Unless you can measure it, how can you analyse it? This was the question put to us at a recent open day held on the Kepak feedlot in Clonee, Co Meath. This goes for everything in life. Just look at the recent campaign by the Irish Farmers Journal concerning farmer’s health at marts in Roscommon and Raphoe. I am sure most of the farmers who availed of the health check-up on the day presumed they were fighting fit and yet in one mart 90% of those checked were overweight or obese.

On this farm, we try to measure as much as we can. We carry out regular soil samples, silage is analysed every winter, we get our Teagasc adviser to run through our ration formulation, lambs and cattle are weighed regularly and full details of all bought-in heifers are kept on the computer system. I have included the most recent data below from heifers processed last Friday.

We buy heifers here on our farm throughout seven or eight months of the year and we hope to get to a situation where we are buying 12 months of the year. Heifers are processed through six and seven months of the year and likewise we hope to get that up to 12 months of the year.

You read and listen with interest to all the technical info that you can and base your decisions around that to suit your system. I say your system because it is key that you do what is right for your own farm or personal situation.

We keep a record of all purchased cattle, prices, dates of arrival, weight, mart purchased from, etc, to try and build up a proper profile or picture of how the different animals are performing on the same inputs here on our farm, which is predominately a grass-based system.

Three heifers jump off the page at me. Numbers 562, 574 and 426 stand out and not all for the right reasons. You can all make up your own minds on the reasons.

Heifers received grass and silage predominately.

Charolais heifers received 4kg per head per day from 23 September, which cost €46/head. The Aberdeen Angus (no 574) and Limousin (no 562) both had a fat score 3+ to 4= without meal, while the Charolais were all 3- to 3+, so possibly could have been fed for another while. The poorest-performing heifer was number 426 and she was purchased in a group of three.