Dairy Chitchat 3

Mooooo

He does good reports, in fairness he seems to have gotten a better hold of the feeding, he's up a few litres on where they were before and solids holding up as well.

jaymla627

Mooooo wrote: »

He does good reports, in fairness he seems to have gotten a better hold of the feeding, he's up a few litres on where they were before and solids holding up as well.

Pretty easy to keep liters up given 10 odd kgs of meal going in and the massive amount of cows that have left the herd since the start of the year, going by stocking rate 310 cows are milking, 345 where milking on the same week last year, 60 odd cows have left the farm through voluntary culling and deaths since calving started this year.....
It’s a serious rate of attrition on a herd that culls hard year on year ( can’t bring out the passengers excuse of old cows/late calvers), and explains why milk volumes sent are down so much

mf240

jaymla627 wrote: »

Pretty easy to keep liters up given 10 odd kgs of meal going in and the massive amount of cows that have left the herd since the start of the year, going by stocking rate 310 cows are milking, 345 where milking on the same week last year, 60 odd cows have left the farm through voluntary culling and deaths since calving started this year.....
It’s a serious rate of attrition on a herd that culls hard year on year ( can’t bring out the passengers excuse of old cows/late calvers), and explains why milk volumes sent are down so much

With feed so scarce, they might buy that massive chip you have on your shoulder.

Sacrolyte

Fair play. He tells it like it is. Warts and all. A lot of this is experimental and we learn a lot from these assignments,good bad or indifferent.

jaymla627

mf240 wrote: »

With feed so scarce, they might buy that massive chip you have on your shoulder.

I reckon they wouldn’t have the price of it, 50k over-draft is maxed out in jk’s lastest article, their eating into the slush fund now, and they have approximately 40 odd days of silage in the yard for the winter at a stretch....
It’s some state of affairs, and it needs to be discussed, given this is the blueprint farm for a lot of lads that have ramped up numbers in recent years

Gawddawggonnit

Sacrolyte wrote: »

Chrome ?? Sorry. Technophobe here. You’ll have to translate that too

Machine translation...

Reacting to the European Commission's announcements concerning additional measures in the face of drought, the Confédération paysanne considers it "illusory to think that these derogations will be sufficient without a change in the agricultural model".

After saluting the announcements of Brussels, the union pleads on August 31, 2018 for "a review of water policies, from management to use, that will be the next meeting of water. We will take care of it by carrying adapted and ambitious proposals. "

"Real research for more resilience"
In his communique, he considers that in the face of the multiplication of climatic events, "a change of agricultural model and [...] a real search for more resilience and less specialization" are necessary, denouncing "the recourse to the private [...] insurances. . "

The union lists other requests that it wishes to see completed:

A deferral of the interest portion of the annuities at the end of the depreciation schedule;
Rapid calamity classification studies for the most affected areas;
That the chambers of agriculture and the State ensure that forage operations are transparent, open to all and without inflation galopan

Gawddawggonnit

http://www.arc2020.eu/drought-support-in-germany/

yosemitesam1

wrote:

http://www.arc2020.eu/drought-support-in-germany/

Are we ready for resilience yet? It'd have to be accepted that maximum yield isn't the goal as it needs more energy put into growing more roots and feeding the soil.

Any word on the skiing holidays yet?

whelan2

jaymla627 wrote: »

I reckon they wouldn’t have the price of it, 50k over-draft is maxed out in jk’s lastest article, their eating into the slush fund now, and they have approximately 40 odd days of silage in the yard for the winter at a stretch....
It’s some state of affairs, and it needs to be discussed, given this is the blueprint farm for a lot of lads that have ramped up numbers in recent years

Aren't they lucky to have the slush fund. Plenty of lads don't have that luxury. Just goes to show how weather dependent we are

jaymla627

whelan2 wrote: »

Aren't they lucky to have the slush fund. Plenty of lads don't have that luxury. Just goes to show how weather dependent we are

It simply exists due to the fact, they operate on a just in time approach re feed stocks, if they went out year on year and took 100 acres of silage ground on a 3 cut system our had 50 acres of maize contract grown for instance they wouldn’t have a penny in the bank....

yewtree

jaymla627 wrote: »

It simply exists due to the fact, they operate on a just in time approach re feed stocks, if they went out year on year and took 100 acres of silage ground on a 3 cut system our had 50 acres of maize contract grown for instance they wouldn’t have a penny in the bank....

Their slush fund exist because the business was profitable for 10 years, thereby proving the majority of their decisions were perfectly sound.
This is the 1st year they have got into big trouble with feed, the project is running nearly 10 years. They have the money to pay for it. considering they pay a full labour charge and a land charge and get no sfp they are doing alright. We all need a reserve but cutting a 100 acres more silage than you need every year is idiotic.

Buford T. Justice XIX

It seems madness to shut down the whole project based on the results of one years bad weather.

We've had three 1 in 40 year weather events in the last year so we should take the required stacking rate for this year as the baseline?

If next years weather is perfect in every way, do we then move on and take next years weather as the new baseline?

mahoney_j

yewtree wrote: »

Their slush fund exist because the business was profitable for 10 years, thereby proving the majority of their decisions were perfectly sound.
This is the 1st year they have got into big trouble with feed, the project is running nearly 10 years. They have the money to pay for it. considering they pay a full labour charge and a land charge and get no sfp they are doing alright. We all need a reserve but cutting a 100 acres more silage than you need every year is idiotic.

I wouldn’t say it’s idiotic for a 350 cow herd on a farm that can and dose suffer badly from drought and other extremes of weather every year to carry another 100 acres of silage in some form i ain’t farming anywhere near that scale but the farm obviously is profitable and has built up a nice bank of money sitting in an account practically doing nothing **** hits fan now and they are scrambeling for very scarce and very dear feed ,would it not be more prudent to have another slab or always have a couple of hindered bales in reserve ????? As an insurance policy

kevthegaff

Anyone using the milk recording for checking are cows empty, was considering it later on in the week

kevthegaff

Buford T. Justice V wrote:

We've had three 1 in 40 year weather events in the last year so we should take the required stacking rate for this year as the baseline?

Buford T. Justice V wrote:

It seems madness to shut down the whole project based on the results of one years bad weather.

Buford T. Justice V wrote:

If next years weather is perfect in every way, do we then move on and take next years weather as the new baseline?

It's getting quite interesting what's happening at greenfield. Lots of lessons for new/existing entrants. If it was all roses, it wouldn't give us some many valuable lessons. Also my teach our esteemed advisors about what happens when their behind the wheel..

yewtree

mahoney_j wrote: »

I wouldn’t say it’s idiotic for a 350 cow herd on a farm that can and dose suffer badly from drought and other extremes of weather every year to carry another 100 acres of silage in some form i ain’t farming anywhere near that scale but the farm obviously is profitable and has built up a nice bank of money sitting in an account practically doing nothing **** hits fan now and they are scrambeling for very scarce and very dear feed ,would it not be more prudent to have another slab or always have a couple of hindered bales in reserve ????? As an insurance policy

All fair points, having a reserve of silage is completely different to year after year making 100 acres more than required.. a reserve can be carried from one year to the next. It's sensible to carry a reserve but not to waste resources making huge amounts of silage that won't be needed. There are sound financial reasons why manufacturers run a just in time supply system

Gawddawggonnit

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Are we ready for resilience yet? It'd have to be accepted that maximum yield isn't the goal as it needs more energy put into growing more roots and feeding the soil.

Any word on the skiing holidays yet?

No, no, and lastly, no.

Gawddawggonnit

yewtree wrote: »

Their slush fund exist because the business was profitable for 10 years, thereby proving the majority of their decisions were perfectly sound.
This is the 1st year they have got into big trouble with feed, the project is running nearly 10 years. They have the money to pay for it. considering they pay a full labour charge and a land charge and get no sfp they are doing alright. We all need a reserve but cutting a 100 acres more silage than you need every year is idiotic.

So easy to see 10yrs of saving get p1ssed away in a few short months...

I very much admire the work in the Grernfields project, but what feckin good is it if lessons aren’t being learned????

Gawddawggonnit

yewtree wrote: »

There are sound financial reasons why manufacturers run a just in time supply system

Hmmm, do you really think that a jit fodder supply system is the way to go?
Honestly?

Gawddawggonnit

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

It seems madness to shut down the whole project based on the results of one years bad weather.

We've had three 1 in 40 year weather events in the last year so we should take the required stacking rate for this year as the baseline?

If next years weather is perfect in every way, do we then move on and take next years weather as the new baseline?

Who suggested to shut down the project?
*NOW* is the time to look closely at the fundamentals of the business model, surely?
And learn, learn, learn.

The link I posted is from a French farming union. The French farming system is widely accepted as being the most sustainable in the world (UN FAO), and they’re calling for a fundamental change to the French system. Interestingly they identify the spécialisation of agriculture being a major issue. I agree.

Fierce easy, even lazy, to quote forty year meteorological records and imply that things will be rosy for another 40yrs.
Climate is changing, the industry can adapt and change...OR...wait for the Gov to jump in with another bailout...ad nauseum.

OR

Just carry on as before doing the same thing and sweep the *crises* under that huge greenwash carpet.


*** How is it possible that everyone acknowledges that longer and wetter winters are now a fact, but never ever mention the need for more slurry storage?

mahoney_j

yewtree wrote: »

All fair points, having a reserve of silage is completely different to year after year making 100 acres more than required.. a reserve can be carried from one year to the next. It's sensible to carry a reserve but not to waste resources making huge amounts of silage that won't be needed. There are sound financial reasons why manufacturers run a just in time supply system

Silage and lots of itvwill always be needed in a place like greenfield I’d take the opposite that it’s financial madness to have a heap of money sitting in an account doing nothing and have practically no feed in yard at times of year .

Gawddawggonnit

mahoney_j wrote: »

Silage and lots of itvwill always be needed in a place like greenfield I’d take the opposite that it’s financial madness to have a heap of money sitting in an account doing nothing and have practically no feed in yard at times of year .

It doesn’t suit the narrative Mahoney.
If the narrative has to change it implies that there’s been many years of research for nought....but it doesn’t have to be that way. The best of brains change their dialogue when the facts/events change.

yewtree

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

Hmmm, do you really think that a jit fodder supply system is the way to go?
Honestly?

My point about just in time has to do with waste. When I was in school/college i worked with a silage contrator. It always amazed me how much silage was wasted in yards. Holding a large inventory of silage can lead to a lot of wastage you also need to be able to store it. Most of us don't have unlimited pits and bales won't keep indefinitely.
We all need a reserve but we don't need to be creating a reserve that's expanding every year.
The greenfield need to carry a reserve which they need to build up again. I presume they are learning these lessons.
It seems to me they need to tweak the system but on balance over the lifetime of the project it has worked. There will always be new challenges

Buford T. Justice XIX

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

Hmmm, do you really think that a jit fodder supply system is the way to go?
Honestly?

I don't think anyone was arguing that, Dawg. It was fairly obvious here after a few days of snowfall that the shops ran out of everything and the obvious flaw in JIT supply was highlighted



Well, ran out of everything bar vegan milk, big supply there all through the snow because nobody was buying it:D

whelan2

Just scanned there now. About 5 cows not in calf. All heifers and sucklers in calf. Was a bit worried as milk urea was high there for a while. New lad scanning. Wouldn't be rushing to get him again tbh

jaymla627

yewtree wrote: »

Their slush fund exist because the business was profitable for 10 years, thereby proving the majority of their decisions were perfectly sound.
This is the 1st year they have got into big trouble with feed, the project is running nearly 10 years. They have the money to pay for it. considering they pay a full labour charge and a land charge and get no sfp they are doing alright. We all need a reserve but cutting a 100 acres more silage than you need every year is idiotic.

I’m beyond help so, have 5 ton dm in the yard of conserved feed per cow as of last week....
Regards running into trouble with feed they have always had to buy in most years to get themselves out of trouble, the only good thing to come out of the place is the fact Glanbia haven’t been able to invest in a farm and produce milk at the sub 25 cent liter level cop that they where alluding to as guaranteed in the infancy of the “project”

GrasstoMilk

Last of this years fert ordered. Easily half grown to date compared to what we've grown up to September 1st the last 3 year

visatorro

whelan2 wrote:

Just scanned there now. About 5 cows not in calf. All heifers and sucklers in calf. Was a bit worried as milk urea was high there for a while. New lad scanning. Wouldn't be rushing to get him again tbh

I went thru a few scanners here. I dunno what the story is with some of them. Remember one lad wouldn't even use the scanner, just stick in his hand. He was only wrong half the time!

Happy with the fella I used the last few years. After a couple months I don't think any of them be accurate tbh. But at least this fella has a good manner about him.

kevthegaff

visatorro wrote:

I went thru a few scanners here. I dunno what the story is with some of them. Remember one lad wouldn't even use the scanner, just stick in his hand. He was only wrong half the time!

visatorro wrote:

Happy with the fella I used the last few years. After a couple months I don't think any of them be accurate tbh. But at least this fella has a good manner about him.

Had a lad from laois who was from a big dairy farm before, found him very good. Can't even remember his name, was on Donedeal. Anyway anyone doing the milk recording pregnancy test

yewtree

jaymla627 wrote: »

I’m beyond help so, have 5 ton dm in the yard of conserved feed per cow as of last week....
Regards running into trouble with feed they have always had to buy in most years to get themselves out of trouble, the only good thing to come out of the place is the fact Glanbia haven’t been able to invest in a farm and produce milk at the sub 25 cent liter level cop that they where alluding to as guaranteed in the infancy of the “project”

It takes 6 tonne to feed a cow for the year, I can't see any justification for carrying that level of feed. Silage is expensive there are losses at ensiling and feeding out. What is achieved by carrying that level of feed. Will no grass grow at all next year.
Nobody ever said it would produce milk for sub 25 cent. Do you have a link to an article where that was stated?
The farm has constantly highlighted the true cost of production which in farms carrying debt is over 30 cent. In that regard it has done us a great service.

Mooooo

With the green fields it was about converting a tillage farm to dairy in a partnership scenario. Off the bat it has/ had issues with om, so a straight disadvantage there especially in this summer's conditions. To have the weather we've had this past 12 months is rare, fair enough we can say climate is changing but 1 year doesn't make a trend for us yet, and the last events also happened 30 odd years ago. Of course we must plan for when weather throws a curve ball but there weren't many not caught this year by it. I see in a map of Europe near on all northern Europe has been effected with lower yields yet Spain and and parts of southern Europe have had higher than normal growth.

I don't think it matters weather you buy in feed or not what needs to be looked at is stocking rate including bought in feed. For example I've bought 6.7 ha of maize, say an average year it may do 14tn of dm/ ha. If I grow 14tn of grass per ha it is the equivalent of that 6.7 ha of grass without getting into forage analysis etc. That would bring my sr at my target numbers to 2.55 / ha over the whole farm + maize. That's youngstock cows the lot. I need to figure out if that is sustainable or can it be raised to improve output while being able to cope with a year like this. Obviously ration bought and all that should be included as well but ye get my drift.

Buford T. Justice XIX

kevthegaff wrote: »

Had a lad from laois who was from a big dairy farm before, found him very good. Can't even remember his name, was on Donedeal. Anyway anyone doing the milk recording pregnancy test

Scanning here in 2 weeks, kev, so I'll not be using it. I find the scanning good for pointing out cows with twins so they can get special care once dry which is a huge disadvantage from my perspective in the milk recording testing.


That and getting the date of calving versus yes/no.

blackdog1

yewtree wrote:

It takes 6 tonne to feed a cow for the year, I can't see any justification for carrying that level of feed. Silage is expensive there are losses at ensiling and feeding out. What is achieved by carrying that level of feed. Will no grass grow at all next year. Nobody ever said it would produce milk for sub 25 cent. Do you have a link to an article where that was stated? The farm has constantly highlighted the true cost of production which in farms carrying debt is over 30 cent. In that regard it has done us a great service.

If he has maize he can feed it all summer and pump milk while also increasing his stocking rate. Having good fodder in the pit just gives you so many options... You're never really afraid to take out paddocks. Supplementing cows with forage all year would give fabulous results. Just the extra work would be a pain in the ass.

Gawddawggonnit

The Irish/Teagasc grass based system is fundamentally flawed.
Fact.
You can’t keep running a system/industry that keeps reeling from crisis to crisis like drunks at a stag party.

Greenfields has demonstrated this quite admirably, and if nothing is learned from it other than the unsustainability of the system, then it was well worthwhile.
Brilliant time right now to sit and have an adult discussion about what can be learned, and the way(s) forward.

Headlines for discussion;

Future proof of fodder.
Slurry storage.
Pollution.
Climate obligations/fines.


There are probably a lot more things to discuss but those four are good place to start....like, of the estimated €5/600 million fines coming down the road. Does the polluter pay? That’s a good €200million per annum....buy a lot of fodder with that.

Gawddawggonnit

whelan2 wrote: »

Just scanned there now. About 5 cows not in calf. All heifers and sucklers in calf. Was a bit worried as milk urea was high there for a while. New lad scanning. Wouldn't be rushing to get him again tbh

Snap!
Scanned last week with a new young fellow. Turns out that 37 were inseminated on the same day...sigh.

kowtow

yewtree wrote: »

My point about just in time has to do with waste. When I was in school/college i worked with a silage contrator. It always amazed me how much silage was wasted in yards. Holding a large inventory of silage can lead to a lot of wastage you also need to be able to store it. Most of us don't have unlimited pits and bales won't keep indefinitely.
We all need a reserve but we don't need to be creating a reserve that's expanding every year.
The greenfield need to carry a reserve which they need to build up again. I presume they are learning these lessons.
It seems to me they need to tweak the system but on balance over the lifetime of the project it has worked. There will always be new challenges

I wonder would year old silage be as good a stock for an anaerobic dig ester as fresh silage? A less corrupt approach to micro-generation together with a bit of out-of-the-box thinking and re-invigoration of the small (local) co-operative spirit and some sort of effective buffer system should be possible without any waste at all.

Combine that with on-site NIRS testing of bales and a quality labelling system and there would be a perfectly good incentive for beef farmers etc. to improve land utilisation and produce better bales right now knowing that they would find a decent market for them.

Years like this year could actually improve things in the longer term if only we didn't let our egos get in the way.

whelan2

Apparently teat sealers can't be got. If you use them might be worth sourcing them niw

Panch18

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

So easy to see 10yrs of saving get p1ssed away in a few short months...

I very much admire the work in the Grernfields project, but what feckin good is it if lessons aren’t being learned????

The lesson is there’s no money long term out of cows. Sure you’ll get a wage from it most years, but actually making real money? No way. Make money, lose money. Set up a rainy day fund and then spend it all and some, That’s the way it’s gone now

charolais0153

Panch18 wrote: »

The lesson is there’s no money long term out of cows. Sure you’ll get a wage from it most years, but actually making real money? No way. Make money, lose money. Set up a rainy day fund and then spend it all and some, That’s the way it’s gone now

They pay a wage though to all the employees

Panch18

charolais0153 wrote: »

They pay a wage though to all the employees

The local shopkeeper pays a wage to his employees as well without it being published all over the place like it’s some amazing achievement.

a business wouldn’t last long if it didn’t pay its staff

wrangler

Panch18 wrote: »

The local shopkeeper pays a wage to his employees as well without it being published all over the place like it’s some amazing achievement.

a business wouldn’t last long if it didn’t pay its staff

There's thousand of farms shaken to its roots by this year and they probably won't get a salary either ......no one need wonder at greenfields.
To make changes based on this year would be stupid. Begrudgers will always be waiting in the wings,

Calfscour

Panch18 wrote: »

The lesson is there’s no money long term out of cows. Sure you’ll get a wage from it most years, but actually making real money? No way. Make money, lose money. Set up a rainy day fund and then spend it all and some, That’s the way it’s gone now

+1000 farm if you love it but don't do it to be well off or have a social life!!!!

mahoney_j

Calfscour wrote: »

+1000 farm if you love it but don't do it to be well off or have a social life!!!!

U may not get well off from it but u can and should have a social life and life outside the farm too many lads are married to the stock and land and for what at end of the day

alps

yewtree wrote: »

Their slush fund exist because the business was profitable for 10 years, thereby proving the majority of their decisions were perfectly sound.
This is the 1st year they have got into big trouble with feed, the project is running nearly 10 years. They have the money to pay for it. considering they pay a full labour charge and a land charge and get no sfp they are doing alright. We all need a reserve but cutting a 100 acres more silage than you need every year is idiotic.

Their slush fund exists because unlike any normal business, their principals take no financial reward.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

The Irish/Teagasc grass based system is fundamentally flawed.
Fact.
You can’t keep running a system/industry that keeps reeling from crisis to crisis like drunks at a stag party.

Greenfields has demonstrated this quite admirably, and if nothing is learned from it other than the unsustainability of the system, then it was well worthwhile.
Brilliant time right now to sit and have an adult discussion about what can be learned, and the way(s) forward.

Headlines for discussion;

Future proof of fodder.
Slurry storage.
Pollution.
Climate obligations/fines.


There are probably a lot more things to discuss but those four are good place to start....like, of the estimated €5/600 million fines coming down the road. Does the polluter pay? That’s a good €200million per annum....buy a lot of fodder with that.

Might be worth a read in relation to pasture based dairying efficiency.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618325563

Buford T. Justice XIX

This grant to improve energy efficiency might be of interest to some.
https://twitter.com/SEAI_ie/status/1036512874561236992?s=19

kowtow

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Might be worth a read in relation to pasture based dairying efficiency.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618325563

Was just reading it now as it happens.

1. Tank storage with crust - does that apply to all non-lagoon tanks (eg. metal slurry stores / outside concrete tank / slatted unit?)

2. What is the uptake of high sugar grasses in Ireland? Are there any on the approved list etc.?

morclc

whelan2 wrote: »

Apparently teat sealers can't be got. If you use them might be worth sourcing them niw

Is there a shortage of them??

Gawddawggonnit

Two of our lads were involved in a collision with a drunk driver last night. Both are battered and bruised but basically ok. One had no safety belt on and got over 30 stitches to his head. The other is bruised and battered.

Rang the equivalent of the FRS last night for two replacements. No bother, but not one in the whole county that’ll milk cows!
There is a lesson to be learned there somewhere...

Gawddawggonnit

kowtow wrote: »

I wonder would year old silage be as good a stock for an anaerobic dig ester as fresh silage? A less corrupt approach to micro-generation together with a bit of out-of-the-box thinking and re-invigoration of the small (local) co-operative spirit and some sort of effective buffer system should be possible without any waste at all.

Combine that with on-site NIRS testing of bales and a quality labelling system and there would be a perfectly good incentive for beef farmers etc. to improve land utilisation and produce better bales right now knowing that they would find a decent market for them.

Years like this year could actually improve things in the longer term if only we didn't let our egos get in the way.

Good idea.
Why not?
The only concern I’d have about a digester is that it usually prices farmers out of the fodder market...

The last sentence is a peach...!