever been fined? Seen quite a bit this year and you'd wonder should they be reported as ultimately they give us all a bad name

The Irish Salmon and Trout anglers website have some info on court cases in this context - though they tend to focus on areas adjacent to important game fisheries like Lough Sheelin, River Moy etc.

Birdnuts

straight wrote: »

Half the country are spraying the edge of the road outside their houses. Plain to see and straight into the watercourse in many cases. Farmer fault too sure...

One of my pet hates that:mad:

Birdnuts

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

...
(I just can’t understand how useless, inept people are highly rewarded)

Alot of things wrong with this country(especcially in government agencies) would be explained by the above:(