Derrypatrick herd

blue5000

I came across this table on teagasc website and thought I'd put it up here.

http://www.agresearch.teagasc.ie/grange/researchfarms/sucklerdemo/updates/index.asp
The first crop of bulls slaughtered showed that the lim x fr cows produced the heaviest carcases at 419kg dw. The ch x lim produced the lightest carcases at 392 kg dw. The lim x fr cows also produced the heaviest weanlings in that bunch. I wonder are we making a mistake with 3/4 continental cows, from a beef point of view anyway?

What do you ppl think, any comments?

bogman_bass

It shows one thing. you cant beat milk. now wether that comes using traditional breeds or heifers from the dairy herd I dont know. but milk drives profits

49801

CHxLM I dont think crosses very well.
Dam milk is certainly has a very strong influeance.
i think some breeds just cross better than others.

I dont like the derrypatrick choice of crosses really... i really question the wisdom of promoting the milk cross breed that derrypatrick are pushing

pakalasa

It does proove one thing though, and that is how important the Dairy herd is for the Beef industry. All these Dairy experts telling farmers to go the Holstein X Jersey route. Look at calf prices this year. A BB or a Lim X Holstein is still good enough for Beef. For say a 100 cow herd, only 40 needed for replacments, so that's 60 good beef calves that could be produced. Price diff of say 250Euro, that's 15,000 Euro clear extra profit.
How many guys would turn their nose up at that.

pmct

anybody that sells weanlings knows that to get good money for them they need to be from 3/4 bred continental cows i had a couple of lim x fr and i got a good bit less for the weanlings every year

JohnBoy

a valid point, but teagasc are trying to do some scientific research, and there's relatively little science in the prices achieved at the mart so hard to blame them in that regard.

towzer2010

Do you think that is only applicable to the farmer finishing the bulls themselves? As a primary producer I am only interested in what my product can be sold for and if my market is selling weanlings at the mart I wonder does the heavier weanling always make more than the shapier one from 3/4 continental cows.

That said I always keep replacements from the milkier cows.

pmct

I remember a few years ago I had what I though was a nice calf out of a lim x fr cow and a BB ai bull. He made less than lighter chx bulls. And when I was putting on the numbers a few lads asked me if he had fr in his bred

JohnBoy

I'd say it's applicable to everyone, kilos are kilos.


But weanlings are sold for whatever the buyers on a given day in the mart want to give for them, whether those buyers are right or wrong, it depends on the mood of the day, who gets bidding against each other and countless other factors.


teagasc cant measure that stuff, teagasc can only measure kilos.

flatout11

if your taking all stock to finish it would be hard to argue against lm x fr cows crossed with a angus as heifers (bonus payment) and a charolais after that, presuming you could source them easily its a simple system

Seaba

I think in that Derrypatrick case study the calves off a LM x FR weighed considerably more at weaning than off other crosses but the other crosses made up some of the ground at slaughter due to the gains they made when they were housed for finishing.

That would make you think that the LM x FR was better, c/kg wise, for weanling producers but guys buying for export might probably see the Friesian in the calves and decide long term that they would not hold as much weight or grade as well.

Personally we had a short, square Freisian cow years ago which Dad was milking for the house. She brought a limousin heifer every year from beef Limousin bulls like PAN (going back a bit here). We bulled them all, kept all of their heifer off spring and they were by far the best cows we ever had. Many LM x FR heifers nowadays have very poor behinds with thin legs. Beef limousin bull (not hard calving and ideally with a good pelvic area) to a square Freisian cow brings a bit of quality to the heifer and keeps the milk from the mother, IMO

BeeDI

Have only one lim x fr cross cow. Stock bull is charolais, and I would safely say, year on year, the resulting calf is the heaviest one at weaning in October. By the time I sell them out of the shed, the following March, it has been overtaken both in weight and shape by the others. Others are off 3/4 charolais cows, with shorthorn back in the breeding.
I'd say, the best bull to put on these black lim fr cows, is a BB.

Then again, what would I know

blue5000

I wonder did they do any feed conversion efficiency (fce) work on the bulls when they were finishing them, those results would be interesting if there was a big variation in them.

I agree with posters above selling weanlings in the mart 3/4 cont is best, but I wonder can you go too far with beef breeding?

'D' man from castleisland says grange are doing a trial on a 100 aa x and a 100 herefords as bulls at present, I wonder will we ever get to see them?

bluenun83

my whole uptake of this is irrespective of what the cow is, the maternal component of her performance is the driver. It doesn't matter what breed it is if the milk is there. The only problem is that with the likes of a poor CH or LIM you're chance of bridge the gap of a high yielding (milky cow) vs a low yielding cow takes years and years of breeding, thus the long term goal should be to eliminate this low yielding type of animal on our farms and push towards the ideal cow "type". When you're starting off with no milk its even harder to breed it back in!!!

On the comment of the LIMxFR, i have 5 of them at home, and i always get the good prices for the weanlings , but that is mainly due to the weight. Kilos are kilos at the end of the day, you might get a bit less per kilo overall (10-15 cents), but i'd sooner have 40 or 50 more and take a small hit on the price!!!;)

On the feed conversion efficiency, -- lets not forget that LMxFR bulls will be heavier at turnout to grass and at housing, so by definition they are going to eat more at every stage of growth, hence the higher feed intake on the bulls anyway!!!;);)

pakalasa

There's a mile of difference between a Friesian and a Holstein cow. Years ago we bought all friesian 18 month old Fr bullocks to finish and over 90% of them would grade R. They were handpicked in the marts. How many of todays Holstians would even grade O.

Farmer Pudsey

pakalasa wrote: »

There's a mile of difference between a Friesian and a Holstein cow. Years ago we bought all friesian 18 month old Fr bullocks to finish and over 90% of them would grade R. They were handpicked in the marts. How many of todays Holstians would even grade O.

Gardeing way harder now than years ago 6-7 years ago all Hereford and Angus cross cattle graded 'R' nowadays they are nearly all 'O's I do not know when was the last time I saw a hereford bullock off a dairy cow grade 'R'.
On the milk subject the best bulls I ever finished were black whitehead LMX they always out preformed anything else and graded better. No point is having a big cow produceing a small calf. In England there are suckler farmers useing Belgian Blue X Holstein cows and crossing them to big Angus Bulls finishing the Bulls at 20 months most of them gradeing 'U's

bluenun83

49801 wrote: »

CHxLM I dont think crosses very well.
Dam milk is certainly has a very strong influeance.
i think some breeds just cross better than others.

I dont like the derrypatrick choice of crosses really... i really question the wisdom of promoting the milk cross breed that derrypatrick are pushing

Correct me if i'm wrong, but don't those breed types represent two thirds of the national suckler cow population? anytime you go up and see these breed types they tell you that these have been handpicked, i.e. so called best beef genetics in the country, so that means that these are best beef genetics around, maybe not in the cow type but for beef growth etc. (as shown in the bull indoor and overall performance).

What is this telling us? from what i can see, it is clear that genetic gain is important, milk is important, and that the current cow "type" across the majority of country is flawed (that and the SBV for cows). The derrypatrick herd doesn't push any breed type, all that sh1te is done plenty enough by the breed societies.

This cow type thing really bugs me though. If the half bred LMxFR is beating all of the other Beef 3/4 bred cows, what does that tell us?
What she looks like doesn't matter. It is if she has the critical components required for profitable suckler farming, then she's a winner. We can't be depending on cows hanging up to put money in our pockets!!! Those type of cows do well in the factory, but thats it. ì've probably said this already before but (no offence meant to 49801) it just maddens me when lads go with breed types and all this. it is the basic pricinple of what is required is what we need to follow.

whelan1

12.5 % mortality rate this year:eek: 80 calved 70 live calves

Muckit

Poor figures especially for a demo farm. They're still pushing the friesain/limousine cross cow.

leg wax

Muckit wrote: »

Poor figures especially for a demo farm. They're still pushing the friesain/limousine cross cow.

well i would prefer to see this as i will give them some little credit for telling some truth:p

Farmer Pudsey

A lot of what is happening in Derrypatrick is down to bad managment I could not do much worse myself even though I have not being near a cow calfing in 25 years. I thing there is nobody watching the cows calving at night and they are using hard calfing bulls there silage is too good as well I bet. You cannot use there bulls unless you are watching all he time also look at the price they paid for bulls over the last two years this bears no reality to what needs to happening infarms out there.

Teagasc are very good at certain thing but running a suckler farm where you need to live in the place in spring time????

island of tighe

at least they are prepared to tell the truth,good and bad which is more than can be said for the better farm programme.out of approx eigteen of them they would nearly have you believe that they havent lost a calf the whole year

bluenun83

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

A lot of what is happening in Derrypatrick is down to bad managment I could not do much worse myself even though I have not being near a cow calfing in 25 years. I thing there is nobody watching the cows calving at night and they are using hard calfing bulls there silage is too good as well I bet. You cannot use there bulls unless you are watching all he time also look at the price they paid for bulls over the last two years this bears no reality to what needs to happening infarms out there.

Teagasc are very good at certain thing but running a suckler farm where you need to live in the place in spring time????

Just a couple of things i think need to be clarified . Seven stillbirths? i'd say more very unlucky than bad managment. the piece in the journal said that there have been 2 dead within 6 hours, which on the face of it, is high survival once they get on the ground etc etc.

Stillbirths can occur from alot of things, one of them not being overfeeding cows during the winter period. Feeding poor quality silage is more likely to lead to stillbirths through listeria. I was following the updates on the website and the cows have been restricted to 6 kg of DM of second cut silage (72 dmd - which is on the high side for second cut- but i think that is more of a reflection of the year that was in it) since they went in. Listeria stillbirths will, most likley, not occur when feeding cows silage of this quality.

Just on the bulls for last year, the bulls that were picked last year were 5 star for calving ease. Given the previous years c-section disastor, presumeabley they wanted to avoid another lashing from the media.

i also think this is very fitting to what is happening on suckler farms. Except for the fact the mortality figures are NOT being reported. . If you check the figures for 2008 for when the the suckler welfare scheme was introduced - you got €80 for a dead calf - mortaility rates hit an all time high for the last 15-20 years, the payment halved to €40 - mortality rates dropped massively in 2009.

Finally, I also find it very hard to believe that this herd has no-one watching them at night during calving. There is no-one that stupid to do that after all the flak they've taken from mccarthy and co.

I'd need more than a pinch of salt to believe the opinion of a person who hasn't been near a cow calving in 25 years.

Farmer Pudsey

If i remember rightly I read an article in the journal cows were checked late before midnight I think at 10pm and were not checked again until early morning 6am. I may be wrong but I seem to recall the crticle and I thaught it careless. You have to remember there are not being looked after by the owner and staff have to be paid when working so there are some compromise between cost and presence on the ground. This is not run like some of the milk setups where the running cost's are covered by sales. I know they have limited cover at weekends but at night???

bob charles

whelan1 wrote: »

12.5 % mortality rate this year:eek: 80 calved 70 live calves

I have always said that mortality in suckler herds is nearer 10% and another 5% of useless dud calves for some reason or another. If you put 100 cows to the bull and in one year from that day, you had 85 calves you would be doing exceptionally well.

bluenun83

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

If i remember rightly I read an article in the journal cows were checked late before midnight I think at 10pm and were not checked again until early morning 6am. I may be wrong but I seem to recall the crticle and I thaught it careless. You have to remember there are not being looked after by the owner and staff have to be paid when working so there are some compromise between cost and presence on the ground. This is not run like some of the milk setups where the running cost's are covered by sales. I know they have limited cover at weekends but at night???

Do you honestly think that the new Minogue fella was going to move ahead with a plan like that for this years calving? In fairness, it is probably one of the worst jobs to be in with all the microscopic analysis of every detail (such as this). if anyone was taking over that job last year, after everything that had gone on, they had to limit the probable events to happen on the farm.
1. fertility could not be a problem (bull that failed)
2. calving could not be a problem (c-sections etc.) and
3. calf mortality could not be a problem (overall output on the farm).

I am only speculating, but i find it very hard to that this "type" of setup goes on. Sure if it came out of the journal, it must be true!!!:pac::pac:

Farmer Pudsey

The journal did not comment one way or another just stated the management practice in place for calving. Stillbirth is just another name for a dead calf. Yes there is a high mortality in suckler herds however well managed herds keep it to less than 5% on average. The reason I did not get involved in sucklers is that I work full time. It is one of the biggest reason for calving mortality is not being there call it poor management but that is it.
Also you have to remember that teagasc have to pay staff for the time involved they have to cover weekends etc so there may be no cover at night. to cover the night shift would cost about 1500 euro for one person and for health& saftey they may need two staff 3000 euro/week take a calving season of ten weeks 30,000 euro even at half that it is a huge cost.

bluenun83

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The journal did not comment one way or another just stated the management practice in place for calving. Stillbirth is just another name for a dead calf. Yes there is a high mortality in suckler herds however well managed herds keep it to less than 5% on average. The reason I did not get involved in sucklers is that I work full time. It is one of the biggest reason for calving mortality is not being there call it poor management but that is it.
Also you have to remember that teagasc have to pay staff for the time involved they have to cover weekends etc so there may be no cover at night. to cover the night shift would cost about 1500 euro for one person and for health& saftey they may need two staff 3000 euro/week take a calving season of ten weeks 30,000 euro even at half that it is a huge cost.

Still-born is defined as upon presentation, the calf is dead, usually determined by placing your finger or hand in the eye or mouth.

One of the biggest reasons for calf mortality is the calf being too big , which results in the foetus moving around in the womb, coming backways, upsidedown or stuck at the hips. these are the reasons why. not because no-one is or was there to babysit cows.

Dystocia in cows happen because of these issues. Not because no-one was there to pull the calf out of the cow. Stillborns can happen, without any direct cause.
Death due to dystocia is completely different. In the journal, did you no read that there was no conclusive evidence as to the reason for the still borns? I double-checked the website and its up there.

Your estimate on the costings are outrageous. All in all, you couldn't put a price on their overall credibility, which would be completely screwed if they weren't watching at night. For that reason, i doubt that it is true. I'll ask at the open day and i expect i'll be proven right.

Farmer Pudsey

bluenun83 wrote: »

Your estimate on the costings are outrageous. .

Why would my costings be wrong taking everything into account wages, employer prsi, pension contribution, shift allowancs for night work, 7 nights in a week there would be very little change out of 200 euro a night and i dare say two staff would have to be present for health and saftey reasons. One thing I do know my costings would not be too far out.

bluenun83

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Why would my costings be wrong taking everything into account wages, employer prsi, pension contribution, shift allowancs for night work, 7 nights in a week there would be very little change out of 200 euro a night and i dare say two staff would have to be present for health and saftey reasons. One thing I do know my costings would not be too far out.

A friend of a friend, if you will, used to do the night watch in moorepark. He did it for ballydague, curtins and moorepark (~600 animals). He got 120 a night. One fella 3 farms. He called in assistance when needed. Fairly Simple. I'm sure a somewhat similar strategy is employed for derrypatrick.

Costings aside, i just like for people to deal with the facts not opinions or heresay. That was my whole point on the calving still births etc.

I'm going to ring grange tomorrow and see if i can find out!!! Just to put it to bed. I'll report tomorrow on it here.

bluenun83

so i rang up grange today and spoke to yer man minogue about the calving. he said that they have someone there on call every night during the calving season (changes in personnel week on -off etc.).

On the calving front, it was quite evident that he was majorly pissedd off as the bottom line was could the still-births been avoided/could they have done anything different to avoid them... the short answer was no.

I asked him a bit more detail on the stillbirths and there were 3 or 4 from the first calvers and the rest from the mature cows - so no direct sire cause or anything like that. None of the PMs shows anything.

he accepted that the mortality was much higher than he would have ever have liked but he took some comfort in not having cottage devon in the make up of the stock bulls (apparently wreeking havoc with the weanling guys in the west of ireland).

In fairness, he was quite open about it all. What do yee make of it?

blue5000

What's happening with cottage devon and what breed is he?

I think in Derrypatrick the cows are always under stress because they are stocked too tight. They are trying to 'show' us how to increase profit margins by having high output per ha. I think the SR is around 2.4? LU/ha, I'm open to correction on this.

A livestock unit is based on dairying where a cow is 1 livestock unit, but dairy cows usually only weigh 500-550 kg LW. In Derrypatrick some cows are > 700kg but are still only considered as 1 livestock unit. So a dairy farmer might have (500x2.4) 1200kg per ha and Derrypatrick could have (700x2.4) 1680kg per ha and both are stocked at 2.4 livestock units/ha.

Actually does anyone know what they are stocking /ha in Derrypatrick, perhaps it's 3 LU/ha? Just my 2cents and sure I know sfa I'm only a farmer;)

pakalasa

blue5000 wrote: »

What's happening with cottage devon and what breed is he?

DEZ, the Charolais bull, by Texan-Gie
http://www.icbf.com/taurus/bull_search/index.php?search_type=num&search=dez

It was a disgrace really the way Munster & Progressive were pushing him as the next 'best thing'. The usual crap with a new unproven bull. Turns out he is 21% for calving Difficulty.

Seaba

I have to say I am a massive fan of DEZ.
We had 5 cows in calf to him - 4 calved unassisted, 3 really good calves, one great calf (cow calved unassisted but he was a very big calf) One calf did die but that was our fault - the cow was too fat, had a bit of trouble getting the hips out and we did not have the jack ready in time (stupid).

We are careful not to overfeed our cows however - silage and some meal and the silage is not always top quality. That obviously helps not having big calves, but they are turning out excellent. Really disappointed to hear that he was put down. For me anyway he brought the best Charlaois since CF52

limo_100

Seaba wrote: »

I have to say I am a massive fan of DEZ.
We had 5 cows in calf to him - 4 calved unassisted, 3 really good calves, one great calf (cow calved unassisted but he was a very big calf) One calf did die but that was our fault - the cow was too fat, had a bit of trouble getting the hips out and we did not have the jack ready in time (stupid).

We are careful not to overfeed our cows however - silage and some meal and the silage is not always top quality. That obviously helps not having big calves, but they are turning out excellent. Really disappointed to hear that he was put down. For me anyway he brought the best Charlaois since CF52

im the same used him a good bit and never had any trouble with him always got great cattle of them and never had to pull any of them

Bigbird1

Seaba wrote: »

I have to say I am a massive fan of DEZ.
We had 5 cows in calf to him - 4 calved unassisted, 3 really good calves, one great calf (cow calved unassisted but he was a very big calf) One calf did die but that was our fault - the cow was too fat, had a bit of trouble getting the hips out and we did not have the jack ready in time (stupid).

We are careful not to overfeed our cows however - silage and some meal and the silage is not always top quality. That obviously helps not having big calves, but they are turning out excellent. Really disappointed to hear that he was put down. For me anyway he brought the best Charlaois since CF52

I havent used him yet,but have a few straws in the pot, i hear he is hard calved and breeding inconsistently,still from what i read hear i will try him on 1 or 2 good square cows.

Seaba, you say you dont over feed your cows, yet you feed silage and some meal, we had some trouble last year on silage alone so this yaer we tryed a combination of hay and hunger,much less trouble

What breed/type cows did you use DEZ on??

Seaba

Bigbird1 wrote: »

I havent used him yet,but have a few straws in the pot, i hear he is hard calved and breeding inconsistently,still from what i read hear i will try him on 1 or 2 good square cows.

Seaba, you say you dont over feed your cows, yet you feed silage and some meal, we had some trouble last year on silage alone so this yaer we tryed a combination of hay and hunger,much less trouble

What breed/type cows did you use DEZ on??

We used him on all types of cows!
Best bull calf was from a very tall, plain looking black limousin 5 year old. Brought an excellent orange bull. Myself and Dad went over to look at her at night as she was getting sick and she had calved on her own. When we saw the quality of the calf (great back, arse and muscle) we wondered/were delighted that she was able to calf him unassisted. However if that calf was another narrow cow there would have been a section.

Other cows were 2 Charolais - 7 year olds. Lovely creamy heifer calfs. Popped out. And a red shorthorn - 8 year old. Lovely square orange bull calf. The one that died was from a shortish black limousin that had a dead calf the year before but Dad wanted to keep her for another year - she was gone too fat.

I have a feeling he might work well on tall, plainer cows. I think I even read some where that he did. Ours were mature cows and decent calvers. Would never put him on a narrow cow, just in case. Also every man knows what cows of theirs throw big calves - that Limousin of ours constantly throws big calves even though she is the plainest of all our cows.

So I suppose to give the ICBF some credit that 21% calving diff is spot on!! We had 5 in calf to him - 4 fine, 1 dead (but again that was mostly our fault)

bluenun83

This type of sire being "selectively" used on big-type cows, is probably where the information on his original calving ease had come from. Breeders are constantly doing this, selective breeding sires on select groups of animals that will spit out 60kg calves no problem (which still gets a calving score of 1). This then give a false indication of the overall calving ability of the sire.

When this sire is then used on farms, he will by definition, then throw large heavy calves across the board. Its where you get the massive calf - small opening (ie. smaller than the purebread mother), that you run into trouble i.e. c-section. This is what is catching lads out.

This heavy calf, will then have a massive cost to the system, be-it a jack (labour etc.) or a c-section (initial cost, follow on treatment, and impact on overall fertility). If we started getting birthweights on calves from purebreads and even our own calves, we'd be able to rule out alot of this sh1te with selective breeding, throwing off all the calving ease accuracy.

When we put the numbers on it - we get 80% smashing looking calves and good follow on perfomance at slaughter conformation etc. etc. - but 20% reduction in output.

IMO use of sires like this guy and anything else close to hard calvings should be scrapped from any catalogue. Profitability and heavy calves don't go hand in hand, and 7 or 8 times out of 10 the big cow able to calve this massive calf will have no maternal line in them anyway!!

from an earlier point the stocking rate of derrypatrick is 2.9 LU/ha.

Farmer Pudsey

bluenun83 wrote: »

so i rang up grange today and spoke to yer man minogue about the calving. he said that they have someone there on call every night during the calving season (changes in personnel week on -off etc.).

On the calving front, it was quite evident that he was majorly pissedd off as the bottom line was could the still-births been avoided/could they have done anything different to avoid them... the short answer was no.

I asked him a bit more detail on the stillbirths and there were 3 or 4 from the first calvers and the rest from the mature cows - so no direct sire cause or anything like that. None of the PMs shows anything.

he accepted that the mortality was much higher than he would have ever have liked but he took some comfort in not having cottage devon in the make up of the stock bulls (apparently wreeking havoc with the weanling guys in the west of ireland).

In fairness, he was quite open about it all. What do yee make of it?

Just a query I am not being symantic but when he says on call what it mean they have someone watching the cows at night or is it a case that if they see a cow starting to calf at 10 pm someone watches her???

pakalasa

bluenun83 wrote: »

...If we started getting birthweights on calves from purebreads and even our own calves, we'd be able to rule out alot of this sh1te with selective breeding, throwing off all the calving ease accuracy.

Did you read today's Journal. ICBF plan to do just that. They are going to start recording the birth weights of calves. Another 'string to their bow'. Fair play to them.

bluenun83

blue5000 wrote: »

What's happening with cottage devon and what breed is he?

I think in Derrypatrick the cows are always under stress because they are stocked too tight. They are trying to 'show' us how to increase profit margins by having high output per ha. I think the SR is around 2.4? LU/ha, I'm open to correction on this.

A livestock unit is based on dairying where a cow is 1 livestock unit, but dairy cows usually only weigh 500-550 kg LW. In Derrypatrick some cows are > 700kg but are still only considered as 1 livestock unit. So a dairy farmer might have (500x2.4) 1200kg per ha and Derrypatrick could have (700x2.4) 1680kg per ha and both are stocked at 2.4 livestock units/ha.

Actually does anyone know what they are stocking /ha in Derrypatrick, perhaps it's 3 LU/ha? Just my 2cents and sure I know sfa I'm only a farmer;)

Two things with this, the original Holstein type animal (american holstein freisan) would have been upwards of the 650kg mark. The move away from the american heavy milk genetics of the dairy herd have seen a massive shift in the liveweight of the mature cows. Essentially, a cow to suit the system - seasonal grass based, calving at 2 years of age, fertile, etc. etc. They tried it with the mount pellier crosses before but you just could calve them down at 2 years of age (later onset of puberty). The switch to a more new zealand type animal (jerseys aside) is where the 550kg cow is currently from. We have changed the size of our cows over time - why, its what suited the system

The current LU on the suckler side is largely (on average) at your 700kg animal. But, her intake is still going to be lower for say 2% of body weight (14 kg DM) than her dairy equivalent. I know this increases to about a near enough max 17kg DM later on in the season, but this is more or less where its at.
The LU in derrypatrick -LU equivalents
don't forget about the progeny
0.46 of a livestock unit for the <1 years
and the yearlings
- bulls @ 18 months = 0.6*0.5=0.3 (only the for half the second year)
- heifers @ 20 months= 0.6*0.75=0.45 (8 months of the second year)

There's where the difference is - if you look at any of the curtains work, you'll see that a farm at 2.9 LU's in the dairy world won't survive on its own legs. An outside area for silage and heifer rearing is needed. To the best of my knowledge anyway!!!

On the flipside, the bull and heifer system have plenty of imported feeds!!

I don't know about the stress issue, but in fairness they got 90% in calf last year, any stress would have hit them hard in the breeding season. Not that i'm plugging the LimxFr but they weaned 340 kg of calf last year averaging 1.3 kg a day. No sign of too much stress there!!!;)

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Just a query I am not being symantic but when he says on call what it mean they have someone watching the cows at night or is it a case that if they see a cow starting to calf at 10 pm someone watches her???

There is someone there all night watching the cows. i'm not being pedantic but what does symantic mean?

pakalasa wrote: »

Did you read today's Journal. ICBF plan to do just that. They are going to start recording the birth weights of calves. Another 'string to their bow'. Fair play to them.

Didn't get the journal today, no harm to get it up and running and out on farm. It would sort out alot of alot of these breeders and their selective breeding strategies, especially with recipients for embryo transfers out of the dairy herds --- limxFr plus a c-section!!!!

blue5000

Ok the lim x fr are doing the business, but they are lighter cows. What I meant by stress is grazing pressure, possible trace element deficiencies, and parasite/disease pressure. They all add up. How many kg of N/ha are they using to carry 2.9 LU/ ha? How much org N is that, 200kg?

The yearling bulls at 0.6 LU are probably around 500kg.(same weight approx as a dairy cow/1L.U.)
I know there is a lot of meal being used in the system, probably the equivalent of another half hectare of someone else's land needed to finish the stock produced on one ha of Derrypatrick land.

I think they are trying to carry too many kg/ha and that is why they are having so many problems.

Arrow in the Knee

Never knew he was put down.

Is that when the ai station got hit early last year with disease?

bluenun83

blue5000 wrote: »

Ok the lim x fr are doing the business, but they are lighter cows. What I meant by stress is grazing pressure, possible trace element deficiencies, and parasite/disease pressure. They all add up. How many kg of N/ha are they using to carry 2.9 LU/ ha? How much org N is that, 200kg?.

They are using 250 kg N/ha in fertiliser, and @225 kg org N. I heard them say before that it was old pasture, not alot of reseeds, so in future as the pasture productivity inncreases, in-turn the N rate should decrease.

blue5000 wrote: »

The yearling bulls at 0.6 LU are probably around 500kg.(same weight approx as a dairy cow/1L.U.).

By the time the bulls are just over this weight, they are in for the finishing period. So technically they're out of the grazing system by early june.

I think they are trying to carry too many kg/ha and that is why they are having so many problems.[/QUOTE]

I was at a farm walk in wexford. There was a lad who is operating at 2.9 LU/ha (Eddie Keogh or Kehoe, i can't remember exactly). He was turning out €1200 last year for his GM. One lad, one farm. a few sheep was the only difference, only a handfull mind you!! All grass, he wasn't growing his own grain or anything to help finish the cattle.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it - It can be done my good man!!!


I posted a bit of this in another derrypatrick headed topic. I think its a fair summary as to some of the main reasons why trouble was had from the outset.


1. they started off with 120 heifers, which was always going to be a minefield of surpises.

2. In the forum at the open day last year, the lad from ICBF stated that they were going to generate a new index for suckler cows - as in the index currently in place (SBV) does not work!!!!

If the old Suckler beef value was used to select the Derrypatrick herd in the first place, then they were always starting off from a bad foot, and clearly that has shown in the fertility last year.
What you end up having is charolais cows out of CF52 that are high in overall SBV because of the carcass weightings in the index fro the beef traits are too high. You know and i know that any CF52 straws used at home are for ****ers that will be haning up in 20 or 22 months time, and not in the cow.

49801

personally think that LW gain per day (like 1.3kg/day) should not be measured until slaugther.
taking it at weaning is very deceptive.

milkprofit

They need to feed transition mineral

Farmer Pudsey

I would not consider that they are stocked heavy on paper they are however a suckler cow will not consume anything like a dairy cow even though she is heavier as her energy demand will be lower.

If you look at the LU equivlent for each of the animals in the chain and a suckler unit will be equivlent to 1 Cow her calf and 1/2 a bull for 8 months(assumeing slaughter at 20 months) and 1/2 heifer for 10 months(assumeing slaughter at 22 months)

1 Cow+Calf until 6 months =1LU
1 Calf 6-12 months =0.3Lu
1/2 Bull 12=20 months =0.375 Lu
1/2 heifer 12-22 months =.264LU

all this is = 1.94 so a Suckler unit in Derrypatrick is equal to this
so it is equivlent to 1.5 Suckler units to the HA

Now the bulls are finished intensively inside for at least 70 days which gives you access to extra slurrry as compared to an ordinary suckler farm.

There Chemical Nitrogen is equal to about 4 bags of can or pasture sward/Acre take out the amount of N for silage and the amount of Nitrogen is not excessive in theory they will have a lot of organic N however at best if you recover 50% of organic N from slurry you are doing well.

I think Teagasc are making up excuses this is the second year that is a disaster.

Also they may need to look at the silage quality good quality silage may be necessary for cows in the early part of the housing period if they are not at the right condition score but from what I understand is a lot of farmers breeding the export quality weanling use poor quality silage or hay and straw late in the housing period before calving to prevent the calf from getting too big

bluenun83

49801 wrote: »

personally think that LW gain per day (like 1.3kg/day) should not be measured until slaugther.
taking it at weaning is very deceptive.

During this stage (pre-weaning), the LW gain of the calf is directly linked to the performance of the cow. This is when she is making money for you, or when she is costing you the least, depending on what way you want to look at it. That increased weaning weight holds right through until slaughter. Using it as an indicator as cow perfomance is perfectly fine.

Bulls that have a high pre-weaning LW gain will in-turn have a higher LW gain at grass the following season. The extra weight in heifers is maintained right through the season. Saying that it is deceptive is completely untrue. You will have different levels of performance through the life of a bull and heifer, but the extra weight at weaning through a "milkier" cow, whatever the breed, is still there at the end.

Farmer Pudsey

bluenun83 wrote: »

During this stage (pre-weaning), the LW gain of the calf is directly linked to the performance of the cow. This is when she is making money for you, or when she is costing you the least, depending on what way you want to look at it. That increased weaning weight holds right through until slaughter. Using it as an indicator as cow perfomance is perfectly fine.

Bulls that have a high pre-weaning LW gain will in-turn have a higher LW gain at grass the following season. The extra weight in heifers is maintained right through the season. Saying that it is deceptive is completely untrue. You will have different levels of performance through the life of a bull and heifer, but the extra weight at weaning through a "milkier" cow, whatever the breed, is still there at the end.

One factor that has not being reserched is if a calf is weaned of a milky cow at 375 kgs and the calf of a non milky cow is 325 some of this weight is made up during the winter housing period by the lighter weanlings do they consume a larger amount of feed over the winter to do this. Also for the weanling to make up the weight the following summer will he again consume more grass over the summer

bluenun83

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I would not consider that they are stocked heavy on paper they are however a suckler cow will not consume anything like a dairy cow even though she is heavier as her energy demand will be lower.

Just out of curiosity what would you define as highly stocked?
The stocking rate increases to 5.8 or whatever (depending on the actual area) when the silage ground is closed up and the feed demand is up around the 70 kg DM per day (and is still increasing while the bulls are still on the farm). The liveweight per hectare increases, at this stage in the year, to about 3 tonne!! FFS

If you are highly stocked on paper there is no real way of saying "ah sure you're not REALLY highly stocked, are ya!!".

[/QUOTE]Now the bulls are finished intensively inside for at least 70 days which gives you access to extra slurrry as compared to an ordinary suckler farm.[/QUOTE]

Ordinary suckler farms are at on average 1.1 LU's per hectare - no real point in even comparing the two.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I think Teagasc are making up excuses this is the second year that is a disaster.

I'm sure teagasc are not wading through webpages and forums watching us bitch to each other on the internet about them and derrypatrick.
That whole synopsis is my take on the situation and on beef farming in Ireland as a whole. The SBV index is why we have a more terminal type cow for breeding which is proven not to work for profitable suckling. That is my whole point.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Also they may need to look at the silage quality good quality silage may be necessary for cows in the early part of the housing period if they are not at the right condition score but from what I understand is a lot of farmers breeding the export quality weanling use poor quality silage or hay and straw late in the housing period before calving to prevent the calf from getting too big

I think everyone knows that you don't want good silage for cows, and that you want them to lose condition over the winter period. Or if you have good quality silage, then you are restricting them. This is a well known practice and is not really novel in any way.

bluenun83

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

One factor that has not being reserched is if a calf is weaned of a milky cow at 375 kgs and the calf of a non milky cow is 325 some of this weight is made up during the winter housing period by the lighter weanlings do they consume a larger amount of feed over the winter to do this. Also for the weanling to make up the weight the following summer will he again consume more grass over the summer

They don't make up the weight. That is completely false.

If the weanlings are lighter, then by definition (2% of body weight), they will be eating less than the heavier ones.