mahoney_j wrote: » Johnny public didn't know that tho sndcwill read these articles and think were on the pigs back and that we should all be producing milk at those figures ,coops /supermarkets etc will use those figures too Pm is totally outdated and its info used and abused by the journos who print articles in the ifj and dairy farmers magazine etc .i even fail to understand why it's used in comparing different farms as no 2 farms are the same .my yearly monitoring /comparadion are between 2. Different years accounts .there honest figures that I use for my own benefit .i could blow ****e out my ears using pm figures but they don't contain accurate figures
Signpost wrote: » PM is pointless without having open bank accounts to compare them to. I know that one lad in my discussion group last year spent 70 euro for phone & broadband & 100 euro on machinery repairs, in comparison I'm spending 65 per month on phone broadband (over 11 times his spending), and last year around 1300 on repair costs (13 times) as I'd a few kicks along the way & with the exception of the repair costs would be about normal. Put him well up the top of the pile % wise but it doesn't take a genius to read between the lines... This is where there should be a sanity check on a percentage of the PM's to see from the accounts if they actually add up or not. Grand you might have spent money from farm account to avoid tax etc but if its spent, its spent and becomes an expense. There could be an argument that unless lads actually go through the figures they genuinely wont know what they are spending but I do question a lot of the PM reports you see and these are what Teagasc use to feed the Journal etc about production costs. Eventually these 'super efficient' farmers are going to become what production costs will be based around and no one will be able to produce at a breakeven.
C0N0R wrote: » Came across a cow out here today, 1552 days in milk Currently supplying 49.4 lts a day Peaked at 79.2 This lactation to date 68846 litres! Pretty impressive figures in my eyes!
whelan2 wrote: » C0N0R wrote: » Came across a cow out here today, 1552 days in milk Currently supplying 49.4 lts a day Peaked at 79.2 This lactation to date 68846 litres! Pretty impressive figures in my eyes! What breed?
C0N0R wrote: » Holstein/friesan I guess but the cows wouldn't be your typical leggy Holstein, big cows but with big capacity. Ha and no Timmaay no mistakes with not registering calves, took mastitis once, in 2014 I think!
Injuryprone wrote: » With output like that, I don't see why she'd need to be put in calf.
GrasstoMilk wrote: » Any ideas what cull cows and empty heifers are making? Well enough fleshed
RightTurnClyde wrote: » Had a dealer in yesterday offering €1/kg for well covered ~700kg cows. I'm going to hold off for another while. I'm hearing of .80-1€/kg in marts
mahoney_j wrote: » 1.40 for that 700 kg cow if not tool old ,good feet and dry .u need weight to break 1 e a kg 650 kg + .went for a gwak last week anything from 60 cent a kg to 1.50 .anything straight out ofvoarlour that needs feeding and any x bred types are friendless .seen a black 2012 born hex 480 kg 350 euro .mine still milking and will be till Xmas week .will dry then and sell before end Jan .
kowtow wrote: » Did anyone ever have or use one of those walk behind Honda powered yard scraper thingies (you see them on done deal & at the ploughing, they look like a rotavator..) Have my existing dairymaster hydraulic scraper working in the new feed passage but not massively pleased with the results.. we put quite a deep square pattern in the concrete so that doesn't seem to be helping although I'm sure it will improve with time as the surface wears a bit and the grooves fill up. Still have to get a scraper for the cubicles, and the passage is wide (10 or 11 feet I think) so rather than another hydraulic one I was thinking either of a scraper tractor or one of those little powered things. I do have an old ride-on mower I could convert as well, but we have a lot of steps in the sheds and the yard and was also thinking one of those walk behind ones might be just as handy. I know people have very mixed views on the wheeled ones, perhaps they are just as bad?
Buford T. Justice V wrote: » I priced one of those a while back for a passage too narrow for a tractor. Something around 1300 euro iirc. I use the wheeled scraper instead now:rolleyes:. I would be inclined to put a scraper into that passage as well. During the quiet times it's grand spending 15 minutes scraping a passage but when things get busy will it be a job that's left till the following day?
kowtow wrote: » I know what you mean. Trouble is with the deep square pattern it's barely clean after the scraper has been down, don't mind so much with my existing scraper as I already had it but would be irritating to buy a new one and then have a half clean passage. Haven't tried even a hand scraper, wheeled or not, yet but I've a feeling the cobble effect might make that a bit depressing. Perhaps I should rubber line the whole thing next year, clean smooth passages and grip!!
whelan2 wrote: » Did you find out why they lost the calves? 3 is alot
pedigree 6 wrote: » This would get in the grooves. But might be a bit big for you. But you might get an idea from it.
kowtow wrote: » hmm... I like that solution. Is that an everyday job? - do you go straight at the slurry with it or some kind of scraper in advance? Does the brush wear out? Need washing every day? I left 3.50m clearance into the sheds so should be able to get the 50b in with that on the front...
