Spin off from David gone dairying

Bass Reeves

DBK1 wrote: »

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.

Problem is that costs of extra output is not recovered. Higher output systems tend to use winter finishing more. The cost of such systems have exploded over the last five years and price/kg has dropped. Most finishing beef systems depend on buying a store at below the cost of production. This was also the thinking behind bull beef and U 16 month Friesian bull beef as well. In the case if U16 month Fr bulls 5-7years ago rations were 220/ton and there selling price was 4.1/kg. Today it's 280/ton and price could be 3.6/kg. Calf has probably reduced by 40-50/calf if that as you need the earliest calf to achieve bodyweight and FS.

Carcasse value is down by 130/ head feeding costs and straw have probable added over 100/head to finishing costs.

Any high output system has failed at this stage. Cost of production of beef from ration is about 50% higher than beef value.

If beef farmers took a step backwards reduced output by minimising ration they drop the price of calves especially AA and HE by 50%. By dropping the kill under 30k/week over a time beef prices would rise.

Bass Reeves

DBK1 wrote: »

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.

Beef cattle will make that growth up when they hit grass similar to using ration. People just cannot understand beef systems at present prices do not return extra cost of production.

Bass Reeves

Jjameson wrote: »

Managing an extensively stocked low input farm whilst being very environmentally friendly isn’t much good for those who have teagascs ear!


https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/teagasc-needs-to-go-back-to-the-drawing-board-on-low-intensity-farming-advice/

I think the penny is beginning to drop

DBK1

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Beef cattle will make that growth up when they hit grass similar to using ration. People just cannot understand beef systems at present prices do not return extra cost of production.

That depends on the grass management too. Generally lads on a low input system would be later getting fertiliser out and later getting cattle out of sheds so the timeframe to make up that growth is shorter.

You then end up with stock that should be killed off grass in August or September going back into a shed for another winter all down to trying to save a euro or 2 on a bale of silage the previous winter.

A lot of if comes down to the type of animal too. My experiences of it would be mainly based on continental cattle and bucket reared white heads.

DBK1

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Problem is that costs of extra output is not recovered. Higher output systems tend to use winter finishing more. The cost of such systems have exploded over the last five years and price/kg has dropped. Most finishing beef systems depend on buying a store at below the cost of production. This was also the thinking behind bull beef and U 16 month Friesian bull beef as well. In the case if U16 month Fr bulls 5-7years ago rations were 220/ton and there selling price was 4.1/kg. Today it's 280/ton and price could be 3.6/kg. Calf has probably reduced by 40-50/calf if that as you need the earliest calf to achieve bodyweight and FS.

Carcasse value is down by 130/ head feeding costs and straw have probable added over 100/head to finishing costs.

Any high output system has failed at this stage. Cost of production of beef from ration is about 50% higher than beef value.

If beef farmers took a step backwards reduced output by minimising ration they drop the price of calves especially AA and HE by 50%. By dropping the kill under 30k/week over a time beef prices would rise.

I agree about the winter finishing, at current prices it just can’t work. I’d weigh all stock coming into the shed in October and anything not going to be fit to kill by mid January or thereabouts is earmarked for going back out to grass. Feeding them on with meal until April or May just won’t work unless you’ve completely screwed the weanling or store producer they were bought from.

I don’t agree that high output has failed in all cases. It comes down to output as well as management. That starts from when you buy the animal. If your buying R grade weanlings and paying U grade prices you’re losing from the start. If you’re buying them too light just to get numbers up and then have to keep them too long you’re losing as well.

It boils down to having a grip on your figures for your own system and putting a plan in place before you buy for when you expect them to be killed and knowing then the limits on the price you can pay and the weights you need to be buying.

Bass Reeves

richie123 wrote: »

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?

Contract rearing may suit some. However the big issue is that many larger dairy farmers will want there stock only on the farm. This limits your level of production. On some of this larger dairy farms even if you took some of these calves for to increase production quality of calf may be compromised by dairy breeding. You also have to factor in you have to rear these beef calves from 14 days as this is when these dairy farms sell them. Getting the heifers at 10-12 weeks and carrying to maybe 4weeks pre calving may seem attractive but most are only willing to pay in the 1 euro per day bracket for the summer part. You need them at a good thrive for late March/early April bulling which means compensatory growth is not an option.

Dairy again predisposes that you need a fairly decent land bank of 100 acres to hit the sweet spot of 80 cows. Ideally if you have fairly decent sheds that can be adapted it will help a lot. However significant investment is usually needed. You also must be willing to be happy looking at a cows ar5e twice a day for 9-10 months of the year. It different from looking at animals sides and heads the most of the time.

I stick with my beef operation where I am doing everything wrong. I am retired now but I spend over 15 years working with it and it was manageable.

Siamsa Sessions

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I think the penny is beginning to drop

I've no issue with any Teagasc advice but as Pat Kent said, it's not applicable for all farmers.

That's the issue - their advice is presented by themselves and in the media as the only game in town. There might be the odd half a sentence thrown in about maybe applying the advice to your own farm, but it's almost hidden.

Someone said to me recently, the biggest factor in any spreadsheet or any figures is the farmer. But he never gets a mention. The farmer out in the muck in this weather has a broad view of his business, but Teagasc only ever presents a narrow financial view. Where the farmer sees a rainbow, Teagasc sees black and white.

DBK1

Siamsa Sessions wrote: »

I've no issue with any Teagasc advice but as Pat Kent said, it's not applicable for all farmers.

That's the issue - their advice is presented by themselves and in the media as the only game in town. There might be the odd half a sentence thrown in about maybe applying the advice to your own farm, but it's almost hidden.

Someone said to me recently, the biggest factor in any spreadsheet or any figures is the farmer. But he never gets a mention. The farmer out in the muck in this weather has a broad view of his business, but Teagasc only ever presents a narrow financial view. Where the farmer sees a rainbow, Teagasc sees black and white.

Very true. Teagasc figures should always be taken with a pinch of salt. It’s easy to spend someone else’s money.

Also not all grassland is the same and different blocks of land suit different systems or stock. I’ve a fragmented farm. There’s one block of land and it’s heavy land. Grows plenty of grass all year but continental stock don’t be happy on it and struggle to thrive. They would be down to 0.6kgs a day. White heads then are the complete opposite. 12 month olds coming out of the shed comfortably gaining 1 to 1.2kgs a day over the summer period.

Teagasc advice, (like any advice) is meant as a guideline, implementing it for your own farm will depend on the farmer being able to alter the recommendations to his own systems and land.

Bass Reeves

Siamsa Sessions wrote: »

I've no issue with any Teagasc advice but as Pat Kent said, it's not applicable for all farmers.

That's the issue - their advice is presented by themselves and in the media as the only game in town. There might be the odd half a sentence thrown in about maybe applying the advice to your own farm, but it's almost hidden.

Someone said to me recently, the biggest factor in any spreadsheet or any figures is the farmer. But he never gets a mention. The farmer out in the muck in this weather has a broad view of his business, but Teagasc only ever presents a narrow financial view. Where the farmer sees a rainbow, Teagasc sees black and white.

It's slightly more than that Siamsa. Even when results are staring them in the face Teagasc do not extrapolate results. They did the research on feeding ration at different levels and found that high levels failed to hold gain over a summer's grazing. However they failed to do am analysis that was it worth while even feeding low levels. When you factor in the value of the extra production was there anything in it for the farmer.

It very hard to give an independent analysts when the webinars were sponsored by Drummond's milling. It just like there would be a furore if Teagasc came out with advice not to winter finish due to costs as opposed to there usual synopsis on what perceived price you need if you pay current market value for cattle.

For years they promoted the U16 month option as the way to finish Fr bulls. They even promoted the winter finishing of them as bullocks. It was only when it became completely unviable they are now promoting a 27-28 month system. God be with us that they might say jaysus lads you have carried them that far depending on the year( most at present) carry them to as near as 30 months as possible and for those that will struggle to grade O- hold them over 30 months.

The other thing which is becoming glaringly obvious is any decent advisor on the beef side is directed over into milk and Beef is left often to lads that spew out the mantra from an excel aheet