End of Project ReportProspect 2000 Action-Research Dairy
Project82 % of farms with milk quota < 54,552 litres have bucket/pipeline
milking plants.
• There were a high percentage of milking machine faults on the farms
surveyed.
• Fragmented land portions are more likely to limit dairy expansion
than farm size.
• 60% of farms had beef buildings suitable for conversion to dairy
housing
• 88 % of farms had adequate cubicle spaces for present cow numbers
• The cost of purchasing milk quota was considered to be the biggest
factor restricting expansion.
• 67 % of farms with quota > 54,552 litres are joined REPS.
• 51 % of farms had dairies registered under dairy hygiene regulations.
• Milk bulk tank size would limit dairy expansion without investment
in larger static tanks.
• The number of cows to fill milk quota is better matched in the higher
quota category.
• The length of the working day was 12.7 hrs/day for an average herd
size of 23 cows.
• Estimated cost of extra facilities per farm to allow for scaling up in
milk production from 90,920-181,840 litres is £33,76

Gleeson, David E

T-Stór

AuthorsD.E. Gleeson, N.C.A., Dip. in Dairy Husb., M.Sc.Teagasc,  Moorepark  Production  Research Centre1Teagasc,19 Sandymount Avenue,Ballsbridge,Dublin 4.November,  2000AcknowledgementsThis study was undertaken as part of the Prospect 2000 Action-Research DairyProject in Co. Clare, and Teagasc acknowledge with gratitude the support of PatBogue, Researcher/Advisor, University College Dublin. The support of Dr. EddieO’Callaghan with technical drawings and farmyard layout is acknowledged.Project No. 4567Farm Facilities On Small -Medium Type Dairy Farms5462 FARM FACILITIES 4567  22/1/01  16:11  Page 121. SUMMARY 32. INTRODUCTION 43. MILKING FACILITIES 53.1  MILK  QUOTA 53.2 MILKING PARLOUR TYPE 53.3 MILK STORAGE FACILITIES 64. DAIRY HOUSING 74.1 DAIRY HOUSING TYPE AND SLURRY STORAGE 75. FARM  INFRASTRUCTURE 85.1 FARM  SIZE 85.2 FARM  DEVELOPMENT  PLANS 95.3 COST  OF  FARM FACILITY  DEVELOPMENT 105.4 FACTORS  RESTRICTING  DAIRY  HERD  EXPANSION 116. FARM LABOUR 126.1 SILAGE  FEEDING  AND  YARD  CLEANING 127. CONCLUSIONS 138. REFERENCES 149. PUBLICATIONS 14CONTENTS5462 FARM FACILITIES 4567  22/1/01  16:11  Page 231. SUMMARYThe summary of this paper is as follows :• 82 % of farms with milk quota < 54,552 litres have bucket/pipelinemilking plants.• There were a high percentage of milking machine faults on the farmssurveyed.• Fragmented land portions are more likely to limit dairy expansionthan farm size.• 60% of  farms had beef buildings suitable for conversion to dairyhousing• 88 % of farms had adequate cubicle spaces for present cow numbers• The cost of purchasing milk quota was considered to be the biggestfactor restricting expansion.• 67 % of farms with quota > 54,552 litres are joined REPS.• 51 % of farms had dairies registered under dairy hygiene regulations.• Milk bulk tank size would limit dairy expansion without investmentin larger static tanks.• The number of cows to fill milk quota is better matched in the higherquota category.• The length of the working day was 12.7 hrs/day for an average herdsize of 23 cows.• Estimated cost of extra facilities per farm to allow for scaling up inmilk production from 90,920-181,840 litres is £33,7605462 FARM FACILITIES 4567  22/1/01  16:11  Page 34With the expected reduction in milk price and the possible abolition ofmilk quota in the longer term, improved labour utilisation, low costmilking and increased milk output will be important factors forprofitability.  Return on facility investment, with improved farminglifestyles will influence the number of dairy farms, which will bemaintained.A study was conducted to investigate the factors affecting expansion indairy herd size and to establish the investment requirements to expandwinter housing and milking facilities. As part of the Co Clare Prospect2000 Action Research Dairy Project the milking and housing facilitieson 35 randomly selected small to medium type dairy farms werestudied. Seventy eight percent of Golden Vale suppliers in Co. Clareown milk quotas of less than 113,650 litres, and 37% have less than45,460 litres quota (Nov. ‘98). Three categories of milk quota holderswere visited between September and November 1998 on this study.Category 1 had milk quota of <54,552 litres. Category 2 had milkquota between 54,552-90,920 litres, and Category 3 had a milk quotabetween 90,920 and 159,110 litres. Facility investment required to allow producers to increase milkproduction from a scale of 90,920 litres to approximately 181,840 litres(44 cows per farm) was estimated for 5 randomly selected farms. Theresults presented indicate the current practices of dairy farmers,particularly in relation to milking and housing, attitudes to REPS, cownumbers and factors restricting dairy expansion.2. INTRODUCTION5462 FARM FACILITIES 4567  22/1/01  16:12  Page 45Table  1.   Farm milk quotaQuota Category 1 2 3Available quota  (litres) 46,396 87,029 130,934Production  (litres) 49,892 91,661 137,789Average cow No. 17 23 33Average milk yield (litres/cow) 2,887 3,987 4,175Farmers leasing quota (%) 27 25 33Farmers purchasing quota (%) 9 16 50The number of cows required to fill the farm milk quota is better matched in thelarger quota category.  Production levels are lowest with category 1 (2,887litres/cow).  A small percentage of farms in category 1 were purchasing (9%) orleasing (27%) milk quota, as compared to category 3 (50% purchased and 33%leased).  Poor management factors and retention of cows to provide calves for thebeef enterprises may explain the poor milk production levels and cow to milkquota ratio with category 1.3.2 Milking Parlour TypeThe type and quality of milking parlour used on farms is presented in Table 2.Eighty-two percent of farms in category 1 have Pipeline/bucket plants while 75%in category 3 have Herringbone parlours.  Increasing the number of milking unitsin the milking parlour  and the use of Herringbone /side by side type parlourswould reduce milking time and the requirement for labour. On many farms itwas not possible to increase the number of milking units due to the parlourlocation. There were a high percentage of milking machine faults on farms. Allmachines in category 1 had faults with the standard of installations improvingwith increasing herd size. The main machine faults were undersized pipes, smallclaws, light clusters and poor regulator types. Seventy three percent of producersin category 1 do not practise post milking teat dipping. Seventy five percent offarms feed meals in the milking parlour with only 10% having manual orautomatic feeders.3.1 Milk  QuotaTable 1 gives the available milk quota in 98/99 for each category ofproducer, the number of dairy cows, milk production (includes milk tocalves) and percentage of farmers who purchased or leased milk quota.3. MILKING FACILITIES5462 FARM FACILITIES 4567  22/1/01  16:12  Page 563.3 Milk Storage FacilitiesAll milk producers with milk quota less than 54,552 litres have totransport milk to a depot for collection. The average age of milk bulkstorage tanks inspected was ten years. Bulk tank size would limit dairyexpansion without an investment in larger static tanks.The Department of Agriculture and Food had registered fifty-onepercent of dairies visited, with category 1 having only 27% registered.Inadequate dairy waste disposal on 45% of these farms probablyexplains why some dairies are not yet registered. Table  2.  Milking parlour typeQuota CategoryProportion of farms (%) with : 1 2 3Herringbone milking parlour 18 67 75Abreast milking parlour - - 17Pipeline/Bucket plants 82 33 8No. of units/plant 3.5 4.6 5Machine Faults 100 92 58One-sided milking parlour5462 FARM FACILITIES 4567  22/1/01  16:12  Page 674.1 Dairy Housing Type and Slurry StorageThe housing type used on farms is presented in Table 4. Producers usecubicle housing with milk quota >54,552 litres, with a high percentagehaving adequate spaces for present cow numbers. Thirty-six percent ofproducers with a milk quota <54,552 litres use cow byres; these systemsare commonly used for milking and housing and are labour intensive.More out-wintering is practised where cubicles are not present with anincreased labour demand. Sixty percent of all farms have slatted orscraper systems installed in cubicle passages, with 80 % using easy/feedsilage feeding systems.  Sixty percent of all farms had beef buildingssuitable for conversion in the event of dairy herd expansion with areducion in beef numbers. Sixty eight percent of farms had adequateslurry/manure storage for a 20-week housing period.4. DAIRY HOUSINGTable  4. Type of dairy housingQuota Category 1 2 3Cow Byre % 36 8 -Cubicles % 55 92 100Adequate cubicles % 83 91 92Adequate slurry storage % 82 58 67Automatic scrapers/slats  % 45 66 66Easy feed system   % 64 83 92Out-wintering practised   % 73 20 33Beef housing conversion  % 45 67 67Table  3. Milk storage facilitiesQuota Category 1 2 3Milk Tank size (litres)  846 1,173 2,005Bulk Collection % - 50 83Mobile Milk Tanks % 100 50 17Dairy Register  % 27 83 41Dairy Waste Disposal Tank  % 55 67 835462 FARM FACILITIES 4567  22/1/01  16:12  Page 78Table  5.  Farm size, number of paddocks, and REPS participationQuota  Category 1 2 3Adjusted Hectares per Farm 44 40 47Farm roadways % 55 58 83Farm paddocks % 55 50 83Average No. of Paddocks per Farm 6 8 15REPS  participation  % 45 75 58Intention to join R.E.P.S.   % 55 18 25Meeting R.E.P.S requirements (all farms)  % 36 72 505. FARM  INFRASTRUCTURE5.1 Farm SizeTable 5 gives the number of hectares farmed by each category ofproducer, percentage of farms using farm roads/paddock systems andthe number of  farmers who participate in the Rural EnvironmentalProtection Scheme.Self-feeding silage5462 FARM FACILITIES 4567  22/1/01  16:12  Page 89Farm size is not a restriction to dairy cow expansion. Fragmented landportions is a problem in some cases. (Table 9).  The use of roadwaysand paddocks is more prevalent (83%) with category 3 producers as isthe number of paddocks.  Investment in infrastructure is essential onmost farms to aid grassland management and facilitate a reduction incosts of production. On over half of the farms gravel is available forlaying farm roadways.5.2 Farm  Development  PlansThe future farm development intentions of farmers are presented inTable 6. The percentage of farms that plan to increaseroadways/paddocks and dairy housing increased with quota category,while 46% of farms in category 1 intend to improve their milkingfacilities.Table  6. Farm development plans (main factors)Quota Category 1 2 3Milking Facilities      % 46 17 33Dairy Housing         % 27 33 42Roadways/paddocks   % 36 42 50Easy-feed beef unit5462 FARM FACILITIES 4567  22/1/01  16:12  Page 910bulk tank size and redesigning the milking parlour/number of units is acommon cost to all farms and was estimated at £15,930 per farm. Thecost of increased farm slurry storage to keep within the requirements ofREPS and re-designing of farm buildings was estimated at £14,830 perfarm. The average farm investment required was calculated at £33,760.The cost of purchasing milk quota and replacement stock is notincluded.Table  7. Estimated cost of dairy expansion (£)Milking Facilities Buildings Infrastructure TotalFarm 1 14,600 13,400 3,000 31,000Farm 2 8,400 10,550 3,000 21,950Farm 3 27,050 18,950 3,000 49,000Farm 4 19,600 7,100 3,000 29,700Farm 5 10,000 24,150 3,000 37,150Average costs 15,930 14,830 3,000 33,7605.3 Cost  of  Farm Facility  DevelopmentEstimated costs of investment required in milking facilities, pollutioncontrol and conversion of beef housing to allow for scaling up from90,920 to 181,840 litres are outlined in Table 7. Increasing the milkModern Dairy Unit5462 FARM FACILITIES 4567  22/1/01  16:12  Page 1011Twenty seven percent of farms in category 1 do not wish to milk morecows as compared to 8% in category 2 (Table 9).  This is partially dueto labour intensive milking facilities (bucket/pipelines) and also theimbalance of cow numbers to match present milk quota. A highpercentage of all farms would reduce beef animal numbers if the milkquota system were abolished. The drop in cattle prices probablyinfluenced this decision in ’98. The majority of farms in this study hadavailed of pollution control grants and built slatted housing for beefcattle. Reducing beef animal numbers allows an opportunity to convertsome beef housing to suitable dairy housing.Table  8. Factors restricting dairy herd expansionQuota Category 1 2 3 AverageMilk quota cost % 62 50 50 49Land structure % 23 33 8 22Cow housing % 15 17 8 14Repayments % - - 17 5Milk price % - - 17 5(Percentage of all factors)5.4 Factors  Restricting  Dairy  Herd  ExpansionFarmer views regarding the factors restricting dairy herd expansion and onincreasing cow numbers are given in Table 8 and 9. The cost ofpurchasing milk quota is perceived by forty nine percent of farmers to bethe single biggest restriction to dairy expansion.  Land availability close tomilking facilities is also a restricting factor in 22% of cases.Cow housingwas considered a restriction to expansion by only 8% of producers withQuota >90,920  litres. Repayments and milk price have a high priorityranking with producers >90,920 litres.  This would confirm that a level ofinvestment in housing has already taken place on these farms.5462 FARM FACILITIES 4567  22/1/01  16:12  Page 11126. FARM LABOUR6.1 Silage  Feeding  and  Yard  CleaningBaled silage was used on 80% of farms with 44% of farms having baledsilage as the only method of silage conservation. The popularity ofbaled silage is influenced by farmer participation in REPS, field size andthe wet season of ‘98. The time taken to milk cows, feed silage, scrapeyards and feed calves are given in Table 10. There was considerablerange in the time taken to carry-out farm tasks. Silage feeding rangedfrom 30-360 min./day, and calf-rearing ranged from 30-120 min./day.Farm labour inputs were high with each producer category visited, onaverage 12.7 man-hours/day for an average herd size of 23 cows with Table  9. Cow and beef numbersQuota Category 1 2 3Milk more cows % 73 92 83Reduce beef numbers % 91 75 58Good farm roadways5462 FARM FACILITIES 4567  22/1/01  16:13  Page 1213Table  10. Daily milking, feeding, and cleaning times (min.)Quota Category 1 2 3 AverageMilking time 121 128 174 141Range 60-180 60-200 120-240 150Feeding time 80 103 85 89Range 30-180 30-360 30-360Calf-feeding time 35 45 60 47Range 30-60 30-60 20-120Yard-cleaning time 29 66 43 47Range 10-120 10-240 10-135Labour (hours/day) 11.6 13 13.5 12.77. CONCLUSIONSIn order to increase farm milk output, to maintain income withexpected milk price reductions, a level of investment on facilities isrequired on many farms. Upgrading of milk bulk tanks to allow forincreased milk supply was the single common cost that would benecessary on all farms. Re-designing the milking parlour and increasingthe milking unit number is necessary on a high percentage of farms.Poor dairy waste disposal and out-wintering practises may explain whyonly 45% of farmers with milk quota less than 54,552 litres participatein REPS.  The length of the working day on the farms visited averaged12.7 hrs/day;, this is mainly due to the design and layout of farmyardsand the farm methods employed. As many farms had previouslyinvested in slatted beef housing there is an opportunity on 60% of thesefarms to convert for suitable dairy housing.additional beef enterprise.  Increased quota category size was associatedwith more easy feed systems in use and less time employed feeding andcleaning.5462 FARM FACILITIES 4567  22/1/01  16:13  Page 1314Gleeson, D and O Callaghan (1999).  Survey of Farm Facilities onsmall to medium type Dairy Farms. Proceedings of Moorepark open-day booklet. A New Agenda For Dairying. June 1999,44-48.Gleeson, DE (1999). Designing for expansion in the future. IrishFarmers Journal, 4th December-1999, 4-5. Gleeson, DE and O Callaghan (1999). Supplied drawings and adviceon shed conversion, farmyard layout and milking parlour designs tofarms on the survey. Sept1998 –March 1999.9. PUBLICATIONSGleeson, D, and O Callaghan (2000). Survey of Dairy Facilities onSmall to Medium type Farms, (Abstract). Irish Journal of Agriculturaland Food Research (in press).Gleeson, D (1999). Estimated costs of milking and housing facilities toallow farmers producing 20,000gallons to increase production to40,000 gallons. Personal communication to Jim Kinsella, Departmentof Agribusiness, Extension and Rural Development Faculty ofAgriculture, University College Dublin, 15th April-1999.Gleeson, D and O Callaghan (2000). Survey of Dairy Facilities onSmall to Medium type Farms. In: Agricultural Research Forum, UCD,14th-15th March-2000, 195-196.Kinsella, J. Mannion, J. Bogue, Slattery, P. (1999). Creating a NewFuture For Dairy Farm Households. The County Clare PartnershipDairy Action-Research Programme 1997-1999.8. REFERENCES5462 FARM FACILITIES 4567  22/1/01  16:13  Page 14155462 FARM FACILITIES 4567  22/1/01  16:13  Page 15

Farm Facilities On Small - Medium Type Dairy Farms.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

T-Stór