Dairy chit chat II

alps

The part time boy wrote: »

pure nonsense

People eat meat cause it tastes dam good. Even though they won't admit it vegans sacrifice eating nice thing to """save the planet """"

The majority masses won't become vegans as they like doing what's feels good

True to an extent, but we can't underestimate the power of peer pressure and how easily influenced our kids are, particularly the girls.

Timmaay

pedigree 6 wrote: »

Unbiased education is the most important phrase in your post.

I was actually referring to the likes of marketing ****e like "low fat" (which means high sugar), gluten free, organic etc, the slap a sticker on a packet of whatever food that makes it very marginally healthier for ya (a gluten free, organic, vegan low fat frozen pizza is still utterly never going to be anywhere near a sufficiently balanced dinner for a growing teenager), like kowtow the few vegans and vegetarians I know I actually have a lot of respect for, they certainly know what a balanced diet is, they most certainly avoid the likes of processed foods, excess sugar etc, and finally the ones I know defo don't shout out about their decisions.

Actually going back to unbiased education, plenty of people even question the food pyramid, why are carbs so heavily pushed?, it's actually the tradition pitfall I see as an athletics coach the whole time, people have this idea that you need to eat nothing but carbs for when you are running, a growing teenager who has just after done an hr or so of training needs more than a huge plate of pasta with a tiny bit of sauce mixed though it ha. (but don't even get me started about the other end of the spectrum, the rugby mentally that you need to force feed yourself protein shakes, protein bars etc etc ha, just like giving a cow 6kg of an 18%p nut on grass, you only piss out the extra protein haha)

Buford T. Justice XIX

A little bit soon changing the milking times.

http://www.ruralnewsgroup.co.nz/item/11763-changing-milking-intervals-to-balance-work-life

kowtow

Timmaay wrote: »

I was actually referring to the likes of marketing ****e like "low fat" (which means high sugar), gluten free, organic etc, the slap a sticker on a packet of whatever food that makes it very marginally healthier for ya (a gluten free, organic, vegan low fat frozen pizza is still utterly never going to be anywhere near a sufficiently balanced dinner for a growing teenager), like kowtow the few vegans and vegetarians I know I actually have a lot of respect for, they certainly know what a balanced diet is, they most certainly avoid the likes of processed foods, excess sugar etc, and finally the ones I know defo don't shout out about their decisions.

Actually going back to unbiased education, plenty of people even question the food pyramid, why are carbs so heavily pushed?, it's actually the tradition pitfall I see as an athletics coach the whole time, people have this idea that you need to eat nothing but carbs for when you are running, a growing teenager who has just after done an hr or so of training needs more than a huge plate of pasta with a tiny bit of sauce mixed though it ha. (but don't even get me started about the other end of the spectrum, the rugby mentally that you need to force feed yourself protein shakes, protein bars etc etc ha, just like giving a cow 6kg of an 18%p nut on grass, you only piss out the extra protein haha)

The more I think about it the more the alarm bells ring when we talk about needing an education, or a food pyramid, or any of the myriad bells and whistles which conspire to turn food into science at the expense of those who eat it and those who grow it.

We're surely the only animal that requires this sort of over-thinking in order to achieve a diet which doesn't actually kill us. Certainly my cows (and few of them would win awards for either common sense or intelligence) seem to know what to eat and what not to eat and, by and large, how to keep themselves in a fair enough condition to make it through the year.

Thousands of years of evolution, our mothers and grandmothers good advice, and the important culture of food preparation and eating managed to produce a pretty well functioning human being without anything like the levels of obesity, allergy, and diet related illness we seem to see today.

In our wisdom, we've thrown all that away in about a generation and a half, and farmers now struggle to eat while the front pages of every newspaper are filled with the latest list of foods which will surely kill us, and stories of health services collapsing under the weight and cost of treatments required to alleviate illnesses which can't be wholly unconnected to lifestyle.

The "convenient, time saving" foods we've been sold have turned out pretty expensive, all in all.

Buford T. Justice XIX

kowtow wrote: »

The more I think about it the more the alarm bells ring when we talk about needing an education, or a food pyramid, or any of the myriad bells and whistles which conspire to turn food into science at the expense of those who eat it and those who grow it.

We're surely the only animal that requires this sort of over-thinking in order to achieve a diet which doesn't actually kill us. Certainly my cows (and few of them would win awards for either common sense or intelligence) seem to know what to eat and what not to eat and, by and large, how to keep themselves in a fair enough condition to make it through the year.

Thousands of years of evolution, our mothers and grandmothers good advice, and the important culture of food preparation and eating managed to produce a pretty well functioning human being without anything like the levels of obesity, allergy, and diet related illness we seem to see today.

In our wisdom, we've thrown all that away in about a generation and a half, and farmers now struggle to eat while the front pages of every newspaper are filled with the latest list of foods which will surely kill us, and stories of health services collapsing under the weight and cost of treatments required to alleviate illnesses which can't be wholly unconnected to lifestyle.

The "convenient, time saving" foods we've been sold have turned out pretty expensive, all in all.

And the fact that current work practices mean that the majority of people get their exercise walking from their car to their office and back again. And nothing else. A traditional diet would suit a farmers lifestyle more than most because we burn so much energy every day just in normal activities.

kowtow

Still, I wonder whether it is possible to swing back in the other direction.

I take a lot of comfort from the fact that 400 years after the Romans were conducting orgies in villas with underfloor heating and built in saunas everyone was back to living in wattle + daub and selling their eldest daughters for a dozen eggs.

Buford T. Justice XIX

kowtow wrote: »

Still, I wonder whether it is possible to swing back in the other direction.

I take a lot of comfort from the fact that 400 years after the Romans were conducting orgies in villas with underfloor heating and built in saunas everyone was back to living in wattle + daub and selling their eldest daughters for a dozen eggs.

IIRC, only the upper levels of Roman society. Not far from the underfloor heating and the orgies were people having to do just that to survive. And only a couple of thousand miles from us, the same thought processes are played out, day in, day out.

Our children are the first generation that weren't just a bad harvest away from real hunger and poverty. I remember having to bring sandwiches to school to share with kids whose parents had hit hard times and there was no big thing made of it. You knew they would do the same if the situations were reversed.

Nowadays there is an unspoken assumption that there will never again be a food shortage, that food will always be abundant and won't have to be minded or rationed and we can chose which food and how much of it can can eat every day and I find that scary.

It's scary because the people thinking that haven't a clue in Gods earthly world what goes into making the raw materials they cook and eat. They don't have a clue that the calves on the ground today take 2 years and 1500 euro to get them to the calving down stage and that food production isn't like a water tap that you can turn on and off at will because someone else is looking after it.

I just hope, for their sakes, that someone else keeps doing that invisible work for them for as long as possible. Because someday they won't!

rangler1

Heard the government claiming during the week that food was actually getting cheaper......hopefully low prices will again cure low prices.
This race to the bottom has to stop

kowtow

Buford T. Justice V wrote:

Our children are the first generation that weren't just a bad harvest away from real hunger and poverty. I remember having to bring sandwiches to school to share with kids whose parents had hit hard times and there was no big thing made of it. You knew they would do the same if the situations were reversed.

Very good point.

I'm also not convinced that cheaper food does much to alleviate hunger in a general sense. In fact it might well be that the opposite applies, the cheaper food gets in a time of plenty the less people care where it comes from and who controls and profits from it.

And that doesn't sound like a recipe for food security to me.

yosemitesam1

kowtow wrote: »

Still, I wonder whether it is possible to swing back in the other direction.

I take a lot of comfort from the fact that 400 years after the Romans were conducting orgies in villas with underfloor heating and built in saunas everyone was back to living in wattle + daub and selling their eldest daughters for a dozen eggs.

Supposedly soil degradation was one of the main causes of their downfall, plenty of that going on these days...

pedigree 6

Freedominacup.
You must have a lot of fans cause your pm box is full.
Can you delete one or two to receive another one?

freedominacup

pedigree 6 wrote: »

Freedominacup.
You must have a lot of fans cause your pm box is full.
Can you delete one or two to receive another one?

Try it now.

pedigree 6

freedominacup wrote: »

Try it now.

Done and sorted.
Thanks.

kowtow

pedigree 6 wrote: »

Freedominacup.
You must have a lot of fans cause your pm box is full.

I like to think that freedom makes sure each and every one of those Nigerian Princes, Lawyers for exiled African dictators, and Glanbia reps receives a very carefully considered reply.

Waffletraktor

kowtow wrote: »

I like to think that freedom makes sure each and every one of those Nigerian Princes, Lawyers for exiled African dictators, and Glanbia reps receives a very carefully considered reply.

Now that calvings tailing off he's keeping up the good fight? :pac:

Sillycave

This probably already has been discussed but I am thinking over a few things and this keeps coming back in my head.

Simple question is are you better milking 100 say 5,500 litre cows, 73 7,500 litres cows or 60 9,000 litre cows?

I know there will be alot of variables as in feed requirements, housing, etc.

In relation to the feed requirements i would assume to feed say 100 cows on grass over 60 cows will require probably additional land, fert usage etc, whereas possibly 60 high yielding cows on 9k litres prob would require more cake?

Just said i would throw this out to get a few different views.

p.s. also assuming that solids per litre are approx. the same on all :rolleyes:

whelan2

It depends on alot of things. Borrowings, Labour, family to support. Type of land/cows. One system doesnt suit all unfortunately.

Mooooo

Sillycave wrote: »

This probably already has been discussed but I am thinking over a few things and this keeps coming back in my head.

Simple question is are you better milking 100 say 5,500 litre cows, 73 7,500 litres cows or 60 9,000 litre cows?

I know there will be alot of variables as in feed requirements, housing, etc.

In relation to the feed requirements i would assume to feed say 100 cows on grass over 60 cows will require probably additional land, fert usage etc, whereas possibly 60 high yielding cows on 9k litres prob would require more cake?

Just said i would throw this out to get a few different views.

p.s. also assuming that solids per litre are approx. the same on all :rolleyes:

Assuming all spring? As you say there are a lot of variables but they have to be taken into account. TBH I'd prob knock the 9k litre cows on the head as while possible, replacement rates and calving interval in spring will be difficult with cows at that output. I've seen 9k and 10k yields quoted but from recording never delivered. I Guess when things went spot on here we delivered approx 7.5k litres but in split calving with maize and 1.5tpnne of meal but we were stocked high so if maize wasn't bought silage would have been.
It's something I must figure out in terms of return/and ease of management myself as well as I switch to spring. I guess work out what you can grow and feed at home first then work out what to go for in terms of stocking rate and the cows you have. It's the breeding that will take the longest

Sillycave

whelan2 wrote: »

It depends on alot of things. Borrowings, Labour, family to support. Type of land/cows. One system doesnt suit all unfortunately.

Labour would defo be a consideration but u would imagine 60 high yielding cows would be more manageable than 100 low yielding cows?
Never thought of borrowings as been a consideration, why so?
On the type of land I presume ifs it capable of running 100 ly cows that it would manage 60 hy cows?
Defo appreciate one system doesn't suit all

Sillycave

Mooooo wrote: »

Assuming all spring? As you say there are a lot of variables but they have to be taken into account. TBH I'd prob knock the 9k litre cows on the head as while possible, replacement rates and calving interval in spring will be difficult with cows at that output. I've seen 9k and 10k yields quoted but from recording never delivered. I Guess when things went spot on here we delivered approx 7.5k litres but in split calving with maize and 1.5tpnne of meal but we were stocked high so if maize wasn't bought silage would have been.
It's something I must figure out in terms of return/and ease of management myself as well as I switch to spring. I guess work out what you can grow and feed at home first then work out what to go for in terms of stocking rate and the cows you have. It's the breeding that will take the longest

On replacement rates been high, say a 30% replacement rate on the 100 ly cows that's 30 heifer to bring thru...if a 40% rate was used on hy that's 23 to be brought thru, would the reduce carrying of heifers not have additional savings even with higher replacement rate?
Calving internal could be a problem though
On the maize silage usage of u had a lower stocking rate would this not mean the ability to make more silage or grow maize?
Also on the stocking rate with nitrates limiting production is this also not another advantage to high yielding?
I know I'm missing something hence why all the questions

kowtow

Sillycave wrote: »

Labour would defo be a consideration but u would imagine 60 high yielding cows would be more manageable than 100 low yielding cows?
Never thought of borrowings as been a consideration, why so?
On the type of land I presume ifs it capable of running 100 ly cows that it would manage 60 hy cows?
Defo appreciate one system doesn't suit all

I'm a bit thrown by the 100 vs 60 - I suppose I am asking what is the first limiting factor. Is it land? or labour?

Is it realistic that the high yielders would require that much more land than the low yielders?

All else being equal I'd say that high yielders would be potentially capable of a higher return (esp. when fixed costs considered) but at a higher risk per euro invested.

Sillycave

kowtow wrote: »

I'm a bit thrown by the 100 vs 60 - I suppose I am asking what is the first limiting factor. Is it land? or labour?

Is it realistic that the high yielders would require that much more land than the low yielders?

All else being equal I'd say that high yielders would be potentially capable of a higher return (esp. when fixed costs considered) but at a higher risk per euro invested.

The 100 v 60 is just an example from my first post...I was saying if u had a high yielding herd of 60 producing 500k litres or 100 cow herd of lower yields producing 500k litres which would be more profitable?
I wasn't really getting into limiting factor ie labour or land which is probably naive on my part 🙈
If high yielded are more profitable then why isn't most farms in Ireland in that range? Must be some reason as I am defo missing something

Mooooo

Sillycave wrote: »

On replacement rates been high, say a 30% replacement rate on the 100 ly cows that's 30 heifer to bring thru...if a 40% rate was used on hy that's 23 to be brought thru, would the reduce carrying of heifers not have additional savings even with higher replacement rate?
Calving internal could be a problem though
On the maize silage usage of u had a lower stocking rate would this not mean the ability to make more silage or grow maize?
Also on the stocking rate with nitrates limiting production is this also not another advantage to high yielding?
I know I'm missing something hence why all the questions

On replacements that's true for comparing those numbers however on the 100scenario it could be argued with the lower rate required you could start targeting the best performing cows whereas with the high yielders as a higher percentage required more will come from cows who would be less desirable for replacements. On the lower numbers allowing growing of maize or silage to buffer tbh if cows can walk to the grass you are only adding more cost. While when buying in maize is as good value as buying good silage it doesn't compare to grazed grass. Also reducing the numbers may reduce labour if you have to buffer when there is grass there to hit those yields you are only adding labour again.
I think we have to go back to the land and grass again. Say a high yielded needs 24kg dm and a low yielder eats 19kg dm. For arguments sake say bigger cows get in 20kg of grass and smaller cows 17. In terms of grass 60 high yielders will eat 1200kgs/day and 100 low yielders will eat 1700kgs so say at a cover of 1500kg pre grazing and 100kg residual and a 20 day round on average a block for the main season of 24ha for low yielders and 17 ha for high yielders. Will the extra silage being cut be all needed or is the farm in one block? I guess it's about stocking appropriately and going from there may well hold a few extra high yielders as kowtow mentions 100 to 60 may not be a direct comparison depending on ground available. The low yielders could still be high input if not enough ground iykwim

K.G.

Milk supply up 14%in west cork .should pass last years peak today in carbery

whelan2

K.G. wrote: »

Milk supply up 14%in west cork .should pass last years peak today in carbery

What was last spring like down there? Desperate here in 2016 , cows here milking at least 15% over 2016

Buford T. Justice XIX

K.G. wrote: »

Milk supply up 14%in west cork .should pass last years peak today in carbery

Lorry driver here yesterday was saying much the same, last year's peak hit 6 weeks earlier this year.

kowtow

Sillycave wrote: »

I was saying if u had a high yielding herd of 60 producing 500k litres or 100 cow herd of lower yields producing 500k litres which would be more profitable?

That frames the question more clearly I suppose!

You need to look at it from two perspectives, fixed and variable costs. The obvious high vs low yield questions are in the variable costs (particularly feed) which is why high yielders are often written off as unprofitable.

It is when you include the fixed costs, particularly of land and labour, that the question becomes more complex - because although those items sometimes have a low cash cost (inherited land) - they are still real costs and it really isn't correct to describe a business as profitable unless they are fully accounted for.

So, once you have figured the variable costs of the 500k litres from each of the herds, on a given amount of land, deduct a full time salary for the labour unit, and a land charge for the acres (not too important what it is, 200 an acre might be a place to start) and then figure out what the difference is between the systems. Do the same for low feed cost years and high, low and high milk price, and good and bad grass years....

You might well find that 100 low yielding cows is tight, and that 60 high input cows are losing a bit... but that if only the 100 low yielders could be high yielders (and therefore produce say 800k litres) without changing the fixed costs too much........

mf240

If land is scarce then high yielders..

If labour is limited then easy care high ebi cows are the best option.


Probably best to avoid both extremes and try have a bit of balance

kowtow

mf240 wrote: »

If land is scarce then high yielders..

If labour is limited then easy care high ebi cows are the best option.


Probably best to avoid both extremes and try have a bit of balance

Or go all out mad and have a huge farm with a herd of each, milk the highs three times a day and the lows once... highs in lows out and zero graze the perimeter...

K.G.

whelan2 wrote: »

What was last spring like down there? Desperate here in 2016 , cows here milking at least 15% over 2016

April last year was on par with 2015 but april2015 included superlevy carry over which amounted to 5%if i remember rightly