Same thing is happening here closest freezing works is taking 2 units of skins and hides to land fill a day.....the concerning for me is that sheep farmers with wool prices below shearing costs and dumping of by products we are now relying solely on the valve of meat alone and on 3 weeks of weather in the spring...not a great business model. Then when we look outside the farm gate there are changes too...our latest government has certainly changed direction. The last few years there was a push and talk of regen ag but this has move to plant based and no animals at all.....where this leads I have no idea yet......
"Improving Our Lot" - Planned Holistic Grazing, for starters..
- Thread starter Kiwi Pete
- Start date
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Won't let me read it without subscribing. I may have to open my wallet
Is Increased Production Worth the Cost of the Fertilizer?
I recently had the pleasure of hosting a pasture walk for a group of University students, young people who wanted to chat about plants, animals, grazing, fencing, water…in other words, all the thin…onpasture.com
some interesting observations in here
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
I wondered how long before Jacky's mob would jump on the plant based food virtue signaling.
Because NZ is so rich in high fertility flat arable land
Hummmm, it great really we have a vegan anti dairy owner of one our major media outlets and vegan anti animal farming senior advisors to senior cabinet ministers and lecturers at our universities....my view the push for plant based is about the value chain maximizing its returns eg sheep farmers are getting about 40% of the retail value of lamb, dairy milk the farmer gets by my calculations 20% and our newly announced oat milk plant the farmers get 1% of the retail value!!!!!!
JohnGalway
Member
- Location
- Connemara, Ireland
Won't let me read it without subscribing. I may have to open my wallet
It was free once upon a time but costs rose and they had to make a decision to charge a reasonable sub or vanish. TBH I have a sub and I'm glad they're still there.
JohnGalway
Member
- Location
- Connemara, Ireland
Farmers need their independence from "payments". Then it won't matter one bit who's advising who on what.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
It'll still matter. The Jacindarella government is putting their aims into legislation so payments are irrelevant.
JohnGalway
Member
- Location
- Connemara, Ireland
Take the situation in Ireland. We have become dependents. Dependent on payments from the EU & Government and the conditions attached to those payments. In the next CAP possibly 30% of the current BPS I receive will go to the "Eco scheme", which will entail extensive management, rewetting, water table manipulation, minimum water table level in Winter etc.
Those are measures I don't agree with, I understand them, but I won't carry them out on my property as I have other plans. What that means, which is fine as CAP is voluntary, is that I will lose around 30% of my current BPS. Along with that, I will likely lose any environmental scheme (currently €5k to me) as to qualify for an environmental scheme (which would be on a higher level to BPS) one would have to undertake measures above and beyond what would qualify for the eco scheme.
In the bigger "whole" picture, while most farmers will be forced financially to go along with such measures, that the current market forces will still largely exist, that is the distortion of farm produce prices caused by payments. So the position is, if one disagrees with the pay masters, one is left at a disadvantage. But, again, it is all voluntary.
I have the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 coming at me. With three green party ministers representing "me" at EU level. They are uncompromising on the legal burdens that will apply to my property. While it will affect the value of all of my property, to "bring me to heel" they'll have to bring me to court. That's an entirely different ball game than having an inspector turn off an income tap. It's easier for bureaucracy to control people through payments than legislation.
- Location
- Quebec, Canada
I opened mine, so here it is:Won't let me read it without subscribing. I may have to open my wallet
Is Increased Production Worth the Cost of the Fertilizer?
John Marble
After an hour or two of highly stimulating conversation we headed back toward the parking area. As we approached the gate, the leader of the group asked a question that I had not quite prepared for:
“John, why is there such a cultural bias that prevents so many American ranchers from adopting common practices that could improve the quality and quantity of their forages? Why is there such resistance to improving the soil or the sward or increasing production?”
What he was talking about was applying fertilizer.
Honestly, I was a bit taken aback. We had just spent an hour or more wandering around looking at what I considered to be pretty good looking fall pasture. Earlier, we had received some fall rains that had awakened the perennial grass from its summer slumber, and there was a group of calves grazing that regrowth, calves that looked like they were doing very well. Still, my pastures were certainly not dazzling. I had to think about the question for a few moments, finally responding in a non-scientific voice:
“Well, in my case, I guess I notice that all of the ranches that seek production over profit tend to go broke. All that equipment and fertilizer and seed, well, those things have to be paid for by calves that only bring $600 at market.”
Let me say right here, my feelings weren’t hurt, but I was somewhat…stimulated, put in a state of mind to spend some time and energy looking for data that would guide me in going forward. After all, I want to be doing the smart and profitable thing, right? To make smart decisions about fertilizer use, I need to know how much the fertilizer costs, how much forage it produces, and what the value of that extra forage is.
So, I did the math.
The Cost of Nitrogen vs the Value of Forage
Question #1: what does Nitrogen cost?
I made a few calls to local suppliers and found that having Urea delivered and spread on my pastures will cost about $400 per ton. Assuming an application rate of 100 pounds of product (46 pounds of N) per acre this works out to $20 per acre.
Question #2: how much additional forage will be produced?
There are many variables that affect outcomes in different locations, but I find many references to the idea that one pound of N produces about 20 pounds of forage (dry matter). So, the 46 pounds of N that we applied above will produce about 920 pounds of forage (dry matter) per acre.
Question #3: what is the value of the additional forage we produced?There are several ways to calculate this, but my training says that the value of grass is determined by how much you could sell it to your neighbor for, or perhaps how much you might pay to buy it from your neighbor.
If you are letting a 1,000 pound cow (1 Standard Animal Unit or SAU) eat this forage and we assume that a bovine eats 3% of her weight each day, then that 920 pounds is remarkably close to the amount that 1 SAU cow would eat in a month.
Question #4: how much would you sell one SAU of forage for? Or perhaps, how much would you pay for a SAU of forage?
To answer this, I made a list of rental properties we manage and made some quick calculations to find how much I pay for an SAU (month) of forage. I also looked at the rates I am charging my custom-grazing clients. In the end, it appears that I am paying around $10 per SAU per month for rental ground. If I were young and aggressive and expanding, I believe that over time I could continue to find more rental ground at that cost. And of course, each of those properties comes with some degree of labor overheads. This makes calculating their true value a bit squishy. But generally speaking, I believe I can rent land (buy grass) for about half the cost of producing grass with Nitrogen fertilizer.Conclusions
At the risk of being harsh, it appears to me that increasing production of forage through the addition of Nitrogen fertilizer is economically unsupportable, for me at least. Of course fertilizer “works”, but the cost of production is simply too high if the only thing we are growing is grass. Maybe things are different if you are growing strawberries or almonds or cantaloupe, but if all you have is grass pasture, I would encourage producers sharpen their pencils and do the math before calling the fertilizer truck.
Best wishes and Happy Grazing to all of you in 2021!
- Location
- somerset
certainly a different way of looking at things, just right to read after our pre tb test, passed, and fertility visit, 50% of aut block cows, served in 9 days. A pity i couldn't get the table big enough to read, but the gist of it pretty obvious. We have taken on extra ground, and we worked out our forced forage buying cost, in total for the year, was dearer than the rent. This post has added another equation, this is purchased forage cost, against acre rent. We think the rent will be around £74/acre, 1 piece yet to finalise, looking at it from an acreage view, with hay cost/ton at £74 delivered, and straw cost at £75/80/ ton, straw was ordered pre harvest, and our regular dealer has honoured his price, simple sum means we can buy 1 ton straw/hay acre, for the rent cost. Pretty well a no brainer, admittedly we have making costs etc, but if we cannot get 1 ton/acre, we shouldn't be farming.
That brings us onto fertilizer, little doubt fert produces a response, roughly valued at x6, the cost of fert, to extra production. That is serious money gain. Then we look at the downsides, N produces leaf growth rather than root growth, and we know only to well, the down side of shallow roots ! It's acidifying soil, and it's definitely not climate friendly, nor do we want any unused N in our silage, but they do not negate the value of the extra growth produced. So perhaps we should look at how, we use fert, pretty certain the quoted benefit, has highs and lows, throughout the growing season. The best response is to get crops moving early spring, and it certainly does that, then response declines, as clover N helps out, and a late application, might help produce a longer growing season. The recommend rates, are 2 units a day, on grass, throughout the season, that takes no mention of legume N produced. So perhaps the best way forward is to use N as an additive tool, to help out in the natural growth troughs, and drastically reduce it's use. If by using the thoughts and ideas, on regen, that should/could provide us with the additional soil values, to totally negate it's use, but i don't think we are at that point, yet. The organic farmers, obviously do not use fert, the accepted method of increasing fertility, is clover, mulch crops, sh1t and lots of diesel, and i am not a great fan of it, though except we can learn from it. So for me, the answer is, reduce, and use judiciously, and hope we can get to a stage of not needing it. Early and prolonged grass growth, as a dairy farmer, is a must.
That brings us onto fertilizer, little doubt fert produces a response, roughly valued at x6, the cost of fert, to extra production. That is serious money gain. Then we look at the downsides, N produces leaf growth rather than root growth, and we know only to well, the down side of shallow roots ! It's acidifying soil, and it's definitely not climate friendly, nor do we want any unused N in our silage, but they do not negate the value of the extra growth produced. So perhaps we should look at how, we use fert, pretty certain the quoted benefit, has highs and lows, throughout the growing season. The best response is to get crops moving early spring, and it certainly does that, then response declines, as clover N helps out, and a late application, might help produce a longer growing season. The recommend rates, are 2 units a day, on grass, throughout the season, that takes no mention of legume N produced. So perhaps the best way forward is to use N as an additive tool, to help out in the natural growth troughs, and drastically reduce it's use. If by using the thoughts and ideas, on regen, that should/could provide us with the additional soil values, to totally negate it's use, but i don't think we are at that point, yet. The organic farmers, obviously do not use fert, the accepted method of increasing fertility, is clover, mulch crops, sh1t and lots of diesel, and i am not a great fan of it, though except we can learn from it. So for me, the answer is, reduce, and use judiciously, and hope we can get to a stage of not needing it. Early and prolonged grass growth, as a dairy farmer, is a must.
I think we have been encouraged to sow the types of grass that do well on N the downside is they don't do well if you stop quickly without giving things time to adapt
Can you not pick the hide up?
Last one I sent with the hide to the butcher, I asked for it back and just went and picked it up.
- Location
- somerset
they are called, rye grass, and have been pushed since the 2ww, there must have been good reasons why rg was better than other grasses, s23 rg must be geriatric by now. With all things selected, at any point, man decides he can improve it, and promptly does, quality and yield increase way beyond the original, till you get to a point, where you cannot really go further with yield, if you are a scientist, whose job relies on developing better grass, you become redundant at that point, bit of a bugger, so they start experimenting, with gene editing, xing, and bits we probably don't want to know, till the new grasses, only work in ideal conditions, may even be resistant to disease, but something so technically designed, doesn't always work under farm conditions, or even in the way it's meant to, or only with addition of sprays/fert. One hears plenty of talk about new leys underperforming, or not lasting, for xy or z reason.
Where does that leave us, with the surge of interest in the 'old grasses', written of as weeds, they are being used again, and herbs, why ? Rg simply doesn't meet with farmers requirements, if it did, we wouldn't be looking elsewhere.
On our own little experiments here, if grass is grazed tightly, and a longer 'rest', you can change the mix, to the more productive grasses, which keep improving, with very little N, science isn't always right, nor is theory, and i expect what has happened, is the scientists have gone to far down the road, trying to justify their jobs, now perhaps it's time to actually see what those 'weedage' grasses can do, underground, as well as leaf, what their carbon absorbing properties are, and how we can get decent production, over many years, not just 3 or 4.
Where does that leave us, with the surge of interest in the 'old grasses', written of as weeds, they are being used again, and herbs, why ? Rg simply doesn't meet with farmers requirements, if it did, we wouldn't be looking elsewhere.
On our own little experiments here, if grass is grazed tightly, and a longer 'rest', you can change the mix, to the more productive grasses, which keep improving, with very little N, science isn't always right, nor is theory, and i expect what has happened, is the scientists have gone to far down the road, trying to justify their jobs, now perhaps it's time to actually see what those 'weedage' grasses can do, underground, as well as leaf, what their carbon absorbing properties are, and how we can get decent production, over many years, not just 3 or 4.
yield isn't everything anyway not when it comes with high costs, you can sit on your arse and do nothing and pasture will grow. any cost on top of that has to be accounted for, we don't owe anyone else a living
awkward
Member
- Location
- kerry ireland
The current trend is to alter plant performance so the ag corporates can charge us a premium for their dependant seeds as you have said but simply recording the performance of each grazing plant as has been done by Darwin and developed to include performance in diverse mixes in a natural environment, makes me wonder why we haven't embraced more of his work. Science around farming today is only a rehash of someone else's work .
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
A shame no scientists ask the cows guts what they think of the new grasses.
or at least ask the cow by giving her a choice,
Its surprising what they do choose and there must be a reason for it
They know.
Nutritionists know exactly what different ingredients and diets do to cattle and rumen function.
It’s a case of the ends justifying the means. Grain diets and high protein diets get the production and the growth that is/was desired so products like bi carb buffers and ionophores were developed to help carry those rations along.
Diets follow production and marketing desires, not vice versa.