Dairy Chit Chat- Please read Mod note in post #1

freedominacup · 27-09-2016 07:40PM

Keepgrowing wrote: »

My view is that 3 tankers at €40/HR and they're only actually spreading for a fraction of that HR.

Contractor came in here in Jan. 2.5+3k tankers. 100,000 gals shifted in five hours. Pump would get it hard to beat that output over the day. First load spread within ten minutes of the arriving. Second tractor bit of messing. Unhooking tanker and the transfering agitator from front linkage to rest. But he was spreading within an hour with pit agitated.

yosemitesam1 · 27-09-2016 07:46PM

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

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 · 27-09-2016 07:57PM

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

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.

pedigree 6 · 27-09-2016 08:11PM

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

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on azotobacter and azospirillum.

Waffletraktor · 27-09-2016 08:36PM

This is one on an out farm that was done in the early 80's for a tenant who then contract farmed it for the last 20 years and it was left to go to crap. 2 of the lads are out with old maps of the work, meter wheel and a gps marker to overlap water management maps after with drain locations. This is to find the old drains with the digger to see what's left so to speak.
Pay a local drainage board to maintain water networks, so our attitude is get it in a river and off. Image 1 is a new pond put in but piepes werent connected up yet.

Dawggone · 27-09-2016 10:23PM

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.

I did package the point up with soil health and nitrates and monocropping and climate change and and and even the environment!

freedominacup · 28-09-2016 06:54AM

Dawggone wrote: »

I did package the point up with soil health and nitrates and monocropping and climate change and and and even the environment!

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.

Dawggone · 28-09-2016 07:29AM

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.

Dangers of clover??

Wood from the trees...

yosemitesam1 · 28-09-2016 08:36AM

pedigree 6 wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on azotobacter and azospirillum.

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

whelan2 · 28-09-2016 09:06AM

Can I vaccinate for salmonella and do with eprinex on the same day?

kevthegaff · 28-09-2016 09:11AM

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!

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 · 28-09-2016 09:37AM

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..

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 · 28-09-2016 09:54AM

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

What seasonality scheme??!! I got offered no scheme

jaymla627 · 28-09-2016 09:56AM

stanflt wrote: »

What seasonality scheme??!! I got offered no scheme

Just the token scheme for oct/Nov milk, they added 200k on to this so it might mean maybe another .2 of a cent on oct/Nov supplies a whole lot of noting really

pedigree 6 · 28-09-2016 10:48AM

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

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.

Injuryprone · 28-09-2016 11:13AM

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..

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.

mahoney_j · 28-09-2016 11:35AM

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.

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

yosemitesam1 · 28-09-2016 12:12PM

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.

Libgen.io and sci-hub.cc are the sites your after!!

Timmaay · 28-09-2016 12:59PM

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.

Even if I get nothing in the 2nd tranche, but glanbia are forced to up the oct/Nov milk by afew cent to get us to keep supplying then I'll still get something outa this! I'll put my hands up and admit straight out I've zero intention of putting back regardless of the 14c, it's by pure luck that I'll be under last year's volumes. And I think it's more important that long term I'm removing myself from KGs category of "slow learners" ha, ie lads who hand Glanbia tens of thousands of winter litres without a bonus.

Injuryprone · 28-09-2016 12:59PM

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

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 XIX · 28-09-2016 01:15PM

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.

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.

mahoney_j · 28-09-2016 01:25PM

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.

That's my take too reconfirmed numerous times .

RightTurnClyde · 28-09-2016 01:30PM

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.

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

:):) )

RightTurnClyde · 28-09-2016 01:37PM

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.

A bit like fleximilk but European wide? Can't see them being able to payout within 90days, let alone in 2017 if that's the case.

Injuryprone · 28-09-2016 01:37PM

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.

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?

Injuryprone · 28-09-2016 01:44PM

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 :):) )

Yep, that's my understanding of it except that there's not going to be a phase b or c cos there's no 'quota' left (well there is a tiny bit, but it's not worth their while)

simx · 28-09-2016 01:45PM

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:(

Unless sick with it let them off, often bought cows in mart with mastitis, lads will still buy them

Injuryprone · 28-09-2016 01:48PM

simx wrote: »

Unless sick with it let them off, often bought cows in mart with mastitis, lads will still buy them

At a much reduced price?

Buford T. Justice XIX · 28-09-2016 01:53PM

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?

No, you will only get paid on your initial figure applied for. Say 50k liters and allocated 40k liters. If you reduce by 40k, you get paid on the 40k @ 14c/l.

If there is unused liters left by lads producing more that they should have, their unused liters will be allocated out up to everyone else up to the max you applied on so you can't get more than 14c/l on 50k liters but you may get a few extra hundred liters @14c.

That's how it was explained to me anyway so I don't know any more.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 28-09-2016 01:58PM

simx wrote: »

Unless sick with it let them off, often bought cows in mart with mastitis, lads will still buy them

I'd be very wary of selling cattle still with time to go on their withdrawl periods in case they would be killed before time was up.

A friend of mine was caught badly a while back when a sold animal was dumped due to residues after testing despite saying the animal still had time to go on withdrawl.

Dairy Chit Chat- Please read Mod note in post #1

Comments