Dairy Chitchat 4, an udder new thread.

Fairly annoying all the regs we are forced comply with here when u see what the likes of the kiwis can get away with …that’s before you’d even mention a china/India etc ….we are a mere drop in a huge ocean in what we produce but yet we are bulldozed into spending millions and millions on things our competitors would laugh at …..I mean there’s kiwi farmers making silage pits and justifying it with its high dm feed that will have no run off …would love a dept inspectors response if we tried it

Maybe the mistake you are making is trying to make reason of their latest notions. It's a bit like this; I dried off my cows this year at 6490 kg supplied. If I milked them for an extra day, or if I sold 1 dry cull cow before year end, it would mean that they excreted 106kgs nitrogen vs 92kg.

They will try everything they can to keep pushing their ideology of more cows, higher stocking rates and less milk per cow. They're the experts after all. Sure it might keep the price of milk up.

I supplied 6580 litres last year and 6350 litres in 2020. So barely stayed under the 6300 average this year but I won't be doing it again. I'll drive them on to 7 or 8 thousand litres now in future.

I agree with what you are saying about storage. Sure it's just common sense but I have heard from my contacts that they are trying to put higher slurry storage requirements on the 106kg cow. As I was saying, they will try everything they can to influence people into higher stocking rates with smaller cows and less milk per cow. And remember.... They are the experts.

I'd be more interested in the UCD Lyon farm approach myself.

There is an interesting chart in the IHFA winter journal on nitrates.

They basically do a comparison for a 50 Hectare farm working without derogation.

At present they can keep 79 cows yielding 5608 Ks and 34 replacements 0-1 and 1-2 year olds, total solids per Hectare 674. Then if you reduce to 4500L band 87 cows 36 replacements 484 solids per acre. Under 6500 band, 77 cows and 32 replacements, 634 per Hectare. But if over 6500 Litre band 68 cows and 30 replacements output goes up to 725Ks solids per Hectare.

Lads looking for advice re AI. Kinda thrown in at the deep end and need advice on what bull to use. Daughter proven , black and white herd, maybe sexed and thinking getting my own tank down the line

But the thing is you must always keep improving to stay ahead. Standing still is not a good long term strategy. Obviously the increased yield must more than pay for the extra feed costs, but you can grow the extra feed on the acres not needed to feed the reduced stock numbers. Getting more and better feed into less cows, top quality silage, maize, home grown cereals. The playing field is changing whether you like it or not. You must change with it. No point longing for how you did it in the past.

Can you set 20% of your ground to cereals and still have your stocking set over all your ground?

Sorry that’s was a very short post to a very wide topic

better was to phase it would what criteria to pick bulls from.

herd here is 7500l 4ft and 3.4pr

so + .2 for fat and pr?

over a 100 for milk and positive to health and feet?

great to hear what bulls people swear by. Normally stock bulls here so moving to sexed to get away from for bull calves. Heat detection and drafting coming in the next year or two to make this a lot easier hopefully.

know Oman was used in the past maybe ten years or more ago.

dont think new banding will affect storage. That would mean most people would have to double storage tanks. Also I listened to the ‘young stock’ podcast and some fellow mentioned a reference year. Don’t see this mentioned in any articles I read since I heard that so don’t know where he got. Think it was an old podcast maybe uploaded around June time. Or maybe later as he was on about dry weather too.

Mine burst too. I thought it would be ok where I had it. Didn't bother draining it.

Have managed to stay out of derogation here. Anyway the writing is on the wall for derogation. This is just a short repreve me thinks.

Having the big block of land is a help ….can’t see a way how a sub 100 cow herd in say band a would be profitable and allow for a decent wage ,drawings ,pay down debt and put the continuous investement in needed

if guys aren’t up to scratch with higher producing ainmals in smaller blocks ….isn’t that sort of insinuating there is a knowledge gap that just isn’t been catered for by advisors and advisory bodies …..it’s all low cost(whatever that is )grass based ….nutritionists ,additives anything over 7/800 kg meal is frowned upon …..I’ve just given up on it after going too far down the path breeding wise listening to it ….lots of guys out there some u hear from more you don’t farming a bit different from the gospel …yes there a bit more thought but the rewards can be rich ….most of the big milk producing countries run intensive high production systems …they make money and have serious afflictions with lots of technology ,shiny metal ,machinery etc

They will. And they'll be dual purpose, cross enviro (an taisce, etc) influences.

The important thing is that farmers work with the very few that are on the farmer's side in actually wanting solid improvements be made in water catchments while still allowing those farmers earn a living. Lord knows there's 80% want farmers to fail so they get to fulfill their own utopias for that land.

What you wont hear from the epa is the breakdown of how they define "intensive" farming and what various land crops, tillage, root, grass, maize, potatoes, make up that breakdown of intensive farming.

One, just one enviro let slip online that tillage was contributing to high nitrates in east cork. And this was only after the launch by our env crowd looking for the info from a report by our dept of ag and ucd into nutrient and possible chemical loss from forestry plantations. If the report wasn't done, we wouldn't have had the whole hullabaloo in the online media about now forestry is an issue. They fell out with the dept, ucd and went public online to teach them a lesson. Part of the conditions that dept, ucd will only release the info is that it not be made public as it may be construed wrong and may not help reach targets. You know anyway how the country works.

What teagasc won't say but a soil scientist will. Is that if you want to reduce nutrient loss to waterways is that you cut back on soil tillage and maximise ground cover over the whole year. If more herds rely on maize. Our nutrient loss will increase. If we rely on grass and cut back on plough, till, reseeding, it will improve. But that brings chemical glyphosate into it which there is currently a derogation for too atm. Basically cut back on all reseeding. Oversow if needed and with whatever.

But dept and powers that crave power will always look for soft wins for themselves and never reveal true pictures to get their "bigger pictures" across the line.

Kerry sent me a letter through the ICBF. It's kind of like a tinder app for dairy farmers selling calves to calf rearers. Threw my name down anyway. We'll see of it will be any good.

100 percent people are fixated on there being only 1 way of doing things, limiting factors here are scale, land fragmentation and because of my father's age and my off farm job labour aswell..thus we have ended up with the system we have now which is working fine for the moment, will it work long term, probably not but sure we will adapt and change again when the time comes.

I agree there is fairly 1 dimensional advice out there but I don't really buy into a perceived conspiracy against high yielding cows..what do teagasc really have to gain by promoting 1 type of cow over the other, or am I missing something?