Evolution Farming

[In the pit]

I know the buck stops with the owners, but are the owners living on site? Or a manager there overseeing things? Is the issue with the manager?

Obviously stock welfare comes first, and you need good stock if you want good production. We can all get a disease or problem from time to time, so difficult to judge based on a single snapshot,.but if there is an issue and things aren't quite as good as they should be, then Evolution might get a wake up call. If improvements are needed then I hope they're implemented. Maybe they've spread themselves a bit too thin, or need to be making sure the unit managers and staff are doing the job right.

Sounds like Charlie took charge and said don't feed those bad silage bales, so he knew what to do and what was an appropriate management decision?

He said don’t feed the bad bales ,but surely he should have got his arse in gear and got some proper bales to feed them ,oh sorry they couldn’t afford to pay for them ,so animals starve
As for managers most of them are kids fresh out of college without much of a clue

 

[Enry]

I know the buck stops with the owners, but are the owners living on site? Or a manager there overseeing things? Is the issue with the manager?

Obviously stock welfare comes first, and you need good stock if you want good production. We can all get a disease or problem from time to time, so difficult to judge based on a single snapshot,.but if there is an issue and things aren't quite as good as they should be, then Evolution might get a wake up call. If improvements are needed then I hope they're implemented. Maybe they've spread themselves a bit too thin, or need to be making sure the unit managers and staff are doing the job right.

Sounds like Charlie took charge and said don't feed those bad silage bales, so he knew what to do and what was an appropriate management decision?

very difficult position for an onsite manager if there is no suitable feed, suppliers not willing to supply etc? The person on the ground can only do what they can do - if they did not feed through being lazy or incompetent, then book at them, but if there was no feed on site (person videoing said they had used their own feed - if there was feed on the farm, they'd have used that surely?) There is clearly more to this than meets the eye and it must be embarrassing for Arla and Nuffield Farming

 

[sidjon]

I know the buck stops with the owners, but are the owners living on site? Or a manager there overseeing things? Is the issue with the manager?

Obviously stock welfare comes first, and you need good stock if you want good production. We can all get a disease or problem from time to time, so difficult to judge based on a single snapshot,.but if there is an issue and things aren't quite as good as they should be, then Evolution might get a wake up call. If improvements are needed then I hope they're implemented. Maybe they've spread themselves a bit too thin, or need to be making sure the unit managers and staff are doing the job right.

Sounds like Charlie took charge and said don't feed those bad silage bales, so he knew what to do and what was an appropriate management decision?

Family member has 1200 cows over 3 sites, cctv is used on all site because of milk contract, living not on site is not a excuse for not know what's going on.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Family member has 1200 cows over 3 sites, cctv is used on all site because of milk contract, living not on site is not a excuse for not know what's going on.

CCTV would make sure the managers and staff were doing their jobs properly. Presuming they've got the feed, straw and medicine stocks to do their job.

Disclaimer. I know Charlie Crotty. Really nice bloke and family. Never been to one of their farms, so no knowledge to make informed comment. Just hope, if there are any issues, that they can get it sorted out.

CCTV sounds a good suggestion for any herd where owners are off site. Would keep everyone on there toes, including the owners. You've to make sure you don't stretch yourselves too far, but tricky if you've suddenly got a few staff off ill. Stock jobs can't wait, and I've heard Charlie say he's suddenly had to scoot off at ungodly hour to such and such a farm to cover a staff shortage, then something else went wrong at another site so back in the truck and across the country to sort that out, etc. I don't know the other partner, but get impression Charlie works hard and commited.

Need to be 100% on it with welfare though. I'm not suggesting you don't. Need to have appropriate facilities, feed, staff, etc.

 

[sidjon]

CCTV would make sure the managers and staff were doing their jobs properly. Presuming they've got the feed, straw and medicine stocks to do their job.

Disclaimer. I know Charlie Crotty. Really nice bloke and family. Never been to one of their farms, so no knowledge to make informed comment. Just hope, if there are any issues, that they can get it sorted out.

CCTV sounds a good suggestion for any herd where owners are off site. Would keep everyone on there toes, including the owners. You've to make sure you don't stretch yourselves too far, but tricky if you've suddenly got a few staff off ill. Stock jobs can't wait, and I've heard Charlie say he's suddenly had to scoot off at ungodly hour to such and such a farm to cover a staff shortage, then something else went wrong at another site so back in the truck and across the country to sort that out, etc. I don't know the other partner, but get impression Charlie works hard and commited.

Need to be 100% on it with welfare though. I'm not suggesting you don't. Need to have appropriate facilities, feed, staff, etc.

All staff know it there and all seem to be happy, and farms around him have been hit with vegans planting cameras for propaganda, so hopefully he can stop it happening to him too.

 

[AE01]

Disclaimer. I know Charlie Crotty. Really nice bloke and family.

Yes, could never understand him getting involved with Tom Rawson

 

[AE01]

I saw a while back they were selling the silaging machinery off (that they had been moving between farms) after a Quick Look at companies house records, it makes more sense.

Guessing it must be them that were recently on Russells FB page with two wagon load of Fendt and JD tractors departing?

 

[nonemouse]

Guessing it must be them that were recently on Russells FB page with two wagon load of Fendt and JD tractors departing?

Just looked at that post, going on the comments underneath it could fit. I know they did say they were stopping doing their own silaging when the grass kit was sold off. Think if was going silaging for them with their track record I’d want cash up front.

 

[Grass And Grain]

No one has mentioned milk price.

Animal welfare comes first. That's non-negotiable, but....

If milk has been 40p to produce, then 30p causes a problem, and it's a big problem if you can't afford the staff, feed, staff cover etc to look after the animals correctly.

The farmer has to take some responsibility. They haven't to expand too quickly or stretch themselves too far, they need reserves to see them through bad price times.

But should there be bad price times?

We're not talking about a robot in a factory making plastic widgets, and supermarket reduces price offer for those widgets, so factory closes. We're talking about cows.

Milk prices need to cover land costs, cows, feed, buildings,liking parlour, finance, staff, and leave a profit.

So there's some responsibility on Arla, all milk processors, retailers and government to make sure price doesn't affect animal welfare. Leaving it to the market doesn't seem to work.

Not making excuses, just pointing out it's very expensive to cover the finance required to milk cows, and it's not very responsible of the dairy industry if they offer prices below cost of production. Not easy, because if prices are too high then there's a glut of milk. Maybe the MMB shouldn't have been disbanded, it made sure there was sufficient money in the milk price so farmers didn't have any excuse for poor welfare.

 

[Princess Pooper]

No one has mentioned milk price.

Animal welfare comes first. That's non-negotiable, but....

If milk has been 40p to produce, then 30p causes a problem, and it's a big problem if you can't afford the staff, feed, staff cover etc to look after the animals correctly.

The farmer has to take some responsibility. They haven't to expand too quickly or stretch themselves too far, they need reserves to see them through bad price times.

But should there be bad price times?

We're not talking about a robot in a factory making plastic widgets, and supermarket reduces price offer for those widgets, so factory closes. We're talking about cows.

Milk prices need to cover land costs, cows, feed, buildings,liking parlour, finance, staff, and leave a profit.

So there's some responsibility on Arla, all milk processors, retailers and government to make sure price doesn't affect animal welfare. Leaving it to the market doesn't seem to work.

Not making excuses, just pointing out it's very expensive to cover the finance required to milk cows, and it's not very responsible of the dairy industry if they offer prices below cost of production. Not easy, because if prices are too high then there's a glut of milk. Maybe the MMB shouldn't have been disbanded, it made sure there was sufficient money in the milk price so farmers didn't have any excuse for poor welfare.

I agree milk prices need to be sustainable, but businesses need to build some resilience in if possible. Why keep expanding if already struggling to make a profit, given that one would have thought that even with the size of the individual herds they are probably at the top of the 'economies of scale' tree.

You need to consolidate before expanding further but they just seem to want to keep expanding.

They didn't make a profit - admittedly on tax accounts where they blame a change in valuation method - in calendar year 2022 when despite the drought, most dairy farmers seemed to do quite well so yes, I agree I think that they would really have struggled in 2023 with lower milk prices, but it is still not an excuse for poor welfare.

 

[Dougalhtid]

I agree milk prices need to be sustainable, but businesses need to build some resilience in if possible. Why keep expanding if already struggling to make a profit, given that one would have thought that even with the size of the individual herds they are probably at the top of the 'economies of scale' tree.

You need to consolidate before expanding further but they just seem to want to keep expanding.

They didn't make a profit - admittedly on tax accounts where they blame a change in valuation method - in calendar year 2022 when despite the drought, most dairy farmers seemed to do quite well so yes, I agree I think that they would really have struggled in 2023 with lower milk prices, but it is still not an excuse for poor welfare.

Is their any economy of scale going multi sited on scale? The silaging would have been a headache, never in right place.

 

[AE01]

No one has mentioned milk price.

Animal welfare comes first. That's non-negotiable, but....

If milk has been 40p to produce, then 30p causes a problem, and it's a big problem if you can't afford the staff, feed, staff cover etc to look after the animals correctly.

The farmer has to take some responsibility. They haven't to expand too quickly or stretch themselves too far, they need reserves to see them through bad price times.

But should there be bad price times?

We're not talking about a robot in a factory making plastic widgets, and supermarket reduces price offer for those widgets, so factory closes. We're talking about cows.

Milk prices need to cover land costs, cows, feed, buildings,liking parlour, finance, staff, and leave a profit.

So there's some responsibility on Arla, all milk processors, retailers and government to make sure price doesn't affect animal welfare. Leaving it to the market doesn't seem to work.

Not making excuses, just pointing out it's very expensive to cover the finance required to milk cows, and it's not very responsible of the dairy industry if they offer prices below cost of production. Not easy, because if prices are too high then there's a glut of milk. Maybe the MMB shouldn't have been disbanded, it made sure there was sufficient money in the milk price so farmers didn't have any excuse for poor welfare.

A quick look at the machinery they have for sale would suggest where they have been spending their money

 

[Nearly]

'equity involvement'
Not much of a carrot.

 

[bar718]

No one has mentioned milk price.

Animal welfare comes first. That's non-negotiable, but....

If milk has been 40p to produce, then 30p causes a problem, and it's a big problem if you can't afford the staff, feed, staff cover etc to look after the animals correctly.

The farmer has to take some responsibility. They haven't to expand too quickly or stretch themselves too far, they need reserves to see them through bad price times.

But should there be bad price times?

We're not talking about a robot in a factory making plastic widgets, and supermarket reduces price offer for those widgets, so factory closes. We're talking about cows.

Milk prices need to cover land costs, cows, feed, buildings,liking parlour, finance, staff, and leave a profit.

So there's some responsibility on Arla, all milk processors, retailers and government to make sure price doesn't affect animal welfare. Leaving it to the market doesn't seem to work.

Not making excuses, just pointing out it's very expensive to cover the finance required to milk cows, and it's not very responsible of the dairy industry if they offer prices below cost of production. Not easy, because if prices are too high then there's a glut of milk. Maybe the MMB shouldn't have been disbanded, it made sure there was sufficient money in the milk price so farmers didn't have any excuse for poor welfare.

You do realise how markets work and once you process milk into any product with a longer shelf life than fresh milk you are exposed to the world market so to blame the processors or Arla is just pure wrong on your part and to take your point further then in the way you say it we could all have pens of stock like this due to milk price. I don’t think so some how.

 

[frederick]

No one has mentioned milk price.

Animal welfare comes first. That's non-negotiable, but....

If milk has been 40p to produce, then 30p causes a problem, and it's a big problem if you can't afford the staff, feed, staff cover etc to look after the animals correctly.

The farmer has to take some responsibility. They haven't to expand too quickly or stretch themselves too far, they need reserves to see them through bad price times.

But should there be bad price times?

We're not talking about a robot in a factory making plastic widgets, and supermarket reduces price offer for those widgets, so factory closes. We're talking about cows.

Milk prices need to cover land costs, cows, feed, buildings,liking parlour, finance, staff, and leave a profit.

So there's some responsibility on Arla, all milk processors, retailers and government to make sure price doesn't affect animal welfare. Leaving it to the market doesn't seem to work.

Not making excuses, just pointing out it's very expensive to cover the finance required to milk cows, and it's not very responsible of the dairy industry if they offer prices below cost of production. Not easy, because if prices are too high then there's a glut of milk. Maybe the MMB shouldn't have been disbanded, it made sure there was sufficient money in the milk price so farmers didn't have any excuse for poor welfare.

Think there have been very few posts I have disagreed with more.

This is one of farmings problems. If the milk price isn't great enough to look after your animals properly you should exit before it becomes a problem.

The resteraunt business is pretty cut throat but if your not making enough money to feed your customers safe food you shouldn't be opening the resteraunt in the first place.

Talk about sustainable milk prices by all means but at no point whatsoever should a business get itself in such a position that it's not looking after it's cattle properly and then think that pointing a finger at milk price is acceptable.

We have to bear in mind these are arla farms. They will have received a much greater price than a lot of other buyers such as meadow or yew tree for the last 18 months. I don't hear of tales of these businesses not feeding cattle properly or not being able to purchase products without cash up front.

 

[In the pit]

I think they just like spending ,from what I’ve been told ,there was a contracting gang with all new machinery to go with it ,disbanded now .there was a building/fix it team all with new farm bought pickups and gear neede for jobs .calf rearers on each farmer just rearing calves and then milkers just doing the milking
For the number of cows there milking there is a huge number of staff running round and most of them straight out the classroom

 

[Grassman247]

No one has mentioned milk price.

Animal welfare comes first. That's non-negotiable, but....

If milk has been 40p to produce, then 30p causes a problem, and it's a big problem if you can't afford the staff, feed, staff cover etc to look after the animals correctly.

The farmer has to take some responsibility. They haven't to expand too quickly or stretch themselves too far, they need reserves to see them through bad price times.

But should there be bad price times?

We're not talking about a robot in a factory making plastic widgets, and supermarket reduces price offer for those widgets, so factory closes. We're talking about cows.

Milk prices need to cover land costs, cows, feed, buildings,liking parlour, finance, staff, and leave a profit.

So there's some responsibility on Arla, all milk processors, retailers and government to make sure price doesn't affect animal welfare. Leaving it to the market doesn't seem to work.

Not making excuses, just pointing out it's very expensive to cover the finance required to milk cows, and it's not very responsible of the dairy industry if they offer prices below cost of production. Not easy, because if prices are too high then there's a glut of milk. Maybe the MMB shouldn't have been disbanded, it made sure there was sufficient money in the milk price so farmers didn't have any excuse for poor welfare.

Is your real name Tom rawson?

I’ve managed to feed my cattle all winter despite depressed milk prices.

Plenty of others even with a lot worse milk prices than Arla have achieved have looked after there animals. There’s literally no excuse for what they have been doing stop defending them.

last person to be doing what they did near us got jail time.

I got told mr rawson spent his winter driving his new posh truck and going shooting most of the time. I didn’t do any of that but I made sure my cows got fed.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Is your real name Tom rawson?

I’ve managed to feed my cattle all winter despite depressed milk prices.

Plenty of others even with a lot worse milk prices than Arla have achieved have looked after there animals. There’s literally no excuse for what they have been doing stop defending them.

last person to be doing what they did near us got jail time.

I got told mr rawson spent his winter driving his new posh truck and going shooting most of the time. I didn’t do any of that but I made sure my cows got fed.

My second sentence of that post was...

"Animal welfare comes first. That's non-negotiable"

So the whole post was written under that proviso.

And yes, welfare should be the highest possible, and there will be good and bad producers. Just as there are responsible or not pet owners.

Also get your point about someone dedicated to their cows and spending on them rather than taking all the profits for a fancy lifestyle or overspending on new kit.

However, I'm convinced that the more money in the system, the easier it is for overall average industry welfare standards to be better. Quite simply you have more money to spend on facilities and staff, everything you need for the best care possible. Ever seen a farmer skimp on straw when straw prices are high and beef prices low? Or have a rusty sheeted gates they know need replacing so cows don't cut themselves, but you're a bit short of cash at the moment. It's profit related.

I'm not talking about individual cases, but just in general.

I realise this next sentence is a bit simplistic, but if someone has to push cows to yield 12,500 litres in order to turn a profit, but then they only last 2.5 lactations, then one might question what's going on. Such a system will likely have developed due to price signals. Welfare doesn't just come from making sure they have food, water, shelter and vet care. There's metabolic stress, laminitis from high starch inclusion, bullying over feed fence space, bullying over cubicle space, sub-clinical acidosis, ketosis, milk fever, calf pneumonia, etc.

The lower the long-term milk price, then I'd wager most of the above list would be more prevalent.

You can argue that to be efficient, the good farmers have those things nailed anyway. High welfare cows = productive cows. That's true, and most farmers will be trying to maintain that standard.

You do realise how markets work and once you process milk into any product with a longer shelf life than fresh milk you are exposed to the world market so to blame the processors or Arla is just pure wrong on your part and to take your point further then in the way you say it we could all have pens of stock like this due to milk price. I don’t think so some how.

Yes, sorry, I probably didn't articulate it very well. Agree with what you say about markets. An individual processor can't pay 50p if the world market is 30p. No one company can control price and they'd be bust in no time.

Doesn't mean to say governments can't do it though, or the industry get better at providing sustainable prices.

Lower stocking rates in buildings and better buildings and we'll likely have less pneumonia in calves. DEFRA have recently been offering grants for new calf housing facilities, forced ventilation equipment etc. We shouldn't need to rely on government grants, the milk price should be sustainable enough to pay for such facilities. The milk price clearly isn't long term sustainable, otherwise DEFRA wouldn't have thought it necessary to offer the grants.

We owe it to our farm animals to give them the best welfare possible, and the more profit there is... the easier it is to provide that care.

Think there have been very few posts I have disagreed with more.

This is one of farmings problems. If the milk price isn't great enough to look after your animals properly you should exit before it becomes a problem.

The resteraunt business is pretty cut throat but if your not making enough money to feed your customers safe food you shouldn't be opening the resteraunt in the first place.

Talk about sustainable milk prices by all means but at no point whatsoever should a business get itself in such a position that it's not looking after it's cattle properly and then think that pointing a finger at milk price is acceptable.

We have to bear in mind these are arla farms. They will have received a much greater price than a lot of other buyers such as meadow or yew tree for the last 18 months. I don't hear of tales of these businesses not feeding cattle properly or not being able to purchase products without cash up front.

Yes, I was sort of meaning sustainable milk price. Just maybe didn't put it in the best way!

I totally get what you three have said. Welfare first, most people manage to do it. If you can't do it, then reduce numbers or get out of milk, etc.

Still maintain it's the case though, that if profit levels are low, then the farmers are less able to invest in the best facilities and appropriate staffing levels. Maybe all UK dairy farms have always had all the facilities they needed, and want for nothing.

Have none of you ever wanted a new cubicle house that suits your modern cow size, or a cow brush, or a better milking parlour technology to reduce mastitis, or a new calf shed, or a better feeder, or more feed space, or, etc. Of course you have, you will have continually improved over the years, but you'll have probably done it more slowly than you'd have liked to, and the reason will be money.

Just making the point really... the whole food industry needs to recognise there are animals involved, and therefore there's an industry responsibility to provide prices which are sufficient to ensure the best possible welfare. We've had 40 years of broiler growers getting hammered on price. Calving difficulties because farmers have felt the economic pressure to produce big, fast growing, high confirmation beef. etc.

There's also the farmer responsibility to be sensible and resilient. Don't expand quicker than you can finance. Make sure you've enough cash to see you and your cows through the poor price times, etc. However, if government, retailers and milk processors put their minds to it, I'm sure they could ensure milk prices didn't plummet to levels where farmers struggle to pay their feed, bedding or vet bills.

Just my personal opinion. Edit. And meant as an overall general industry observation. Wasn't meaning this particular farm/case.

 

[swedish red]

In reply to G and G.
Totally agree welfare comes first.
Been there, got the scars.
I am responsible for 5 units over 4000 acres ,in a 30 mile radius. I am also answerable to the estate manager.
Things can go wrong really quickly, I took ten days holiday for the second time in 15 years and came back to a shitstorm.
Luckily it's all good now with help from a brilliant vet team, and me stamping my feet and shouting a lot.
I wish people would ask for help sooner, there is nothing wrong with needing advice , I'm 60 now and still learning.
Just message me for a chat.

 

[Lancashire grass]

In response to the last comments can you not find managers who are capable of holding the Fort while you have your holiday... I manage a farm for a multi site company and hardly ever see our over manager from 1 month to the next .but I just sort my own problems if I have any