browned wrote: » As far as I know Carbery are cutting their price by 0.5 c/l and the coop are going to support the price by a 0.5 c/l so no change in price down here.
whelan2 wrote: » what is it?
atlantic mist wrote: » we are being paid based on protein and butterfat, nothing for whey or lactose, were milking the cows and they are milking us pedigree i think our biggest problem is the secretary and ceo of coop hold the same position in the plc, its a complete conflict of interest and they have shown a complete abuse of power in the role our coop Secretary actual sat pruning his nails at a meeting in dungarvan while making the comment that they thought more farmers would sell the shares on spin out and they will be looking at further avenue to address this....here we are!! they are following the kerry group lead, however i think glanbia has had more profit warnings since its establishment than kerry, they have over paid for companies in america and have a nice debt pile we are one of the suppliers who has increased production, i think were now supplying double what we were pre quota, debts has caused us to keep increasing to try and spread cost but only so far we can go, the model of gii wouldnt provide me with a sustainable way of living so need to start looking at another avenues as piling on more debt is not the answer, keep loans withing stock value and have some sort of exit plan gii business model is based on low prices with a base of sub 28c, my milk development manager told me they would have issues with me over my cost of production prior to spin out, i replied that once the bundle of cash is spent by coop members on spin out i can see a supplier revolt occuring
RightTurnClyde wrote: » Teagasc, farming media and the coops have not only nailed their colours to the NZ mast at milk production level, but also at processing level.
kowtow wrote: » Speaking of production level and NZ model, I have to say very unimpressed with Aidan Brennan article in the journal about the profitability (or not) of feeding cows given low feed prices. I'm totally unqualified to agree or disagree with his conclusion that grass is cheaper, but I can spot a desperate argument a mile away and that was the way the article was written - basically "it might seem profitable to feed cows this summer, but when we studied farms that fed nuts we found they had all sorts of other costs which I won't go into here, so basically even though ration is cheap it still won't be profitable. Nothing to see here" I think the establishment needs to stop alternately cheer-leading and patronising farmers and start learning from them.
stretch film wrote: » He copped a fair bit of flak on Twitter from a regular contributor here. Either our man has fantastically efficient cow's when it comes to milk from forage or their overall efficiency in turning various sources of energy into litres is greatly underestimated .
Timmaay wrote: » Talking about rubbish printed in the newspapers, this article in the findo makes me not want to even bother looking inside it ever again.
Timmaay wrote: » .
yewtree wrote: » I saw the Twitter conversation, for me it became too focused on 1/2 herds (excellent herds). The average dairy herd in Ireland produces 380kg Milk solids a cow and feeds about a tonne of concentrates. What response are they getting from meal today? Everyone wants to believe they are better than average but the reality is- half of us are worse the average. Looking at from a national herd perspective the article seemed fair enough to me.
Timmaay wrote: » That I certainly will admit! But the ironic thing is the most them lads who are knocking out less than the average simple don't have good enough grassland management anyways, and the cows could well milk worse without the nuts as all they'll be eating is long steamy crap. Hardly even worth wasting time trying to tell them to change.
RightTurnClyde wrote: » The "regular contributor" was bang on with his argument and was able to give and prove specific examples in his herd and his herd in totality is proof. Brennan's argument was just a general non specific, "that's what I've been told so its true" argument. My herd of cows are no prize winners, and I'm sure my farming wouldn't win too many prizes either, but could Aidan explain how my herd has gone from 5000 L & 420 kgms on 250 kgms flat rate fed ration in 2015 to 7000 L & 500kgms on 1000kg feed to yield ration in 2016.
Dawggone wrote: » That article fits perfectly into RTClydes excellent post about the 'top to toe' Nz model... Something tells me that solutions won't come from within the industry.
yewtree wrote: » In fairness he was quoting results from research and a large group of commercial farms. there must be variation between those farms some obviously get a better response to meal feeding. Using your individual farm results doesn't disprove the basis of the article, that most farms get a poor response to feeding in mid summer which is showed by the national average production. Anyone that can get 500 kg ms from their cows is a very efficient farmer.
RightTurnClyde wrote: » I'm confused. What bar should I be aiming for " Large group","Most Farms", " National average" or top 10% if individual farmers are getting results from feeding, it means it's possible so why not research and report that. We'll hear about the the exceptional farmer that's growing 14 tons of grass or the farmer who's costs are 20c , etc. These aren't achievable by the "Large group" or "Most Farmers"
browned wrote: » How come the change in feeding Clyde? 420kgsms on only 250kgs of ration was a great return. The extra 750kgs in ration is only giving 80 extra kgsms
RightTurnClyde wrote: » We're not paid on a+b-c, so the 80kgsms and 2000L is giving me close to 100% return. There was an income increase also from being able to increase SR by 8%, with a minimal increase in fixed costs.
browned wrote: » when I was researching about converting to oad teagasc provided little to no research on the topic so I ended up getting most of my info from England, nz, France and oz. Do I resent teagasc for not having the relevant info for me? Of course not. They've a limited budget and it'd be foolish for them to waste it on a topic which only effects 100 odd farms in Ireland. Teagasc are researching and promoting one model of milk production and that is 500kgsms from grass/silage and 300-500kgs of ration to supplement the shoulders. i don't fall inside this bracket of production and neither do you so why get worked up about an article for which Neither of us are the target audience. theres plenty of research for our system of production out there without having to rely on teagasc to provide it for us.
RightTurnClyde wrote: » :), I'm not worked up. But, if Aidan Brennan came out and said that the majority of farmers aren't doing OAD, so OAD doesn't work, I doubt you would consider it good journalism.
