Spin off from David gone dairying

Bass Reeves

Siamsa Sessions wrote: »

Sorry if you saw it like that. It wasn’t meant as a slight on farmers, whatever we call ourselves. What irks me is the official advice that we should look at farming as just another business.

I would not apologise at all. It was a valid opinion to an extent. Too often the front page of agri journals and Teagasc are too focused on lads investing large sums to be efficient. Efficiency is not necessarily the answer for some. Yes for some it is but for some it is not.

trg

Siamsa Sessions wrote: »

Sorry if you saw it like that. It wasn’t meant as a slight on farmers, whatever we call ourselves. What irks me is the official advice that we should look at farming as just another business.

But if you've loans to pay and food to put on the table from the farm then you absolutely must look upon it as a business. It would be reckless not to.

Bass Reeves

jaymla627 wrote: »

I'd be taking anything the monks put out as been extremely economically with the truth, they probably easily have north of a million gone into the place the past two years also

Ya I agree and from what I hear some of the investment there is crazy. But the figures with the cows are impressive I cannot make head or tail of how much the cows are milking. Are they in the 5-6k litres bracket at the new F&P solids figures

Bass Reeves

trg wrote: »

But if you've loans to pay and food to put on the table from the farm then you absolutely must look upon it as a business. It would be reckless not to.

That is a two way street. Too many farms are too focused on inform investment. Most refuse to diversify. Most will not invest in pensions. Expansion has become overreaching. There is no CBA by most outfit's. No looking at worst case senario's.

trg

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I would not apologise at all. It was a valid opinion to an extent. Too often the front page of agri journals and Teagasc are too focused on lads investing large sums to be efficient. Efficiency is not necessarily the answer for some. Yes for some it is but for some it is not.

Their opinion was broadbrush across all farmers. That's the issue I have and yes I found it condescending as the tone implied that farmers (whatever that definition is) > people who run it as a business.

If you wish to farm as a hobby, as I do, then whether I'm efficient or not or am clinical with my decisions isn't make or break. I admire people who run it as a business and drive efficency.

cute geoge

Sure that place would be some of the finest land In Ireland ,I can remember back there spreading slurry with 2 wd drive tractor in the debts of winter back in the day .It is easy have impressive figures there but the reality in places where cows will be indoors for another 5 or 6 weeks the reality is completely different

trg

Bass Reeves wrote: »

That is a two way street. Too many farms are too focused on inform investment. Most refuse to diversify. Most will not invest in pensions. Expansion has become overreaching. There is no CBA by most outfit's. No looking at worst case senario's.

I'm a big admirer of your posts in farming techniques but the above? No.

"Too many farms are too focused on inform investment"

"Most refuse to diversify"

"Most will not invest in pensions"

"There is no CBA by most outfit's"

"No looking at worst case senario's"

All opinion here with big statements but no evidence or facts and I can counter each one of them with statements to the contrary.

straight

trg wrote: »

That's mighty condescending on your part.

Farming is a hobby for some, but for many it simply must be run as a business especially if you have bank commitments and you depend on your farm to put food on the table.

Relax boy. The dairy farmer magazine is full of fairytales apart from Meehan's opening piece.

MIKEKC

jaymla627 wrote: »

Bought alot of gear here the past few years to take everything in house bar silage with a wagon and rake hired in, keep getting told I'm stone mad, but when you see the inflation year on year with machinery it's crazy, alot of my gear has appreciate in value

The gear may have appreciated, but what advantage is that? You said that the inflation year on year is crazy, so when you go to replace gear you will be paying crazy prices.

K.G.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The dearer ration gets the better. We can grow grass relatively cheaply. A 40-50 euro a ton rise in grains is adding 50+c/head every day to costs in feedlots accross the world. Similar with milk this is hitting indoor milking more than NZ and ourselves. They will suffer with fertlizer costs every bit as much as us if not more. I hope it lasts 3-4 years. Looking at the figures for the Pallaskenry herd they are out on grass since start of Feb, diet is 9 kgs grass, 2 kgs silage and 3 kgs ration. On them figures they are probably feeding around 500 kgs/ year to each cow.

I think you are wrong about equating a lad with 30 cows 20 years to a hundred nowaday. I say the lad with 50-60 20 years ago was similar. Biggest problem is capital spend at present a lot of lads have expanded maybe a tad too fast. Too many lads have not done the figures on rented ground especially if it's far from the MP and they have not allow for labour costs when they are exceed 100 cows.

I still stand by my figures for a lad milking 80 cows on 100 acres owned in a block if he was operating similar to Wilson. The key is cost control. Most lads will not do a cost benefit analysis on any projects. They just plough ahead and specially if it's saving tax I'm the short term

From what i can see the cheap grasd could be come more expensive with the regs on the way.on the whole 30 or 60 cow thing i suppose it all depends on what you think is a relative wage to 20 years ago and where you are interms of capital investment to be at 100 cows.350 cows is definitely the equivalent of 100 cows 20 years ago

Siamsa Sessions

trg wrote: »

But if you've loans to pay and food to put on the table from the farm then you absolutely must look upon it as a business. It would be reckless not to.

All farmers look at their farms as a business. But some look at it only as a business.

The media and advisors present the businessmen as the only game in town. That’s the issue and it puts pressure on fellas who might be doing OK to start thinking of numbers instead of nature.

jaymla627

MIKEKC wrote: »

The gear may have appreciated, but what advantage is that? You said that the inflation year on year is crazy, so when you go to replace gear you will be paying crazy prices.

All machinery was bought new slurry tank, mowers, fertiliser spreader, etc will easily last 10 plus years, tractor and loader are needed regardless, when all work was basically contracted out the final years contrscting bill came to 35k, 30% more ground been farmed at the minute and 50% more stock and last years bill for silage came to 12k for 250 acres picked and raked with wagon

GrasstoMilk

jaymla627 wrote: »

All machinery was bought new slurry tank, mowers, fertiliser spreader, etc will easily last 10 plus years, tractor and loader are needed regardless, when all work was basically contracted out the final years contrscting bill came to 35k, 30% more ground been farmed at the minute and 50% more stock and last years bill for silage came to 12k for 250 acres picked and raked with wagon

Where do you find the hours to do all the work aswell as looking after all that extra stock and land?
Are yiu not working longer hours than previously?

jaymla627

GrasstoMilk wrote: »

Where do you find the hours to do all the work aswell as looking after all that extra stock and land?
Are yiu not working longer hours than previously?

7 hours a week extra is been clocked up compared to what was been done when we ran a tractor with just a loader, the telehandler/tub feeder easily saves a hour a day in the winter when feeding out compared to tractor/loader combation, no bales are made anymore on farm either as contractor has zero issue coming to pick up paddocks, the time savings from that alone, between drawing and then feeding out plus plastic costs are huge......

Bass Reeves

Jjameson wrote: »

It gets to peer pressure and what the perception of self worth and social acceptability is.

I recall the vitriol I received here a few years back talking about a farm walk in a dairy beef tillage farm years a couple of years ago. Milking 70 cows and had put in a robot.
The adviser was talking away and got around to the favourite word”expansion”.
The farmer corrected her and said the sucklers/dairy beef tillage wouldn’t be going to make way for more milk as he was content with income and balance.
The place was and is the epitome of anti rooter and there was a new discovery behind the house and it kind of made an idiot of adviser when balanced conversation beyond a narrow minded narrative was challenged.
By what measure does it require 3.5 the cows to be where it was 20 years ago?

I thought think I remember that Will....sorry Jjam. I remember describing the way an operation like that would work on the blind. Big thing about limited dairy in a large operation is the cross subsidisation. Was it about 70-80 cows, 50-60 of tillage and 30-40 suckler's. High output cows and selling the odd few pedigree FR bulls

I am on the recieving end this time

straight

Jjameson wrote: »

It gets to peer pressure and what the perception of self worth and social acceptability is.

I recall the vitriol I received here a few years back talking about a farm walk in a dairy beef tillage farm years a couple of years ago. Milking 70 cows and had put in a robot.
The adviser was talking away and got around to the favourite word”expansion”.
The farmer corrected her and said the sucklers/dairy beef tillage wouldn’t be going to make way for more milk as he was content with income and balance.
The place was and is the epitome of anti rooter and there was a new discovery behind the house and it kind of made an idiot of adviser when balanced conversation beyond a narrow minded narrative was challenged.
By what measure does it require 3.5 the cows to be where it was 20 years ago?

I was wondering for a while what discovery was made behind the house. Then I realised it was a land rover. Jeez if lads saw my jeep they wouldn't think much of what I'm at if that's the way it goes.

Castlekeeper

Just on the costs/margins of dairying. 15 -20 years ago for the top farmers around here (costs including a labour charge) came in at 35-40% of sales, the good lads 40-50%, and the average 50-60%. These have gradually gone up 10 -12% points more in the last 5 years.

Dunedin

Castlekeeper wrote: »

Just on the costs/margins of dairying. 15 -20 years ago for the top farmers around here (costs including a labour charge) came in at 35-40% of sales, the good lads 40-50%, and the average 50-60%. These have gradually gone up 10 -12% points more in the last 5 years.

How does them % equate to in cent per litre?

K.G.

Jjameson wrote: »

It gets to peer pressure and what the perception of self worth and social acceptability is.

I recall the vitriol I received here a few years back talking about a farm walk in a dairy beef tillage farm years a couple of years ago. Milking 70 cows and had put in a robot.
The adviser was talking away and got around to the favourite word”expansion”.
The farmer corrected her and said the sucklers/dairy beef tillage wouldn’t be going to make way for more milk as he was content with income and balance.
The place was and is the epitome of anti rooter and there was a new discovery behind the house and it kind of made an idiot of adviser when balanced conversation beyond a narrow minded narrative was challenged.
By what measure does it require 3.5 the cows to be where it was 20 years ago?

I read your post completely different to what i think you intended.i see it as 70 cows fully loaded and will struggle to make financial sense but maybe there is a large land and cash bank.wife working?

Bass Reeves

K.G. wrote: »

I read your post completely different to what i think you intended.i see it as 70 cows fully loaded and will struggle to make financial sense but maybe there is a large land and cash bank.wife working?

No integrated system all three profitable ran by one labour unit that out in a robot because all children. Had careers away from farm. I actually saw what I think was a write up by the installation of the robot and the rational behind it and how it was working out. If I remember everything is contracted. Cows are High output about 7500 litres. Ideal system for a robot. Very little borrowings and all investments is organic

K.G.

Watched" the big short "lately.i see alot of similarities in the current irish dairy situation.you ll get an awful lot of people to help you to spend your money to get into cows but you are the only that s going to pay it back.just to reference the greenfield farm on a point that i think many people missed.alot of focus was on outdoor pads and lagoons but the underlying thing is you couldnt make the figures stack upand at much higher margins that is available now.my final word is anyone looking to get into cows is you missed the party but if you are fit enough you will live through the hangover

GrasstoMilk

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No integrated system all three profitable ran by one labour unit that out in a robot because all children. Had careers away from farm. I actually saw what I think was a write up by the installation of the robot and the rational behind it and how it was working out. If I remember everything is contracted. Cows are High output about 7500 litres. Ideal system for a robot. Very little borrowings and all investments is organic

Margin on the tillage would be low if all contracted out

Reminds me of an article in agriland dad read to me the other day about a guy who put in a robot.
The young lad said the option were a robot or a 2nd hand parlour, great way to justify a robot!

We'll have a 20 unit up and running here by the end of next week hopefully with a decent amount of automation and it won't have cost the price of one robot and it should milk twice the amount of cows one robot would and be washed up within 1hr 30

Well done to guys who can take over a business/ run a business on low borrowings, we weren't as fortunate and never not had a decent amount borrowed and we do fairly okay.
Can't ever see it ever being any different tbh

JustJoe7240

K.G. wrote: »

Watched" the big short "lately.i see alot of similarities in the current irish dairy situation.you ll get an awful lot of people to help you to spend your money to get into cows but you are the only that s going to pay it back.just to reference the greenfield farm on a point that i think many people missed.alot of focus was on outdoor pads and lagoons but the underlying thing is you couldnt make the figures stack upand at much higher margins that is available now.my final word is anyone looking to get into cows is you missed the party but if you are fit enough you will live through the hangover

I fail to see how the housing bubble is a comparable scenario?

jfh

This is a great thread, perhaps we could change the name

ruwithme

Ye can argue figures every conceivable way. Ultimately it appears to me anyway from reading online & seeing what's going on,on the ground since quota abolition,there's a almost insatiable appetite for producing milk in Ireland among farmers,including those chomping at the bit to enter into dairy farming.

jaymla627

JustJoe7240 wrote: »

I fail to see how the housing bubble is a comparable scenario?

When you see how the Welsh government has suddenly decided to push through a 170kgs n limit on all agricultural land in the country, and how shaky the ground derogation been renewed here is , the proverbial would hit the fan if the above was ever brought in here

Castlekeeper

Dunedin wrote: »

How does them % equate to in cent per litre?

I'm not sure what your asking but obviously
50% of 40c/l is 20c/l.
I'm not too worried about the c/l metric though, it's the bottom line that counts.

K.G.

JustJoe7240 wrote: »

I fail to see how the housing bubble is a comparable scenario?

Alot of people thinking milking cows is a home run based on past performance and perception sand are borrowing and spending alot of money to get in on it.i can promise you this there has never been a least profitable time to milk cows in terms of margin and i can only see it continuing. Quotas going allowed the industry to compensate for decreasing margins for a while but that ship has sailed. The last time we had a minor widening of margins was the adoption of grass based dairy mid nineties for maybe a decade after.so barring a new technology or some catastrophe somewhere else it will continue to shrink.by the way i dont even think a price crash is required for the trou le to start and is not going to happen because a bunch of lads going milking in ireland.feck sake its higher in nz

K.G.

jfh wrote: »

This is a great thread, perhaps we could change the name

What would be suitable,"the margin in dairy and its future"

kerryjack

What happened a lot of lads my age,wrong side of 50 was they went milking too early and got sick of it after 20 years and missed out on a bit of travel or a trade and education, I think 30 is a good age to start milking because you should be over the travel bug and the football and the drinking at that stage, it's a manageable lifestyle with school going kids because you can be around to drop and collect from school if herself works, so any young buck should get an education or a trade and a bit of travelling and than go milking after that and if you don't like it you have your trade to fall back on.

Bass Reeves

GrasstoMilk wrote: »

Margin on the tillage would be low if all contracted out

Reminds me of an article in agriland dad read to me the other day about a guy who put in a robot.
The young lad said the option were a robot or a 2nd hand parlour, great way to justify a robot!

We'll have a 20 unit up and running here by the end of next week hopefully with a decent amount of automation and it won't have cost the price of one robot and it should milk twice the amount of cows one robot would and be washed up within 1hr 30

Well done to guys who can take over a business/ run a business on low borrowings, we weren't as fortunate and never not had a decent amount borrowed and we do fairly okay.
Can't ever see it ever being any different tbh

Margin in tillage is low anyway. Most depend on SFP to show any profits or on not selling grain off the combine into Glanbia et Al. However in am integrated system it can help balance as you not only have it at combine cost you actually have it at first day cost.

On that farm most grain produced would be used in house. This year for you example look at his feed costs compared to other farmers. His Suckler pedigree system specific is not exposed to Larry's vagaries. Culls and calves all go into the beef system so he is the only one taking any margin from the business.

Gross turnover would be substantial probably well over half a million litres, 60ish finished prime cattle cattle every year, 15 ish cull cows, 30 ish pedigree bulls and heifers. Only substantial investment is the robot. As dairy herd has not been expanded it not pulling down profitability by having massive repayments. By contracting tillage it makes the workload sustainable during the calving season . The tillage operation also keeps nitrates levels sustainable while still allowing a dairy operation. Now it probably a substantial farm above 200 acres.

Biggest problem on that farm is the tax. But just to give an example of choices by contracting in is tillage operation 100/ acres less profitable. That's before tax. You have to balance that by less and smaller machinery and reducing labour during the spring pressure workload zone and maybe having to hire labour to balance that is element of the workload

Bass Reeves

kerryjack wrote: »

What happened a lot of lads my age,wrong side of 50 was they went milking too early and got sick of it after 20 years and missed out on a bit of travel or a trade and education, I think 30 is a good age to start milking because you should be over the travel bug and the football and the drinking at that stage, it's a manageable lifestyle with school going kids because you can be around to drop and collect from school if herself works, so any young buck should get an education or a trade and a bit of travelling and than go milking after that and if you don't like it you have your trade to fall back on.

All work and no play makes hack a dull boy. Hard to beat life experiences. Send young lads and girls off to be educated. Let them come back to it if they want. Life experiences give you a different perceptive. It makes you consider whether you want to be a slave to the system or make the system work for you

K.G.

kerryjack wrote: »

What happened a lot of lads my age,wrong side of 50 was they went milking too early and got sick of it after 20 years and missed out on a bit of travel or a trade and education, I think 30 is a good age to start milking because you should be over the travel bug and the football and the drinking at that stage, it's a manageable lifestyle with school going kids because you can be around to drop and collect from school if herself works, so any young buck should get an education or a trade and a bit of travelling and than go milking after that and if you don't like it you have your trade to fall back on.

Good post but id wind the start date back to 25 or 26.you need a bit of youthful madness and drive to the ball rolling and you should be moving on from drinking at that stage

Green&Red

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I would not apologise at all. It was a valid opinion to an extent. Too often the front page of agri journals and Teagasc are too focused on lads investing large sums to be efficient. Efficiency is not necessarily the answer for some. Yes for some it is but for some it is not.

Who would efficiency not be for?

richie123

Beef men are in the way !!!!!

richie123

We may step aside and stop holding back progress eh :)

Bass Reeves

Green&Red wrote: »

Who would efficiency not be for?

Efficiency and profitability are two different things. As well efficiency has to be sustainable. I was watching a bit of a Teagasc Webinar about early turnout on beef farms. He was suggesting turning out lighter cattle for 1-2 hours per day of you had grass or for a few days if conditions allowed and rehouse for a very we'd period like yesterday and yesterday night.

Now I leave cattle out as early as possible. It would be possible to rehouse them for at least a week. And I have mostly cattle from dairy breeding. What he suggested while it might be efficient is not very sustainable.

Teagasc are nearly always advocating a 22 month high input/output beef system. This is efficient but not necessarily profitable.
They always advocating high DMD silage without factoring in the implications of cost on the system. Again it's is efficient but not necessarily profitable.

Efficiency has always demanded increases in output. These have.not added to farm profitability.

Bass Reeves

richie123 wrote: »

We may step aside and stop holding back progress eh :)

It's really only an Economist's opinion. It has not factored in other implications. A lot of people will be up in arms over D McC piece regarding water quality. However he is right about the need to use some of the Suckler funding to encourage Suckler farmers to move over to dairy calf to beef. There seems to be a mental/political block to switching support from suckler's to dairy beef systems. You could just give lads the option of staying within the Suckler schemes or support farmers who move from suckler's to dairy beef or to forrestry.

Say a system where a Suckler farmer held his level of Suckler cow support for 5 years if he entered dairy calf production. He could opt back at any stage without penalty or even at the he end of five years.

Green&Red

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Efficiency and profitability are two different things. As well efficiency has to be sustainable. I was watching a bit of a Teagasc Webinar about early turnout on beef farms. He was suggesting turning out lighter cattle for 1-2 hours per day of you had grass or for a few days if conditions allowed and rehouse for a very we'd period like yesterday and yesterday night.

Now I leave cattle out as early as possible. It would be possible to rehouse them for at least a week. And I have mostly cattle from dairy breeding. What he suggested while it might be efficient is not very sustainable.

Teagasc are nearly always advocating a 22 month high input/output beef system. This is efficient but not necessarily profitable.
They always advocating high DMD silage without factoring in the implications of cost on the system. Again it's is efficient but not necessarily profitable.

Efficiency has always demanded increases in output. These have.not added to farm profitability.

That’s not what efficiency means


Efficiency is the same process with some combination of
Lower inputs & same output
Same input & higher output
Lower inputs & higher outputs

Literally everyone should be trying to be more efficient

farawaygrass

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Efficiency and profitability are two different things. As well efficiency has to be sustainable. I was watching a bit of a Teagasc Webinar about early turnout on beef farms. He was suggesting turning out lighter cattle for 1-2 hours per day of you had grass or for a few days if conditions allowed and rehouse for a very we'd period like yesterday and yesterday night.

Now I leave cattle out as early as possible. It would be possible to rehouse them for at least a week. And I have mostly cattle from dairy breeding. What he suggested while it might be efficient is not very sustainable.

Teagasc are nearly always advocating a 22 month high input/output beef system. This is efficient but not necessarily profitable.
They always advocating high DMD silage without factoring in the implications of cost on the system. Again it's is efficient but not necessarily profitable.

Efficiency has always demanded increases in output. These have.not added to farm profitability.

Surely high dmd silage is better value for feeding cattle, bar maybe suckler cows? And doesn’t cost much more to make, all about at what stage it is cut at

Bass Reeves

Green&Red wrote: »

That’s not what efficiency means


Efficiency is the same process with some combination of
Lower inputs & same output
Same input & higher output
Lower inputs & higher outputs

Literally everyone should be trying to be more efficient

And most efficiently on beef has been on increasing output and slaughtering animals earlier. For the last number of years farmers on the ground have noticed that lower cost systems achieve as much or more profit than higher costs systems. Most research has failed to identify this as research is funded in general by those with a vested interest in high cost efficiency

Siamsa Sessions

I think we're talking about different types of efficiency here. There's "less waste" efficiency and there's "more for the same" efficiency. There's some overlap as well, depending on the linguistic manoeuvres.

This book is well worth a read. It focuses on the use of coal and energy, but much of applies equally to food production. The central idea is that the cheaper something is, the more it is consumed; e.g. making cars more energy-efficient doesn't reduce global warming - it allows people drive more.

Same could be said for cheap (or "efficient") food production. It doesn't reduce global warming - it allows people waste more.

"The Efficiency Trap": https://www.amazon.com/Efficiency-Trap-Finding-Achieve-Sustainable/dp/1616147253

For me, efficiency is about reducing stress: on me, the animals, and the soil.

Castlekeeper

Green&Red wrote: »

Who would efficiency not be for?

Those who understand that its not the be all and end all.

Castlekeeper

Green&Red wrote: »

That’s not what efficiency means


Efficiency is the same process with some combination of
Lower inputs & same output
Same input & higher output
Lower inputs & higher outputs

Literally everyone should be trying to be more efficient

Yes indeed, the less words the better.

Castlekeeper

Bass Reeves wrote: »

All work and no play makes hack a dull boy. Hard to beat life experiences. Send young lads and girls off to be educated. Let them come back to it if they want. Life experiences give you a different perceptive. It makes you consider whether you want to be a slave to the system or make the system work for you

Yes but in the school of life mainly, doing what they want. A lot of people go to third level college just for the sake of it and it's an expensive waste of time and money, plus it can expose them to a pot of very poor life habits at an influential age. There's a lot more better and varied experiences to be had in the "real" world, imho I must add.

Bass Reeves

farawaygrass wrote: »

Surely high dmd silage is better value for feeding cattle, bar maybe suckler cows? And doesn’t cost much more to make, all about at what stage it is cut at

In theory yes just like in theory leaving cattle beef cattle in and out increases output. However in beef farming cost is the killer. You cannot recover costs incurred like in dairying. There is a sweet spot with silage. I am not advocating a making silage the last week in June however systems that encourage the production of low DM silage in beef where most production manager s bale based has proven to be a failure. As well you need to maximize output to fertlizer applied. Finally in a store based system 70DMD silage is more than adequate if DM is above 35%.

Believe it or not for once last year Teagasc did research on feeding silage only to cattle as against 1-2-3-4kgs of ration. At 70dmd silage fed over a winter at the end of the following grazing season Cattle on 1&2kg were 20 kgs heavier but cost would not have been covered. At 3&4 kgs cattle were the same weight or lower at the the end of 200 days grazing.

Bovine digest at 40%dm. Every kg if water on lower DM silage has to be got out of the system. As well cattle will drink a certain minimum level of water to flush there system just like any living being if they have the option. Water will exit at body temperature either da sweat or urine. Energy is neither a giver or taker.

An animal eating 10kgs DM At 25Dm will consume 40kgs of DM. An animal eating the same at 50%DM consume 20kgs.. the first animal may have to flush out 10litres of water both may during the same amount to allow for normal body flushing. In winter when bale temp may be 5-10C what amount of energy is used to heat that fluid from 5-10c up to body temp at 38Cish before it is flushed from the system.

There has been virtually no research done into DM in silage and it's importance V DMD.

DBK1

Bass Reeves wrote: »

And most efficiently on beef has been on increasing output and slaughtering animals earlier. For the last number of years farmers on the ground have noticed that lower cost systems achieve as much or more profit than higher costs systems. Most research has failed to identify this as research is funded in general by those with a vested interest in high cost efficiency

That also depends on what way you measure your profit.

If you are looking at profit per animal then you could be right, there probably is an equal profit to be made from both high input and low input systems.

If you are increasing output and slaughtering animals earlier, while the profit per head might only be the same as the low input system, you go through more heads in a year which increases your annual profit.

K.G.

The suckler cow is the animal that seems to be in the most trouble and im just wondering what are the average return for say a 40 cow suckler herd selling all progeny at say 7 months.we ll say all land owned give it 75 acres.ignore the emogy i dont know how that got there

richie123

Getting back to the farming indo.
Beef men need to move on.

Take on more profitable enterprises.
Contract rearing,rearing dairy etc.
Whats yer opinions on this?

DBK1

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Efficiency and profitability are two different things. As well efficiency has to be sustainable. I was watching a bit of a Teagasc Webinar about early turnout on beef farms. He was suggesting turning out lighter cattle for 1-2 hours per day of you had grass or for a few days if conditions allowed and rehouse for a very we'd period like yesterday and yesterday night.

Now I leave cattle out as early as possible. It would be possible to rehouse them for at least a week. And I have mostly cattle from dairy breeding. What he suggested while it might be efficient is not very sustainable.

Teagasc are nearly always advocating a 22 month high input/output beef system. This is efficient but not necessarily profitable.
They always advocating high DMD silage without factoring in the implications of cost on the system. Again it's is efficient but not necessarily profitable.

Efficiency has always demanded increases in output. These have.not added to farm profitability.

It’s not that hard to make high dmd silage without all the water as well.

I just had a look back at my silage test results from last year and I have second cut silage tested at 73.1DMD, 44.4%DM and 17.2% protein. First cut and third cut were similar protein and dmd with DM down to 39 and 35.5. That’s from grass that would have been reseeded about 4 years previous with a Sinclair McGill dual purpose mix with clover.

I’d get 3 cuts a year averaging about 8 bales per acre per cut. Yes it’s probably a euro or 2 per bale more expensive than making low dmd silage at 10 or 12 bales an acre but the extra growth you getting during the winter and the saving on ration feeding that type of silage makes it well worth that few euro extra to make.