The two farm walks held on Mike Dillane’s farm in Liscullane, Lixnaw, Co Kerry, last Thursday attracted approximately 1,000 farmers.

The land drainage project, previously featured in detail on these pages, was a big attraction, while farmers were impressed with the improvements made in increasing stocking rate and output on a heavy farm.

There is no doubt that Mike has made impressive improvements, as detailed in the farm walk preview two weeks ago. The three-year farm plan developed by Mike, his local adviser Oliver McGrath, programme adviser Alan Dillon and members of the management team is delivering.

However, an interesting question raised by Paul Crosson, Teagasc, is what direction Mike takes his farm from here? This is a question not only for Mike and the BETTER farm management team but one that every farmer should put to themselves.

According to Paul, carrying out a detailed review will help to ensure that the system fulfils its potential and can be brought to the next level.

It does not mean that changes will have to be made to the current farming system, but highlights areas where future improvements can be made. An evaluation of four possible options and their outcomes is discussed below by Paul.

Profit monitor data indicates that Mike’s farm returned a gross margin of ~€400/ha in 2013, with this expected to increase to ~€800/ha in 2014.

This increase in gross margin is largely driven by changes made on the farm since joining the BETTER farm beef programme, including a greater focus on grassland management and increasing output, the details of which are outlined in the BETTER farm booklet online (www.farmersjournal.ie).

In addition to addressing the various aspects of farm management that improve productivity, such as breeding performance, liveweight gain and animal health, a key area for attention is the production system operated on the farm.

Mike currently has an 88-cow herd which calves in late autumn. The highest-quality weanlings are sold live with the remainder taken through to beef – bulls at 16 months of age and heifers at 20 months of age.

A proportion of heifers are also retained within the herd as cow replacements to maintain a herd replacement rate of 16%.

Analysis was carried out to evaluate alternative options to further increase gross margin on the Dillane farm (Table 1). It was assumed in this analysis that the level of productivity for all options was the same as current levels of productivity on the farm; for example, forage produced on the farm was at current levels. It was also assumed that replacements continued to be retained from within the herd with a herd level 16% replacement rate.

Option one involved selling progeny as weanlings rather than the current system where only the best calves are sold as weanlings with the remainder retained through to beef.

The price received for weanlings was reduced by 20c/kg when compared with the current system, since the average weanling value will be less than the value of the highest-quality weanlings.

In this scenario, cow numbers were increased to 96, since the feed demand for progeny was lower (since there were no finishing cattle) and hence more feed was available for the suckler herd.

Despite the increase in cow numbers, gross margin was reduced by 26%. This can be explained by the lower margin for the calf to weanling system when compared with the calf to beef system on the Dillane farm.

In option two, it was assumed that progeny were taken through to finish on the farm with bulls sold at under 16 months of age and heifers sold at 20 months of age.

Cow numbers were reduced to 82 in this system because more of the feed produced on the farm is needed for the yearling cattle. Gross margin is 2% greater than the current system and almost 30% greater than the weanling option.

For options three and four, it was assumed that Mike moved his calving date to spring with a mean calving date of mid-February. The cost of carrying the suckler cow was substantially reduced in these systems at €597/cow, compared with €663/cow in the current autumn-calving system. This was a result of lower feed costs in the spring-calving system.

Although the autumn- calving system has advantages, such as capacity to use AI and availability of weanlings for sale early in the weanling sale season, these costs must be borne in mind. In particular, it must be considered whether the advantages are sufficient to offset the additional costs incurred.

Option three involved selling spring-born calves as weanlings at eight or nine months of age in October/November.

Cow numbers were increased to 102, but margin was reduced by 12% when compared with the current system.

Option four evaluated the impact of taking all progeny through to beef. This option returned the highest margin of all scenarios investigated, returning a 13% higher margin than the current system. Cow numbers were similar to the current system at 87 cows.

Paul Crosson – Teagasc

This analysis was carried out to provide Mike and his advisers with some indication of the relative impact of production system changes on his farm.

Critically, the core profit drivers remain the same in all cases – having a productive cow, maximising performance from grazed grass and operating towards a farm plan.

However, it was also clear that taking progeny through to a stage later than weanling was an effective strategy to dilute suckler cow costs over a greater quantity of beef output, to provide a greater proportion of the grass grown on the farm to growing animals and to increase farm margins.