Keepgrowing wrote: » My view is that 3 tankers at €40/HR and they're only actually spreading for a fraction of that HR.
Keepgrowing wrote: » Climate change......mmmmm Ireland is a wet hoor of a place, Keery is a wetter hoor of a place. The €3k/ha wasn't just needed as a result of recent wetter springs, it was needed 100 yrs ago but the technology to do large area didn't exist back then. Btw, you'll find they're getting grass into cows away. No excuses offered there
yosemitesam1 wrote: » Whatever about climate change, there's a very real possibility that all the grassland improvements over last 40 or so years could be reducing soils resilience to both drought and flooding
freedominacup wrote: » I mentioned dawgs point about perennial ryegrass being considered a monoculture at some not too distant point in the future at a dg meeting today. We were standing in a paddock with a very strong stand of clover through it at the time. Teagasc advisor wouldn't even countenance it for discussion. It would seriously put a crimp in current plans nationally if what dawg was speculating came to pass.
Dawggone wrote: » I did package the point up with soil health and nitrates and monocropping and climate change and and and even the environment!
freedominacup wrote: » Eyes were glazing over at the mention of monoculture. A lot of discussion ensued about the dangers of clover. As grassland farmers we're inclined to be a bit superior about soil health believing that our organic manures will keep problems at bay.
pedigree 6 wrote: » I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on azotobacter and azospirillum.
Dawggone wrote: Just listening to local radio and they're reporting that the milk reduction scheme is so well subscribed that there won't be funds for a second tranche...Germans, French and Irish are the largest subscribers. They were then going to interview a dairy farmers union rep. I switched off...couldn't be listening to the moaning!
kevthegaff wrote: » Was talking to glanbia supplier, rep was telling him to apply if no interest. Cute hoor ism, all guys who won't take up will dilute reduction for ones that want to, leaving co op with higher intakes. Maybe I'm just suspicious..
jaymla627 wrote: » All milk applied for in first scheme will be payed out, virtually noting left for next period from Jan to March though but in fairness that was always going to be the case, apparently only 6% of glanbia suppliers signed up the extra 200 k they put towards their seasonality scheme must really of swayed lads minds haha
stanflt wrote: » What seasonality scheme??!! I got offered no scheme
yosemitesam1 wrote: » Dont really know a whole lot about them, supposedly can fix as much n as legumes but whether or not thats possible on a field scale or even required, I would think there would be better n efficiency if it was all biologically supplied. Ryegrass might have limits in what it can do without being supplied all its requirements through artificial fert as it was supposed to have originated ffrom the edges of forests where there would have been much greater fertility then more open grass, theres a clover native to america I think its called buffalo clover that originated inder similar conditions and its the only clover under the trifolium banner not to associate with rhizobium, the likes of bent grasses etc put a lot more effort into feeding soil biology to get there requirements
Injuryprone wrote: » You'd be fairly spot on I'd say. Absolutely in the processors interest to get as many people applying that had no interest in it. I tried to point that out on here to those recommending the tactic. Except that it isn't those that applied in this tranche that'll loose out. As it wasn't oversubscribed, everyone will get what they wanted. It's those that wanted to apply in future tranches (think it was Timmaay on here who said the Dec-Feb tranche suited him) that are going to loose out as the scheme will now be closed as there's such a minuscule amount left over. Of course it remains to be seen how many applied even though they'd no interest in it. It mightn't turn out to be that many after. But we won't find that out until next spring until the money is claimed.
pedigree 6 wrote: » If you are interested there's a whole load of research coming from s.e Asia. Not only that it's being sold commercially in India. They are identifying new strains as well. Anyone that has high molybdenum soil could be on the pigs back. Soil Ph of 6.8 to 7 seems to be ideal. There was research in nz in the 60's to see where it occurred naturally and which soil was best. But the big swing is coming from the poorest agricultural countries. There are other research papers on it but the best ones are behind a paywall but there are some open ones as well to look through on a wet day. Search scihub website and enter azotobacter.
mahoney_j wrote: » I still stand over what I said a few weeks back ,i and many others have applied for scheme ,unlikely to avail of it it has no matter what ye say forced the coops hand on price as they aren't sure now on supply so will need to pay .ive no regrets .im milking cows to make money from there milk not for handouts to cut back .had over 30 years of that ****e
Injuryprone wrote: » Ive no interest in going down this road again. Your blinkered outlook on this topic is akin to Farmer Ed's on fixed milk prices. Your post has no relevance to my points that 1) your actions are serving the interests of the processors by reducing the reduction in milk supply and 2) your actions have blocked other farmers from accessing the scheme in further tranches. You have maintained that your actions will not affect other farmers pockets, that there will be some sort of re-evaluation when the actual reduction figures go in in January. I just have 1 question for you now that we know how many applied in the first tranche, can you give me 1 example of a farmer who may be reallocated the litres that have been allocated to you? Because from where I'm looking, all applicants to tranche 1 have been satisfied so it can't be them. As per dawg's post, the scheme will now most likely be closed as there's only a tiny bit left over, so there won't be any other applicants. So who gets the money when you don't claim it? Some would say the milk price was due to rise anyway. In fact, percentage wise I don't think it's risen any more than the gdt auction. IMHO it'd be way more serious for the processors if say 3/4 of the scheme was taken up in tranche 1 by people who were actually serious about reducing and it was still open to more farmers to potentially join in the coming months if a satisfactory price rise doesn't materialise. Hey, what do I care. I got my allocation, it makes no difference to me. That is all.
Buford T. Justice V wrote: » The way it was explained to me was any applicant will get an allocation that they can reduce be and get paid on. Any more than that and you won't get paid. But if, and it's a big if, the actual reduction doesn't reach the ceiling, the remaining unused liters will be allocated pro-rata among the applicants approved. So if there is a 10% under supply, the ones who applied will be allocated an extra 10% up to their maximum liters accepted. So I don't think the money will go unused.
Buford T. Justice V wrote: » The way it was explained to me was any applicant will get an allocation that they can reduce be and get paid on. Any more than that and you won't get paid.But if, and it's a big if, the actual reduction doesn't reach the ceiling, the remaining unused liters will be allocated pro-rata among the applicants approved. So if there is a 10% under supply, the ones who applied will be allocated an extra 10% up to their maximum liters accepted. So I don't think the money will go unused.
RightTurnClyde wrote: » I'm not 100%, but I don't think it works that way either. Brussels has said there is X amount available, after first application 98.5% is claimed, so everyone has got what they applied for and there's F all to reallocate. Then like quota , you've applied for it, you've got it, and weither you use it or not is another story. There can't be a reallocation of unused into phase b or c because a will be still running when b and c get applied for. That's my take on it any who. (Bring back quotas, much simpler :):) )
Buford T. Justice V wrote: » I had 3 cows to go this week, 2 with the dry cattle, so I brought them in with the milkers for the few days. 1 had mastitis yesterday morning and the other had this morning. Looks they will be with me for a few weeks yet:(
simx wrote: » Unless sick with it let them off, often bought cows in mart with mastitis, lads will still buy them
Injuryprone wrote: » Are you saying that if say I applied for 50000 litres in tranche 1, which I've been granted. If I then actually reduce supply by 60000 litres, then I may actually get paid 14c on some of that extra 10000 if the funds are left over. Or are you saying I might get say 15c on the original 50000?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b045e3248245c8ff8c1e910a6b3b442.svg)
