"Improving Our Lot" - Planned Holistic Grazing, for starters..

[Humble Village Farmer]

No such thing as a mistake, is there?

I would put it another way, if it costs X£ to make a tonne of silage, then lower quality silage is more expensive than higher quality silage on an energy/ nutritional basis

I would be more likely to just graze/mulch/cycle poorer quality forage due to the economics of "increasing the cost of low-value products",, even if that is the mission statement of agriculture, it still requires questioning

Quite, there's nothing like bought wit.

This is my last housing period. Planning to graze more cattle over the summer and not make any more silage straw or muck. That's where all the work and expense is.

I said that last year but got forced into the silage making (or so I thought), so gave it one more roll of the dice.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

not so good fodder, is the most expensive to make, but sometimes, weather makes it unavoidable. But good quality, is the most economic, and everything in between !
Having said that, a lot depends on what you need, sometimes, bulk is all you need, eg dry cows. Everything else, responds directly to quality, and for some, high quality is essential.

"Essential" possibly falls into the same linguistic category as "always" and "never"?
(A good way to catch yourself telling yourself a story)

I would say that if you spend too much money then inessential and even undesirable things can occur as essentials, whereas if that isn't happening then they aren't at all.

For example, a herd that graze 365 days a year are so cheaply kept that profit is exceptionally difficult to not achieve, but if you have animals in cubicles then those numbers are set, thus the animals kept must perform "at or above maximum" to generate profit.
Or, elephants, they still bring crowds to see them by producing nothing but a spectacle, which is where we are on the scale, the worst thing that can befall our business is no grass to graze or no elephants, "quality" is irrelevant because they perform their trick regardless

 

[Henarar]

thinking on from above, store cattle, why should we 'store' them, surely the most economic way, is to feed them for growth, all the way through, after all, the younger they finish, the better it is, from environmental, methane, and pocket. Perhaps 'store' cattle is a hangover from the past.
Now that might rattle a few cages !!!!

why do you say its better from an environmental point of view to finish cattle younger ? where is it that the cattle are getting this methane from to make it so harmful ? your cattle don't go off down a coal mine do they ? did all the buffalo years ago get to a year and a half old and say I best go kill myself now or the world will fry ?

 

[Rob Garrett]

...this is the dilemma of a dairy system and winter/spring grazing rounds as opposed to a stock rearing system.
The dairy system doesn't really allow for being flexible on stocking numbers through the year. Stock rearing is 'simple', you merely bring in or send off stock to suit
Of course put this in a UK scenario and you must account for TB movements too .
Maybe I just need a paradigm shift on these winter and spring rounds?
Got to admit, 365 days /year grazing our dairy herd really is the Holy Grail

Is there a way of trialing/testing/forecasting a new system? i.e.
1. If there's carry over silage in the pit then use young stock to trample some tall grass late spring & rest a trial area.
2. Put a select group of milkers on it cell grazing in autumn. Record milk yield, cow health etc etc

Makes a lot of work but at least gives you a guide, better than all this paradigm shift leap of faith bunkum!

 

[som farmer]

why do you say its better from an environmental point of view to finish cattle younger ? where is it that the cattle are getting this methane from to make it so harmful ? your cattle don't go off down a coal mine do they ? did all the buffalo years ago get to a year and a half old and say I best go kill myself now or the world will fry ?

ah, but we have to be 'efficient' these days ......
My view is quite simple, why keep an animal in a 'store ' stage, growing slowly, when you could keep it growing to it's potential ? It just seems a waste of time, or a hangover from earlier times, but that is my view.
It will come into the equation quite soon, as soon as they sort the phosphates out, which, being in the catchment area of the levels, is soon. The Dutch are already on phosphate 'quotas', which are directly linked to stock age. So, the longer/older cattle, you have on farm, the less you can keep. They now look to calve hfrs at 20 months, and to keep cattle, in 'store' condition, just doesn't happen anymore, it's to expensive. In their case, everything possible, has to work at full potential, or go. It does have advantages, which most of UK farmers, could benefit from, pretty certain we all have stock, which we keep, that could actually cost us, in dairy, if we all outed the worst 5/10% of the herd, we wouldn't miss them.
We have had to do carbon footprints, for our farm, taking out the dairy, and working on y/s, as age increases, so does it's carbon foot print, so hfrs calving at 24 months, produce less methane, than 36, in their productive life. Just as longer lasting cows, decrease the carbon/p of your farm, and then, older cows, increases your involuntary cull rate, which RT and some contracts mark you down on !

And the more fibre, you feed an animal, the more methane it produces, so, better quality, reduces methane, and speeds up the animal's growth rate.

Confused yet ? Join the club. It will become better than a jumble of theories, only when 'they' decide on a single strategy. And that is likely to follow the dutch.

 

[Henarar]

ah, but we have to be 'efficient' these days ......

efficient at what ? making profit for other people ?

 

[Henarar]

ah, but we have to be 'efficient' these days ......
My view is quite simple, why keep an animal in a 'store ' stage, growing slowly, when you could keep it growing to it's potential ? It just seems a waste of time, or a hangover from earlier times, but that is my view.
It will come into the equation quite soon, as soon as they sort the phosphates out, which, being in the catchment area of the levels, is soon. The Dutch are already on phosphate 'quotas', which are directly linked to stock age. So, the longer/older cattle, you have on farm, the less you can keep. They now look to calve hfrs at 20 months, and to keep cattle, in 'store' condition, just doesn't happen anymore, it's to expensive.

what's wrong with keeping/growing less ? that's a good thing from a farmers point of view, more has got us to the point we are now, that worked out well didn't it ?

 

[som farmer]

what's wrong with keeping/growing less ? that's a good thing from a farmers point of view, more has got us to the point we are now, that worked out well didn't it ?

food efficiency, should never be taken for granted, it can save a lot of money. Might well be proved in the next 12 months, with input costs going ballistic. Aside from that, it is a figure decided upon, by the unaccountable 'professors'. But, in general, better use of feed, put's money in our pockets.

Nothing wrong in keeping/growing less, but by doing the opposite, many could not revert back easily. While longer term, it may be good, one would have to take a serious knock, to actually 'change' in the short term, cashflow.

 

[Henarar]

food efficiency, should never be taken for granted, it can save a lot of money. Might well be proved in the next 12 months, with input costs going ballistic. Aside from that, it is a figure decided upon, by the unaccountable 'professors'. But, in general, better use of feed, put's money in our pockets.

Nothing wrong in keeping/growing less, but by doing the opposite, many could not revert back easily. While longer term, it may be good, one would have to take a serious knock, to actually 'change' in the short term, cashflow.

Input price going up may be the best thing that can happen, less used so less is grown/rased so the price goes up, so long as it world wide where is the problem?

 

[Fake it ‘til you make it]

This trial could be a game changer on methane emissions, albeit it would be another input cost. And yes @Henarar methane from cattle is arguably a red herring in the climate debate but there is pressure to act on it

JBS inks feed additive deal to cut cow methane emissions globally

JBS, the world's second-largest food company and the largest meatpacking company, has signed a deal with Royal DSM with the goal of reducing enteric methane emissions from cattle on a global scale.

www.foodnavigator.com

 

[Tyedyetom]

...this is the dilemma of a dairy system and winter/spring grazing rounds as opposed to a stock rearing system.
The dairy system doesn't really allow for being flexible on stocking numbers through the year. Stock rearing is 'simple', you merely bring in or send off stock to suit
Of course put this in a UK scenario and you must account for TB movements too .
Maybe I just need a paradigm shift on these winter and spring rounds?
Got to admit, 365 days /year grazing our dairy herd really is the Holy Grail

It must be doable some how! I think it was on the study tour to nz that someone was saying about the difference in growth rates in uk to nz with the difference in latitude and day length. Like you say it’s that late winter/spring time that is often a pinch

 

[Henarar]

This trial could be a game changer on methane emissions, albeit it would be another input cost. And yes @Henarar methane from cattle is arguably a red herring in the climate debate but there is pressure to act on it

JBS inks feed additive deal to cut cow methane emissions globally

JBS, the world's second-largest food company and the largest meatpacking company, has signed a deal with Royal DSM with the goal of reducing enteric methane emissions from cattle on a global scale.

www.foodnavigator.com

Methane from ruminants doesn't cause global warming as long as numbers don't go up.
I am reluctant to buy an input to cut it, in fact I think we should be paid to use it and then only after very rigorous testing.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Aside from that, it is a figure decided upon, by the unaccountable 'professors'. But, in general, better use of feed, put's money in our pockets.

Professors whose income comes mainly from companies selling products of the back of it remember......

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

My view is quite simple, why keep an animal in a 'store ' stage, growing slowly, when you could keep it growing to it's potential ?

If you can't graze 24/7/365 (which a dairy may struggle with) then perhaps, if you can bridge the winter cheaply enough by 'storing' the overall cost of production might be favorable still....

Only speculating though.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Professors whose income comes mainly from companies selling products of the back of it remember......

Not all of them are compromised like that, there's plenty of university professors

 

[som farmer]

Methane from ruminants doesn't cause global warming as long as numbers don't go up.
I am reluctant to buy an input to cut it, in fact I think we should be paid to use it and then only after very rigorous testing.

cattle numbers are static, cow methane is gone in 12 yrs, so methane production doesn't alter. Its a complete load of nonsense, that has been cleverly sold to the public, so they believe we are a major problem.
Just like planting trees is the 'solution', long term grass, removes vastly more than trees ever will. better PR out there, than we can ever be.

 

[som farmer]

Not all of them are compromised like that, there's plenty of university professors

there's plenty that don't live in the 'real' world.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

cattle numbers are static, cow methane is gone in 12 yrs, so methane production doesn't alter. Its a complete load of nonsense, that has been cleverly sold to the public, so they believe we are a major problem.
Just like planting trees is the 'solution', long term grass, removes vastly more than trees ever will. better PR out there, than we can ever be.

By how much? think you need to quantify that.

 

[som farmer]

By how much? think you need to quantify that.

not a 'professor', but the figures l have seen quoted, third more. Plus, all the carbon a tree absorbs, is released when it dies, with grass it stays.
There are experts, employed by the worst offenders, to pass the buck, we as farmers, are an easy target, in fact, we have been shafted. The important connection, we actually produce food, they cannot survive without, seems to have been conveniently forgotten. ( or deliberately overlooked).

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

not a 'professor', but the figures l have seen quoted, third more. Plus, all the carbon a tree absorbs, is released when it dies, with grass it stays.
There are experts, employed by the worst offenders, to pass the buck, we as farmers, are an easy target, in fact, we have been shafted. The important connection, we actually produce food, they cannot survive without, seems to have been conveniently forgotten. ( or deliberately overlooked).

It's nice to think grassland is tying up more carbon than trees. But unless it's proved properly, it's little more than a belief; the same applies to beef cattle being bad.