Dairy Farming General

Timmaay

Mj you keep using the figures of a 5kl jex v 7.5kl Ho, the 5kl is very average for a any sorta decent jex, 5500/6000l at well over 8% solids would be very achievable, whereas 7.5kl delivered from HOs really is an exceptional figure unless tmr'd and all that to the last.

mahoney_j

frazzledhome wrote: »

This is a well worn path

Teag/JK bad
Kiwi Shocking

Yes it's a well worn path ,Tegasc ain't all bad just one dimensional at times ,jk don't need to say any more .kiwi shocking no but relevance needs to be made for smaller ,higher regulation etc Irish farms .think yer forgetting what a small Irish dairy farm is lads ,we don't have the scale to work the jex cow and kiwi system to max .ill 100 %!standvover that .browned as for your scenario why the different srs ,why not stock both same ,keep grass right which is a given and feed same level of concern through season .only one winner .think a few of he bigger lads are loosing the run of yerselves and forgetting us small lads who according to some in my area are only hindering them from getting bigger ,....,.

mahoney_j

Timmaay wrote: »

Mj you keep using the figures of a 5kl jex v 7.5kl Ho, the 5kl is very average for a any sorta decent jex, 5500/6000l at well over 8% solids would be very achievable, whereas 7.5kl delivered from HOs really is an exceptional figure unless tmr'd and all that to the last.

Close to 7500 delivered no tmr 1.2 tonne meal and loads of grass .notvrocket science to achieve that with the level of people now coming through .it ain't what's preached so loads dismiss it and say it can't be done .5 k average would be a good average for x bred herds ,seen them vary from 4 to 6 k ,ditto hol from 5 to 12 k

frazzledhome

mahoney_j wrote: »

Yes it's a well worn path ,Tegasc ain't all bad just one dimensional at times ,jk don't need to say any more .kiwi shocking no but relevance needs to be made for smaller ,higher regulation etc Irish farms .think yer forgetting what a small Irish dairy farm is lads ,we don't have the scale to work the jex cow and kiwi system to max .ill 100 %!standvover that .browned as for your scenario why the different srs ,why not stock both same ,keep grass right which is a given and feed same level of concern through season .only one winner .think a few of he bigger lads are loosing the run of yerselves and forgetting us small lads who according to some in my area are only hindering them from getting bigger ,....,.

Ffs MJ don't play that card, it insults people's intelligence

jaymla627

mahoney_j wrote: »

Close to 7500 delivered no tmr 1.2 tonne meal and loads of grass .notvrocket science to achieve that with the level of people now coming through .it ain't what's preached so loads dismiss it and say it can't be done .5 k average would be a good average for x bred herds ,seen them vary from 4 to 6 k ,ditto hol from 5 to 12 k

First lactation jersey cross holstein heifers here that are heading towards over 7,000 litres for the year, the whole trick in my view is make sure the right bulls are used, any of the extreme jrx here get plus 400 kg holstein bulls that are over 2 for type/positive for pr...
The resulting heifers from these ladies I would be expecting will do well over 450 kg of milk solids 1st lactation and in our around 520/530 when mature of a ton of meal/grass/surplus wraps, you shouldn't dismiss xbreds as low milk the right type of xbreds will outperform holsteins all day long under the same conditions

frazzledhome

MJ If I were you I'd make sure to attend IGA summer tour.

Noel O Toole in Kilimor Co Galway is one of the hosts. Tight for land and highly stocked. I think this discussion is achedemic until then as you quiet simply can't or don't want to take a different perspective.

browned

mahoney_j wrote: »

Yes it's a well worn path ,Tegasc ain't all bad just one dimensional at times ,jk don't need to say any more .kiwi shocking no but relevance needs to be made for smaller ,higher regulation etc Irish farms .think yer forgetting what a small Irish dairy farm is lads ,we don't have the scale to work the jex cow and kiwi system to max .ill 100 %!standvover that .browned as for your scenario why the different srs ,why not stock both same ,keep grass right which is a given and feed same level of concern through season .only one winner .think a few of he bigger lads are loosing the run of yerselves and forgetting us small lads who according to some in my area are only hindering them from getting bigger ,....,.

the reason I didn't stock the same is due to farmer preference. the jex farmer in my scenario preferred working at a higher sr to generate more income. mj your setting parameters and constraints so that the high yielding herd will be shown to be the favourable and prove your argument. what if the margin was 5c in favour of the jex that would mean both would be equal at a similar sr.

must apologise from side tracking this from its original start which was teagasc systems. back in my collage years last 90's early 00's the moorepark blueprint was a 600 kg cow producing 500kgs/ms off 500kgs of ration at a 2.5sr. so in the intermeeting 15 -20 years the target sr has increased to 2.8ish due to a higher emphasis on grass and less feed requirement for aighter cow. the meal feeding level has stayed the same. ms targets has dropped to 450 while the size of the cow has dropped to 500kgs. is the suggestion you and other are making that the kiwi system is to blame for this shift? to be honest all the kiwi cows have done since there introduction is shown that a greater emphasis on fertility will lead to profit indirectly. their introduction has forwarded the breeding emphasis of hf towards fertility whereby now we have an ebi list made up of high fertile hf bulls so much so that they are outpacing the kiwi x cow. another reason for the drop in bodyweight of the moorepark model cow is efficiency and grazing ability. a 500kg cow producing 450ms is 7% more efficient than a 600kg cow producing 500ms.

as to the point that teagasc doesn't cater for the high input herds well the argument could be made that they equally don't cater for the low input herd. in nz they have their 5 systems based on imported feed 1 being almost no import feed (the definition of a kiwi system) and 5 at the other end of the scale. teagasc's blueprint for production is bang in the middle of this system 3. the reasoning behind such a model is probably due to it being a typical bell curve and by positioning itself in a system which the majority of farmers fall into.

blackdog1

browned wrote: »

the reason I didn't stock the same is due to farmer preference. the jex farmer in my scenario preferred working at a higher sr to generate more income. mj your setting parameters and constraints so that the high yielding herd will be shown to be the favourable and prove your argument. what if the margin was 5c in favour of the jex that would mean both would be equal at a similar sr.

must apologise from side tracking this from its original start which was teagasc systems. back in my collage years last 90's early 00's the moorepark blueprint was a 600 kg cow producing 500kgs/ms off 500kgs of ration at a 2.5sr. so in the intermeeting 15 -20 years the target sr has increased to 2.8ish due to a higher emphasis on grass and less feed requirement for aighter cow. the meal feeding level has stayed the same. ms targets has dropped to 450 while the size of the cow has dropped to 500kgs. is the suggestion you and other are making that the kiwi system is to blame for this shift? to be honest all the kiwi cows have done since there introduction is shown that a greater emphasis on fertility will lead to profit indirectly. their introduction has forwarded the breeding emphasis of hf towards fertility whereby now we have an ebi list made up of high fertile hf bulls so much so that they are outpacing the kiwi x cow. another reason for the drop in bodyweight of the moorepark model cow is efficiency and grazing ability. a 500kg cow producing 450ms is 7% more efficient than a 600kg cow producing 500ms.

as to the point that teagasc doesn't cater for the high input herds well the argument could be made that they equally don't cater for the low input herd. in nz they have their 5 systems based on imported feed 1 being almost no import feed (the definition of a kiwi system) and 5 at the other end of the scale. teagasc's blueprint for production is bang in the middle of this system 3. the reasoning behind such a model is probably due to it being a typical bell curve and by positioning itself in a system which the majority of farmers fall into.

Lads why do you take what teagasc tell you to be true????. Know guys who work their and some of the carry on there is unreal. Factor in that in the past in1 herd they have 3 ppl plus a farm manager to look after 150 cows plus heifer followers something a normal farmer can't afford. Teagasc have to justify their wage. Monitor farm info is far more intresting to me that figures out of teagasc's own farms

mahoney_j

frazzledhome wrote: »

Ffs MJ don't play that card, it insults people's intelligence

Insulting no ones intelligence ,have experience of it

mahoney_j

frazzledhome wrote: »

MJ If I were you I'd make sure to attend IGA summer tour.

Noel O Toole in Kilimor Co Galway is one of the hosts. Tight for land and highly stocked. I think this discussion is achedemic until then as you quiet simply can't or don't want to take a different perspective.

Been there twice ,running tight ship but stocked bit too high imo as for your last little dig I've a very open mind ,I know what's working for me .if I had the acres to carry the nos I'd be def the other extreme .my little operation like many others ain't at moment just milk based due to fragmentation etc .within 2 years I'll be fully stocked on milk block at 3.2 delivering 8 k Ltrs 600 kg solids on 1.5 tonne of meal with best of grass and grass silage ,no tmr ,no maize no diet feeder .ill also have high value Bulls to sell ,high value surplus heifers to sell and some nice beer money from bull calves and cull cows

browned

mahoney_j wrote: »

Been there twice ,running tight ship but stocked bit too high imo as for your last little dig I've a very open mind ,I know what's working for me .if I had the acres to carry the nos I'd be def the other extreme .my little operation like many others ain't at moment just milk based due to fragmentation etc .within 2 years I'll be fully stocked on milk block at 3.2 delivering 8 k Ltrs 600 kg solids on 1.5 tonne of meal with best of grass and grass silage ,no tmr ,no maize no diet feeder .ill also have high value Bulls to sell ,high value surplus heifers to sell and some nice beer money from bull calves and cull cows

Very impressive and no doubt a very profitable system for you Mj.

A question with regards Noel o toole's Sr and you proposed one. Is stocking his 411kgms jex at 3.85 much of a difference to stocking your 600kgms HF at 3.2 in terms of feed demand? His 500 kg/lw cows stocked at 3.85 is roughly 1925kgslw/ha while your 600 kg/lw cows stocked at 3.2 is 1920kgslw/ha. Almost identicle

He'll be producing 1585kgms/ha off 1.925t/ha of imported meal. You'll be producing 1920kgms/ha off 4.8t/ha of meal.

Averaging these two systems over a variety of years would give a relatively even amount of high take home profit I'd imagine. But would also carry a lot of risk given their high sr.

stanflt

browned wrote: »

while the figure you quote are very impressive is it an exception or the norm? for example im looking at the profit monitor of a farmer who made a net profit of 4,000 euros/dairy ha last year on less than 0.5ton meal

4700 per dairy ha

browned

stanflt wrote: »

4700 per dairy ha

Excellent figure Stan. By dairy ha I don't mean exclusively cow grazing ground I mean any ground owned or leased that supply feed to the dairy cow. For example I'm including say an outside block supplying silage etc in this per dairy ha number but I've no doubt your 4700 is using the same calculation

stanflt

browned wrote: »

Excellent figure Stan. By dairy ha I don't mean exclusively cow grazing ground I mean any ground owned or leased that supply feed to the dairy cow. For example I'm including say an outside block supplying silage etc in this per dairy ha number but I've no doubt your 4700 is using the same calculation

It is-and I'm open for visits- all figures disclosed- nothing to hide

As for the jex/ hols debate all of ye are making a mistake- remember the top 5% of farmers every year in each system makes on avg the same profit per ha regardless of stocking rate or cow type- keep the simple things right- grass fertility both cows and land 6 week calving interval and attention to detail and money is there to be made

Milked out

browned wrote: »

Excellent figure Stan. By dairy ha I don't mean exclusively cow grazing ground I mean any ground owned or leased that supply feed to the dairy cow. For example I'm including say an outside block supplying silage etc in this per dairy ha number but I've no doubt your 4700 is using the same calculation

Do ye not include replacement ground also? If not why not?fair enough if comparisons are being made just against cows as such but replacements are a cost and large cost and should be included in any costings surely

stanflt

Milked out wrote: »

Do ye not include replacement ground also? If not why not?fair enough if comparisons are being made just against cows as such but replacements are a cost and large cost and should be included in any costings surely

The way the pm works it takes a costing on replacements in the inventory so it's included that way- I've 1.3 replacements for every cow

browned

stanflt wrote: »

It is-and I'm open for visits- all figures disclosed- nothing to hide

As for the jex/ hols debate all of ye are making a mistake- remember the top 5% of farmers every year in each system makes on avg the same profit per ha regardless of stocking rate or cow type- keep the simple things right- grass fertility both cows and land 6 week calving interval and attention to detail and money is there to be made

Makes your return even more impressive on your part. Wasn't suggesting there was anything to hide and apols if that's how it came across. In Ireland there are way to many variables to consider in terms of comparisons due to out farms etc. Just making sure the same variables were being used as it would have been a pointless exercise otherwise. Not my figures anyway so can't go into too much detail with regards them.

A few other posters have bemoaned to lack of farmers such as yourself not being promoted in terms of used as monitor farms etc. have you applied to be a glanbia? Moniter farmer and get overlooked?

mahoney_j

browned wrote: »

Very impressive and no doubt a very profitable system for you Mj.

A question with regards Noel o toole's Sr and you proposed one. Is stocking his 411kgms jex at 3.85 much of a difference to stocking your 600kgms HF at 3.2 in terms of feed demand? His 500 kg/lw cows stocked at 3.85 is roughly 1925kgslw/ha while your 600 kg/lw cows stocked at 3.2 is 1920kgslw/ha. Almost identicle

He'll be producing 1585kgms/ha off 1.925t/ha of imported meal. You'll be producing 1920kgms/ha off 4.8t/ha of meal.

Averaging these two systems over a variety of years would give a relatively even amount of high take home profit I'd imagine. But would also carry a lot of risk given their high sr.

Great points made ,on o tooles.his farm is very highly stocked ,if even say over stocked,a real sticky spring ,back end TB breakdown etc would put him under huge pressure to keep everything fed and milk into rank .if I remember correctly from my last visit there he imports huge amounts of silage from other farms as he wasn't able to be self sufficient for his own needs or even get anywhere near it .at 3.2 and feeding 1.5 tonne I'm fully self sufficient even in bad year .i could push higher and may do up to 3.7 down the road but at that things need to go right pretty much all year

stanflt

browned wrote: »

Makes your return even more impressive on your part. Wasn't suggesting there was anything to hide and apols if that's how it came across. In Ireland there are way to many variables to consider in terms of comparisons due to out farms etc. Just making sure the same variables were being used as it would have been a pointless exercise otherwise. Not my figures anyway so can't go into too much detail with regards them.

A few other posters have bemoaned to lack of farmers such as yourself not being promoted in terms of used as monitor farms etc. have you applied to be a glanbia? Moniter farmer and get overlooked?

A monitor farm is one that can be easily copied and show progress quickly- I feed way too much to be a monitor farm but I still get 4500 litre from grass which 98% of farms in Ireland can't do- too much could go wrong in the wrong hands

browned

Milked out wrote: »

Do ye not include replacement ground also? If not why not?fair enough if comparisons are being made just against cows as such but replacements are a cost and large cost and should be included in any costings surely

The farmer I was quoting was contract rearing stock so the figures could be stand alone. It does muddy the waters a little have outside blocks for heifer as who's to say all forage produced on these blocks go exclusively for replacements. You could say have all the costs added to get a final cost per farm but in such a scenario a farmer who's contract rearing should in theory have a higher profit per owned ha than one who is rearing on his own land.

browned

stanflt wrote: »

A monitor farm is one that can be easily copied and show progress quickly- I feed way too much to be a monitor farm but I still get 4500 litre from grass which 98% of farms in Ireland can't do- too much could go wrong in the wrong hands

This is what I can't understand. Some posters have claimed that teagasc is porpoisely ignoring exceptional farmers like yourself. Is this in a way an answer as to why you aren't as promoted as much as a system like yours deserve?

browned

mahoney_j wrote: »

Great points made ,on o tooles.his farm is very highly stocked ,if even say over stocked,a real sticky spring ,back end TB breakdown etc would put him under huge pressure to keep everything fed and milk into rank .if I remember correctly from my last visit there he imports huge amounts of silage from other farms as he wasn't able to be self sufficient for his own needs or even get anywhere near it .at 3.2 and feeding 1.5 tonne I'm fully self sufficient even in bad year .i could push higher and may do up to 3.7 down the road but at that things need to go right pretty much all year

I'm actually saying that him stocked at 3.85 is identical to you stocked at 3.2 in terms of cow requirements. Think he only buys in winter feed and that probably replaces the extra 1t of meal you feed in the system. I'm saying both of your system will prob be carbon copies in terms of profit but with two different but similar ways of doing it.

Both of ye fall into the high risk high rewards model for farming.

mahoney_j

browned wrote: »

I'm actually saying that him stocked at 3.85 is identical to you stocked at 3.2 in terms of cow requirements. Think he only buys in winter feed and that probably replaces the extra 1t of meal you feed in the system. I'm saying both of your system will prob be carbon copies in terms of profit but with two different but similar ways of doing it.

Both of ye fall into the high risk high rewards model for farming.

Fair point but at 3.85 there's a much bigger exposure to say weather events TB breakdown etc .only feed bought in here is meal ,bought some whole crop last year as got it cheap enough ,great buffer at grass but not needed as self sufficient in grass silage .would he not better off feeding dry cows straw and 3 way mix ???,buying in so much silage has to be a big strain financially on such a fine line operation.remember last time there got to paddock at 12 o click ,cows balling mad and licking clay off ground.a lot of us came away questioning the figures we were quoted in our handout .dont think I'm as exposed as that as self sufficient in feed for full year as regards grass and silage .even in Jim delahuntys at Sr of 3.7(120 cows) I feel 105/110 would be more approiate as he comes under huge pressure in late March early April due to high 6 week in calf rate (which is a great thing)and at back end ,ditto summer drought

Greengrass1

mahoney_j wrote: »

Fair point but at 3.85 there's a much bigger exposure to say weather events TB breakdown etc .only feed bought in here is meal ,bought some whole crop last year as got it cheap enough ,great buffer at grass but not needed as self sufficient in grass silage .would he not better off feeding dry cows straw and 3 way mix ???,buying in so much silage has to be a big strain financially on such a fine line operation.remember last time there got to paddock at 12 o click ,cows balling mad and licking clay off ground.a lot of us came away questioning the figures we were quoted in our handout .dont think I'm as exposed as that as self sufficient in feed for full year as regards grass and silage .even in Jim delahuntys at Sr of 3.7(120 cows) I feel 105/110 would be more approiate as he comes under huge pressure in late March early April due to high 6 week in calf rate (which is a great thing)and at back end ,ditto summer drought

Mj how could buying 1t of silage at 10c/ kg be more of a strain financially compared to buying 1t of meal at 28c/kg

mahoney_j

Greengrass1 wrote: »

Mj how could buying 1t of silage at 10c/ kg be more of a strain financially compared to buying 1t of meal at 28c/kg

Silage 10 c kg????.that farm buys in practically all winter feed as well as feeding meal during dry period (I'm reliably informed this is the case ) .i feed meal to cows when producing milk and get return from it .no meal to dry cows or first calving heifers just straw and silage .point been made that at such a high sr exposure to weather events etc is much higher

browned

mahoney_j wrote: »

Fair point but at 3.85 there's a much bigger exposure to say weather events TB breakdown etc .only feed bought in here is meal ,bought some whole crop last year as got it cheap enough ,great buffer at grass but not needed as self sufficient in grass silage .would he not better off feeding dry cows straw and 3 way mix ???,buying in so much silage has to be a big strain financially on such a fine line operation.remember last time there got to paddock at 12 o click ,cows balling mad and licking clay off ground.a lot of us came away questioning the figures we were quoted in our handout .dont think I'm as exposed as that as self sufficient in feed for full year as regards grass and silage .even in Jim delahuntys at Sr of 3.7(120 cows) I feel 105/110 would be more approiate as he comes under huge pressure in late March early April due to high 6 week in calf rate (which is a great thing)and at back end ,ditto summer drought

But isn't that one of teagasc clear messages. Or don't expose your business to potential imported feed costs. A lot depends on the reliability and price variences of his winter feed supplies.
No to derail a good convo on meal but just to highlight the exposure of your proposed system and his current on on meal alone.
Noel sr 3.85 x .5 t x 40 ha = €77 up or down per €1 change in meal.
Your sr 3.2 x 1.5 t x 40ha= €192
More risk as well as more reward.

In a bad year can Noel say up his ration to say 1 tonne and get an enocomic return. In the same year would your cows respond to extra meal above and beyond the 1.5t or would you just be importing winter feed as is the case with Noel.

As I say your systems work perfectly when done properly but both require top 10% farmers to emplement both. Unfortunately for the 90% of us not in your bracket the risks get higher due to lesser skills

alps

browned wrote: »

This is what I can't understand. Some posters have claimed that teagasc is porpoisely ignoring exceptional farmers like yourself. Is this in a way an answer as to why you aren't as promoted as much as a system like yours

THESE exceptional operators are not being ignored by teagasc. To operate at the level you read about in the above threads requires a serious level of skill. Teagasc cannot teach this level of skill to the general public....not saying that's Teagasc fault. Teagasc need to promote a system that in a sense is idiot proof. There is a lot of money to be made out of the above systems, but if you get it wrong, there's no quicker way to go broke.

Greengrass1

mahoney_j wrote: »

Silage 10 c kg????.that farm buys in practically all winter feed as well as feeding meal during dry period (I'm reliably informed this is the case ) .i feed meal to cows when producing milk and get return from it .no meal to dry cows or first calving heifers just straw and silage .point been made that at such a high sr exposure to weather events etc is much higher

Feeding meal during dry period? Might that have just been yr specific? I know we fed meal to dry cows in 2012 when silage wasn't good enough
tbf frazz said he has done a deal on silage in the pit fir 10c / kg

mahoney_j

alps wrote: »

browned wrote: »

This is what I can't understand. Some posters have claimed that teagasc is porpoisely ignoring exceptional farmers like yourself. Is this in a way an answer as to why you aren't as promoted as much as a system like yours


THESE exceptional operators are not being ignored by teagasc. To operate at the level you read about in the above threads requires a serious level of skill. Teagasc cannot teach this level of skill to the general public....not saying that's Teagasc fault. Teagasc need to promote a system that in a sense is idiot proof. There is a lot of money to be made out of the above systems, but if you get it wrong, there's no quicker way to go broke.

Id agree with that,wouldn't say there are many idiots milking cows but there are lots of negative people with closed minds to doing different things different ways Unable to choose a better path to follow than what's preached

mahoney_j

Greengrass1 wrote: »

Feeding meal during dry period? Might that have just been yr specific? I know we fed meal to dry cows in 2012 when silage wasn't good enough
tbf frazz said he has done a deal on silage in the pit fir 10c / kg

Know a guy in area very well that's friendly with him ,that's my source .as I said earlier great operator but when we left after a walk there we had more questions than answers .