Cell count targets.

[Chips]

If we continue to push the myth that higer yields reduce climate change we will continue to hand market share to dairy alternatives . Yes higher yields reduce co2 per litre but makes no account of the co2 sequencing of perennial grass vs annual plants like cereals and soya etc. One acre of grass captures far more co2 than the cow emits, a lot of the co2 emitted in manure goes straight back in the ground if it falls as a pat onto the ground , not so much if stored and spread .the co2 that does reach the atmosphere is only on a 6 month loop before being captured again by grass and thus no new Co2 released , compared to all the extra co2 that has been deep in the ground for millions of years then brought up as gas to produce fertilizers which permit the production of wide spread annual plant production without rotational perenials which need far less fert . Annuals sequench very little co2 due to only photosynthesis for part of the year and then this lost again through cultivation. Also cows act as carbon sinks as co2 is captured into long term products like leather , thus 2 cows at 5000 litres means two acres of perenials sequencing co2 and two lots of leather vs 1 cow at 10000 litres with maybe not even 1 acre of perenials and 1 lot of leather . Even the methane emitted by cows turns in co2 after 10 years and is sequenched by grass .
The problem when you only look at the emmisions and not capture of co2 is that soya milk only produces half the co2 and we lose the argument despite the fact it is only 1/5th the nutrient density and captures virtually no Co2 .
Failure to address this co2 myth will mean for the next twenty years we will shoot ourselves in the foot like we did when we did not argue against the anti fat debarcle twenty years ago !

 

[Clay52]

If we continue to push the myth that higer yields reduce climate change we will continue to hand market share to dairy alternatives . Yes higher yields reduce co2 per litre but makes no account of the co2 sequencing of perennial grass vs annual plants like cereals and soya etc. One acre of grass captures far more co2 than the cow emits, a lot of the co2 emitted in manure goes straight back in the ground if it falls as a pat onto the ground , not so much if stored and spread .the co2 that does reach the atmosphere is only on a 6 month loop before being captured again by grass and thus no new Co2 released , compared to all the extra co2 that has been deep in the ground for millions of years then brought up as gas to produce fertilizers which permit the production of wide spread annual plant production without rotational perenials which need far less fert . Annuals sequench very little co2 due to only photosynthesis for part of the year and then this lost again through cultivation. Also cows act as carbon sinks as co2 is captured into long term products like leather , thus 2 cows at 5000 litres means two acres of perenials sequencing co2 and two lots of leather vs 1 cow at 10000 litres with maybe not even 1 acre of perenials and 1 lot of leather . Even the methane emitted by cows turns in co2 after 10 years and is sequenched by grass .
The problem when you only look at the emmisions and not capture of co2 is that soya milk only produces half the co2 and we lose the argument despite the fact it is only 1/5th the nutrient density and captures virtually no Co2 .
Failure to address this co2 myth will mean for the next twenty years we will shoot ourselves in the foot like we did when we did not argue against the anti fat debarcle twenty years ago !

You have a lot of this wrong. Cows emit greenhouse gasses wether they sh!t on pasture or are housed.

Crops or pasture use CO2 to grow and the amount they capture depends on yield which eventually goes into the cows

The amount in leather is going to be negligible. Cows capture CO2 though meat and milk via eating feeds. That eventually gets released via humans consuming products and farting, shitting or decomposing when we die.

Really the only true storage of CO2 farmers do is increasing organic matter in soils because food products get consumed. Increasing organic matter in soils can happen with pasture or cropping when managed properly.

Lower production cows produce more greenhouse gasses per liter than high production cows. Higher production often requires greater inputs though machinary and diesel thus higher greenhouse gasses producing the cows diet.

So overall I don't know what ends up more efficient greenhouse gas wise. I don't know if the research has been done.

 

[In the pit]

I don't really want a relationship with the vet. If I am seeing them regularly that means things are going wrong. They actually rang up the other day asking why I hadn't being buying mastitis tubes off them. I said I'd only had a few cases in the last couple months. They seemed dissapointed.


In my experience when cell count goes high for an extended period a certain percentage of cows are ruined. To get back to normal a certain amount of culling your way back to normal has to happen. That's just what i found.

You must cull half your herd every year, every time you post you talk about culling

 

[Clay52]

You must cull half your herd every year, every time you post you talk about culling

Did you read the post. I said I've had to cull to get out of mastitis/cell count problem, not that I am currently doing it. Cull rate around 25%. Cell count was in the 80s the last few tests.

I could easily be less harsh on culling but I don't feel like keeping problem cows.

 

[In the pit]

Why cull, I've used dct on high cell count cows and next lactation they have some of the lowest cell counts

 

[cowgirl95]

We know higher yielding herds are more efficient. The maintenance requirement for a cow is similar so every extra litre you produce has a

We know higher yielding herds are more efficient. The maintenance requirement for a cow is similar so every extra litre you produce has a lower carbon footprint. I do think as things move forwards and there is greater control over on farm medicine usage that you will have to work more closely with your vets. There also becomes legal issues with 'animals under the care' of the vet if they've not been on farm in 6 months, they probably shouldn't be prescribing you medicines with such little idea of what is going on.

There is a model with grazed herds, giving bugger all milk with no infrastructure and low costs. If I was a cow it's not where I'd chose to live. If a vet can't add value to a farm, then you have the wrong vet (or the wrong attitude farmer who's not prepared to change).

carbon footprint. I do think as things move forwards and there is greater control over on farm medicine usage that you will have to work more closely with your vets. There also becomes legal issues with 'animals under the care' of the vet if they've not been on farm in 6 months, they probably shouldn't be prescribing you medicines with such little idea of what is going on.

There is a model with grazed herds, giving bugger all milk with no infrastructure and low costs. If I was a cow it's not where I'd chose to live. If a vet can't add value to a farm, then you have the wrong vet (or the wrong attitude farmer who's not prepared to change).

We know higher yielding herds are more efficient. The maintenance requirement for a cow is similar so every extra litre you produce has a lower carbon footprint. I do think as things move forwards and there is greater control over on farm medicine usage that you will have to work more closely with your vets. There also becomes legal issues with 'animals under the care' of the vet if they've not been on farm in 6 months, they probably shouldn't be prescribing you medicines with such little idea of what is going on.

There is a model with grazed herds, giving bugger all milk with no infrastructure and low costs. If I was a cow it's not where I'd chose to live. If a vet can't add value to a farm, then you have the wrong vet (or the wrong attitude farmer who's not prepared to change).

 

[Clay52]

Why cull, I've used dct on high cell count cows and next lactation they have some of the lowest cell counts

You basically answered your own question. I don't want cows that have high cell counts and require will DCT so I get rid of them.

My experience, sure some cure but reinfection is common and plenty don't even cure in the first place. I don't need the problem cows and I don't need them breeding more problem cows.

 

[cowgirl95]

Carbon footprint really you don't seriously believe that rubbish do you Bovine ?

 

[Princess Pooper]

Carbon footprint really you don't seriously believe that rubbish do you Bovine ?

You really do have a way with words don't you? Plenty of us believe in 'that rubbish' but there are other threads where that is discussed. Why the aggression?

 

[Blue.]

Good supplier

Nah,it's because I'm the only member.

 

[Chips]

You have a lot of this wrong. Cows emit greenhouse gasses wether they sh!t on pasture or are housed.

Crops or pasture use CO2 to grow and the amount they capture depends on yield which eventually goes into the cows

The amount in leather is going to be negligible. Cows capture CO2 though meat and milk via eating feeds. That eventually gets released via humans consuming products and farting, shitting or decomposing when we die.

Really the only true storage of CO2 farmers do is increasing organic matter in soils because food products get consumed. Increasing organic matter in soils can happen with pasture or cropping when managed properly.

Lower production cows produce more greenhouse gasses per liter than high production cows. Higher production often requires greater inputs though machinary and diesel thus higher greenhouse gasses producing the cows diet.

So overall I don't know what ends up more efficient greenhouse gas wise. I don't know if the research has been done.

If you read this they clearly mention the difference in emissions from storage of manures vs grazing animals dropping it on pasture
https://climatechangeconnection.org...ions/livestock-production/pasture-management/
Also if you google climate change and perennials versus Annual plants you will find loads of info to back up why the planet needs to be covered in perennials , one number I remember reading was that our soils lose around 40% of their carbon content when moving from perennial to anual crops , this without even going in to how much extra fossil fuels it takes to grow crops on stock less farms
Here is some more
http://issues.org/27-4/kahn-2/
If you think about it man has produced milk and meat from grassland for roughly 10500 years without climate change , we discover fossil fuels and suddenly we have climate change and the cows are to blame and we start to argue the answer is to produce milk/meat from a systems that uses more fossil fuels rather than less

 

[Kiwi Pete]

If you read this they clearly mention the difference in emissions from storage of manures vs grazing animals dropping it on pasture
https://climatechangeconnection.org...ions/livestock-production/pasture-management/
Also if you google climate change and perennials versus Annual plants you will find loads of info to back up why the planet needs to be covered in perennials , one number I remember reading was that our soils lose around 40% of their carbon content when moving from perennial to anual crops , this without even going in to how much extra fossil fuels it takes to grow crops on stock less farms
Here is so more
http://issues.org/27-4/kahn-2/
If you think about it man has produced milk and meat from grassland for roughly 10500 years without climate change , we discover fossil fuels and suddenly we have climate change and the cows are to blame and we start to argue the answer is to produce milk/meat from a systems that uses more fossil fuels rather than less

Spot on.

 

[Clay52]

If you read this they clearly mention the difference in emissions from storage of manures vs grazing animals dropping it on pasture
https://climatechangeconnection.org...ions/livestock-production/pasture-management/
Also if you google climate change and perennials versus Annual plants you will find loads of info to back up why the planet needs to be covered in perennials , one number I remember reading was that our soils lose around 40% of their carbon content when moving from perennial to anual crops , this without even going in to how much extra fossil fuels it takes to grow crops on stock less farms
Here is so more
http://issues.org/27-4/kahn-2/
If you think about it man has produced milk and meat from grassland for roughly 10500 years without climate change , we discover fossil fuels and suddenly we have climate change and the cows are to blame and we start to argue the answer is to produce milk/meat from a systems that uses more fossil fuels rather than less

Feeding 7 billion people is going to cause carbon emissions.

Farming isn't really causing any net storage of carbon. We convert carbon into food that then eventually gets released again when people eat it.

If you do it wrong you will lose carbon with annuals. You are also forgetting annuals have the potential to yield much more and be much more water efficient.

 

[Chips]

Feeding 7 billion people is going to cause carbon emissions.

Farming isn't really causing any net storage of carbon. We convert carbon into food that then eventually gets released again when people eat it.

If you do it wrong you will lose carbon with annuals. You are also forgetting annuals have the potential to yield much more and be much more water efficient.

I agree , ultimately population is unsustainable , however I don't think we need worry too much about a water shortage here in the west of the uk were most of our dairy farming is done , however there may be in some of the regions where we import annual feed crops from , I think it takes 1000gallons of water to produce 1 ton of grain , now that may be lower than grass , I don't know, but we don't import grass from halfway around the world .
Pasture based farming may not overall capture extra amounts of CO2 but it certainly carries itself

 

[cowgirl95]

You really do have a way with words don't you? Plenty of us believe in 'that rubbish' but there are other threads where that is discussed. Why the aggression?

Aggression what aggression ? Just seems a ridiculous thing to make a judgement about a farm on. won't mention the billions of tax payer money wasted turning the most efficient coal powered power station in Europe into the most inefficient wood powered staction in the world it would be funny if it was not true. Carbon footprint!!

 

[FonterraFarmer]

Spot on.

Not to be confused with "Spot On"

 

[lazy farmer]

My experience, sure some cure but reinfection is common and plenty don't even cure in the first place. I don't need the problem cows and I don't need them breeding more problem cows.[/QUOTE]

genuine question. will you be able to maintain that policy when you are starting up with a new herd? will the finances allow it?

 

[Clay52]

My experience, sure some cure but reinfection is common and plenty don't even cure in the first place. I don't need the problem cows and I don't need them breeding more problem cows.

genuine question. will you be able to maintain that policy when you are starting up with a new herd? will the finances allow it?[/QUOTE]

That's the plan but it will depend on the circumstances initially.

As for finances allowing it. I found an email from the vet clinic when we were following their mastitis plan in 2011. We were treating on average 44 cows a month for mastitis, with 400 milkers.

Since scrapping them and following my policy we are now treating 5 or less per month with 500 milkers. I've had 2 cows with Mastits in the last two months. You tell me financially which seems better. For me anyway, the vet might not be as excited.

 

[Agrispeed]

Feeding 7 billion people is going to cause carbon emissions.

Farming isn't really causing any net storage of carbon. We convert carbon into food that then eventually gets released again when people eat it.

If you do it wrong you will lose carbon with annuals. You are also forgetting annuals have the potential to yield much more and be much more water efficient.

Since we stopped growing annual crops we are sequestering around a kg of carbon per l of milk produced, before we were producing the equivalent of 1 kg per l.

There's no reason that we should be causing carbon emissions.

 

[Clay52]

Since we stopped growing annual crops we are sequestering around a kg of carbon per l of milk produced, before we were producing the equivalent of 1 kg per l.

There's no reason that we should be causing carbon emissions.

Time to start a separate thread for this topic.