Dairy Chitchat 4, an udder new thread.

Mooooo

blackdog1 wrote: »

Here is my take on the Derogation situation if it goes, and we all have the same stocking number.

Guys doing 400kg of solids will be in trouble anyone doing 560 plus will be fine but they'll have to breed top 30-40% to sexed semen and the rest to beef unless they have a very desirable herd. This could in turn make buying replacement heifers very difficult as they will be thin on the ground. Cross breds to me will be less desirable too. yes you can get 600 kgs on maybe less meal than a holstein but you will sacrifice on cull cow prices and calf prices so they wont be anymore profit in it.

Personally for me if this happens i will do the above. i'll cut back on any extra stock that i usually sell. i'll use sexed semen on my top 30% and easy calving beef on the rest and i'll probably go back to growing a field of wheat that i'll use for crimp and straw. Hopefully I dont think i'll have to drop my cow numbers though.

Is it the extra stock you sell has you in derogation? If it goes and sr gets capped at 2/ ha here I'll be down 40 cows, similarly the neighbour will be down similar numbers, fella working between us will be looking for another job. We may be able to continue but whether or not the income at those numbers will be enough or not I dunno, and the cost of getting land to increase/ maintain numbers when milk price wont increase may be questionable. For those on smaller holdings there will be a lot of head scratching particularly in west cork and similar areas

Buford T. Justice XIX

awaywithyou wrote: »

and zero grazing seems to b a factor... neighbour of mine who im sure u know well had a problem a few years ago and he made out twas z grazing a place belonging to a lad that kept greyhounds..

on another note Silage season wont be the same without the gentle giant on the loader... sadly..

It was strange enough the last few years without him but he showed up a few years ago for a few hours on the loader.
I remember covering the pit a few years ago on a very windy day and we unrolled the plastic in a field next to the pit. He wasn't happy doing it that way at all, cross out:D
I enjoyed him, tbh, and he'll be missed.

RIP, big man.

K.G.

Should the dept extend the calf tb test requirement to 120 days again next spring.it does ease a bit of stress and gets more customers for calves

orm0nd

Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: »

Afaik, it's only a problem in females. As said above, causes abortion and can be passed onto a female who goes full term. It's also passed on by other cows licking afterbirth or aborted calves. Also passed on in dog and fox dung so can be passed on in infected silage where dogs and foxes defecate. Diet feeders seem to multiply the problem in cases as well.

Important to dispose of cleanings quickly and safely. If a dog or fox eat them they become carriers and shed it on their faeces.

Base price

K.G. wrote: »

Should the dept extend the calf tb test requirement to 120 days again next spring.it does ease a bit of stress and gets more customers for calves

It would be great if they did but I doubt it will happen unless were are in another lockdown situation. Private testing is worth too much to the Vets to let it go and calves are handy tested.

mahoney_j

Base price wrote: »

It would be great if they did but I doubt it will happen unless were are in another lockdown situation. Private testing is worth too much to the Vets to let it go and calves are handy tested.

Don’t see why lads wouldn’t test calves if herd testing ,more lads got caught in August September when it came to selling weanlings

Tonynewholland

mahoney_j wrote: »

Don’t see why lads wouldn’t test calves if herd testing ,more lads got caught in August September when it came to selling weanlings

If they are registered you must test them

mahoney_j

Tonynewholland wrote: »

If they are registered you must test them

Covid restrictions gave farmers option tho of selling calves up to 120 days without test last spring lots around here took option but had to go back and do private test

whelan2

mahoney_j wrote: »

Covid restrictions gave farmers option tho of selling calves up to 120 days without test last spring lots around here took option but had to go back and do private test

It's the same again at the moment ,can sell calves up to 120 days with no test.

Mf310

whelan2 wrote: »

No hes in 3rd year of an ag science degree. He just wants to get the green cert now and exit the course. He can't get an exit award until after Christmas, so has to continue the course until then. He has actually been to dkit once this year. Everything else is on line. Last time he was in Ballyhaise was February. Then we dont know how long tams will still be running for

Fair enough but my point is if you can get the partnership bit sorted out you can still apply for your grant together with the provision of young lad getting green cert in the next year and ye will get the 40% grant and he will get the remaining 20% after he produces green cert. Have heard it go on before so that it is not just an issue of timing that is stopping investment on farm. Course finishing month and month he gets green cert could be 5/6 months later so if possible to just get into partnership now and apply for your grant away and whenever he gets green cert send it in and you will get yer full allowance?

Just found this on Teagasc website

Partnerships that are registered with the DAFM Partnership Registration Office
may be eligible for double investment ceiling under TAMS II. This means that the
€80,000 investment ceiling may be doubled to €160,000. The rate of grant is as
follows:
= 40% on an investment of up to €160,000 where the partnership does not have
a qualifying young trained farmer.
= 60% on the first €80,000 ceiling and 40% on the second €80,000 ceiling where
the partnership has one partner who qualifies as a young trained farmer.

***Where a registered partnership has young farmer who has not yet completed the
required agricultural training, they may still avail of the double investment ceiling
at the 40% rate. The additional 20% rate for a young trained farmer on the first
€80,000 will not be paid until the required education is completed. The terms and
conditions of the TAMS II scheme allow 3 years from the date of application for the
education to be completed.***

Jb1989

Mf310 wrote: »

Fair enough but my point is if you can get the partnership bit sorted out you can still apply for your grant together with the provision of young lad getting green cert in the next year and ye will get the 40% grant and he will get the remaining 20% after he produces green cert. Have heard it go on before so that it is not just an issue of timing that is stopping investment on farm. Course finishing month and month he gets green cert could be 5/6 months later so if possible to just get into partnership now and apply for your grant away and whenever he gets green cert send it in and you will get yer full allowance?

Just found this on Teagasc website

Partnerships that are registered with the DAFM Partnership Registration Office
may be eligible for double investment ceiling under TAMS II. This means that the
€80,000 investment ceiling may be doubled to €160,000. The rate of grant is as
follows:
= 40% on an investment of up to €160,000 where the partnership does not have
a qualifying young trained farmer.
= 60% on the first €80,000 ceiling and 40% on the second €80,000 ceiling where
the partnership has one partner who qualifies as a young trained farmer.

***Where a registered partnership has young farmer who has not yet completed the
required agricultural training, they may still avail of the double investment ceiling
at the 40% rate. The additional 20% rate for a young trained farmer on the first
€80,000 will not be paid until the required education is completed. The terms and
conditions of the TAMS II scheme allow 3 years from the date of application for the
education to be completed.***

That should be great help to whelan, fair play for researching it out for her.

orm0nd

Tonynewholland wrote: »

If they are registered you must test them

when did that come in ? it used to be only over 42 days .

Tonynewholland

orm0nd wrote: »

when did that come in ? it used to be only over 42 days .

It’s something I’ve never checked but my vet always wanted to test everything registered.

Sacrolyte

Tonynewholland wrote: »

It’s something I’ve never checked but my vet always wanted to test everything registered.

Course he did

Base price

orm0nd wrote: »

when did that come in ? it used to be only over 42 days .

The original exemption was in April after the first lock down and from memory ran until September. The latest one came into effect mid October - link
https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/press/pressreleases/2020/october/title,153513,en.html
Word of warning - dairy bred/cross bred bull calves for export still need to move before 42 days unless they are tb tested.
Edit - I just re read tonynewholland's post and he is correct - traditionally if you are having a annual BTE herd test then all animals registered in the herd have to be tested.

Base price

Tonynewholland wrote: »

If they are registered you must test them

orm0nd wrote: »

when did that come in ? it used to be only over 42 days .

Tonynewholland wrote: »

It’s something I’ve never checked but my vet always wanted to test everything registered.

Sacrolyte wrote: »

Course he did

Correct- it is mandatory to tb test all registered cattle in a BTE annual herd test. Your Vet can give discretion for new born unregistered or only recently registered (within a couple of days) calves.

whelan2

Would it not be easier to test everything in your herd on the day of your test. I sold alot of calves last week, some where over 6 weeks, department said current rule is in place until the end of November. Was very handy.

straight

This fella would make you laugh.

https://m.independent.ie/business/farming/comment/darragh-mccullough-ifa-need-to-get-real-about-the-future-of-dairy-farming-39778269.html

Panch18

straight wrote: »

This fella would make you laugh.

https://m.independent.ie/business/farming/comment/darragh-mccullough-ifa-need-to-get-real-about-the-future-of-dairy-farming-39778269.html

maybe it's a good thing that the Indo has brought in a paywall so i can't read all of the drivel that he writes.

As i said before here on several occasions he is one of the most dangerous people in Irish agri given the various national platforms that he has and the way in which he uses them. I think a few people thought the first time i was harsh and he was just poor harmless Daragh the meeaww. Thankfully people are waking up and seeing him for what he is

Morris Moss

straight wrote: »

This fella would make you laugh.

https://m.independent.ie/business/farming/comment/darragh-mccullough-ifa-need-to-get-real-about-the-future-of-dairy-farming-39778269.html

What in the name of jaysus is a social license?

Siamsa Sessions

Panch18 wrote: »

maybe it's a good thing that the Indo has brought in a paywall so i can't read all of the drivel that he writes.

As i said before here on several occasions he is one of the most dangerous people in Irish agri given the various national platforms that he has and the way in which he uses them. I think a few people thought the first time i was harsh and he was just poor harmless Daragh the meeaww. Thankfully people are waking up and seeing him for what he is

In terms of public discussion, he is a journalist more than a farmer. His job is to fill pages and airwaves week-in week-out. He has to say something and when the weekly deadline is ticking ever closer it is easier to have a quick moan about something than go away and spend time researching a topic and then write a nuanced article. The negative article is probably more appreciated by the newspaper too as it makes better click-bait.

I'm not here defending Darragh and I don't agree with what he's saying but he's part of a bigger problem with the endless need for new stories and new content in the media these days. It does nothing for genuine discussions.

I'm aware of the irony as I have been known to write the odd article myself, but people should ignore the media much more. As the author Nasim Taleb said, "To be completely cured of newspapers, spend a year reading the previous week's newspapers"

alps

Morris Moss wrote: »

What in the name of jaysus is a social license?

Social license is being allowed by government to continue farming practices that the public have an uneasiness about..

It would include you being allowed to send calves to Holland or slaughter animals in factories or house animals for 4 months of the year or remove calves from their moms just after birth and so on, as long as you adhere to animal welfare principles, environmental necessities etc..

Fall outside the boundaries of what the general public consider from these environmental and welfare principals and you will see government having to change their approach on what they allow us to do..

Derogation is such a social licence, but it is dependent on water quality.

Mccullogh has a point, maybe too harsh in its implementation, but it is true to say that every extra cow that's put on a platform and milked from here on puts pressure on every existing cow to stay in place...

Farms without proper facilities, housing, storage, calving are a real threat to the continuation of farming at current stock levels...there is at least an arguable reason that slurry storage capacity be at least certified by a competent person and declared by the farmer to be adequate.

It is not unusual in most European countries that if you want to expand production, you have to submit a plan to and get permission from a local authority...it wouldn't be a bad idea here

Say my name

Morris Moss wrote: »

What in the name of jaysus is a social license?

Another word for Socialism.

I think the green element in renewable technology first brought the term in?
Now it's a go to buzzterm.

Particularly used by anti animal farming activists.

Edit: Google says it was first coined in 1997 by Jim Cooney then VP of Placer Dome. A Canadian gold mining company.

alps

Definition

The Social License has been defined as existing when a project has the ongoing approval within the local community and other stakeholders, ongoing approval or broad social acceptance and, most frequently, as ongoing acceptance. ... It is therefore granted by the community.

Say my name

alps wrote: »

Definition

The Social License has been defined as existing when a project has the ongoing approval within the local community and other stakeholders, ongoing approval or broad social acceptance and, most frequently, as ongoing acceptance. ... It is therefore granted by the community.

Define granted by the community.

And define community.

Say my name

Probably the next question should be which takes precedence?

Law of the land or Social license?

And does a greater community overide a lesser community?

Or is it all bo11ix happy clappy?

Panch18

alps wrote: »

Social license is being allowed by government to continue farming practices that the public have an uneasiness about..

It would include you being allowed to send calves to Holland or slaughter animals in factories or house animals for 4 months of the year or remove calves from their moms just after birth and so on, as long as you adhere to animal welfare principles, environmental necessities etc..

Fall outside the boundaries of what the general public consider from these environmental and welfare principals and you will see government having to change their approach on what they allow us to do..

Derogation is such a social licence, but it is dependent on water quality.

Mccullogh has a point, maybe too harsh in its implementation, but it is true to say that every extra cow that's put on a platform and milked from here on puts pressure on every existing cow to stay in place...

Farms without proper facilities, housing, storage, calving are a real threat to the continuation of farming at current stock levels...there is at least an arguable reason that slurry storage capacity be at least certified by a competent person and declared by the farmer to be adequate.

It is not unusual in most European countries that if you want to expand production, you have to submit a plan to and get permission from a local authority...it wouldn't be a bad idea here

Seriously Alps - are you having a laugh here or what??

Siamsa Sessions

Maybe another way to phrase it is simply "public support"?

Supermarkets have public support to use food as a loss-leader coz despite what Bord Bia surveys say about people willing to pay more for food, the reality is that people buy cheap. So, do supermarkets and processors therefore have public support, or a social license, to squeeze out small farmers and create the "industrial farms" that the same public apparently don't like?

Maybe Darragh or someone else could square that circle?

Panch18

Siamsa Sessions wrote: »

Maybe another way to phrase it is simply "public support"?

Supermarkets have public support to use food as a loss-leader coz despite what Bord Bia surveys say about people willing to pay more for food, the reality is that people buy cheap. So, do supermarkets and processors therefore have public support, or a social license, to squeeze out small farmers and create the "industrial farms" that the same public apparently don't like?

Maybe Darragh or someone else could square that circle?

There is a massive difference between public support and having to get a licence to milk cows

alps

Panch18 wrote: »

There is a massive difference between public support and having to get a licence to milk cows

You have a licence to milk cows....it may not feel like it, but its renewed every 18 months...

What goes on that licence is driven by official regulation and public perception, whatever way you want to turn it.

It's in our interests to control what limits us on that licence, rather than putting the 2 fingers up to it and complaining later.