Life after Ag.Science...

!!!

How did it go?

I left at 11:30, and to be honest I was practically done by 10:00.

I thought it was actually a really hard paper but ag.science is my best subject so I flew through it...

Hoping for a b1 at least.

Healium

Rotten paper

yesno1234

Question 1 was a right b***ard but got two extra qusestions done in the last half an hour so was happy enough

Healium

Short questions were very hard. I found the whole paper was quite a departure from all previous years. Asking stuff from the darkest corners of that horrible green book, and even some stuff that I don't even think is in the book!

GVNDNN

That was horrible.......

fairyprincessx

Horrific paper, q1 was a twat, and so was genetics, had to leave it out and pick another question! I think i Did ok in the experiments tho, so that'll carry me!

nicolejessie

god it was a horrible paper way different dan previous years i was hopin for a b1 not gona get dat now

Seloth

It was harder than biology!!!! wtf!!!!

0.M.GXX

well there goes my hope of getting a good grade.. that was awful.. ¬!!
especially the short questions.. they were a totally disaster..

parts of the questions were ok and other parts were just odd... like oh god most things..

oh well it is summer now... !! so its all over ..



HAPPPPY SUMMMER EVERY1!!!:)

repeat92

it was hidious.. nothing like the past exam papers.. those department of education bastards really ****ed us up this time.. like why would they do that?? .i didnt fail but i didnt get a A1..high C maybe :mad:2010 leaving cert was just th worst

doubletrigger

horrible paper.. nothing on any of the usually stuff like silage or potatoes

rainbowtrout

Healium wrote: »

Short questions were very hard. I found the whole paper was quite a departure from all previous years. Asking stuff from the darkest corners of that horrible green book, and even some stuff that I don't even think is in the book!

Remember book =/= syllabus

Haven't seen the paper yet, so I won't see it now until it goes online this evening. General consensus here is not good by the looks of it.

simbathelion

Personally i think that was a disaster, was hoping the animals would come up more or crops and even the short questions in question one were a bit out there! overall i do feel i passed the paper, but extremelly dissappointed... was hoping for a high grade. Experiment questions were nice, but the part (c) in the genetics?? what the hell was polyploidy? im good at genetics and its one my favs, but that part took me by surprise?!

Personally i found myself happy with one part of the question and then miserable with another part, didn't allow alot of room to show all the knowledge i had learnt. And what was a raddling harness in sheep production? And in option one question 3 part a(iv) how are we supposed to get the rate for culled cows for his herd?? iv never come across this and would appreciate anyone who could explain it to me...

UglyFuc

simbathelion wrote: »

Personally i think that was a disaster, was hoping the animals would come up more or crops and even the short questions in question one were a bit out there! overall i do feel i passed the paper, but extremelly dissappointed... was hoping for a high grade. Experiment questions were nice, but the part (c) in the genetics?? what the hell was polyploidy? im good at genetics and its one my favs, but that part took me by surprise?!

Personally i found myself happy with one part of the question and then miserable with another part, didn't allow alot of room to show all the knowledge i had learnt. And what was a raddling harness in sheep production? And in option one question 3 part a(iv) how are we supposed to get the rate for culled cows for his herd?? iv never come across this and would appreciate anyone who could explain it to me...

polyplodidy is more that 3 chromosomes

raddle is a strap that holds the ewe together when carrying triplets

rainbowtrout

UglyFuc wrote: »

polyplodidy is more that 3 chromosomes

raddle is a strap that holds the ewe together when carrying triplets

Yes, both of those are pretty straightforward questions and both are in the green book. Your raddle definition is incorrect however...

rainbowtrout

simbathelion wrote: »

Personally i think that was a disaster, was hoping the animals would come up more or crops and even the short questions in question one were a bit out there! overall i do feel i passed the paper, but extremelly dissappointed... was hoping for a high grade. Experiment questions were nice, but the part (c) in the genetics?? what the hell was polyploidy? im good at genetics and its one my favs, but that part took me by surprise?!

Personally i found myself happy with one part of the question and then miserable with another part, didn't allow alot of room to show all the knowledge i had learnt. And what was a raddling harness in sheep production? And in option one question 3 part a(iv) how are we supposed to get the rate for culled cows for his herd?? iv never come across this and would appreciate anyone who could explain it to me...

what was the question?

UglyFuc

****er of a paper. was really banking on it for points and even then i might just scrape the course

bastards.. indication plants? cross section of a tooth? burdizzo? genetics? wtf?

surely it will have to marked easier if every one think it was so hard.. worried now. change of mind here i come

ajjmk

rainbowtrout wrote: »

what was the question?

The calving records on a dairy farm in one year show:
30% purebred Friesian calves born, 55% Continental X Friesian ans 15% Aberdeen Angus X Friesian. The farmer relies on A.I. and has no stock bull. He breeds his own replacements.
(iv) What is his replacement rate for culled cows?


That wasn't too nice of a paper, I defo got a lot lower than I was counting on getting.. Question one was horrible too! .. All the same, I kept writing for the whole two and a half hours, answered 8 questions & wrote 19 a4 pages!:eek: I better get attempt marks :P, thought my hand was gonna fall off.. :L

rainbowtrout

ajjmk wrote: »

The calving records on a dairy farm in one year show:
30% purebred Friesian calves born, 55% Continental X Friesian ans 15% Aberdeen Angus X Friesian. The farmer relies on A.I. and has no stock bull. He breeds his own replacements.
(iv) What is his replacement rate for culled cows?


That wasn't too nice of a paper, I defo got a lot lower than I was counting on getting.. Question one was horrible too! .. All the same, I kept writing for the whole two and a half hours, answered 8 questions & wrote 19 a4 pages!:eek: I better get attempt marks :P, thought my hand was gonna fall off.. :L

In a dairy herd (green book) the replacement rate is meant to be 20% of herd every year. However I don't know if that is what they were looking for or if you were supposed to determine it from the figures above. The fact that it was 3 part (a) and that was one of four questions in part (a) would suggest to me that it was only worth about 4 marks and it would be the 20% figure they were looking for rather than a worked calculation.

!!!

Surely all the culled cows should be replaced?

Thus the answer would be 100%?

It caught me too...?

rainbowtrout

UglyFuc wrote: »

****er of a paper. was really banking on it for points and even then i might just scrape the course

bastards.. indication plants? cross section of a tooth? burdizzo? genetics? wtf?

surely it will have to marked easier if every one think it was so hard.. worried now. change of mind here i come

indicator plants - never used the term myself, will have to add it to my list

thought these two were ok:

longitudinal cross section of a tooth is just the regular tooth diagram.
burdizzo - used for castration, looks a bit like a pliers

had to look up the freemartin condition myself, never heard of it.
didn't like the abbatoir question in Q9, course is not about meat treatment and production.


didn't like the AI sire catalogues question, don't think it's particularly fair.


I don't think you'll be alone, this problem will be country wide I reckon.

rainbowtrout

!!! wrote: »

Surely all the culled cows should be replaced?

Thus the answer would be 100%?

It caught me too...?

Very clever :pac: It reads like a riddle when you put it like that! I guess that makes it a poorly phrased question.

fairyprincessx

rainbowtrout wrote: »

In a dairy herd (green book) the replacement rate is meant to be 20% of herd every year. However I don't know if that is what they were looking for or if you were supposed to determine it from the figures above. The fact that it was 3 part (a) and that was one of four questions in part (a) would suggest to me that it was only worth about 4 marks and it would be the 20% figure they were looking for rather than a worked calculation.

oh thats what i put thankfully, hopefully they'll accept it! what did you make of the paper overall? Do you think they've changed their angle from other years? I was hoping for an A1 but thats out the window, genetics was my banker and I had to do Q3 and just realised I mixed up the sheep raddle bit, damn! Thanks for your opinions rainbowtrout!

theowen

rainbowtrout wrote: »

indicator plants - never used the term myself, will have to add it to my list

thought these two were ok:

longitudinal cross section of a tooth is just the regular tooth diagram.
burdizzo - used for castration, looks a bit like a pliers

had to look up the freemartin condition myself, never heard of it.
didn't like the abbatoir question in Q9, course is not about meat treatment and production.


didn't like the AI sire catalogues question, don't think it's particularly fair.


I don't think you'll be alone, this problem will be country wide I reckon.

For the abbatoir one, would "it ensures less waste when the killing occurs...." count? Pure gues but I read someone that when you die everything in your colon is released and for hanging up the carcass-tenderises the meat

coughlan08

that paper was grand,i literally did 4 hours study for the exam throughout the year,that 4 hours study was the night before,did it outside of school, i knew i got 25% in the project,and was only going for a pass,got it anyway for def...

rainbowtrout

fairyprincessx wrote: »

oh thats what i put thankfully, hopefully they'll accept it! what did you make of the paper overall? Do you think they've changed their angle from other years? I was hoping for an A1 but thats out the window, genetics was my banker and I had to do Q3 and just realised I mixed up the sheep raddle bit, damn! Thanks for your opinions rainbowtrout!

On reading a lot of the questions are fine, but the little bits that caused problems today seem to be throughout the paper rather than confined to one question. I don't think stuff should come up for the first time on a LC paper like freemartin condition. That's not really the way a course should develop.

But if everyone had problems the marking scheme will have to be adjusted to accommodate those problems, I don't think anyone should worry just yet.

randylonghorn

UglyFuc wrote: »

raddle is a strap that holds the ewe together when carrying triplets

Isn't a raddling harness that yoke with dye which they put on a ram so that he marks each ewe as he ... eh ... "marks" her?

theowen

rainbowtrout wrote: »

On reading a lot of the questions are fine, but the little bits that caused problems today seem to be throughout the paper rather than confined to one question. I don't think stuff should come up for the first time on a LC paper like freemartin condition. That's not really the way a course should develop.

But if everyone had problems the marking scheme will have to be adjusted to accommodate those problems, I don't think anyone should worry just yet.

In fairness, the experminets, soil question, genetics minus martin tingy and a few other questions were lovely. It was just small questions here and there that they seemed to pick out of a quiz book or something that were difficult:rolleyes:

rainbowtrout

theowen wrote: »

For the abbatoir one, would "it ensures less waste when the killing occurs...." count? Pure gues but I read someone that when you die everything in your colon is released and for hanging up the carcass-tenderises the meat

Yes it probably would, but my point is the course is about agriculture not about butchering practices. Students practical experiences centred around farms not abbatoirs.

How would you feel if the next question was about the merits of loin chops v. shoulder chops?

kellyr

randylonghorn wrote: »

Isn't a raddling harness that yoke with dye which they put on a ram so that he marks each ewe as he ... eh ... "marks" her?

that would be correct!

fairyprincessx

randylonghorn wrote: »

Isn't a raddling harness that yoke with dye which they put on a ram so that he marks each ewe as he ... eh ... "marks" her?

ooh then I would've gotten it right oh and i think the word you're looking for is "serves"

theowen

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Yes it probably would, but my point is the course is about agriculture not about butchering practices. Students practical experiences centred around farms not abbatoirs.

How would you feel if the next question was about the merits of loin chops v. shoulder chops?

I'm sure I could get 3 points out of somewhere:rolleyes: Though I see your point. It highlights the need for an over haul in the syllabus. There would be up roar if they asked something in history for example that wasn't on the course, but in ag sciece everyone's like, meh..

randylonghorn

fairyprincessx wrote: »

ooh then I would've gotten it right oh and i thing the word you're looking for is "serves"

Oh, I know a lot of words for it ... real honest country words at that!

I was trying to keep it fit for the rarified realms of boards.ie ...

rainbowtrout

fairyprincessx wrote: »

ooh then I would've gotten it right oh and i thing the word you're looking for is "serves"

my students aren't that polite...

theowen wrote: »

I'm sure I could get 3 points out of somewhere:rolleyes: Though I see your point. It highlights the need for an over haul in the syllabus. There would be up roar if they asked something in history for example that wasn't on the course, but in ag sciece everyone's like, meh..

while the syllabus is outdated, that's no reason to have stuff like that on the paper. you examine the syllabus not what you think should be on the syllabus. It highlights a need for more careful proof reading more than anything else. But you're right, it wouldn't happen in another subject. And your answer for that question looks fine to me too.

randylonghorn wrote: »

Oh, I know a lot of words for it ... real honest country words at that!

I was trying to keep it fit for the rarified realms of boards.ie ...

'mounts' , 'rises' and 'gets up on' are common in these parts. It's not always clear whether the men are talking about women or cows though. Maybe both.:D

simbathelion

Im confused now one ye saying raddling harness is for when a ewe carrying triplets and another is sayin its the dye yoke on a ram tat marks the ewe? which one is it?

Screwedforlc

For the experiment in soil could you use the texture experiment in a graduated cylinder and the humus/organic matter rises to thee top and calculate the percent or do you have to use the burn experiment ?

rainbowtrout

simbathelion wrote: »

Im confused now one ye saying raddling harness is for when a ewe carrying triplets and another is sayin its the dye yoke on a ram tat marks the ewe? which one is it?

It's the one that marks the ewe....

rainbowtrout

Screwedforlc wrote: »

For the experiment in soil could you use the texture experiment in a graduated cylinder and the humus/organic matter rises to thee top and calculate the percent or do you have to use the burn experiment ?

I would say the burn experiment, won't know if the other would be acceptable until I see the marking scheme.

!!!

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Very clever :pac: It reads like a riddle when you put it like that! I guess that makes it a poorly phrased question.

Oh I hope I'm right!

I have never in my life heard of the 20% thing... obviously that is probably the right answer as my answer was basically, as you said, a riddle, and not something that would be on the ag.science course...!

I still don't understand this 20% thing though.

randylonghorn

rainbowtrout wrote: »

'mounts' , 'rises' and 'gets up on' are common in these parts.

Ah bless, they *are* being fairly polite in front of the lady teacher!

rainbowtrout wrote: »

It's not always clear whether the men are talking about women or cows though. Maybe both.:D

In the country, such terminology is pretty much interchangeable tbh.

Indeed, I can remember a friend of mine being threatened by his father that he would fit him with a raddling harness if he didn't mend his roving ... eye.

Probably why I remember the term! :pac:

rainbowtrout

!!! wrote: »

Oh I hope I'm right!

I have never in my life heard of the 20% thing... obviously that is probably the right answer as my answer was basically, as you said, a riddle, and not something that would be on the ag.science course...!

I still don't understand this 20% thing though.

If you've got say 100 cows (we'll stick to something handy) in your herd, all the same age, that means that after 5 or 6 years they will all have to be replaced at the same time. If each one of those cows had a calf that year, it will be at least 2 years before they would be producing milk so the farmer would have a dry year or he would have to buy in replacements - 100 cattle, very expensive. So the idea is you stagger replacements by having your cows all different ages and replace 20% (ideally the oldest, the ones with reduced milk yield, fertility problems, illness and disease etc etc) each year with heifer calves. So replacement is constant and it doesn't all happen at the same time.

I suppose 20% came about over time where say 10% would mean it would take 10 years to replace a whole herd and cows only have a milking span of 5-6 years on average. Any more than that means it would be too expensive and you would be getting 3-4 year olds which were still at their peak. Replacing cattle over a 5 year period means you are replacing them after they start to decline and the farmer gets the best out of each cow.

rainbowtrout

randylonghorn wrote: »

Ah bless, they *are* being fairly polite in front of the lady teacher!

In the country, such terminology is pretty much interchangeable tbh.

Indeed, I can remember a friend of mine being threatened by his father that he would fit him with a raddling harness if he didn't mend his roving ... eye.

Probably why I remember the term! :pac:

Oh i've heard a lot worse but it would not get through the boards swear filter!

I think you could be onto something there with the raddling harness ... PI is that way ---->

!!!

But it said how much of the culled herd would he have to replace (I think, too lazy to check)

He would be replacing 100% of the culled herd.

Screwedforlc

rainbowtrout wrote: »

If you've got say 100 cows (we'll stick to something handy) in your herd, all the same age, that means that after 5 or 6 years they will all have to be replaced at the same time. If each one of those cows had a calf that year, it will be at least 2 years before they would be producing milk so the farmer would have a dry year or he would have to buy in replacements - 100 cattle, very expensive. So the idea is you stagger replacements by having your cows all different ages and replace 20% (ideally the oldest, the ones with reduced milk yield, fertility problems, illness and disease etc etc) each year with heifer calves. So replacement is constant and it doesn't all happen at the same time.

I suppose 20% came about over time where say 10% would mean it would take 10 years to replace a whole herd and cows only have a milking span of 5-6 years on average. Any more than that means it would be too expensive and you would be getting 3-4 year olds which were still at their peak. Replacing cattle over a 5 year period means you are replacing them after they start to decline and the farmer gets the best out of each cow.

The usual ans is 20 percent but based on the question i'm fairly sure its less then 30 percent as the farmer had 30 percent pure breeds which are for diary section but all of them won't be female so just between 20 and 30

Screwedforlc

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I would say the burn experiment, won't know if the other would be acceptable until I see the marking scheme.

That experiment also separates humus so does humus count for all the organic matter, when would marking scheme be out ?

rainbowtrout

!!! wrote: »

But it said how much of the culled herd would he have to replace (I think, too lazy to check)

He would be replacing 100% of the culled herd.

Which goes back to the question being poorly phrased. It should probably read 'What percentage of the herd should be culled and replaced annually?' or something to that effect.

Screwedforlc wrote: »

The usual ans is 20 percent but based on the question i'm fairly sure its less then 30 percent as the farmer had 30 percent pure breeds which are for diary section but all of them won't be female so just between 20 and 30

ya, I take your point. It won't be clear what they are looking for until I see the marking scheme. However it doesn't say that the crossbreeds aren't used for milk production so that would mean about 50% of all calves born are female. So it'll be interesting to see what is accepted.

rainbowtrout

Screwedforlc wrote: »

That experiment also separates humus so does humus count for all the organic matter, when would marking scheme be out ?

you won't see the marking scheme until august after the results are out. That experiement does indeed separate the humus but humus/organic matter is not normally calculated using that experiment

Screwedforlc

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Which goes back to the question being poorly phrased. It should probably read 'What percentage of the herd should be culled and replaced annually?' or something to that effect.




ya, I take your point. It won't be clear what they are looking for until I see the marking scheme. However it doesn't say that the crossbreeds aren't used for milk production so that would mean about 50% of all calves born are female. So it'll be interesting to see what is accepted.

Yes but pollys or continental breeds aren't usually accepted for diary breeds so i'd say you could assume they weren't going to involved in the culling

Screwedforlc

rainbowtrout wrote: »

you won't see the marking scheme until august after the results are out. That experiement does indeed separate the humus but humus/organic matter is not normally calculated using that experiment

I don't care if its the normal way to do it or not as long as it works...Thanks any way

randylonghorn

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Oh i've heard a lot worse but it would not get through the boards swear filter!

I think you could be onto something there with the raddling harness ... PI is that way ---->

S & S is t'other way! >_>

Oh feck it, I was trying to keep this reasonably polite, but this one is too good not to share, and presumably most people around here are adults or on the cusp of adulthood.

Rainbow's comment here:

rainbowtrout wrote: »

It's not always clear whether the men are talking about women or cows though. Maybe both.:D

about the interchangeability with which certain terms tend to be used reminded me of the comment we got from the same lad after a night out when he had left us at the end of the night to, eh, drive a young lady home.

Ofc, next morning, nosey buggers that we were, we demanded to know how things had progressed, to which we received the classic reply:

"Ah, sure, she wasn't on for breeding, but she's a dab hand at the milking!"

>_>



I'll go now!

Healium

randylonghorn wrote: »

Isn't a raddling harness that yoke with dye which they put on a ram so that he marks each ewe as he ... eh ... "marks" her?

Whey! I thought my answer was wrong