Dairy chit chat II

K.G. · 16-12-2017 09:23AM

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

Making a mix while typing this...

11.5 kgdm maize silage.
6 kgdm lucerne.
4 kgdm clover silage.
3 kgdm 81 dmd grass silage.
1 kg soya.
1.5 kg barley.
60gms osr haulm.
60 gms salt.
125gms minerals.
70 gms urea.
50 gms bicarbonate.

Lol, looks complicated when typed up!

Id nearly ate that stuff myself

freedominacup · 16-12-2017 10:21AM

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

Making a mix while typing this...

11.5 kgdm maize silage.
6 kgdm lucerne.
4 kgdm clover silage.
3 kgdm 81 dmd grass silage.
1 kg soya.
1.5 kg barley.
60gms osr haulm.
60 gms salt.
125gms minerals.
70 gms urea.
50 gms bicarbonate.

Lol, looks complicated when typed up!

I pat myself on the back if I get 15-16kg forage into mine.

trixi2011 · 16-12-2017 11:27AM

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

blackdog1 wrote: »

What are you feeding them atm Dawg?

Making a mix while typing this...

11.5 kgdm maize silage.
6 kgdm lucerne.
4 kgdm clover silage.
3 kgdm 81 dmd grass silage.
1 kg soya.
1.5 kg barley.
60gms osr haulm.
60 gms salt.
125gms minerals.
70 gms urea.
50 gms bicarbonate.

Lol, looks complicated when typed up!

Could you explain the inclusion of urea in the mix . Was going to try it here in the back end as protein prices were quike high and I had a 13% but bought on contract price for the year .Bottled it in the end tho as could find anyone who was feeding for information on rates and what to look out for etc

minktrapper · 16-12-2017 01:08PM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Mooooo wrote: »

Why can't farm debt be included in the cop? Fact is a lot of lads probably have put out more milk just by being more efficient on existing land anything extra is likely to come from borrowings. As I said earlier leave it out if you want to compare farms within your group o
Just on variable costs or whatever but putting out a cop without everything in it is fooling no-one only playing into the hands of processors and supermarkets. My borrowings last year cost me over 6 c/l and because of tb now it's up to 8c, so you can see why it gets annoying when your told produce for 20cent

That's the rub, though. Farm debt varies widely and the COP used by Teagasc is a comparison of common costs, not all costs. So two farms can compare their costs against each other without different drawings and loan repayments skewing costs in favour of a farmer with no loans and low drawings.

Teagasc need to be brought up on this and soon.

Milk price- ProfitMonitor COP does not equal profit.

Any of ye think that profit monitors should not be submitted to teagasc as there is way too much information on it and milk producers can be manipulated. All that info is being used by a lot more people than dairy farmers.

mahoney_j · 16-12-2017 01:16PM

minktrapper wrote: »

Any of ye think that profit monitors should not be submitted to teagasc as there is way too much information on it and milk producers can be manipulated. All that info is being used by a lot more people than dairy farmers.

100% yes we’re been done a massive disservice by our leading advisory body on this ,and the fact false info (cop)been pushed out makes it worse

Gawddawggonnit · 16-12-2017 01:16PM

freedominacup wrote: »

I pat myself on the back if I get 15-16kg forage into mine.

I thought you have hols?

Gawddawggonnit · 16-12-2017 01:24PM

trixi2011 wrote: »

Could you explain the inclusion of urea in the mix . Was going to try it here in the back end as protein prices were quike high and I had a 13% but bought on contract price for the year .Bottled it in the end tho as could find anyone who was feeding for information on rates and what to look out for etc

I use urea as cheap source of protein.
60 to 120gms per head. The 120gms is absolute max inclusion and you’d want to be feeding a fairly high fibre forage at that.

Urea can be fed when soluble proteins are absent from the diet....

Gawddawggonnit · 16-12-2017 01:36PM

Injuryprone wrote: »

I'm not sure I'm reading the right article or not, but am I right in saying that he's gone from 72 cows to 320 without spending anything on housing. How is he complying with nitrates? Can't imagine the farms were stocked anywhere near as intensely in the previous regime.

I went to a Teagasc meeting last week in mallow on the new nitrates derogation rules. They kept banging on and on about getting slurry storage nailed down properly for next year, so much so that it must be very common for intensive farmers to be without the required storage. But I thought you had to have it all sorted to get the derogation in the first place. Tbh I was confused and haven't talked to my advisor since to ask him.

I only have a small smattering of Teagasc(ese) and Gov speak, but I’ll give it a shot...

Right lads, we’re lucky that we nailed down another nitrates derogation even when it’s common knowledge that we’re wrecking the environment...so, to keep insane milk production (to infinity!) we’ll HAVE to make a little effort, or at least be seen to make an effort!!

How far off is that translation?

Buford T. Justice XIX · 16-12-2017 02:35PM

minktrapper wrote: »

Any of ye think that profit monitors should not be submitted to teagasc as there is way too much information on it and milk producers can be manipulated. All that info is being used by a lot more people than dairy farmers.

I've no problems with my figures going in to Teagasc for the PM as they are the ones producing the PM figures for us to compare our figures in the discussion group.

But I have a lot of difficulty with those figures being leveraged to produce misleading headline figures which the data they are given is being used for.

I'm kind of on the fence this year about continuing in the DG partly because of this.

alps · 16-12-2017 02:46PM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I've no problems with my figures going in to Teagasc for the PM as they are the ones producing the PM figures for us to compare our figures in the discussion group.

But I have a lot of difficulty with those figures being leveraged to produce misleading headline figures which the data they are given is being used for.

I'm kind of on the fence this year about continuing in the DG partly because of this.

Make it item no 1 on the agenda of your DG AGM....Stipulate that PM figures are only to be used for your own group, and that they are not to be included in any format in the National figures...

There are many monitor farms where the owner has given permission to publish, and these can very easily form the target figures for discussion. The figures from your local DG will be a more accurate and meaningful cost comparison in any case.

I understand that anyone in a KT group signed off on permission for their PM figures to be shared, but subsequently there was a commitment not to, as it was one of the major reasons why so many did not take up the KT option.

It's our own fault figures are misused, we need to be definitive in our instruction, that the figures are only used for the purpose for which you submit them..

jaymla627 · 16-12-2017 02:52PM

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

I only have a small smattering of Teagasc(ese) and Gov speak, but I’ll give it a shot...

Right lads, we’re lucky that we nailed down another nitrates derogation even when it’s common knowledge that we’re wrecking the environment...so, to keep insane milk production (to infinity!) we’ll HAVE to make a little effort, or at least be seen to make an effort!!

How far off is that translation?

The shine might go off it again fairly shortly if milk dips likes being predicted what's a great idea at 30 plus cent, isn't half as appealing when you drop into low 20's, it's gas how farmers plans change on a whim with milk price, cousion who's a building contractor has 12 months work ahead of him at the minute for dairy clients last year he had a few jobs but was having to take a lot of work in Dublin to keep lads busy, and he's charging a fortune too but money doesn't seem to be a object lads just want it done

K.G. · 16-12-2017 03:20PM

Lads ye are getting yer knickers in atwist over nothing.no buyer looks at the cost of producing the product and couldnt give a damn if you are loosing money producing it,they only want to know if they can get it cheaper somewhere else.the only dangers is fellas with no calculaters looking at them and thinking they do the same.everyone has do their own sums.

minktrapper · 16-12-2017 03:45PM

K.G. wrote: »

Lads ye are getting yer knickers in atwist over nothing.no buyer looks at the cost of producing the product and couldnt give a damn if you are loosing money producing it,they only want to know if they can get it cheaper somewhere else.the only dangers is fellas with no calculaters looking at them and thinking they do the same.everyone has do their own sums.

I was told by a friend of mine that was on a farm walk in England. The farm had over 300 cows. The dairy gave him an extra 2p a gallon ( or something close to it) to see his cost of production. They got a completely separate set of accounts for this purpose. One thing is for certain. All census data/surveys are being used for the manipulation of everyone. Information makes the world go round not money. They might not look at the cost of production in the short term but in the long term the information can be used to lever farmers. Much like the amount of information is available on cattle numbers. Cattle ages etc.. They need the product to stay in business but at the cheapest price they can get it. With all the extra cows on farms today are dairy farmers any better off than when they were milking 30 cows 30 years ago?

kowtow · 16-12-2017 06:38PM

alps wrote: »

It's our own fault figures are misused, we need to be definitive in our instruction, that the figures are only used for the purpose for which you submit them..

I also think we still have significant work to do on standardizing the way we deal with these figures.

I thought that Macra guy had some interesting and quite off-centre opinions, refreshing to hear - and I'd like to see what effect his management is having independent of whether he inherited land, won the lotto, robbed a feed mill, or borrowed and rented the whole lot.

Without knowing what's gone into the figure a COP of 20 or 22c tells me nothing except that his cows are at grass for a big chunk of the year!

mahoney_j · 16-12-2017 07:14PM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I've no problems with my figures going in to Teagasc for the PM as they are the ones producing the PM figures for us to compare our figures in the discussion group.

But I have a lot of difficulty with those figures being leveraged to produce misleading headline figures which the data they are given is being used for.

I'm kind of on the fence this year about continuing in the DG partly because of this.

I opted out cause of it in my Tegasc group but was allowed continue in group .good discussion group so worth staying in but point blank refuse profit monitor

mahoney_j · 16-12-2017 07:16PM

K.G. wrote: »

Lads ye are getting yer knickers in atwist over nothing.no buyer looks at the cost of producing the product and couldnt give a damn if you are loosing money producing it,they only want to know if they can get it cheaper somewhere else.the only dangers is fellas with no calculaters looking at them and thinking they do the same.everyone has do their own sums.

In la la land if you think published pm figures aren’t been used against us

K.G. · 16-12-2017 08:44PM

mahoney_j wrote: »

In la la land if you think published pm figures aren’t been used against us

How.

K.G. · 16-12-2017 08:50PM

minktrapper wrote: »

I was told by a friend of mine that was on a farm walk in England. The farm had over 300 cows. The dairy gave him an extra 2p a gallon ( or something close to it) to see his cost of production. They got a completely separate set of accounts for this purpose. One thing is for certain. All census data/surveys are being used for the manipulation of everyone. Information makes the world go round not money. They might not look at the cost of production in the short term but in the long term the information can be used to lever farmers. Much like the amount of information is available on cattle numbers. Cattle ages etc.. They need the product to stay in business but at the cheapest price they can get it. With all the extra cows on farms today are dairy farmers any better off than when they were milking 30 cows 30 years ago?

There is no business that is operati ng at the same level of productivity as it was 30 years ago i cant remember where i saw it but i read somewhere that productivity should double every ten years which is close enough to 100cows which is comparable

Snowfire · 16-12-2017 08:52PM

mahoney_j wrote: »

I opted out cause of it in my Tegasc group but was allowed continue in group .good discussion group so worth staying in but point blank refuse profit monitor

I presume you don’t have access to the pm figures from your group so, when your not prepared to give yours.?

freedominacup · 16-12-2017 08:56PM

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

I thought you have hols?

I do but with limited forage sources here I can't get much beyond 16 with fresh calvers. We might have hit 18 for a while last spring but that was exceptional. Would be hitting 24 with concentrate.

Water John · 16-12-2017 09:10PM

There are a number of 'laws', which are actually indicative of what is happening the evolution of a specific industry eg Moore's Law in computers.
So KG, you'll be milking 400 cows, on your own, in 20 years?

mahoney_j · 16-12-2017 09:12PM

Snowfire wrote: »

I presume you don’t have access to the pm figures from your group so, when your not prepared to give yours.?

Very little do pm so we don’t actually use it ,great group not interested in our individual financial performance as it’s ourcown business and so many different variables at play ,actively interested in how we grow more grass ,manage land ,cows etc,that’s what’s important and makes us money

Bo dearg · 16-12-2017 09:47PM

K.G. wrote: »

There is no business that is operati ng at the same level of productivity as it was 30 years ago i cant remember where i saw it but i read somewhere that productivity should double every ten years which is close enough to 100cows which is comparable

Read an article in journal few weeks back about sweeden i think or switzerland. 48 cows and followers managed by man his father and one full time employee. I know its not comparable to eu farming but sounds better than teagasc model of one man manageing 120 cows with part time help in the spring. I wonder sometimes have the big co-ops been steering teagasc into getting us to produce more for less just to turn into a low value commodity for them to sell with their guaranteed matgin built in

K.G. · 16-12-2017 09:53PM

Water John wrote: »

There are a number of 'laws', which are actually indicative of what is happening the evolution of a specific industry eg Moore's Law in computers.
So KG, you'll be milking 400 cows, on your own, in 20 years?

Me !f##k no ill be hopefully reduced to being the "auld fella" but i wouldnt be suprised if it that was your standard unit

wrangler · 16-12-2017 10:01PM

Bo dearg wrote: »

Read an article in journal few weeks back about sweeden i think or switzerland. 48 cows and followers managed by man his father and one full time employee. I know its not comparable to eu farming but sounds better than teagasc model of one man manageing 120 cows with part time help in the spring. I wonder sometimes have the big co-ops been steering teagasc into getting us to produce more for less just to turn into a low value commodity for them to sell with their guaranteed matgin built in

Yea I was in a small farm in switzerland where the sheds cost a million....probably about 70 or eighty sucklers

Snowfire · 16-12-2017 10:07PM

mahoney_j wrote: »

Very little do pm so we don’t actually use it ,great group not interested in our individual financial performance as it’s ourcown business and so many different variables at play ,actively interested in how we grow more grass ,manage land ,cows etc,that’s what’s important and makes us money

Yeah same as my group, but it’s still a worthwhile exercise to compare the high input/ high output v the lows for different years. No one is going to change their whole system based on their neighbours figures, but one session in January discussing pm is always part of ours.

mahoney_j · 16-12-2017 10:08PM

K.G. wrote: »

How.

I worked for a large multinational for years and did various trade surveys ,any little chink or advantage that could be found would be and used for said company’s benefit

K.G. · 16-12-2017 10:08PM

My vet always likes to fill the crush and then test them and let the line off together whereas i always find when im dosing or anything having one man at the crush gate doing whatever and another loading works better and faster but maybe its my setup. Just wondering what way do ye work it

mahoney_j · 16-12-2017 10:12PM

Snowfire wrote: »

Yeah same as my group, but it’s still a worthwhile exercise to compare the high input/ high output v the lows for different years. No one is going to change their whole system based on their neighbours figures, but one session in January discussing pm is always part of ours.

I do one some years don’t know why as I don’t reallt see benefit in its current form ,my full accounts with warts and all is my concern

Snowfire · 16-12-2017 10:22PM

mahoney_j wrote: »

I do one some years don’t know why as I don’t reallt see benefit in its current form ,my full accounts with warts and all is my concern

Couple of lads in our group obviously feel the same and clearly don’t try to put any half effort into doing theirs, and that’s fine , but still have access to the lads figures that are trying to do it right.

Dairy chit chat II

Comments