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

[som farmer]

some would say, you are understocked

just read the above post, yes 700 cows on 300 ha, seems to many.

that's just marginally over 1 cow/ac, which was reckoned to be the target to go for.

a lot depends on what cattle they are, milking or beef cows, size of them, big difference between a 600 kg cow, and a 300kg cow.

probably fine in a good year, a bad one ....

outside of my comfort zone

 

[Farmer Roy]

Sorry - but people wouldn’t go hungry without “farmers”. Some might be dissatisfied with their food choices, many may eventually suffer from poor or unbalanced nutrition, but I doubt there would be mass “starvation” unless the worlds trade, transport & energy systems completely break down

“food” will come from corporations & processors

who needs farmers ?
apart from keeping the countryside looking like a particular idealised picture book from the past ?

 

[Farmer Roy]

Although I call myself a “farmer”, I personally think my primary role is as a land manager, not a food producer

true, some products I grow ( chickpeas & mungbeans ) ARE direct human food with little if any processing involved ( just grading / cleaning / bagging ), but other crops I grow aren’t food products at all . . .

neither was all the wool that my grandfather & great uncle grew back inthe day
Their major product, but not very palatable

 

[Farmer Roy]

I see my 3 areas of responsibility as this
1) my family
2) my land
3) my bank manager, cos I signed those papers & fully understood the terms & conditions


couldn’t really care less about “feeding” people

 

[Kiwi Pete]

A friend sent me a FW article on Jaime Elizondo’s visit to england last month. It states that Jim has kept 700 cows on 300ha somewhere on the earth. I know thats a vague statement and doesn’t take into account location or actual stocking rate etc, and I know Jim always talks about doubling your stocking rate with total grazing. IME however I feel destocking to a degree is more alligned with where we need to be. Does anyone else think that 700 cows, even if they’re dexter size, on 300ha is kinda wild?

Not with warm and cool season grasses and lots of heat.
It takes so much of the rain risk out of the equation and with high harvest efficiency plus adapted animals it all adds up.

The old "in at 2400 out at 1500" thing with it's 38% utilisation could easily be 7000kg+ with 80% utilisation - which would be utilising more feed than we could grow here with simple, ryegrass-based pastures.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

I see my 3 areas of responsibility as this
1) my family
2) my land
3) my bank manager, cos I signed those papers & fully understood the terms & conditions


couldn’t really care less about “feeding” people

That's very much "on the court" Roy

 

[crashbox]

some would say, you are understocked

just read the above post, yes 700 cows on 300 ha, seems to many.

that's just marginally over 1 cow/ac, which was reckoned to be the target to go for.

a lot depends on what cattle they are, milking or beef cows, size of them, big difference between a 600 kg cow, and a 300kg cow.

probably fine in a good year, a bad one ....

outside of my comfort zone

Jaime does beef cattle, so the 700 head will include some 0 to 1 year, some 1 to 2 year, and maybe some 2 to 3 year adults (depending on finishing time). They won't all be adult cattle

So yes, achievable.

1 cow/acre is the target on good dairy ground, albeit supplemented with bought-in concentrate.

 

[Fenwick]

A friend sent me a FW article on Jaime Elizondo’s visit to england last month. It states that Jim has kept 700 cows on 300ha somewhere on the earth. I know thats a vague statement and doesn’t take into account location or actual stocking rate etc, and I know Jim always talks about doubling your stocking rate with total grazing. IME however I feel destocking to a degree is more alligned with where we need to be. Does anyone else think that 700 cows, even if they’re dexter size, on 300ha is kinda wild?

I've seen some clips where he talks about such things. It seems often enough as @crashbox mentions he is actually talking in head and not cows. All classes of stock combined.

As far as doubling the stocking rate I think it is a rather unfair statement. With regular and reliable rainfall as across much of the UK and Ireland you can maintain a high stocking rate even set stocking. In non brittle environments the land continues succesion towards woody species. I really don't see many round here doubling their stocking rate from two to four lWU a hectare. Based on 15kgs dm/lwu It would mean producing 22 Tones of usable dry matter per hectare per year.

In climates with less regular rainfall, (more brittle environments) like my freinds down south, then yes going from 1 cow per 8 hectares to 1 cow per 4 hectares may well be possible, Going from 700kgs to 1400 kgs dm/ha/yr and probably much better than that.

But Jaimie has to sell his product so.......

Our main benefit has come from cost savings and resiliance (and therefore peace of mind). Yes can run a few more cattle than before. But I can do that at 1/4 of the operational costs we had 5 years ago, and the standard deviation is much much smaller.

It cost me 1000€ to get through last years drought. Before it would of cost 10000€.


The weak link in the system today are the away fields. Which Jaimie (and others) dont talk about. Its not the states here, most people have more land away than at home. I have plenty of blocks of less than 2ha, and the logistics of moving animals can get a bit complicated, time consuming and expensive.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Probably if you needed to then you would have, but the fact is it was stood there ready for you when you did need it, and who knows, it may repay the rest with more grass next year. (but yes if we listen to all those "its gone over" /graze at 120mm/ 3 leaves/ then we have these pangs of doubt)

Yes, in other years I would have spent lots of tractor hours taking it off the field, wrapping it in plastic and taking it back the the field to spread it afterwards.

 

[som farmer]

I see my 3 areas of responsibility as this
1) my family
2) my land
3) my bank manager, cos I signed those papers & fully understood the terms & conditions


couldn’t really care less about “feeding” people

nicely put, and spot on.

in some way's wished l had never seen the post about sustainability, its been bugging me ever since. Its really a question that hasn't really got a solution, other than it has to be solved, or % of population dies.

that goes against my ethics, the same as @Farmer Roy 's, you look after your own interests first. But if we all did that .....................

thankfully its a question for a future, so hopefully not my problem to solve.

 

[Farmer Roy]

 

[Gulli]

nicely put, and spot on.

in some way's wished l had never seen the post about sustainability, its been bugging me ever since. Its really a question that hasn't really got a solution, other than it has to be solved, or % of population dies.

that goes against my ethics, the same as @Farmer Roy 's, you look after your own interests first. But if we all did that .....................

thankfully its a question for a future, so hopefully not my problem to solve.

If everyone looked after their own interests first then the world would be a better place

 

[som farmer]

Jaime does beef cattle, so the 700 head will include some 0 to 1 year, some 1 to 2 year, and maybe some 2 to 3 year adults (depending on finishing time). They won't all be adult cattle

So yes, achievable.

1 cow/acre is the target on good dairy ground, albeit supplemented with bought-in concentrate.

easily attainable this year

over the last 5 years, other than this, only supported by bringing large amounts of fodder in.

but l aspired to, and did keep a milking cow/acre, weather patterns changed, and no longer could, and don't worry about it either.

following on from that, with NVZ, NLI and phosphate rules coming along, is it possible to keep a cow/acre, and comply with the rules ?

on the 700 head, l assumed they were adult, wasn't to fit last night, my excuse for that. However, kg/ha should be the calculation used, to give a more realistic comparison.

 

[som farmer]

If everyone looked after their own interests first then the world would be a better place

utopia.

but will never happen.

 

[Gulli]

utopia.

but will never happen.

Why not? This whole thread shows that people can change their views on how their world works and what their priorities are

 

[Kiwi Pete]

I've seen some clips where he talks about such things. It seems often enough as @crashbox mentions he is actually talking in head and not cows. All classes of stock combined.

As far as doubling the stocking rate I think it is a rather unfair statement. With regular and reliable rainfall as across much of the UK and Ireland you can maintain a high stocking rate even set stocking. In non brittle environments the land continues succesion towards woody species. I really don't see many round here doubling their stocking rate from two to four lWU a hectare. Based on 15kgs dm/lwu It would mean producing 22 Tones of usable dry matter per hectare per year.

In climates with less regular rainfall, (more brittle environments) like my freinds down south, then yes going from 1 cow per 8 hectares to 1 cow per 4 hectares may well be possible, Going from 700kgs to 1400 kgs dm/ha/yr and probably much better than that.

But Jaimie has to sell his product so.......

Our main benefit has come from cost savings and resiliance (and therefore peace of mind). Yes can run a few more cattle than before. But I can do that at 1/4 of the operational costs we had 5 years ago, and the standard deviation is much much smaller.

It cost me 1000€ to get through last years drought. Before it would of cost 10000€.


The weak link in the system today are the away fields. Which Jaimie (and others) dont talk about. Its not the states here, most people have more land away than at home. I have plenty of blocks of less than 2ha, and the logistics of moving animals can get a bit complicated, time consuming and expensive.

Yes we were just discussing that on the road the other day.

I brought up the issue of context with my offsider, how most people's context is limited to "if we want to make more money then we need more land"
and how if the context was a bit wider, options may include "well we could sell most of the farmland, buy a butcher's shop, and employ a butcher and slaughterman - we'd have more control over the operation, make way more money, and enjoy more flexibility"

Which is possibly the genesis of the Can't Do That Here, those types of options when proposed are outside the current context, so the proposals bounce off.
Smallholders talking about economies of scale without much of a clear pathway to getting there end up with more scale, without clear pathways for even the animals getting there.

Hence, why not put technosystems in and make the smallholding bigger? Even big ranches don't have 499 paddocks empty after this one has been dealt with. Why not use some sort of a grazing plan. Why not bring in some silage from off farm and save your own pasture from the mower. Why not hold back until the grass has grown up.

That's the trouble with regen ag vs context, newbies get so excited about "context" that they make it increasingly smaller, oh we can never use fert again. Oh we can't use the plough again.

But we must have more acres to run at 10% of what's possible for acres, more animals, and just give them away at the end of it. Like Santa.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Nice beasts

They are very naughty when they want to be. Let themselves out onto the road this afternoon about 30 minutes before I arrived. Blew a gate clean off its hinges, daresay one of the bulling heifers got thrown at it. But if that's really all there is to moan about, then I have it easy.

It's quite good as it's easy to spot any heifers who haven't cycled yet, they still have their faded winter coats on, while the ones who've been ridden are missing theirs.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

If everyone looked after their own interests first then the world would be a better place

Then you have to take full responsibility for your interests, even the parts you aren't responsible for.
We aren't encouraged to do so, because it gives us power (and reasons) to improve our lot.

It's much easier to pretend we have no say in any of it, that we have a fixed way of being and things will only improve when the world changes.

That's the context of impossible options I may have mentioned, where any and all possibilities don't fit the context. Only the impossible

 

[Gulli]

Then you have to take full responsibility for your interests, even the parts you aren't responsible for.
We aren't encouraged to do so, because it gives us power (and reasons) to improve our lot.

It's much easier to pretend we have no say in any of it, that we have a fixed way of being and things will only improve when the world changes.

That's the context of impossible options I may have mentioned, where any and all possibilities don't fit the context. Only the impossible

Things will only improve when someone else changes the world.

Take responsibility for your situation and change what you want to change.

I hate clichéd saying but being the change you want to see in the world is important I think

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Things will only improve when someone else changes the world.

Take responsibility for your situation and change what you want to change.

I hate clichéd saying but being the change you want to see in the world is important I think

We do have it in us! Just it's turned off until we're ready to turn it on.

If you bring up trust, leadership, integrity or responsibility then there's a widepsread belief nobody has enough of it, to make things work better.
That says a lot.