Clarkmore Farm Planning

[simme]

When it is only about risk and reward with your own money, people tend to be more cautious and conservative. When the wagon trains rolled to the west to settle the land, I suspect they were very conservative with every penny. When free money is given, I suspect that there is a tendency to overspend sometimes.

There are plenty of examples of free money given with poor results. Remember Solyndra solar panel deal 20 years ago. Hundreds of millions gone quickly. Here it is chicken litter stacking/composting sheds. Big sheds that cost tens of thousands. Many never see any litter - because they make excellent hay sheds and equipment sheds. Built to rigid specs to withstand high winds to minimize environmental issues of litter runoff in storms. Just about every chicken farmer here has multiple "litter" sheds - they will hold a lot of hay.

My hero's are those people in the wagon trains that risked it all to settle the west.

My little 15 acre pasture is split with one cross fence. A $100 plastic water tub with a $15 Little Giant float valve on each half fed by a $50 garden hose. A small corral with a 30 year old Foremost head catch. No squeeze. No sweep. That is all I need for what I have. Any more IMO is not economically practical. I don't see the need for any smaller lots.

 

[clarkmorefarm]

could try a "go fund me" keeps the gov. out of things

I'll pass on "go fund me" pages. I'm not asking individuals for money that they can't track or control.

I'm getting incentive payments for the programs. I have to spend all the money on the front end, they inspect it, approve the work, and pay a set rate after it is all completed.

There are grants for a lot of things, not just AG. I guess I should have just bought an electric car to get the incentive right? That really would have set y'all off lol

 

[Ebenezer]

I wish I had the documentation and the names of the involved politicians. The federal ag cost share programs started from an impure motive: rural reps and senators recognized that their districts and states were getting shorted on government funding because urban projects were pleasing the masses and getting most of the dollars. While thinking about ways to get equal money to rural districts, they reviewed the potential mechanisms within the government that could be used. The ag programs of SCS/NRCS and FSA were rural and so funds were set up to balance the distributions. There was not the hope of resource improvement as goal #1. It was sold as that to the public and the packages and reasons have changed over the decades as the programs got overtaken by environmentalists and woke leadership.
The tobacco buyout was different in each state. Places like KY made it hard for out of state folks to buy bulls because the KY bidders would have a refund or payment if they bought. Some states paid for improved handling facilities. Here in SC the ag community didn't see the benefits like that.
Redistribution? Yes. And if you want to protest, just stop driving on roads build from "federal dollars" and that goes for lakes to vacation at, water systems to drink from, parks... you name it, the redistribution is there in every part of life. Protest all of it and not just the tip of the iceberg. Like it? No. Efficient? No. Fair? No. It is what it is and the money buys votes.

 

[bird dog]

I remember from 60 years ago when we lived on a dairy my mom stating that it was difficult to stay up with all the government programs. They were paying us even back then not to grow something or another. The programs never seem to go away.

I bought a track of land about 12 years ago and the seller let me know there was a wheat program on some of it. It paid $1305 per year. I went buy the FSA office to register the land in my name and I asked about the program. They confirmed it was still in place but they had no records of when it started or why. Eight or so years later I got a call asking if I could come by FSA office.
When I went there they explained to me they were trying to upgrade their records and that the wheat program was going away. Bummer I thought but then he said they would replace it with a grass land reserve program and they payments would continue. The beat goes on.

 

[simme]

One issue is that "special interests" groups (and that eventually includes most everyone) want (even need and deserve) the money for their group, but generally most people think the government should not be handing out "their" money to all the other "special interest" groups. Most farmers would not be in favor of giving money to the left leaning groups or to many environmental groups or free cellphones or internet for the "poor and disadvantaged". I can't see the logic of lots for my group, but none for other groups.

I have no problem with the government providing roads and such. Those benefit almost everyone. But still can't understand why taxpayers need to pay for my tubs to water cows. Or pay someone to plant or not plant wheat, peanuts, cotton and such. Or pay to install drain tile in the 70's and now put you in jail for draining a field. I must be dumber than I thought.

 

[RDFF]

Look back and see how many times we advise new folks to have a way to confine there animals safely! What do we now believe is suitable? More power to the folks starting out and I hope they enjoy and they learn plenty along the way. I am glad they do not have to snub there stock to a tree for health care.

A decent headgate, placed in one corner of a "Bud Box", with a Medina Hinge setup will get you just about all the "safety" that you "need" for processing, at least if you're only handling a limited number of head. So that'd require a total of about 5 good gates, 7 if you want a 24' deep Bud Box (mine is 12'x24'... and I run about 400 head/year, with many of them having to be put through the handling system several times a year... we do embryos...). Sure, I've got a really great functional alley going off the Bud Box that I built (wonderful to have), and I've got a decent used Priefert squeeze chute that I put in front of that (also nice to have). But for a dozen or so head, I'd never consider anything close to that much overhead investment! And I BUILT that alley... for alot less than I could ever buy one from a manufacturer new for! (And you all likely know Gabe Brown in ND, or at least have heard of him I expect... He seriously challenged me to consider carefully whether I could honestly justify the overhead cost of what I've got!).

You don't need alot to be "safe", either for you or the animal. You just need a few minimal tools with a good design. Snubbing to a tree with a rope wouldn't qualify in my book. But a few good gates, properly mounted as described, can do the trick quite nicely, for a limited number of head.

And if constructed properly, even wooden gates can accomplish this. Over 50 years ago, I built a number of white oak gates that we hung in our barn at home, made out of 2' rough sawn lumber that we took from our woods and cut out on our own sawmill. They were HEAVY... so I made extra strong mounts for the hinges, with a cable running up to the upper corner of the wall that they were hung on to help support the weight. Running big Holstien cattle... 1800-2000# and more sometimes. They're still running Holstiens there (and I think they're bigger now than ever!). Those gates that I built are still in place, and have never been broken or needed to be repaired. They've been "challenged" though many, many times... but they've always held, including the homemade latches that I put on them. If I had installed Sioux gates instead, they ALL would have had to have been replaced many times over by now.

And best of all, no taxpayer money was harmed in the making of those cheap "wooden gates"! None was required. All it took was a teenager recognizing the need, with a plan to address it, economically. The hinges and wall mounts were made out of iron from the scrap pile and a welder. The lumber all came right out of our woods. I did buy alot of carriage bolts to bolt the 2x6's together really well, and that cable to hold up the excessive weight of the things. But that's about it. Cost out-of-pocket was FAR less than I ever could have bought any kind of "store-bought gate" for, and my labor.

THAT'S the kind of smart, economically wise decisions that we OUGHT to have to be making, instead of automatically running to FSA/SWCD and asking "How much EQUIP money are you willing to hand out to me", and then "maxing out the budget"!

 

[mwj]

Maybe we should tell you about the wasted money from using embryo transfer instead of a sale-barn bull.

 

[simme]

Maybe we should tell you about the wasted money from using embryo transfer instead of a sale-barn bull.

I think anyone should be able to waste money as long as it is their money. Buying that expensive starbucks coffee, boats, sports, flushing corrientee cows to highland bulls, whatever they want. Wasting the taxpayer's money is different - we should be good stewards of the tax money.

 

[RDFF]

Maybe we should tell you about the wasted money from using embryo transfer instead of a sale-barn bull.

The embryos are in my custom herd... not my call there, BUT... he IS doing it on his own dime! Again, no taxpayer dollars were harmed in his making that decision.

 

[Mark Reynolds]

Must have struck a nerve, sorry you're hating on the hobby crowd which is the majority of the producers in TN.

I get it, the world isn't fair, but I'm playing well within the rules. You really don't know anything about me or my background. The mansion you described is a 2000 square ft rancher built in 1967 with a carport .

I actually saved this place from being developed. Kept it in the greenbelt program in TN.

Would love to just farm full time. Not in the cards, I was sent to college and got a degree. Going into cattle wasn't in the cards for me. Grandad's farm in KY was sold and I didn't see a dime of it. Any farming I wanted to do I had to start from scratch. I don't know another person starting out without full time job to support it.

The TAEP funding is for 5 head minimum with a max of 29. Can only qualify for it for two years. It's designed to help with some of the cost burden of starting out.

The way I see it the US beef herd is shrinking, we need more producers no matter the size. If the funding is out there why wouldn't I take advantage of it?

If you don't have anything to contribute on farm planning, you don't have to respond.

So, back to my original thread intent, any tips or ideas?

@clarkmorefarm, its great to see that you already have a rotational grazing plan. Those plans are my bread and butter in terms of what I do. As this money you have been grated kinda seems as if it is for "bells and whistles" (from the point of view of many) my thought is this. You could further subdivide your pastures and make it an intensive rotation grazing system. By this I mean sub-divide each of your 5 paddocks into 6 paddocks within each of these 5 for a total of 30 paddocks (or only divide the smallest one into 4 sub-paddocks for a total of 28 sub-paddocks) and then put automatic timers on each of the gates to open a new pasture to your livestock every 24 hours. By doing this, you will raise your grazing efficency from about 70% (you currently have with the 5 paddocks) to a grazing efficiency of somewhere between 85-90%. Doing this (extreme level of grazing, but is neat to see) you should be able to increase the number of head you can effectively graze year round (I'm guessing you've been told 6-8 or have 6-8 head) to possibly 9-11 head. That is a substantial increase in the pounds of beef you can raise. It does hover drastically increase the inputs into the farm. The automated gates help with that though.

 

[RDFF]

Must have struck a nerve, sorry you're hating on the hobby crowd which is the majority of the producers in TN.

Yup... it's already happened to the majority of Tennessee apparently. It's too late to save "agriculture" there. Let's hope that we can still get ahead of it where it hasn't already been lost.

You think that we're somehow "saving agriculture" when all the farmers that intended to make a living by their farming are forced out because the product they produce is valued by society and priced below the cost of production, so that they end up splitting up their farms and selling it off as small "buildable parcel farmettes" to self-proclaimed "hobby farmers" who entirely expect to subsidize their farming operation with off-farm income and wealth, and taxpayer subsidies, and who don't even consider it to be reckless to spend taxpayer dollars on infrastructure that can't possibly be justified through the product that they're raising? That's not saving agriculture... that's buying into the socialist agenda.

That mentality IS the problem ... can't beat 'em... might as well join 'em. In government we trust, and in government we've all become dependent.

 

[Mark Reynolds]

isWhen it is only about risk and reward with your own money, people tend to be more cautious and conservative. When the wagon trains rolled to the west to settle the land, I suspect they were very conservative with every penny. When free money is given, I suspect that there is a tendency to overspend sometimes.

There are plenty of examples of free money given with poor results. Remember Solyndra solar panel deal 20 years ago. Hundreds of millions gone quickly. Here it is chicken litter stacking/composting sheds. Big sheds that cost tens of thousands. Many never see any litter - because they make excellent hay sheds and equipment sheds. Built to rigid specs to withstand high winds to minimize environmental issues of litter runoff in storms. Just about every chicken farmer here has multiple "litter" sheds - they will hold a lot of hay.

My hero's are those people in the wagon trains that risked it all to settle the west.

My little 15 acre pasture is split with one cross fence. A $100 plastic water tub with a $15 Little Giant float valve on each half fed by a $50 garden hose. A small corral with a 30 year old Foremost head catch. No squeeze. No sweep. That is all I need for what I have. Any more IMO is not economically practical. I don't see the need for any smaller lots.

@simme, you talk about risk and reward. I'd never be able to actually be a cattle producer myself because of the risk. My favorite painting that I have ever seen (was originally done as a sketch) is "The Last of 5,000", by Charles Russell. To understand this painting/sketch is to understand the risk cattle producers endure. A great many people see the picture and ask/criticize why the rancher is subjecting his cows to this "torture" (starvation, predation, freezing). Very few understand that these are 'risks' the farmer/rancher has to contend with and wants to avoid them at all costs, although eventually practically all farmers have to contend with one or more of these risks (or other risk) as they are virtually unavoidable no matter what the farmer does.

 

[RDFF]

@clarkmorefarm, its great to see that you already have a rotational grazing plan. Those plans are my bread and butter in terms of what I do. As this money you have been grated kinda seems as if it is for "bells and whistles" (from the point of view of many) my thought is this. You could further subdivide your pastures and make it an intensive rotation grazing system. By this I mean sub-divide each of your 5 paddocks into 6 paddocks within each of these 5 for a total of 30 paddocks (or only divide the smallest one into 4 sub-paddocks for a total of 28 sub-paddocks) and then put automatic timers on each of the gates to open a new pasture to your livestock every 24 hours. By doing this, you will raise your grazing efficency from about 70% (you currently have with the 5 paddocks) to a grazing efficiency of somewhere between 85-90%. Doing this (extreme level of grazing, but is neat to see) you should be able to increase the number of head you can effectively graze year round (I'm guessing you've been told 6-8 or have 6-8 head) to possibly 9-11 head. That is a substantial increase in the pounds of beef you can raise. It does hover drastically increase the inputs into the farm. The automated gates help with that though.

OR... just put in a perimeter fence, and then subdivide as much as you want, anytime you want, and anywhere you want, with polywire. A couple of reels would do it, and you keep ALL the flexibility of not having anything installed permanently across his "12 acres grazable area"!!! I'd recommend the top-of-the-line Gallagher reels, pre-loaded with their Turbo-polywire... about $200 each, brand new. Pretty black/white/orange reels. NOW, you can have as many "paddocks" as you want..., or need!

My "fields" are 12-13 acres in size, and I can be grazing as few as say 5 head, or as many as 300, and still give them just what they need each day. WHY anybody would choose to spend thousands of dollars installing permanent or even semi-permanent subdivision fencing on a 12 acre parcel is beyond me... and worse, why ANY NRCS/SWCD would advise, design, encourage and then spend taxpayer dollars for anybody to do that is just crazy.

 

[clarkmorefarm]

@clarkmorefarm, its great to see that you already have a rotational grazing plan. Those plans are my bread and butter in terms of what I do. As this money you have been grated kinda seems as if it is for "bells and whistles" (from the point of view of many) my thought is this. You could further subdivide your pastures and make it an intensive rotation grazing system. By this I mean sub-divide each of your 5 paddocks into 6 paddocks within each of these 5 for a total of 30 paddocks (or only divide the smallest one into 4 sub-paddocks for a total of 28 sub-paddocks) and then put automatic timers on each of the gates to open a new pasture to your livestock every 24 hours. By doing this, you will raise your grazing efficency from about 70% (you currently have with the 5 paddocks) to a grazing efficiency of somewhere between 85-90%. Doing this (extreme level of grazing, but is neat to see) you should be able to increase the number of head you can effectively graze year round (I'm guessing you've been told 6-8 or have 6-8 head) to possibly 9-11 head. That is a substantial increase in the pounds of beef you can raise. It does hover drastically increase the inputs into the farm. The automated gates help with that though.

Hi Mark, yes I know.

If you look at the map it shows further subdividing paddocks with a hot wire. That is the plan when I get everything done.

We had such a dry summer I didn't have much stock pile of grass.

 

[Mark Reynolds]

@RDFF, I get the idea of creating sub divisions that small that are permanent. I will say that the permanent fences for those sizes of areas are GREAT but yea, the expense does not justify the end result and I would never design such a plan and then seek funding for it with the extravagant amounts. The thing that is different her though is that there is now apparently an extravagant amount of money that needs spent. I'll gather that if the money isn't spent then it is lost. My thought is that it is there now, so you might as well go with it. Could actually be fun, but never economical in a commercial operation.

 

[Mark Reynolds]

Hi Mark, yes I know.

If you look at the map it shows further subdividing paddocks with a hot wire. That is the plan when I get everything done.

We had such a dry summer I didn't have much stock pile of grass.

Yep. I was thinking just that. The "hand grenade" that can be thrown into the idea I just gave is exactly that, drought resulting in no forage production.

I looked at the map. I guess I missed the hot wire sub-divisions. There is the option of splitting each paddock in half with permanent and then using hot wire to create additional sub divisions. The automatic, timmed gates would be neat.

 

[clarkmorefarm]

Yep. I was thinking just that. The "hand grenade" that can be thrown into the idea I just gave is exactly that, drought resulting in no forage production.

I looked at the map. I guess I missed the hot wire sub-divisions. There is the option of splitting each paddock in half with permanent and then using hot wire to create additional sub divisions. The automatic, timmed gates would be neat.

The paddocks can be split in half easily with the hot wire and I'll have access to water with the waterers or even the hydrants that were out in as well.

As for the fences, a lot cross fences were actually pre-existing but in terrible shape. I tore them all out and built new. I'm also fencing out the pond to restrict access.

The best practices aren't always the cheapest or least inputs. I have a feeling that's why incentive payments come in.

 

[Travlr]

I think anyone should be able to waste money as long as it is their money. Buying that expensive starbucks coffee, boats, sports, flushing corrientee cows to highland bulls, whatever they want. Wasting the taxpayer's money is different - we should be good stewards of the tax money.

A-f***'in-men!

 

[RDFF]

@RDFF, I get the idea of creating sub divisions that small that are permanent. I will say that the permanent fences for those sizes of areas are GREAT but yea, the expense does not justify the end result and I would never design such a plan and then seek funding for it with the extravagant amounts. The thing that is different her though is that there is now apparently an extravagant amount of money that needs spent. I'll gather that if the money isn't spent then it is lost. My thought is that it is there now, so you might as well go with it. Could actually be fun, but never economical in a commercial operation.

Not so... the particular producer for whom the $$$ have been approved may not have access to it, for this particular project, if he doesn't spend the full amount, BUT, if he uses less than his full grant amount, the remaining balance would remain in the funding pool to help fund other projects where the benefits actually CAN justify it. These grants require someone at NRCS/SWCD to design the project, and to APPROVE the project. If there's no way to see that "the inputs" of the project can even come close to be being "justified" with outcomes, why the heck are they getting approved?

The real premise would be, "If the money IS spent" on the approved projects, THEN it's lost to ever being able to be used on other projects where it could perhaps have been justified. I used to be in sales, and sold product to municipalities, counties and state entities. When it comes to the end of the fiscal year, they're always looking for ways to "cap out" their budget... buying stuff that they otherwise wouldn't have to buy... or wouldn't have to buy yet... so that they use up their entire allotted budget. That way, they ensure that they'll get at least as much, if not more, next year, rather than potentially incurring a cut in their allotted budget because they didn't spend it all. Same thing applies to these grant programs. The idea is "use it all", so it looks like the "need" is greater, so you'll get more funding to play with next year.

And we wonder why we've got an out of control national debt...

 

[mwj]

These good cattle prices are fueled by that cheap subsidized corn. Since it is not direct in our pocket, is it a subsidy to cattle producers?