Teagasc has been hosting farmyard design events throughout the country over the past number of weeks, with events still to take place in Limerick, Kildare, Wicklow, Meath and Cork. Some of the key elements that the events are focusing on are:
Milking parlour, holding yard and drafting facilities.Cubicle shed design and slurry requirement.Calving sheds, focusing on space and labour efficiency.TAMS aid.One of the walks held in the west of Ireland was hosted by Richard, Avril and Glenn Patterson, who are milking roughly 130 cows, with numbers having been increased in recent years as is the case in many farms when a son/daughter comes home.
Significant developments have been ongoing in the yard since. In 2014, a second hand ten-unit parlour was installed, while an eight-bay cubicle shed was also constructed.
Cow flow of the yard is very good, with the milk lorry never crossing in the way of livestock or machinery, while the crossover between livestock and machinery is minimal and is primarily in the winter months when cattle are being fed.
An eight-bay cubicle shed was built in recent years to help accommodate increased cow numbers. Teagasc advisers Alan Bohan and Gavin Doherty hosted the event, and discussed what was good and bad about the layout of the shed.
A total of 108 cubicles are housed under the roof, in two head-to-head rows, with feeding on both sides. Bohan pointed out that this is a self-sufficient system in terms of the relationship between feed space and lying space, with 16 cubicles (four lines of four) while eight cows will be comfortable feeding either side.
Having feeding on two sides of the building, like the Patterson’s have, allows for expansion through lengthening the shed in the future.
One issue that was identified in the shed was that crossover points were only located at the end of each row, with no crossover point in the middle. Ideally, a crossover point should be located every four bays or so.
With there being no dead ends within the building, Glenn was happy that there was no bullying happening between younger and older cows.
This is also something that was highlighted by Doherty and Bohan, with bullying happening most commonly in sheds where feeding and lying space were in short supply.
Ideally, there should be 110% of the required lying and feeding space in a shed, as all will not be utilised efficiently. In the case of the Patterson’s shed, this would mean 99 cows as opposed to 108 being housed.
Space between the feed barrier and end of the cubicle is critical when planning out a shed.
With labour being scarce on farms, more and more farmers are using self-propelled Bobman machines to clean and lime cubicles.
This task is generally completed after cows have been fed/silage pushed up, so having 4.3m of spacing between the end of the cubicle and the feed barrier gives ample space for the cow to eat and the machine to pass behind her.
When constructing the cubicle shed, a single tank was installed. As a standalone tank, there is only sufficient capacity (at current regulations) for 60 cows, with the Pattersons generally moving slurry to other tanks in the yard from mid-December on.
The reason why a second tank wasn’t dug was simple; rock. Significant rock breaking had to be completed which came at a significant cost, totalling €16,000 at the time.
Afterwards, the Pattersons had to choose between moving the rock and crushing it for use somewhere else, or selling it to a quarry. With the cost of moving and hiring a crusher and no real use for the stone, the latter was chosen.
The herd has outgrown the current 10-unit parlour, but the levels of concrete will make it difficult to alter or extend this.
With this in mind, the Pattersons are obviously weighing up their options when it comes to creating additional storage.
Even with the cost of rock breaking, Bohan pointed out that unless you are dealing with significant volumes of slurry, then concrete tanks are still the best option financially and from a labour point of view, as pumping is not required.
A 14ft 6in slat overlayed on the tank is the best value for money, as the specifications beyond this size make the cost more prohibitive, he stated.
Soiled water storage and parlour
The issue of soiled water storage and the increased period of retention was one of the primary focuses of the day.
Increased storage of 30 days will prove challenging for many farmers, while limiting the volume of soiled water produced and preventing soiled water entering slurry tanks is also a priority.
The collecting yard on the Patterson farm is open, meaning that like many farms, rainfall enters the soiled water storage tank which is adjacent to the yard.
150m² of calve penning per 100 cows should be sufficient to accommodate all calves up to five weeks of age \ Donal O' Leary
Cows are dried off from mid-December, with facilities in place to divert the clean water from the yard when not in use to the field.
Both advisers on the day highlighted the need to separate soiled water and slurry storage, with any soiled water entering tanks thereafter being treated as slurry, with the extended retention period of 16-22 weeks as opposed to the four-week period.
The issue of feeding cattle in a collecting yard was also mentioned, with feeding barriers in collecting yards a red flag when it came to farm inspections from whatever authority was visiting.
As it stands, the collecting yard and milking parlour are perfectly situated in the centre of the farm, with easy access from both the main cubicle shed and the paddocks, while the dairy
that holds the bulk tank is situated
at the front of the yard, out of the
way of livestock and machinery,
leaving ease of access for milk collection.
The challenge that they now face
is that a larger parlour is needed, as the herd has outgrown the current one.
From the back to the front of the parlour, the floor is sloped upwards, and the levels do not allow and additional 10 units to be tacked on to the back.
Further thought is being put in to this, with a reluctance to move the parlour to a greenfield site due to it’s ideal positioning.
Calving and calf accommodation
A small lean-to structure acts as the calving area, with cows drafted post milking. While it is suitably located beside the parlour, cleaning and rebedding are labour intensive due to it’s low roof, so a dedicated calving shed is hopefully on the cards in the future.
As it stands, calves are fed in a range of six or so smaller sheds, which puts pressure on labour in a busy spring.
Like many farmers, the Pattersons are looking towards future proofing the farm by being able to hold nearly all calves on farm in the one shed with an automated feeding system, preventing disease pressure and reducing labour should there be a need to retain calves due to TB or a possible increased age of movement.
Farmers should aim to have 110% of required feeding and lying space to prevent bullying of younger or smaller cows.
McLaughlin highlighted that where TAMS aid is being sought for projects, forward planning is needed between waiting for planning permission and TAMS approval, as well as the reduced labour force in the building sector.
A target of 150m² of calf pen area per 100 cows would allow for calves to be retained up to five weeks of age, with a space allowance of 2-2.3m² per calf and an average calving pattern.
Some of the common mistakes that farmers make with calf accommodation is eave height being greater than 4m, with calves unable to generate enough body heat to shift a large volume of air above them, though caution is needed that sufficient room for machinery access is given.
Excessive ventilation was also a downfall in some calf houses, leading to draughts and cold calves. 0.08m² of inlet space per calf was listed as sufficient.
Cambering dry bedded areas of calf accommodation is also critical, according to Doherty, with a 1:20 slope required to drain off effluent. All too often, machinery sheds with flat floors were used for calf accommodation and were unsuitable for such.
‘’When designing a shed, don’t design it around machinery. Design it around calves and park machinery in it when not in use,’’ he stated.
TAMS, particularly the increased grant allowance for slurry storage, was also a focal point of the walk. Having sufficient storage on farm already was the key requirement that some farmers were falling down on when it came to applying.
Planning permission could be applied for and the actual build not completed for up to five years after permission was granted, with Doherty highlighting how from a financial point of view and the short window of weather to go digging a tank, farmers will often pour the tank one year, overlay with slats and complete the erection of the shed the following year.
James Keane, area manager for the Sligo/Leitrim/Donegal area with Teagasc, encouraged farmers in attendance to apply for TAMS aid while it remained. ‘’There is a grant there for almost everything you will need on a farm, from heat detection collars to machinery to solar fencers.
“Talk to your adviser, be they Teagasc or private, as if it is not covered under TAMS, it is likely covered under some other scheme.’’
Keane’s words will resonate more this week with a likely cut to Pillar II funding in CAP 2027, which could put any future TAMS, beyond TAMS III, in jeopardy.
Saying this, the current TAMS aid pot of money looks set to run out long before the five year scheme is completed, so even if farmers do submit an application now, ranking and selection could exclude the vast majority of them.
Teagasc has been hosting farmyard design events throughout the country over the past number of weeks, with events still to take place in Limerick, Kildare, Wicklow, Meath and Cork. Some of the key elements that the events are focusing on are:
Milking parlour, holding yard and drafting facilities.Cubicle shed design and slurry requirement.Calving sheds, focusing on space and labour efficiency.TAMS aid.One of the walks held in the west of Ireland was hosted by Richard, Avril and Glenn Patterson, who are milking roughly 130 cows, with numbers having been increased in recent years as is the case in many farms when a son/daughter comes home.
Significant developments have been ongoing in the yard since. In 2014, a second hand ten-unit parlour was installed, while an eight-bay cubicle shed was also constructed.
Cow flow of the yard is very good, with the milk lorry never crossing in the way of livestock or machinery, while the crossover between livestock and machinery is minimal and is primarily in the winter months when cattle are being fed.
An eight-bay cubicle shed was built in recent years to help accommodate increased cow numbers. Teagasc advisers Alan Bohan and Gavin Doherty hosted the event, and discussed what was good and bad about the layout of the shed.
A total of 108 cubicles are housed under the roof, in two head-to-head rows, with feeding on both sides. Bohan pointed out that this is a self-sufficient system in terms of the relationship between feed space and lying space, with 16 cubicles (four lines of four) while eight cows will be comfortable feeding either side.
Having feeding on two sides of the building, like the Patterson’s have, allows for expansion through lengthening the shed in the future.
One issue that was identified in the shed was that crossover points were only located at the end of each row, with no crossover point in the middle. Ideally, a crossover point should be located every four bays or so.
With there being no dead ends within the building, Glenn was happy that there was no bullying happening between younger and older cows.
This is also something that was highlighted by Doherty and Bohan, with bullying happening most commonly in sheds where feeding and lying space were in short supply.
Ideally, there should be 110% of the required lying and feeding space in a shed, as all will not be utilised efficiently. In the case of the Patterson’s shed, this would mean 99 cows as opposed to 108 being housed.
Space between the feed barrier and end of the cubicle is critical when planning out a shed.
With labour being scarce on farms, more and more farmers are using self-propelled Bobman machines to clean and lime cubicles.
This task is generally completed after cows have been fed/silage pushed up, so having 4.3m of spacing between the end of the cubicle and the feed barrier gives ample space for the cow to eat and the machine to pass behind her.
When constructing the cubicle shed, a single tank was installed. As a standalone tank, there is only sufficient capacity (at current regulations) for 60 cows, with the Pattersons generally moving slurry to other tanks in the yard from mid-December on.
The reason why a second tank wasn’t dug was simple; rock. Significant rock breaking had to be completed which came at a significant cost, totalling €16,000 at the time.
Afterwards, the Pattersons had to choose between moving the rock and crushing it for use somewhere else, or selling it to a quarry. With the cost of moving and hiring a crusher and no real use for the stone, the latter was chosen.
The herd has outgrown the current 10-unit parlour, but the levels of concrete will make it difficult to alter or extend this.
With this in mind, the Pattersons are obviously weighing up their options when it comes to creating additional storage.
Even with the cost of rock breaking, Bohan pointed out that unless you are dealing with significant volumes of slurry, then concrete tanks are still the best option financially and from a labour point of view, as pumping is not required.
A 14ft 6in slat overlayed on the tank is the best value for money, as the specifications beyond this size make the cost more prohibitive, he stated.
Soiled water storage and parlour
The issue of soiled water storage and the increased period of retention was one of the primary focuses of the day.
Increased storage of 30 days will prove challenging for many farmers, while limiting the volume of soiled water produced and preventing soiled water entering slurry tanks is also a priority.
The collecting yard on the Patterson farm is open, meaning that like many farms, rainfall enters the soiled water storage tank which is adjacent to the yard.
150m² of calve penning per 100 cows should be sufficient to accommodate all calves up to five weeks of age \ Donal O' Leary
Cows are dried off from mid-December, with facilities in place to divert the clean water from the yard when not in use to the field.
Both advisers on the day highlighted the need to separate soiled water and slurry storage, with any soiled water entering tanks thereafter being treated as slurry, with the extended retention period of 16-22 weeks as opposed to the four-week period.
The issue of feeding cattle in a collecting yard was also mentioned, with feeding barriers in collecting yards a red flag when it came to farm inspections from whatever authority was visiting.
As it stands, the collecting yard and milking parlour are perfectly situated in the centre of the farm, with easy access from both the main cubicle shed and the paddocks, while the dairy
that holds the bulk tank is situated
at the front of the yard, out of the
way of livestock and machinery,
leaving ease of access for milk collection.
The challenge that they now face
is that a larger parlour is needed, as the herd has outgrown the current one.
From the back to the front of the parlour, the floor is sloped upwards, and the levels do not allow and additional 10 units to be tacked on to the back.
Further thought is being put in to this, with a reluctance to move the parlour to a greenfield site due to it’s ideal positioning.
Calving and calf accommodation
A small lean-to structure acts as the calving area, with cows drafted post milking. While it is suitably located beside the parlour, cleaning and rebedding are labour intensive due to it’s low roof, so a dedicated calving shed is hopefully on the cards in the future.
As it stands, calves are fed in a range of six or so smaller sheds, which puts pressure on labour in a busy spring.
Like many farmers, the Pattersons are looking towards future proofing the farm by being able to hold nearly all calves on farm in the one shed with an automated feeding system, preventing disease pressure and reducing labour should there be a need to retain calves due to TB or a possible increased age of movement.
Farmers should aim to have 110% of required feeding and lying space to prevent bullying of younger or smaller cows.
McLaughlin highlighted that where TAMS aid is being sought for projects, forward planning is needed between waiting for planning permission and TAMS approval, as well as the reduced labour force in the building sector.
A target of 150m² of calf pen area per 100 cows would allow for calves to be retained up to five weeks of age, with a space allowance of 2-2.3m² per calf and an average calving pattern.
Some of the common mistakes that farmers make with calf accommodation is eave height being greater than 4m, with calves unable to generate enough body heat to shift a large volume of air above them, though caution is needed that sufficient room for machinery access is given.
Excessive ventilation was also a downfall in some calf houses, leading to draughts and cold calves. 0.08m² of inlet space per calf was listed as sufficient.
Cambering dry bedded areas of calf accommodation is also critical, according to Doherty, with a 1:20 slope required to drain off effluent. All too often, machinery sheds with flat floors were used for calf accommodation and were unsuitable for such.
‘’When designing a shed, don’t design it around machinery. Design it around calves and park machinery in it when not in use,’’ he stated.
TAMS, particularly the increased grant allowance for slurry storage, was also a focal point of the walk. Having sufficient storage on farm already was the key requirement that some farmers were falling down on when it came to applying.
Planning permission could be applied for and the actual build not completed for up to five years after permission was granted, with Doherty highlighting how from a financial point of view and the short window of weather to go digging a tank, farmers will often pour the tank one year, overlay with slats and complete the erection of the shed the following year.
James Keane, area manager for the Sligo/Leitrim/Donegal area with Teagasc, encouraged farmers in attendance to apply for TAMS aid while it remained. ‘’There is a grant there for almost everything you will need on a farm, from heat detection collars to machinery to solar fencers.
“Talk to your adviser, be they Teagasc or private, as if it is not covered under TAMS, it is likely covered under some other scheme.’’
Keane’s words will resonate more this week with a likely cut to Pillar II funding in CAP 2027, which could put any future TAMS, beyond TAMS III, in jeopardy.
Saying this, the current TAMS aid pot of money looks set to run out long before the five year scheme is completed, so even if farmers do submit an application now, ranking and selection could exclude the vast majority of them.
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: