Dairy Chitchat 3

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

Now.

A screenshot is the best I can do.



Don't worry folks this doesn't happen.
Gas fella you are yose and you not acknowledging the whole system.

Go back and read through can cows save the planet and the farm science thread. Cartoons don't prove anything

Say my name

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Go back and read through can cows save the planet and the farm science thread. Cartoons don't prove anything

I couldn't be bothered lad.
You're dismissing sacred cow now.
How pompous can you get...

You haven't a clue what carbon is. :pac:

GrasstoMilk

Where can I find what the top herds ebi are? Or even the av or targets for the different sections

Water John

Almost all Dairygold cheddar output goes to the UK in bulk 20kg boxes. Their business model is b2b. That's why they're worried about a No Deal Brexit.

Gawddawggonnit

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Major oversimplification going on there and most of it doesn't happen. Think about it, if an animal can digest 80-90% of grass in under 24 hours in an anaerobic environment what chance has anything organic of surviving long term where oxygen and as much time as bacteria/fungi want is available?
Dung and surface residue makes a tiny contribution to total soil carbon. Everything on the surface gets degraded too fast. In the case of lignin, even though it's slower to be broken down. It still only lasts for about 3 months. It's also so unreactive that it has no chance of being protected from breakdown by sticking to soil particles.
The most important parts of soil carbon are:
root biomass, both alive and in various stages of decay.

Exudates. Even though the majority of these simple sugars and proteins are broken down fast, they're sticky and reactive. So they'll draw soil particles into aggregates and slow down decomposition rates.

Bacteria+fungi
The actual amount of carbon held in their biomass is small but they're so active releasing so many different chemicals that glue aggregates together and result in carbon getting trapped between clay and silt making it inaccessible for breakdown.
Fungi are more important than bacteria for soil carbon because they grow hairs out through the soil and release glued as they go to stabilise the gaps they cross.

If land is coming from a fairly diverse sward with low inputs (even if that was 40+ years ago, as it takes a lot of time for carbon held in aggregates to be released and not replaced in the abscence of tillage). Nearly everything that helps store carbon in the soil is reduced
Ryegrass maintains a smaller root mass than most of the other main grasses. Add in fertilisation and it decreases it further.
A monoculture of species maintains a lot less microbes than a mixture. Add in fertilizer and plants cut back on microbe allocations reducing things further. In addition, a much higher percentage of parasitic/disease microbes will prevail. Not the types that build networks to access soil nutrients, because they're not out interacting with soil particles. Less aggregates are formed and less carbon is stored.
Under equal conditions, ryegrass supports less microbes than cocksfoot, clover etc will.
Fungal to bacterial biomass from low input grass is massively greater than intensively used grass.

Most intensive grassland would be losing around 1 tonne co2/ha

Top post!
Most instructive.

Say my name

Science is always an evolution.

It's never static. The ability to learn should never be clouded by one's pomposity.

First I put figures from a world renowned soil lab that put a figure out there to convert organic matter to carbon. Then a poster here dismissed those figures (no surprise) but only included the living carbon. They didn't include humus, dissolved organic carbon, recalcitrant organic carbon and inorganic carbon and they are all included in the organic matter test.

Then they tried to persuade people that intensive grassland doesn't sequester carbon. So I put up the whole process and described what happens and where the carbon goes.
It was dismissed that it doesn't happen.

Then I put up an infographic from the sacred cow website that speakers worldwide use to describe the process.
It was dismissed as a cartoon by the same poster.

See where this is going.
Now they dismiss dung and urine as only having a short impact. Well tell that to bale grazers worldwide. Better still tell that to farmers here who fed out of round feeders last year in the drought on pasture and the results are plain to see still on the ground.

I'm getting a bit tetchy because the same poster was trying to convince a poster from a forestry company on the forestry section that their conifers when cut that any carbon the trees took down when growing, it all went back to the atmosphere just as it was cut. The forest worker had to explain about the process and that the carbon was in the roots and in the tree itself. The carbon in the tree itself seemed like an alien concept to the poster.

As I say science is not set in stone and never will be. But janey people the best tools ye have for examining what's going on are your two eyes. If your soil is getting darker and blacker then well done you've more carbon. Don't make it complicated and have anyone tell you it's complicated.

Put any organic compound or product on the soil and the result is going to be more carbon in the soil. Roll a bale of hay or silage out onto the ground and you'll have more carbon building up underneath. Dump a load of woodchip on the ground and you'll have a load of carbon building underneath in the soil.
It's as simple as you want it to be.

Mooooo

GrasstoMilk wrote: »

Where can I find what the top herds ebi are? Or even the av or targets for the different sections

Does your ebi report have it?

yosemitesam1

Say my name wrote: »

Science is always an evolution.

It's never static. The ability to learn should never be clouded by one's pomposity.

First I put figures from a world renowned soil lab that put a figure out there to convert organic matter to carbon. Then a poster here dismissed those figures (no surprise) but only included the living carbon. They didn't include humus, dissolved organic carbon, recalcitrant organic carbon and inorganic carbon and they are all included in the organic matter test.

Then they tried to persuade people that intensive grassland doesn't sequester carbon. So I put up the whole process and described what happens and where the carbon goes.
It was dismissed that it doesn't happen.

Then I put up an infographic from the sacred cow website that speakers worldwide use to describe the process.
It was dismissed as a cartoon by the same poster.

See where this is going.
Now they dismiss dung and urine as only having a short impact. Well tell that to bale grazers worldwide. Better still tell that to farmers here who fed out of round feeders last year in the drought on pasture and the results are plain to see still on the ground.

I'm getting a bit tetchy because the same poster was trying to convince a poster from a forestry company on the forestry section that their conifers when cut that any carbon the trees took down when growing, it all went back to the atmosphere just as it was cut. The forest worker had to explain about the process and that the carbon was in the roots and in the tree itself. The carbon in the tree itself seemed like an alien concept to the poster.

As I say science is not set in stone and never will be. But janey people the best tools ye have for examining what's going on are your two eyes. If your soil is getting darker and blacker then well done you've more carbon. Don't make it complicated and have anyone tell you it's complicated.

Put any organic compound or product on the soil and the result is going to be more carbon in the soil. Roll a bale of hay or silage out onto the ground and you'll have more carbon building up underneath. Dump a load of woodchip on the ground and you'll have a load of carbon building underneath in the soil.
It's as simple as you want it to be.

You don't know what you're talking about, it's that simple...

Say my name

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

You don't know what you're talking about, it's that simple...

I'll show real world results if you want?

I've an area where I fed the cows hay and silage last year during the drought, June last year. 17 months ago.

According to you this area should now be the same as the rest of the field as dung and residue breaks down rather fast and the results of which are negligible.

I can take a picture but I've a digital brix tester coming next week if you're willing to wait, I'll post the results of those.
I'll take a little soil core sample at the same time too of that and surrounds at the same time.

Get your head out of the books man!;)

straight

1 day withdrawal tubes are like gold dust this year.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Don't know if this will kill you or cure you, Sam and Say.
https://twitter.com/smallFARMhedge/status/1199863013001572353?s=19

The Rabbi

whelan2 wrote: »

Just got my post out of the post box. I got the herd screening results from glanbia, fixed price scheme paper work from glanbia. Yesterday I got a scc result in a letter from glanbia, which I also got online and in a text. The day before I got a booklet on calf welfare from glanbia and the day before that I got my milk statement. Sustainability how are ya

Have you not received your "join us on our paperless journey" sh!te?

Thats only since Tuesday.

whelan2

The Rabbi wrote: »

Have you not received your "join us on our paperless journey" sh!te?

Thats only since Tuesday.

I was at a meeting last night. The hope is by the middle of next year there will be an option in Glanbia to go paperless. Maybe the board member read it on here? As he brought it up himself. Agree though, such a waste of paper

Gawddawggonnit

https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?q=synthetic+nitrogen+depletes+soil+nitrogen&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3D9qz1rhai7YEJ


@yosemitesam1. Opinion on this paper?

yosemitesam1

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?q=synthetic+nitrogen+depletes+soil+nitrogen&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3D9qz1rhai7YEJ


@yosemitesam1. Opinion on this paper?

There's a second paper on the soil carbon in the same timeframe that rubbishes the idea that above ground crop residues make any impact on soil carbon. Large increase in plant populations in that time and much higher levels of residues in fertilizer plots but still soil carbon declines.

A bit of fertilizer/nutrients imports needed to keep soil balanced AND plant diversity is needed for best results.
Maybe with more diversity the zero fertilizer plots might have held things better.
The loss of soil n is well correlated with loss of soil carbon in the same plots. As old organic matter is being turned over most likely it's just not being replaced due to less microbial activity.
There was work done in Germany on multi species grassland that found the highest soil carbon was in the plots with the highest inputs and the highest turnover of carbon. Sort of like trying to maximize the amount of water in a tank with holes in it, the faster you pump water in, the faster it will flow out the bottom but ultimately you'll have more in it.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Such a load of ball cocks. Got called for a herd test 2 months before I was told it was due. Can't be done before 20th December and have to get permission to use dry cow tubes when drying off.

Ho ho ho, merry fcuking Christmas:mad:

Panch18

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Such a load of ball cocks. Got called for a herd test 2 months before I was told it was due. Can't be done before 20th December and have to get permission to use dry cow tubes when drying off.

Ho ho ho, merry fcuking Christmas:mad:

Why permission for the dry cow tubes???

Mooooo

Panch18 wrote: »

Why permission for the dry cow tubes???

Technically can't use anything with a meat withdrawal before herd test, if withdrawal delays animal going they may use it as an excuse for no comp, altho I've never heard of it happening. In cases like that where it's an animal health issue they generally allow it. What's the longest meat withdrawal on a tube? Could you use suitable ones with a shorter withdrawal? Beware of epricis as well, injectable wormer licensed for dairy cow's has a 67 day meat withdrawal.

boggerman1

Mooooo wrote: »

Technically can't use anything with a meat withdrawal before herd test, if withdrawal delays animal going they may use it as an excuse for no comp, altho I've never heard of it happening. In cases like that where it's an animal health issue they generally allow it. What's the longest meat withdrawal on a tube? Could you use suitable ones with a shorter withdrawal? Beware of epricis as well, injectable wormer licensed for dairy cow's has a 67 day meat withdrawal.

Well that’s the first I’ve heard of that.if that’s the situation well I’m f**ked so,and I’m locked up since October 18.i’m down to do a test again before Christmas too.no one mentioned that to me and even have had the privilege of being visited by the Dept in early November.everydays a school day here.

Mooooo

boggerman1 wrote: »

Well that’s the first I’ve heard of that.if that’s the situation well I’m f**ked so,and I’m locked up since October 18.i’m down to do a test again before Christmas too.no one mentioned that to me and even have had the privilege of being visited by the Dept in early November.everydays a school day here.

Maybe greysides can correct me on that in terms of the antibiotics but if you have a reactor you must make sure the withdrawal and other info is recorded, dunno if they allow you to hold on longer until the withdrawal is up or does the animal go to knackary. Going to knackary would cost the dep more as meat value of animal os lost. Check the paperwork that comes out with the test notification. Most tubes would be relatively short in the scheme of things by the time evaluations etc would be back. It's the dosing I'd be more worried about. When we were going thru it did all dosing on the days of the reading

Panch18

boggerman1 wrote: »

Well that’s the first I’ve heard of that.if that’s the situation well I’m f**ked so,and I’m locked up since October 18.i’m down to do a test again before Christmas too.no one mentioned that to me and even have had the privilege of being visited by the Dept in early November.everydays a school day here.

I didn’t know that myself either !!

Injuryprone

Mooooo wrote: »

Maybe greysides can correct me on that in terms of the antibiotics but if you have a reactor you must make sure the withdrawal and other info is recorded, dunno if they allow you to hold on longer until the withdrawal is up or does the animal go to knackary. Going to knackary would cost the dep more as meat value of animal os lost. Check the paperwork that comes out with the test notification. Most tubes would be relatively short in the scheme of things by the time evaluations etc would be back. It's the dosing I'd be more worried about. When we were going thru it did all dosing on the days of the reading

I lost 3 last January. They didn't go until February 10 because 1 of the 3 got dried off only a few seats before the test. There was never a mention of the knackery. Now I was coming from an unrestricted status whether that made a difference or not

Timmaay

Sh1t sh1t sh1t moo I never thought of that. My scc defo too high to risk not tubing though.

Base price

Mooooo wrote: »

Maybe greysides can correct me on that in terms of the antibiotics but if you have a reactor you must make sure the withdrawal and other info is recorded, dunno if they allow you to hold on longer until the withdrawal is up or does the animal go to knackary. Going to knackary would cost the dep more as meat value of animal os lost. Check the paperwork that comes out with the test notification. Most tubes would be relatively short in the scheme of things by the time evaluations etc would be back. It's the dosing I'd be more worried about. When we were going thru it did all dosing on the days of the reading

Also you are not supposed to dose cattle prior to (after you received notification) a test as it could affect the reading. Veterinary meds should only be used if necessary and the Vet has to use one with the shortest withdrawal period.
Here is a link:

https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/animalhealthwelfare/diseasecontrols/tuberculosistbandbrucellosis/diseaseeradicationpolicy/2017/HerdkeeperRequirementsTBTesting100918.pdf

Mooooo

Injuryprone wrote: »

I lost 3 last January. They didn't go until February 10 because 1 of the 3 got dried off only a few seats before the test. There was never a mention of the knackery. Now I was coming from an unrestricted status whether that made a difference or not

Like I said I've never heard of it happening but we were being testing so often over the space of a few years we generally did all dosing etc the day of the reading to save cow's going thru the crush as much as to prepare in case a cow went down. Generally with dryoff farmers have no choice so don't think the dep can do much in that regard.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Mooooo wrote: »

Like I said I've never heard of it happening but we were being testing so often over the space of a few years we generally did all dosing etc the day of the reading to save cow's going thru the crush as much as to prepare in case a cow went down. Generally with dryoff farmers have no choice so don't think the dep can do much in that regard.

Yeah, my vet advised me to change my tubes for the shortest acting ones which don't cover the results of the sensitivity tests I did earlier this month. I've the return the fasinex I was planning on using as well and go with a white drench in the new year.

All I can say is I hope the dope that authorised the test gets a bad scour from their wine:mad:

Mooooo

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Yeah, my vet advised me to change my tubes for the shortest acting ones which don't cover the results of the sensitivity tests I did earlier this month. I've the return the fasinex I was planning on using as well and go with a white drench in the new year.

All I can say is I hope the dope that authorised the test gets a bad scour from their wine:mad:

If you have sensitivity test results that should cover you for the requirement to use the correct tube. Esp given that is the proof we'll need to use them in the future anyway.

straight

Cepbaguard DC tubes have a 2 day meat withdrawal

GrasstoMilk

straight wrote: »

Cepbaguard DC tubes have a 2 day meat withdrawal

Or cefimam. Same drug I think. 3rd generation drug from cepravin. Supposed to be very good

alps

Dry cow tubes normally have a short meat withdrawl period..nothing like the milk withdrawl