Dairy Chitchat 4, an udder new thread.

whelan2

Ordered dairy nuts last week. Confirmed price, magnesium rate etc. Got invoice in post, only opened it yesterday. Was charged 388 per tonne. 100 euro over agreed price. Overcharged by over a grand. Always check your invoices

GrasstoMilk

whelan2 wrote: »

Ordered dairy nuts last week. Confirmed price, magnesium rate etc. Got invoice in post, only opened it yesterday. Was charged 388 per tonne. 100 euro over agreed price. Overcharged by over a grand. Always check your invoices

Glanbia?

orm0nd

whelan2 wrote: »

Ordered dairy nuts last week. Confirmed price, magnesium rate etc. Got invoice in post, only opened it yesterday. Was charged 388 per tonne. 100 euro over agreed price. Overcharged by over a grand. Always check your invoices

What % p.. Hard to get anything sub 300 here and they're f##k acting with ingredients as well.

Grueller

whelan2 wrote: »

Ordered dairy nuts last week. Confirmed price, magnesium rate etc. Got invoice in post, only opened it yesterday. Was charged 388 per tonne. 100 euro over agreed price. Overcharged by over a grand. Always check your invoices

€388 per tonne? Mental

whelan2

orm0nd wrote: »

What % p.. Hard to get anything sub 300 here and they're f##k acting with ingredients as well.

15. The lad I was talking to said 388, we don't have any ration at that price. Lucky I checked the invoice.

whelan2

GrasstoMilk wrote: »

Glanbia?

No. Another creamery up my end of the country. Last year I was charged 205 instead of 265 by another crowd

mahoney_j

orm0nd wrote: »

What % p.. Hard to get anything sub 300 here and they're f##k acting with ingredients as well.

On a 14%!here made as a special from roches feeds ,same core ingridents all year adjusted for protein fibre etc at different times ….325 a tonne but rumen buffers ,protected mineral pack and extra p added
There’s another local mill and they’d deck your head changing ingridents in standard mixes

whelan2

I think if I was paying 388 for dairy nuts it would be time to rethink alot of things

mahoney_j

The big rise in prices for inputs like feed fertiliser and fuel are a fair pinch this year even with good milk prices ……which our board members and coops are shafting is on too by holding onto 1.5 to 2 cent per litre of our milk cheques currently

jaymla627

whelan2 wrote: »

I think if I was paying 388 for dairy nuts it would be time to rethink alot of things

28% protein balancer ration with a high rate of soya bean meal was costing 325 ton last winter, be lucky to get it for 388 this winter where soya and maize prices are running at, i reckon alot of co-ops will be down a huge amount of milk this winter unless they are prepared to pay for it

orm0nd

mahoney_j wrote: »

On a 14%!here made as a special from roches feeds ,same core ingridents all year adjusted for protein fibre etc at different times ….325 a tonne but rumen buffers ,protected mineral pack and extra p added
There’s another local mill and they’d deck your head changing ingridents in standard mixes

Corn gluten and palm kernel seem to have become very popular from a company that claims to be using mainly 'local ingredients.'

Mooooo

mahoney_j wrote: »

On a 14%!here made as a special from roches feeds ,same core ingridents all year adjusted for protein fibre etc at different times ….325 a tonne but rumen buffers ,protected mineral pack and extra p added
There’s another local mill and they’d deck your head changing ingridents in standard mixes

320 down here as well, fair sickened, in a year where conditions are such that reducing the amount fed is difficult. First cut delayed too so a portion of pit silage will be poor too for winter. Will probably use bales after first cut to try and have more quality available but this increases cost then again. They'd want to be paying the max of what they can now as NZ will be well primed to grow supply next season as with the live export to China stopped, which was mainly breeding stock as I understand, they will drive on with the prices being quoted to them. Only hope would be the US operators selling grain instead of feeding it to cows

jaymla627

orm0nd wrote: »

Corn gluten and palm kernel seem to have very popular from a company that claims to be using mainly 'local ingredients.'

Had to change suppliers here, was getting mixes made up to spec and getting the above sh**te instead of soya bean which was ordered, the icing on the cake was it was been brought out steaming hot and had to be beaten out of the bin then, when i changed suppliers im now getting 8-10 days more out of a load and it flows perfectly, along with pr running at .15 of a average this year compared to last, was losing 3-4 ton of ration with the other crowd on the artic load, had myself convined the tub feeder clock was reading wrong which wasnt the case, 9 years i was dealing with them and never had any issues till last year

straight

jaymla627 wrote: »

28% protein balancer ration with a high rate of soya bean meal was costing 325 ton last winter, be lucky to get it for 388 this winter where soya and maize prices are running at, i reckon alot of co-ops will be down a huge amount of milk this winter unless they are prepared to pay for it

They'll have plenty milk. The spring lads will be milking on the late calvers and empties. Other guys will be calving from January onwards then.

jaymla627

straight wrote: »

They'll have plenty milk. The spring lads will be milking on the late calvers and empties. Other guys will be calving from January onwards then.

Late calvers and empties arent going to milk of the majority of silage that has been made this year, and going in with a ration like above to compensate for silage the sums dont add up

straight

jaymla627 wrote: »

Late calvers and empties arent going to milk of the majority of silage that has been made this year, and going in with a ration like above to compensate for silage the sums dont add up

I agree with you but sums don't matter to alot of farmers. Lads down this part of the country can't get a winter contract because the Co ops don't need it.

Sums only matter in most operations if they add up for the bank repayments financing them
Lots of cash flow in bank loans if you have a son or daughter partnership allowing repayment to be low and lengthy
Rinse and repeat for the grandkids and on and on it goes
Just make sure you borrow enough to pay your own salary and your tax...

jaymla627

straight wrote: »

I agree with you but sums don't matter to alot of farmers. Lads down this part of the country can't get a winter contract because the Co ops don't need it.

In fairness usually in a normal year, where silage is cut mid may on the majority of lads milking through and a good lock of nice leafy bales are gathered up of strong paddocks a few kilos of nuts will keep cows ticking over and doing 15 plus litres of milk, the stuff this year been made will need probably 8 kgs plus of a 28% ration to keep cows going dry, lactose will be a huge problem too

straight

It's great to see the farmers get our side of the story widespread in the media today. We have such a strong case if only we could get our story out. The carbon leakage, lack of micro generation of renewable power are two big things. Also nobody should be entertained talking about agri emissions when they are not willing to acknowledge what we are sequestering. It was refreshing to hear the ifa say that there are farmers out there working 70 - 90 hours per week because they can't afford to pay someone. I can guarantee you though that the majority of society would not believe it in this day and age.

visatorro

straight wrote:

It's great to see the farmers get our side of the story widespread in the media today. We have such a strong case if only we could get our story out. The carbon leakage, lack of micro generation of renewable power are two big things. Also nobody should be entertained talking about agri emissions when they are not willing to acknowledge what we are sequestering. It was refreshing to hear the ifa say that there are farmers out there working 70 - 90 hours per week because they can't afford to pay someone. I can guarantee you though that the majority of society would not believe it in this day and age.

Heard a woman on newstalk rubbish claims of what impact farmers can bring regards sequestered carbon . She wasn't challenged either.
Need credited science to back up statements if we are going to get points across to the public.

Say my name

visatorro wrote: »

Heard a woman on newstalk rubbish claims of what impact farmers can bring regards sequestered carbon . She wasn't challenged either.
Need credited science to back up statements if we are going to get points across to the public.

Scientists are not farmers though.
Scientists will only do what they're paid to do.

https://youtu.be/8vEHGqjj6aU

yosemitesam1

visatorro wrote: »

Heard a woman on newstalk rubbish claims of what impact farmers can bring regards sequestered carbon . She wasn't challenged either.
Need credited science to back up statements if we are going to get points across to the public.

There is zero proof to backup sequestration here but there is a small bit out there that suggests large areas losing soil carbon.

straight

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

There is zero proof to backup sequestration here but there is a small bit out there that suggests large areas losing soil carbon.

We have the same distance of hedgerows to reach the moon. Sure common sense would tell you that if forestry can sequester carbon then hedgerows plus trees can sequester carbon too. Also pv micro generation could be offset against carbon.

yosemitesam1

straight wrote: »

We have the same distance of hedgerows to reach the moon. Sure common sense would tell you that if forestry can sequester carbon then hedgerows plus trees can sequester carbon too. Also pv micro generation could be offset against carbon.

Problem is that hedge quality and quantity aren't increasing. If they're just holding steady they're doing well. In some areas they are no doubt a source that is currently not counted...
The problem is though that once a planted hedge matures, that is pretty much it from a carbon sequestration pov. So for it to make a difference to farmers, need to either keep planting more hedges or else improve all the poor quality hedges. But once they mature, that's it. Unless they start to deteriorate and then they're a source once more.

Forestry carbon credits are a ponzi scheme. Get credits while forestry is growing and lose them once it's harvested. So need an ever increasing planting rate of forests if you're to keep pulling in credits.
Forestry here will start to be counted as a source of carbon over the coming years as the trees planted in the 90s start to be harvested because not enough additional planting was carried out since then.

alps

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

There is zero proof to backup sequestration here but there is a small bit out there that suggests large areas losing soil carbon.

It hasn't been measured, and loosing carbon as you referred to probably dates to sampling done in 1983 on drained bogland...Pippa Hackett type comment

yosemitesam1

alps wrote: »

It hasn't been measured, and loosing carbon as you referred to probably dates to sampling done in 1983 on drained bogland...Pippa Hackett type comment

Go back thtough my old posts here if you want to. Could have been farm science or can cows save the planet threads but the document is there. When accounting for carbon leached out through groundwater, it turns a typically
farmed grassland into a source or circa 800kg co2/ha from memory.
There's doesn't seem to have been any appetite to dig deeper into this most likely for obvious reasons...

einn32

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Go back thtough my old posts here if you want to. Could have been farm science or can cows save the planet threads but the document is there. When accounting for carbon leached out through groundwater, it turns a typically
farmed grassland into a source or circa 800kg co2/ha from memory.
There's doesn't seem to have been any appetite to dig deeper into this most likely for obvious reasons...

I'd be interested in reading the source of the groundwater number. Would you have a link or title?

yosemitesam1

einn32 wrote: »

I'd be interested in reading the source of the groundwater number. Would you have a link or title?

.

straight

Rang the silage contractor last week and he said 7 days. OK I said. Then it was 8 days, then it was 9 days and now its 10 days. Looks like I'll be cutting bulk in the pit this year. It was all grazed and a clean enough butt, but getting more seeded by the day. Thank god I've bought my own slurry gear because I couldn't face the same story off of the slurry man.

green daries

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Problem is that hedge quality and quantity aren't increasing. If they're just holding steady they're doing well. In some areas they are no doubt a source that is currently not counted...
The problem is though that once a planted hedge matures, that is pretty much it from a carbon sequestration pov. So for it to make a difference to farmers, need to either keep planting more hedges or else improve all the poor quality hedges. But once they mature, that's it. Unless they start to deteriorate and then they're a source once more.

Forestry carbon credits are a ponzi scheme. Get credits while forestry is growing and lose them once it's harvested. So need an ever increasing planting rate of forests if you're to keep pulling in credits.
Forestry here will start to be counted as a source of carbon over the coming years as the trees planted in the 90s start to be harvested because not enough additional planting was carried out since then.

Brush Scrubland hedges trees are increasing in vast parts of the country
Don't be blinded by the south /southeast increases in intensification.....
Also how are the tillage and horticultural sectors going to square the circle of being the largest carbon emitter in agriculture