beef price tracker

johnnyw20

blue5000 wrote: »

Not sure about next week yet, got 3.50 for Rs u24 mths earlier this wk.:( U16 mths should be a bit better.

They are u16 so I’d be happy with €3.50 tbh going on the current market

Who2

3.55 is the best I’ve heard for u 16 m bulls.

Cavanjack

Is Bord Bia, teagasc and the journal not partially to blame for pushing these 16 month bulls?all you read for the last three years was that If suckler men weren’t finishing their bulls under 16 months with two tonne of meal in them they were at nothing. X amount of a gross margin etc.
Lads with 20 cows buying 25kg bags of meal at over €320 a tonne to feed 10 bulls, Building extra sheds to keeps these few extra bulls over the winter. Was it not madness?
Now the country is flooded with them in the middle of the summer and the factories are having a field day. Many of these 20 cow men have export quality stock and that was the job for them. These men should have been encouraged to keep breeding for export should they not? Talk is under 16 month bulls will be taken off the grid. It’ll end a lot of lads finishing these young bulls imo.

wrangler

Cavanjack wrote: »

Is Bord Bia, teagasc and the journal not partially to blame for pushing these 16 month bulls?all you read for the last three years was that If suckler men weren’t finishing their bulls under 16 months with two tonne of meal in them they were at nothing. X amount of a gross margin etc.
Lads with 20 cows buying 25kg bags of meal at over €320 a tonne to feed 10 bulls, Building extra sheds to keeps these few extra bulls over the winter. Was it not madness?
Now the country is flooded with them in the middle of the summer and the factories are having a field day. Many of these 20 cow men have export quality stock and that was the job for them. These men should have been encouraged to keep breeding for export should they not? Talk is under 16 month bulls will be taken off the grid. It’ll end a lot of lads finishing these young bulls imo.

surely 2012 was enough to teach farmers that bulls were the least desirable animals and if there was there was any glut they were the first to be left in yards.
I'd be very surprised if Teagsac wasn't advising farmers since 2012 to contact their processors before they commit to bulls. I was even telling farmers that before 2012 because that's what processors were telling me
I used to grow wheat, I regarded it as a sorry crop, I was always sorry I grew it at all or sorry I didn't grow more, Great crop to grow on a good year but was a nightmare to harvest in a bad autumn as it ripened late around here,
Bulls are like that, very efficient converters but least desirable product.

Cavanjack

wrangler wrote: »

surely 2012 was enough to teach farmers that bulls were the least desirable animals and if there was there was any glut they were the first to be left in yards.
I'd be very surprised if Teagsac wasn't advising farmers since 2012 to contact their processors before they commit to bulls. I was even telling farmers that before 2012 because that's what processors were telling me
I used to grow wheat, I regarded it as a sorry crop, I was always sorry I grew it at all or sorry I didn't grow more, Great crop to grow on a good year but was a nightmare to harvest in a bad autumn as it ripened late around here,
Bulls are like that, very efficient converters but least desirable product.

Over 24 months yes they always said to contact your processor but under 16 month bulls from your own herd was where the money was. Isn’t that what the journal are at in tullamore to prove that this is the best system.
There seems to be nothing desirable to the factories this year, not even heifers. What good is 3.65 or 3.70 a kg for a continental heifer at 24 or 30 months of age.
As for processors telling you they didn’t want bulls, how could you believe a word they’d tell you? This time next year when there probably won’t be a young bull in the country they’ll hammer the price of bullocks (more so than what it is now) because the country will be full of them.

wrangler

Cavanjack wrote: »

Over 24 months yes they always said to contact your processor but under 16 month bulls from your own herd was where the money was. Isn’t that what the journal are at in tullamore to prove that this is the best system.
There seems to be nothing desirable to the factories this year, not even heifers. What good is 3.65 or 3.70 a kg for a continental heifer at 24 or 30 months of age.
As for processors telling you they didn’t want bulls, how could you believe a word they’d tell you? This time next year when there probably won’t be a young bull in the country they’ll hammer the price of bullocks (more so than what it is now) because the country will be full of them.

Just google some of the teagasc handouts on bulls and every one of the systems advised farmers to talk to processors.
Journal is only trying systems for them selves, they will give it as it is, they are at the moment anyway, your comment about the journal shows the wrong conclusions that come up. I think journal farm is increasing sheep already because of the rubbish margins in cattle, so they're definitely not set in their ways
Their initial aim was to produce replacement heifers and the bulls were a (very poor) byproduct. Even telling farmers not to bucket feed calves unless they're from specific bulls is flagging a very serious problem coming from dairy farmers breeding

jaymla627

wrangler wrote: »

Just google some of the teagasc handouts on bulls and every one of the systems advised farmers to talk to processors.
Journal is only trying systems for them selves, they will give it as it is, they are at the moment anyway, your comment about the journal shows the wrong conclusions that come up. I think journal farm is increasing sheep already because of the rubbish margins in cattle, so they're definitely not set in their ways
Their initial aim was to produce replacement heifers and the bulls were a (very poor) byproduct. Even telling farmers not to bucket feed calves unless they're from specific bulls is flagging a very serious problem coming from dairy farmers breeding

The list of bulls they’ve published won’t solve any problems it’s more a easy calving beef guide then anything, theirs only one blue bull on it says it all and the superstar angus bull kya that throws jersey quality calves made the list to....
Problem with dairy herd is smaller cows that aren’t going to give good beef animals end off, and then of course the issue of lads not wanting to have to use a calving jack

wrangler

jaymla627 wrote: »

The list of bulls they’ve published won’t solve any problems it’s more a easy calving beef guide then anything, theirs only one blue bull on it says it all and the superstar angus bull kya that throws jersey quality calves made the list to....
Problem with dairy herd is smaller cows that aren’t going to give good beef animals end off, and then of course the issue of lads not wanting to have to use a calving jack

I thought they specified the better beef bulls from calves they had reared themselves, that's why I said specific, I wasn't referring to any other recommendation list. I doubt they were recommending a bull luke KIA

Muckit

Grueller wrote: »

Tis easy for you and me to pull pin though Muckit in fairness. We have good off farm income. If you are a full time beef farmer it is not so easy to stop.

Oh yes l fully agree. It easy make changes when only drystock, not tied into any schemes with suckler cows and yes when not relying on the income.

But l see some part timers around here are nearly worst offenders. Fierce competitive. Following Teagasc rulebook to the letter etc etc. For what?

If fulltime it is harder. It is difficult to forecast perhaps longterm what will happen. Although l can't see things coming good anytime soon. Then again I'd be perhaps I might be considered a bit more pessimistic than most. If l was fulltime, l'd be looking at diversification options. This is not always an option though and it's not a solution for everyone.

The point l suppose l was trying to make in my last post but it came across blunt, was that we can hold the negative and unhelpful view that the factories have all the power and that it's THEM that need to change. Ie give us more money!!

Or we can be a little bit more realistic and honest. Ask ourselves what is the likelihood of that happening? Is following the Teagasc/IFJ mantra of being more productive the solution?
I've started to see it as a form of psychological manipulation.

Other alternatives are never suggested. Ie extensification. Reduction of inputs. Reduce stocking density, decrease fertiliser and spray usage. Reduction in concentrate use.

None of the printed material on the Green cert when l did it made any reference to this type of farming. GLAS or other environmental schemes are rarely mentioned or factored in. If they are mentioned it is in isolation and not how they can work as part of a farming system.

I've never come across a case study yet in the lFJ of a lad that is farming extensively.

In my opinion it is an option that should be given careful consideration by livestock farmers, especially small part time livestock farmers.
I know personally l will get as much satisfaction finishing 10 good cattle for the factory as 30. I love topping, especially if not under pressure to do it and can leave it, roll up a few reels and cut a large area together. I'm calling it "blanket topping" I am not going to take on any negative vibes over this scenario. It is what it is.

Not responding to the situation and doing the same thing as l always did and then getting frustrated when l don't get sufficiently reimbursed for my efforts isn't the answer, not for me anyways.

Grueller

Have to agree with all of that in the current climate

blue5000

Bulls are great when beef is scarce, but when there is a glut they're always first to be hit in price.
Having said that I've never gone for u16 mth bulls, I try get cheap weight on them the second summer at grass.

Cavanjack

blue5000 wrote: »

Bulls are great when beef is scarce, but when there is a glut they're always first to be hit in price.
Having said that I've never gone for u16 mth bulls, I try get cheap weight on them the second summer at grass.

Was speaking to a factory agent earlier and h said that the under 16 month thing is all but finished.

memorystick

Cavanjack wrote: »

Was speaking to a factory agent earlier and h said that the under 16 month thing is all but finished.

Will 2.5 to 3 year old bullocks come back? Let them grow and grow on grass and less meal. Simple system

148multi

Muckit wrote: »

Oh yes l fully agree. It easy make changes when only drystock, not tied into any schemes with suckler cows and yes when not relying on the income.

But l see some part timers around here are nearly worst offenders. Fierce competitive. Following Teagasc rulebook to the letter etc etc. For what?

If fulltime it is harder. It is difficult to forecast perhaps longterm what will happen. Although l can't see things coming good anytime soon. Then again I'd be perhaps I might be considered a bit more pessimistic than most. If l was fulltime, l'd be looking at diversification options. This is not always an option though and it's not a solution for everyone.

The point l suppose l was trying to make in my last post but it came across blunt, was that we can hold the negative and unhelpful view that the factories have all the power and that it's THEM that need to change. Ie give us more money!!

Or we can be a little bit more realistic and honest. Ask ourselves what is the likelihood of that happening? Is following the Teagasc/IFJ mantra of being more productive the solution?
I've started to see it as a form of psychological manipulation.

Other alternatives are never suggested. Ie extensification. Reduction of inputs. Reduce stocking density, decrease fertiliser and spray usage. Reduction in concentrate use.

None of the printed material on the Green cert when l did it made any reference to this type of farming. GLAS or other environmental schemes are rarely mentioned or factored in. If they are mentioned it is in isolation and not how they can work as part of a farming system.

I've never come across a case study yet in the lFJ of a lad that is farming extensively.

In my opinion it is an option that should be given careful consideration by livestock farmers, especially small part time livestock farmers.
I know personally l will get as much satisfaction finishing 10 good cattle for the factory as 30. I love topping, especially if not under pressure to do it and can leave it, roll up a few reels and cut a large area together. I'm calling it "blanket topping" I am not going to take on any negative vibes over this scenario. It is what it is.

Not responding to the situation and doing the same thing as l always did and then getting frustrated when l don't get sufficiently reimbursed for my efforts isn't the answer, not for me anyways.

Have to agree, but Teagasc are heavily subsidised by fertiliser companies, perhaps this is why they came to the conclusion that extensively reared beef have a bigger carbon / environmental footprint than intensively reared beef.

wrangler

148multi wrote: »

Have to agree, but Teagasc are heavily subsidised by fertiliser companies, perhaps this is why they came to the conclusion that extensively reared beef have a bigger carbon / environmental footprint than intensively reared beef.

Where did you get that information
They'd be very foolish to make a statement re carbon footprint that'd be so easy contradicted

Croobum

Over thirty months was introduced to deal with the bse crisis on the mid ninties.

They are no longer treated any different to under thirty months other than when it comes to payment.

Its all to convienient for factories to retain it as it forces farmers to kill cattle of the grass as the come up to 30 months . Which is mostly from july on.

We would be way better of without the grid. Way more cattle get deducted from base than get bonuses. And the fookers wont pay young bulls on it as they would actually benifit from it.

I dont stress about it any more . Cos ya cant win.

wrangler

Muckit wrote: »

Oh yes l fully agree. It easy make changes when only drystock, not tied into any schemes with suckler cows and yes when not relying on the income.

But l see some part timers around here are nearly worst offenders. Fierce competitive. Following Teagasc rulebook to the letter etc etc. For what?

If fulltime it is harder. It is difficult to forecast perhaps longterm what will happen. Although l can't see things coming good anytime soon. Then again I'd be perhaps I might be considered a bit more pessimistic than most. If l was fulltime, l'd be looking at diversification options. This is not always an option though and it's not a solution for everyone.

The point l suppose l was trying to make in my last post but it came across blunt, was that we can hold the negative and unhelpful view that the factories have all the power and that it's THEM that need to change. Ie give us more money!!

Or we can be a little bit more realistic and honest. Ask ourselves what is the likelihood of that happening? Is following the Teagasc/IFJ mantra of being more productive the solution?
I've started to see it as a form of psychological manipulation.

Other alternatives are never suggested. Ie extensification. Reduction of inputs. Reduce stocking density, decrease fertiliser and spray usage. Reduction in concentrate use.

None of the printed material on the Green cert when l did it made any reference to this type of farming. GLAS or other environmental schemes are rarely mentioned or factored in. If they are mentioned it is in isolation and not how they can work as part of a farming system.

I've never come across a case study yet in the lFJ of a lad that is farming extensively.

In my opinion it is an option that should be given careful consideration by livestock farmers, especially small part time livestock farmers.
I know personally l will get as much satisfaction finishing 10 good cattle for the factory as 30. I love topping, especially if not under pressure to do it and can leave it, roll up a few reels and cut a large area together. I'm calling it "blanket topping" I am not going to take on any negative vibes over this scenario. It is what it is.

Not responding to the situation and doing the same thing as l always did and then getting frustrated when l don't get sufficiently reimbursed for my efforts isn't the answer, not for me anyways.

I doubt if the answer is reducing output, a lot of farmers don't know what their fixed costs are....... reducing numbers isn't going to reduce the farm insurance or the fence/hedge maintenance. A farmer that isn't making money at optimum stocking rate will be in bigger trouble if they reduce numbers.
I doubt if you're going to let your farm go like some I see around the area.
Some very productive farms around here have been transferred to part time farmers in the last couple years and are in a sorry state now. You can imagine what these high production ryegrasses do when they're not managed properly.
Some days I'm tempted to buy a Major Myclone and keep the place as a lawn, but it's only ten acres..... more trouble than it's worth

Fireside Solicitor

Well if you don’t know what your costs are then you shouldn’t be at any business.

We finish less cattle now than ever and the majority go over 30 months to get cheap weight from grass, use the topper more than ever, use sheep to graze out over the winter, use Glas and whatever other scheme we can get our hands on.

Keep all costs to a minimum - fert, feed, vet, sheds. Nothing fancy. Keep it simple.

All that intensification and productivity push works fine when beef is at €5+. Worked 20-30 years ago.madness in this environment. No shame in working to the numbers.

Unfortunately Teagasc and IFJ can’t say that. Be like Leo saying vote Fianna Fáil or don’t vote at all.

Muckit

Was watching old clips of d'believeables. Some youngsters here won't have a clue what I'm talking about!

Anyways this is a screenshot from one of their many funny sketches.

Gawddawggonnit

€3.45 for R’s this week.
U16mt Lim and Ch crosses.

They ‘might’ pay the transport if I commit to a full load.

Muckit

wrangler wrote: »

I doubt if the answer is reducing output, a lot of farmers don't know what their fixed costs are....... reducing numbers isn't going to reduce the farm insurance or the fence/hedge maintenance. A farmer that isn't making money at optimum stocking rate will be in bigger trouble if they reduce numbers.

I understand what you are saying about fixed costs. Insurance is a must for any landowner even if a lad never did a tap with the land, the way the law and insurance situation is gone in this country regarding trepassers.

My father and l never got too obsessed about having box shaped hedges. It's not a manicured garden. And it looks unnatural imo. I can see a possible need for routine hedge cutting for tillage men where they are working close to hedges a lot with costly machinery. Most of the hedges haven't been touched here in 15years with a tractor hedge cutter. A sweep of a brushcutter in June clears a lot of growth back from elec fence lines.

I can see a lot of benefit in leaving fields "go wild" Once yearly topping in July can really tidy things up going into the backend.
Amazing what you can see when you hop off the treadmill and lift the head. No point in galloping on blindly.

If I'm honest my interest in farming and my farm had waned of late. The joy had gone out of it for me. And when the joy goes out of something it's a terrible thing.

I looked back to a time when l did really enjoy it, back in my twenties. I had none of the financial responsibilities and did what l wanted to do, didn't take it or myself too seriously and got immense satisfaction from it.

I'm gradually getting back to that place - in my head. No radical physical changes have been made but I've started to see things wirh a new pair of eyes and it has been liberating.

Bass Reeves

wrangler wrote: »

surely 2012 was enough to teach farmers that bulls were the least desirable animals and if there was there was any glut they were the first to be left in yards.
I'd be very surprised if Teagsac wasn't advising farmers since 2012 to contact their processors before they commit to bulls. I was even telling farmers that before 2012 because that's what processors were telling me
I used to grow wheat, I regarded it as a sorry crop, I was always sorry I grew it at all or sorry I didn't grow more, Great crop to grow on a good year but was a nightmare to harvest in a bad autumn as it ripened late around here,
Bulls are like that, very efficient converters but least desirable product.

Once again Wrangler you show you have not got a clue about beef finishing. it was 2014 the big hit on bulls happened not 2012. From 2012 yes the processor were whispering about over 24 months bulls. It was the 2013 horse meat scandal (nothing to do with farmers) that started the issue with bulls. Up until then about 20-50% of lighter bulls were slaughtered as bullocks especially around Christmass. In late 2013 the processors contract finished a load of bullocks and used these and excess production to collapse the price for bulls. Even then though they still killed U16 month bulls on the grid at bullock prices. This was the standard for these bulls. Teagasc promoted it in there systems and the Derrypatrick herd finished it ( even last year and i imagine still this year) output as heifers and U16 months bulls. Teagasc also promoted its U16 months Friesian and JEx bulls as a method of finishing these cattle fast but over the last 2-3 years the profitability of this system has evaporated with lower beef prices and higher ration costs.

You always hear the BS line to contact you processor before proceeding with feeding them. You will always get the same answer as I did in September 2013 about U24 month bulls and a lad on here got the same answer about U16 month bulls in March this year. ''There will be no issue feed away'' but then when for some reason production increases you are left with an expensive mess on your hand. Its heads the processor wins tails the farmer loses.

I will state this again Teagasc has been promoting U16 month bulls for both beef breed and dairy breed cattle up until before last Christmass.
just so you can be clear and stop making it up as you go along. This is not the first time you have been corrected on this

wrangler wrote: »

I doubt if the answer is reducing output, a lot of farmers don't know what their fixed costs are....... reducing numbers isn't going to reduce the farm insurance or the fence/hedge maintenance. A farmer that isn't making money at optimum stocking rate will be in bigger trouble if they reduce numbers.
I doubt if you're going to let your farm go like some I see around the area.
Some very productive farms around here have been transferred to part time farmers in the last couple years and are in a sorry state now. You can imagine what these high production ryegrasses do when they're not managed properly.
Some days I'm tempted to buy a Major Myclone and keep the place as a lawn, but it's only ten acres..... more trouble than it's worth

Again totally incorrect with beef at sub 4/kg any lad selling stores at optimum stocking levels is not making much profit. if he is following the Teagasc bible he is chasing his hole. The commercial beef farms set up by Teagasc and dawn ( Newford) and the FJ one (Tullamore) are both stocked at optimum stocking levels pushing reseeding, ryegrass, high output system. Both farms have one thing in common.

Both lost money before they paid for land rental and labour costs:eek:. As well the Tullamore farm's first farm manager left after a short time. I think both has issues with finding labour.

Teagasc also has the Green Acres Dairy to Beef farm again pushing output but struggling with realities of costs.

Just because a farm is not looking trim, with topped trim green paddocks with trimmed hedges is not to assume it is not profitable. that part time farmer may be making 2-3 times / hour worked on the farm rather than the high output lad. we have constantly being told that higher output reduces costs by spreading fixed costs over a larger output. But if the higher output leaves a very low margin and no profit (and more and more it is) then lads end up chasing there tails for nothing.

If you look outside at beef farming it is the high output lads that are struggling the most while the smaller trimmer part time guy is managing away.

So look outside your comfort zone and stop being such a snob about younger and part time farmers that have started to adapt there system and are not producing at a loss for Larry and co

amacca

memorystick wrote: »

Will 2.5 to 3 year old bullocks come back? Let them grow and grow on grass and less meal. Simple system

That would be good for the farmer so no. They have him on the run now chasing his tail.

Bass Reeves

memorystick wrote: »

Will 2.5 to 3 year old bullocks come back? Let them grow and grow on grass and less meal. Simple system

Unlikely as a 3 year old bullock would be facing a second winter. Now I let a few run to that age and older, but it is because I am unwilling to pump ration into cattle. If you are looking at cheaper really extensive systems draw payments. Then a Friesian calf to beef system is optimum. I would actually try to source Autumn and Jan/Feb born Friesian calves for this system. Do the calf well and you will have a strong calf in September to use autumn grass and minimum ration over the winter. squeeze in the spring and carry over the following summer with your stores bunch. Then as 2+ years old you can start to finish the stronger bullocks as they develop flesh on a small amount of ration and try to have all gone by October.

In any system while winter may seem the issue it is spring and autumn grass management that cuts costs. Housing large going onto 3 year old bullocks is not an option as they will eat loads of silage and processors will dock you 20c for over 36 months if you have all that age. Now that they have the bull system gone they will start to hit over 36 month and over 400kg bullocks and heifers.

if you are on poorer land look at the AA and HE bullocks and heifers. Get out before 30 months. Those small butty AA cattle may leave little profit but should be low cost to keep on such land and fatten at some stage. Even at present a 280kg DW AA grading only O= will still gross 1K. Keep away from JEx cattle.in general. If you do not want to have calves and stores are not a option consider fattening a few cows. You have an animal that can manage on most poor quality feed if you have enough. You could look at buying a few Friesian culls taht are incalf calf down most will take another calf or two quite easily. Take the calves off them after August dry off and finish the following summer.

most extensive systems will leave little net margin but can be adapted to be a low cost input system that you can gather a ball of money off every year and still get your payments. Take buying cull incalf friesian cows in the autumn at 4-600 each, winter on silage, put a either few 30-50 euro Fr calves or 150 euro AA under them. On a 50 acre farm that kept 20 suckler to store/beef you can finish 8-10 cull cows and either 15-22 bullocks/heifers or sell as stores.

wrangler

Muckit wrote: »

I understand what you are saying about fixed costs. Insurance is a must for any landowner even if a lad never did a tap with the land, the way the law and insurance situation is gone in this country regarding trepassers.

My father and l never got too obsessed about having box shaped hedges. It's not a manicured garden. And it looks unnatural imo. I can see a possible need for routine hedge cutting for tillage men where they are working close to hedges a lot with costly machinery. Most of the hedges haven't been touched here in 15years with a tractor hedge cutter. A sweep of a brushcutter in June clears a lot of growth back from elec fence lines.

I can see a lot of benefit in leaving fields "go wild" Once yearly topping in July can really tidy things up going into the backend.
Amazing what you can see when you hop off the treadmill and lift the head. No point in galloping on blindly.

If I'm honest my interest in farming and my farm had waned of late. The joy had gone out of it for me. And when the joy goes out of something it's a terrible thing.

I looked back to a time when l did really enjoy it, back in my twenties. I had none of the financial responsibilities and did what l wanted to do, didn't take it or myself too seriously and got immense satisfaction from it.

I'm gradually getting back to that place - in my head. No radical physical changes have been made but I've started to see things wirh a new pair of eyes and it has been liberating.

I know what you're talking about alright, I've sheep fencing all around the farm and it's deteriorating now and will deteriorate further if that ditches aren't maintained, Tenants are maintaining the ditches and I'm maintaining the fencing it's not really my responsibility, but they're good tenants, probably won't be able to do it in five years time
. Sheep are different and won't thrive if the grass is more than 8cms, so once yearly topping doesn't suit.
The grass in your swards will probably adapt to suit the change of management but it looks hell for a couple of years.
One of my tenants reseeded and the other just improved fertility and management, The old sward (30 yrs) is actually out performing the new grass
You're lucky to have an alternative income, if I had 50 acres instead of 50 ha my choice would've been easier.The eighties were hell, anyone that borrowed to develop were screwed and those that farmed extensively were flying

Danzy

Stocked at 1.7 lu at the moment, was looking to go over 2.2 this year but don't see the point.

Will finish 60 this year, bought on last Sept. and, well intended to, sell a dozen April bought poly heifers in Oct. 16 killed out of the shed in Jan April born poly heifers. It'll be 40 killed next year, will see about live sales. Aim to have them out as late as possible and out as early, make use of the odd mild week in spring.

Most of them were kept out till near Christmas day and 30 were out till the end of Jan and back out in late March. To a degree the fields they were in took damage, not enough that is worry about cross compliance but enough to slow growth but that stretch was worth more than any grass10 goal for them.


Big saving in bales and you'd notice the difference in the tank and ration.

Hate to think of the sums if it had been a long winter.


I was listening to a podcast about a lad in Mayo, who had a dozen acres of mixed wood, broad, pine etc On the farm he let his cattle shelter in it, fed them bales in an old quarry and a bit of pick from the field. Did well and had plenty beside the bales, really shortened his winter.

Reminds me of the bould thadyquill, in real life he was meant to have let his place go half wild, let them eat, **** and grow all by themselves and when he needed money he'd go and pick an animal and sell them, bould Taid might have been a man ahead of his time.

Rambling post.

What rate of lu would lads classify as extensive.

Water John

Not sure about fertiliser cos funding Teagasc, I think it's us, farmers that do that. What is quite wrong is that the owner/CEO of a fertiliser co sits on the Board.

Why was funding on clover and mixed grasses pulled when it was beginning to give very positive results?

148multi

wrangler wrote: »

Where did you get that information
They'd be very foolish to make a statement re carbon footprint that'd be so easy contradicted

The majority of farm walks I have attended over the last 25 years were sponsored by the fertiliser companies, as I understand it intensive farming gave off less methane as grass in this system was found to be easier digested and better converter to meat, the extensive system was found to have stemmer grass with poorer conversion and higher methane produced by digestion of the more fiberous grass. But some traditional breeds can digest the more fibreous grass efficiently, but are farmers going buy highland or belted galaway cattle or whatever low emission breed is promoted, I have lads beside me that will buy nothing but nice ch, then pick the best to graze the roadside fields and keep the others in the back fields. Because of the cheque in the post farmers want stock that are easier on the eye, spent years working as an ai man, lads opening the door of the trailer showing me the best calf ever, (dead).

Fireside Solicitor

You haven't a number for Thady Quill have you?

Fireside Solicitor

You will see a lot places let go over the next number of years. The next generation aren't that bothered about it from what I can see.

Around us there isn't a sign of anyone coming back to take over. All in Dublin with good jobs. You'd be lucky to see them a few times a year.

Land prices going one way.