Farm Facilities On Small - Medium Type Dairy Farms

Milk Quota

Table 1 gives the available milk quota in 98/99 for each category of producer, the number of dairy cows, milk production (includes milk to calves) and percentage of farmers who purchased or leased milk quota.

Table 1. Farm milk quota

The number of cows required to fill the farm milk quota is better matched in the larger quota category. Production levels are lowest with category 1 (2,887 litres/cow). A small percentage of farms in category 1 were purchasing (9%) or leasing (27%) milk quota, as compared to category 3 (50% purchased and 33% leased). Poor management factors and retention of cows to provide calves for the beef enterprises may explain the poor milk production levels and cow to milk quota ratio with category 1.

Milking Parlour Type

The 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 units in the milking parlour and the use of Herringbone /side by side type parlours would reduce milking time and the requirement for labour. On many farms it was not possible to increase the number of milking units due to the parlour location. There were a high percentage of milking machine faults on farms. All machines in category 1 had faults with the standard of installations improving with increasing herd size. The main machine faults were undersized pipes, small claws, light clusters and poor regulator types. Seventy three percent of producers in category 1 do not practise post milking teat dipping. Seventy five percent of farms feed meals in the milking parlour with only 10% having manual or automatic feeders.

Table 2. Milking parlour type

One-sided milking parlour

Milk Storage Facilities

All milk producers with milk quota less than 54,552 litres have to transport milk to a depot for collection. The average age of milk bulk storage tanks inspected was ten years. Bulk tank size would limit dairy expansion without an investment in larger static tanks.

The Department of Agriculture and Food had registered fifty-one percent of dairies visited, with category 1 having only 27% registered. Inadequate dairy waste disposal on 45% of these farms probably explains why some dairies are not yet registered.

Table 3. Milk storage facilities

Dairy Housing Type and Slurry Storage

The housing type used on farms is presented in Table 4. Producers use cubicle housing with milk quota >54,552 litres, with a high percentage having adequate spaces for present cow numbers. Thirty-six percent of producers with a milk quota <54,552 litres use cow byres; these systems are commonly used for milking and housing and are labour intensive. More out-wintering is practised where cubicles are not present with an increased labour demand. Sixty percent of all farms have slatted or scraper systems installed in cubicle passages, with 80 % using easy/feed silage feeding systems. Sixty percent of all farms had beef buildings suitable for conversion in the event of dairy herd expansion with a reducion in beef numbers. Sixty eight percent of farms had adequate slurry/manure storage for a 20-week housing period.

Table 4. Type of dairy housing

Self-feeding silage

Farm Size

Table 5 gives the number of hectares farmed by each category of producer, percentage of farms using farm roads/paddock systems and the number of farmers who participate in the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme.

Table 5. Farm size, number of paddocks, and REPS participation

Farm size is not a restriction to dairy cow expansion. Fragmented land portions is a problem in some cases. (Table 9). The use of roadways and paddocks is more prevalent (83%) with category 3 producers as is the number of paddocks. Investment in infrastructure is essential on most farms to aid grassland management and facilitate a reduction in costs of production. On over half of the farms gravel is available for laying farm roadways.

Easy-feed beef unit

Farm Development Plans

The future farm development intentions of farmers are presented in Table 6. The percentage of farms that plan to increase roadways/paddocks and dairy housing increased with quota category, while 46% of farms in category 1 intend to improve their milking facilities.

Table 6. Farm development plans (main factors)

Cost of Farm Facility Development

Estimated costs of investment required in milking facilities, pollution control and conversion of beef housing to allow for scaling up from 90,920 to 181,840 litres are outlined in Table 7. Increasing the milk bulk tank size and redesigning the milking parlour/number of units is a common cost to all farms and was estimated at £15,930 per farm. The cost of increased farm slurry storage to keep within the requirements of REPS and re-designing of farm buildings was estimated at £14,830 per farm. The average farm investment required was calculated at £33,760. The cost of purchasing milk quota and replacement stock is not included.

Table 7. Estimated cost of dairy expansion (£)

Modern Dairy Unit

Factors Restricting Dairy Herd Expansion

Farmer views regarding the factors restricting dairy herd expansion and on increasing cow numbers are given in Table 8 and 9. The cost of purchasing milk quota is perceived by forty nine percent of farmers to be the single biggest restriction to dairy expansion. Land availability close to milking facilities is also a restricting factor in 22% of cases.Cow housing was considered a restriction to expansion by only 8% of producers with Quota >90,920 litres. Repayments and milk price have a high priority ranking with producers >90,920 litres. This would confirm that a level of investment in housing has already taken place on these farms.

Table 8. Factors restricting dairy herd expansion

Twenty seven percent of farms in category 1 do not wish to milk more cows as compared to 8% in category 2 (Table 9). This is partially due to labour intensive milking facilities (bucket/pipelines) and also the imbalance of cow numbers to match present milk quota. A high percentage of all farms would reduce beef animal numbers if the milk quota system were abolished. The drop in cattle prices probably influenced this decision in '98. The majority of farms in this study had availed of pollution control grants and built slatted housing for beef cattle. Reducing beef animal numbers allows an opportunity to convert some beef housing to suitable dairy housing.

Good farm roadways

Table 9. Cow and beef numbers

Silage Feeding and Yard Cleaning

Baled silage was used on 80% of farms with 44% of farms having baled silage as the only method of silage conservation. The popularity of baled silage is influenced by farmer participation in REPS, field size and the wet season of '98. The time taken to milk cows, feed silage, scrape yards and feed calves are given in Table 10. There was considerable range in the time taken to carry-out farm tasks. Silage feeding ranged from 30-360 min./day, and calf-rearing ranged from 30-120 min./day. Farm labour inputs were high with each producer category visited, on average 12.7 man-hours/day for an average herd size of 23 cows with additional beef enterprise. Increased quota category size was associated with more easy feed systems in use and less time employed feeding and cleaning.

Table 10. Daily milking, feeding, and cleaning times (min.)