Beef Plan
- Thread starter Carrigogunnell
- Start date
Arthur
Well-Known Member
https://www.independent.ie/business...-sector-is-on-brink-of-collapse-37545261.html Close enough to the truth, certainly at these levels of income there is no scope for any kind of on farm investment and the next round of CAP will probably push lads further under.
muckymanor
Well-Known Member
@Carrigogunnell
That's to graze and make silage.
There's nobody that I'm aware of that's making €25k pa on 50 suckler cows alone. There's plenty of lads with 50 cows making nothing and spending half of a €20k sfp to keep them. €25k is the living wage and just over half the average industrial in ireland. Its not a big ask.
That's to graze and make silage.
There's nobody that I'm aware of that's making €25k pa on 50 suckler cows alone. There's plenty of lads with 50 cows making nothing and spending half of a €20k sfp to keep them. €25k is the living wage and just over half the average industrial in ireland. Its not a big ask.
ithastopay
Well-Known Member
muckymanor
Well-Known Member
@ithastopay
Where do you guys see your future in beef finishing or do you? I know that your first choice is a quality suckler bred animal (or it was up to recently).
Can you see yourself finishing dairy bred animals?
I personally think that we can adapt to dairy beef if we have to and reduce or remove the suckler cow, if we have to, in order to survive. I have yet to be convinced that it will leave anything more than suckling and finishing what we breed. I have done a lot of research into rearing dairy heifers (my neighbour is a big driver of the idea and a few neighbours are doing it), but again, the figures don't stack up for us and the type of land that we have).
Below is the beef plan.
PHASE 1
3. We hand in our list of demands to the factories and if we are not happy with their response within a specified time we would then be ready to act.
We would have a number of options as to how we would control and disrupt cattle supply to include the following;
The beauty of this form of protest is the farmer would not have to leave his farm. It should also bring factories to the negotiation table fairly quickly.
For maximum effect times of peak supply such as October November should be avoided
4. Beef Producers need factories to commit to pay a minimum base price which gives a margin over the average cost of production.
This average cost of production of a kg of beef to be established two or more times per year including proper charges for land owned along with capital costs and the cost of the farmer's own labour. Plus, a differential for the different grades. (To be demonstrated in a pie chart.) Farmer representatives agreed by all beef farmers to sign off on these production costs. "
5. That we put continuous pressure on our TD' s and government to put legislation in place stating that we farmers must be paid a minimum of the cost of production plus a margin inflation linked for our produce. If the " free " market moves up then the farmer gets the benefit when it falls the legislation is there to provide a safety net for the drop.
6. That we keep continuous pressure on all our European Ministers and Phil Hogan not to let them off the hook as regards their commitment to deliver on retailer legislation aimed at legislating that the primary producer gets his fair share of the retail price and to eliminate unfair trading practices. The primary producer's fair share should at a minimum be an index linked average cost of production plus a margin in the country of origin.
7. In conjunction to the factories paying a minimum of the costs of production plus a margin that on all beef a fair-trade sustainable price label or similar be displayed.
FACTORY DEMANDS
8. That a Suckler bred bonus be introduced that reflects the extra production costs of the suckler bred animal over the dairy bred animal. (Figures to follow. )
9. Guaranteed minimum prices should be made available by the factories to all farmers ahead of high-risk finishing periods such as winter finishing.
10. That farmers get paid a fair price for the fifth quarter.
Weights
11. The maximum weights allowed before price cuts for steers and bulls to take efficiency into account and to be at an acceptable level allowing the farmer to maximise the potential of suckler bred animal. They should not drop below 440kg for u16 month bulls and steers and 450kgs for u24mth bulls.
Quality Assurance
12. All cattle produced from QA herds should be paid the QA bonus.
13. Steers and heifers under 36 months should be paid the QA bonus as there is no good reason regarding quality as to why they should be excluded.
14. Bulls u24 months should be paid the QA bonus as there is no good reason regarding quality as to why they should be excluded.
15. E, U and R grading animals with fat scores 2= and 2 - and 4+ should receive the quality assurance bonus.
16. Cull Cows should receive the QA bonus as there is no good reason regarding quality as to why they should be excluded
17. That the number of movements should not be a basis for not giving the QA payment as it is not a requirement of the department or Board Bia and does not impact on the quality of the animal.
18. That all counties sign up to withdraw from Quality Assurance if all animals leaving a quality assured Farm (i.e. the different fat scores, ages, grades etc., along with the different cattle types) are not included.
Conformation Bonus
19. That the price differential of the confirmation grades reflects the meat yield, the yield of the higher priced cuts and the rounded shape of the cuts. (Figures to follow.)
20. E, U and R grading animals with fat scores 2= and 2 - and 4+ should receive the conformation bonus.
21. The confirmation bonus shouldn't stop at the U grades and should also apply to the E grades for all cattle.
Age
22. Steers and heifers over 36 months and under 40 months get a grid price no more than 10 cent behind the base price as the quality of this beef does not warrant a greater reduction.
23. Bulls over 24 months and under 30 months get a price no more than 10 cent behind the u24 month bull price as the quality of this beef doesn't warrant a greater reduction.
Once Calved Heifer
24. That the once calved heifer under 40 months receives a price no more than 10 cent behind the heifer base price.
Levies
25. In the case of all levies collected in the factories, farmers must have full transparency and also have a say in how they are spent coupled with the right to withhold the levies in cases of lack of performance.
Carcass Trim
26. There should be uniformity enforced around the hide pulling, trimming of the carcass and lighting of the grading machines so that the grades and fat scores are uniform in all factories.
27. Farmers to have a representative in every factory fully trained and recognised by factories and the dept of Agriculture whose job it would be to check scales, grades, trim, hide puller, samples been taken for tb detection etc., to be paid out of existing levies.
28. In this age of technology farmers should be able to get a video and view in real time through an app their animals being trimmed, skinned and graded. It should be made available to the farmer and farmer representative to view. It could be a cost-effective measure as it could allow factories to be monitored remotely. Civil liberties of employees could be covered by blurring.
29. When a farmer sends his cattle to a factory he should be provided with the contact number of the officials who oversee carcase grades, trim, weights etc.
30. All farmers to have training courses made available to them the purpose of which would be to provide them with the necessary skills to manually grade carcasses as regards confirmation and fat scores.
Where do you guys see your future in beef finishing or do you? I know that your first choice is a quality suckler bred animal (or it was up to recently).
Can you see yourself finishing dairy bred animals?
I personally think that we can adapt to dairy beef if we have to and reduce or remove the suckler cow, if we have to, in order to survive. I have yet to be convinced that it will leave anything more than suckling and finishing what we breed. I have done a lot of research into rearing dairy heifers (my neighbour is a big driver of the idea and a few neighbours are doing it), but again, the figures don't stack up for us and the type of land that we have).
Below is the beef plan.
PHASE 1
3. We hand in our list of demands to the factories and if we are not happy with their response within a specified time we would then be ready to act.
We would have a number of options as to how we would control and disrupt cattle supply to include the following;
- Not to send cattle to any factory on a certain day at a few hours’ notice.
- Not to send cattle to a particular factory at short notice.
- Not to send cattle below a set price to any factory.
- Farmers who had loads of cattle booked in instead of turning up with the load of cattle would turn up with one animal in a jeep and trailer.
- Other suggestions.
- Escalate any of the above.
- IF the other forms of action fail we then bring all the factories to a stop, block the lot, no farm unions just farmers with no name that they cannot take us to court, be prepared to be locked up for a while and see what the public think of it. If we stop Ireland for a few days we will get the price we want.
For maximum effect times of peak supply such as October November should be avoided
4. Beef Producers need factories to commit to pay a minimum base price which gives a margin over the average cost of production.
This average cost of production of a kg of beef to be established two or more times per year including proper charges for land owned along with capital costs and the cost of the farmer's own labour. Plus, a differential for the different grades. (To be demonstrated in a pie chart.) Farmer representatives agreed by all beef farmers to sign off on these production costs. "
5. That we put continuous pressure on our TD' s and government to put legislation in place stating that we farmers must be paid a minimum of the cost of production plus a margin inflation linked for our produce. If the " free " market moves up then the farmer gets the benefit when it falls the legislation is there to provide a safety net for the drop.
6. That we keep continuous pressure on all our European Ministers and Phil Hogan not to let them off the hook as regards their commitment to deliver on retailer legislation aimed at legislating that the primary producer gets his fair share of the retail price and to eliminate unfair trading practices. The primary producer's fair share should at a minimum be an index linked average cost of production plus a margin in the country of origin.
7. In conjunction to the factories paying a minimum of the costs of production plus a margin that on all beef a fair-trade sustainable price label or similar be displayed.
FACTORY DEMANDS
8. That a Suckler bred bonus be introduced that reflects the extra production costs of the suckler bred animal over the dairy bred animal. (Figures to follow. )
9. Guaranteed minimum prices should be made available by the factories to all farmers ahead of high-risk finishing periods such as winter finishing.
10. That farmers get paid a fair price for the fifth quarter.
Weights
11. The maximum weights allowed before price cuts for steers and bulls to take efficiency into account and to be at an acceptable level allowing the farmer to maximise the potential of suckler bred animal. They should not drop below 440kg for u16 month bulls and steers and 450kgs for u24mth bulls.
Quality Assurance
12. All cattle produced from QA herds should be paid the QA bonus.
13. Steers and heifers under 36 months should be paid the QA bonus as there is no good reason regarding quality as to why they should be excluded.
14. Bulls u24 months should be paid the QA bonus as there is no good reason regarding quality as to why they should be excluded.
15. E, U and R grading animals with fat scores 2= and 2 - and 4+ should receive the quality assurance bonus.
16. Cull Cows should receive the QA bonus as there is no good reason regarding quality as to why they should be excluded
17. That the number of movements should not be a basis for not giving the QA payment as it is not a requirement of the department or Board Bia and does not impact on the quality of the animal.
18. That all counties sign up to withdraw from Quality Assurance if all animals leaving a quality assured Farm (i.e. the different fat scores, ages, grades etc., along with the different cattle types) are not included.
Conformation Bonus
19. That the price differential of the confirmation grades reflects the meat yield, the yield of the higher priced cuts and the rounded shape of the cuts. (Figures to follow.)
20. E, U and R grading animals with fat scores 2= and 2 - and 4+ should receive the conformation bonus.
21. The confirmation bonus shouldn't stop at the U grades and should also apply to the E grades for all cattle.
Age
22. Steers and heifers over 36 months and under 40 months get a grid price no more than 10 cent behind the base price as the quality of this beef does not warrant a greater reduction.
23. Bulls over 24 months and under 30 months get a price no more than 10 cent behind the u24 month bull price as the quality of this beef doesn't warrant a greater reduction.
Once Calved Heifer
24. That the once calved heifer under 40 months receives a price no more than 10 cent behind the heifer base price.
Levies
25. In the case of all levies collected in the factories, farmers must have full transparency and also have a say in how they are spent coupled with the right to withhold the levies in cases of lack of performance.
Carcass Trim
26. There should be uniformity enforced around the hide pulling, trimming of the carcass and lighting of the grading machines so that the grades and fat scores are uniform in all factories.
27. Farmers to have a representative in every factory fully trained and recognised by factories and the dept of Agriculture whose job it would be to check scales, grades, trim, hide puller, samples been taken for tb detection etc., to be paid out of existing levies.
28. In this age of technology farmers should be able to get a video and view in real time through an app their animals being trimmed, skinned and graded. It should be made available to the farmer and farmer representative to view. It could be a cost-effective measure as it could allow factories to be monitored remotely. Civil liberties of employees could be covered by blurring.
29. When a farmer sends his cattle to a factory he should be provided with the contact number of the officials who oversee carcase grades, trim, weights etc.
30. All farmers to have training courses made available to them the purpose of which would be to provide them with the necessary skills to manually grade carcasses as regards confirmation and fat scores.
muckymanor
Well-Known Member
and the second part
Methods of Payment
31. To stick with the grid on the condition that it gets an overhaul in line with the changes recommended in this plan.
32. Farmers to have the option of having their animals graded live on farms and a price agreed before they leave in particular for dairy bred O and P grade type stock.
ACTIONS
33. That we farmers have a PR Machine backed up by scientific facts ready to fire out information as required. One element of this would be our own blogger using social media.
34. That we farmers would have an intelligence wing whose tasks would include;
36. To consult with Board Bia and have them address the issue that over six million euros of farmers money is being used to benefit the factories and not the farmer.
37. First of all, we would clarify what is defined as unfair trading practices. We would then put a list of these unfair trading practices together along with evidence. After that we would make a submission highlighting the unfair trading practices of the factories and the retailers. We would follow this with a protest which would take the form of 2 farmers on a rota basis outside the competition authority office. This would be organised on a rota basis involving farmers nationwide. The first two to cover from 10am to 1pm and the 2nd 2 to cover from 2 to 5pm. They would highlight using posters the unfair trading practices.
This would be a farmer friendly protest involving very few hours off farm, it would also not disrupt the public. We could stay there as long as it takes to get a result. We would have a constant stream of media and politicians calling down to them resulting in a lot of public attention for retailers and factories. This would help persuade the retailers and factories to negotiate with us and would also help the competition authority to do its job.
38. We encourage farmers on a completely voluntary basis to reduce the total birth of all calves in Ireland over the next 3 years by 10 %. On the one hand this would allow some farmers maintain their production targets which might be vital to their farms survival. On the other hand, elderly farmers or overworked and overstretched farmers might be glad to reduce numbers at a % rate they were comfortable with.
We mount a very public campaign on this which might help bring the factories and the government to the negotiation table seeing as it would be at odds with their plans of increases in production without any consideration for sustainable prices. We then could find ourselves in a better position to play cat and mouse with the factories who would have increased slaughtering capacity and less cattle.
39. That we put a task force in place whose objectives would be to remove the obstacles as regards live shipping and to facilitate the removal of as many dairy calves, store cattle and finished cattle as possible to help create competition.
40. We have a legal document drawn up that prevents factories access to our data on livestock or any summaries of it that we give to the Department through AIMS.
41. That Teagasc should be asked to do out a report on a cost of production price for beef plus a margin and if what it says in it is acceptable to farmers it would then be sent in as a support document for our factory demands.
42. That we consult with Board Bia and have them address the following issues.
PRODUCER GROUPS STAGE 1
43. Expertise from producer groups already operating to be used to encourage and facilitate farmers nationwide to set up producer groups.
44. We farmers should address the imbalance in the control of the landscape around beef and should make use of the EU producer group initiative that was introduced for this purpose.
45. The first step after forming a producer group would be for the farmers to collectively sell their cattle to a processor or processors enabling them to a achieve a price that they could not get on their own.
46. Administrators of Producer Groups make farmers aware of the different requirements of the processors to enable them to produce for a market that suits their own system.
47. We aim for a target of 50 % of the country's beef cattle to be sold through producer groups in the next 3 years.
https://www.beefplan.ie/read-the-plan#h.p_g_4RVM96g0VA
PHASE 2
48. That we send our proposals for change in the TB eradication program to the department and if no satisfactory action is taken that we withdraw from all non-essential TB testing of cattle until we are satisfied. (we allow farmers test cattle to facilitate them selling them live such as through a mart. )
Methods of Payment
31. To stick with the grid on the condition that it gets an overhaul in line with the changes recommended in this plan.
32. Farmers to have the option of having their animals graded live on farms and a price agreed before they leave in particular for dairy bred O and P grade type stock.
ACTIONS
33. That we farmers have a PR Machine backed up by scientific facts ready to fire out information as required. One element of this would be our own blogger using social media.
34. That we farmers would have an intelligence wing whose tasks would include;
- To find out the rates that apply for the removal of offal from all the different factories and establish are all factories small and big treated equally in this regard.
- To collect the scientific backup to support our different arguments and also as a means of counteracting false and misleading factory propaganda.
- To find out the obstacles as regards to live shipping.
- To find out how many factory feedlots there are including when and how many cattle they kill in a year. Also, prices paid for these cattle etc
- To find out how many, price paid etc of farmers cattle under factory contracts yearly.
- To research thoroughly the offal business.
- To research and gather information for us concerning the factories such as cattle numbers, cattle scarcities, retail contracts etc using technology and the like.
- To research the different parties involved in the beef industry so that we have the facts to be able to hold them to account.
- To establish the facts regarding prices paid worldwide, comparing grading standards, cattle types etc
- To find out where the out of spec cattle are sold and at what price.
- To supply information to a Farm PR Machine on farm gate prices etc and to have information ready to counteract factory claims.
- To gather information on unfair trading practices and price fixing etc
- To find out what the competition authority considers to be unfair trading practices, price fixing etc."
36. To consult with Board Bia and have them address the issue that over six million euros of farmers money is being used to benefit the factories and not the farmer.
37. First of all, we would clarify what is defined as unfair trading practices. We would then put a list of these unfair trading practices together along with evidence. After that we would make a submission highlighting the unfair trading practices of the factories and the retailers. We would follow this with a protest which would take the form of 2 farmers on a rota basis outside the competition authority office. This would be organised on a rota basis involving farmers nationwide. The first two to cover from 10am to 1pm and the 2nd 2 to cover from 2 to 5pm. They would highlight using posters the unfair trading practices.
This would be a farmer friendly protest involving very few hours off farm, it would also not disrupt the public. We could stay there as long as it takes to get a result. We would have a constant stream of media and politicians calling down to them resulting in a lot of public attention for retailers and factories. This would help persuade the retailers and factories to negotiate with us and would also help the competition authority to do its job.
38. We encourage farmers on a completely voluntary basis to reduce the total birth of all calves in Ireland over the next 3 years by 10 %. On the one hand this would allow some farmers maintain their production targets which might be vital to their farms survival. On the other hand, elderly farmers or overworked and overstretched farmers might be glad to reduce numbers at a % rate they were comfortable with.
We mount a very public campaign on this which might help bring the factories and the government to the negotiation table seeing as it would be at odds with their plans of increases in production without any consideration for sustainable prices. We then could find ourselves in a better position to play cat and mouse with the factories who would have increased slaughtering capacity and less cattle.
39. That we put a task force in place whose objectives would be to remove the obstacles as regards live shipping and to facilitate the removal of as many dairy calves, store cattle and finished cattle as possible to help create competition.
40. We have a legal document drawn up that prevents factories access to our data on livestock or any summaries of it that we give to the Department through AIMS.
41. That Teagasc should be asked to do out a report on a cost of production price for beef plus a margin and if what it says in it is acceptable to farmers it would then be sent in as a support document for our factory demands.
42. That we consult with Board Bia and have them address the following issues.
- why over 6 million euros of farmers money is being used to benefit the factories and not the farmer
- why the marketing of our high quality, grass fed, quality assured, suckler beef is so poor that so much of it is being sold at a discounted price.
PRODUCER GROUPS STAGE 1
43. Expertise from producer groups already operating to be used to encourage and facilitate farmers nationwide to set up producer groups.
44. We farmers should address the imbalance in the control of the landscape around beef and should make use of the EU producer group initiative that was introduced for this purpose.
45. The first step after forming a producer group would be for the farmers to collectively sell their cattle to a processor or processors enabling them to a achieve a price that they could not get on their own.
46. Administrators of Producer Groups make farmers aware of the different requirements of the processors to enable them to produce for a market that suits their own system.
47. We aim for a target of 50 % of the country's beef cattle to be sold through producer groups in the next 3 years.
https://www.beefplan.ie/read-the-plan#h.p_g_4RVM96g0VA
PHASE 2
48. That we send our proposals for change in the TB eradication program to the department and if no satisfactory action is taken that we withdraw from all non-essential TB testing of cattle until we are satisfied. (we allow farmers test cattle to facilitate them selling them live such as through a mart. )
muckymanor
Well-Known Member
Third Part
ANIMAL HEALTH TB
49. The department should live up to its responsibilities as regards it's management of wildlife in relation to TB.
If it's not possible to test and cull 100% of the infected badgers then the highest possible number should be targeted. If this figure is for example 70% in one year. Then over a few years all infected badgers should tested and culled."
50. Farmers should be allowed trade, buy and sell animals live at marts etc. in all cases except where they have had a tb breakdown and have not had 2 clear herd tests.
51. If a farmer contiguous to another farmer who has tb, can demonstrate that he has a one metre boundary barrier between him and his neighbour, he should be exempt from this contiguous rule which may force another test on him. Any issue regarding wildlife is the responsibility of the department so they should not be let off the hook in this regard by passing more work onto the farmer.
52. The definition of a high risk tb breakdown should be based on the percentage of the herd found to have tb and not the number of animals which have tb.
53. When a farmer's herd has had 2 clear tests after a high-risk breakdown this should be enough. The 3 subsequent check tests should be scrapped.
54. The money saved due to the reduced number of bovine retests both after high risk breakdowns and as a result of less contiguous herd testing to be spent testing all wild life and removing infected wildlife.
55. That every culled badger to be tested for TB. At the moment this is not happening. The information learned from such a move has to be important for any serious TB eradication program.
56. Farmers time has a value in the very same way that a department official or a vet's time has a value. In this regard when it comes to preparing for and testing of cattle the farmer's time should be paid for. This should be done as a bare minimum at all times other than the annual herd test where there is an extra burden placed on affected farmers.
57. As a farm safety incentive that all departments should reduce the workload on farmers by reducing unnecessary herd tests, inspections, form filling and cut red tape so as to lower stress and to allow farmers farm.
58. The failure of the current TB eradication scheme has imposed serious consequences on the rights of farmers. Countless heavy-handed demands on farmers time and threats of stopping single farm payments are not leaving farmers in a good place. A complete revision of the scheme is needed.
59. Where tissue samples are been taken on the factory floor to be sent to a lab to be tested for T.B. the farmer representative (as per proposal 26) supervises the taking of a b sample and sends it to an independent lab on the farmers behalf.
PHASE 3
PURCHASING GROUPS
60. Expertise from purchasing groups already operating to be used to encourage and facilitate farmers nationwide to roll out purchasing groups.
61. That we apply pressure to have obstacles removed to allow farm purchasing groups purchase directly from the manufacturers and importers to allow farmers have access to inputs at wholesale prices.
PHASE 4
62. With regard to the other government Schemes that we are seeking change in such as the BDGP and the KT schemes etc. We send the relevant body in a list of the areas that we are seeking change in. If we don't get a satisfactory response within a specified time. We withdraw cooperation with that scheme (go on strike) until we are happy.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
63. All farms involved in the BDGP scheme buy 2 tissue tags for the required number of female calves and bull calves intended for breeding. They then tag them within 21 days of birth. Farmers not involved in the BDGP buy one tissue test as before. This will then satisfy the B.V.D. testing and the BDGP scheme.
64. As regards the BDGP scheme the following changes could be made which would save time for the farmer and at the same time add to the accuracy and usefulness of the data.
66. In the KT scheme a farmer should be able to write up his own Health Plan.
67. Where a farmer's only use of Teagasc is for the KT scheme, the €500 per farmer that Teagasc get from the EU should be enough without Teagasc getting an additional figure from the farmers concerned.
68. We must stress upon the government that the protection of the national suckler herd must be a priority for government and Farm bodies. Any policy to undermine suckler numbers for dairy expansion to conform with emission and environmental targets cannot be accepted. If Ireland is to be a quality beef producer it cannot do so as a by-product of the dairy sector. As it currently exists there will be a reduction in the numbers of sucklers due to the age profile of farmers and the lack of profitability to encourage young farmers.
PHASE 5
FARM SAFETY
69. Any solution addressing the issue of farmer safety must address profitability at Farm level as lack of profitability at Farm level means farmers are forced to work unacceptable long hours even when tired which leads to poor decision making which is a major cause of farm accidents.
70. An attractive retirement scheme to be introduced as a means of tackling Farm safety as there are many elderly farmers working on farms who could be persuaded to retire with the right scheme.
71. As a farm safety incentive that all departments should reduce the workload on farmers by reducing unnecessary herd tests, inspections, form filling and cut red tape so as to lower stress and to allow farmers farm.
72. As a farm safety measure the Department of Agriculture must take into consideration the less docile nature of our suckler herds and also the increasing age profile of suckler farmers, so as to engage with farmers who have fragmented holdings, to conduct TB testing in an agreeable period and location, safe and manageable for all.
73. A farm safety workshop to be set up for farm children and other young helpers who are present or help out on farms. These people are in a high-risk category and more should be done to make them aware of the dangers. It should be free of charge so there are no barriers to discourage them from attending.
74. Many farmers are now stretched to their limit on top of this we have the uncertainty around farm prices and the extra pressure caused by extreme weather events all these can play on the mental health of farmers. This is an important aspect of this plan of ours to give these farmers some stability and hope.
https://www.beefplan.ie/read-the-plan#h.p_t9-fNxSEDzoX
ANIMAL HEALTH TB
49. The department should live up to its responsibilities as regards it's management of wildlife in relation to TB.
- In the case of deer, where deer are wandering onto farm land, the department should have a rapid response unit capable of culling these deer and should also be responsible for fencing such deer out of farms in consultation with affected farmers.
- As regards badgers the efforts that are currently made at testing and culling badgers in areas where there are TB outbreaks should be replicated nationwide to prevent healthy cattle herds picking up TB from infected badgers.
If it's not possible to test and cull 100% of the infected badgers then the highest possible number should be targeted. If this figure is for example 70% in one year. Then over a few years all infected badgers should tested and culled."
50. Farmers should be allowed trade, buy and sell animals live at marts etc. in all cases except where they have had a tb breakdown and have not had 2 clear herd tests.
51. If a farmer contiguous to another farmer who has tb, can demonstrate that he has a one metre boundary barrier between him and his neighbour, he should be exempt from this contiguous rule which may force another test on him. Any issue regarding wildlife is the responsibility of the department so they should not be let off the hook in this regard by passing more work onto the farmer.
52. The definition of a high risk tb breakdown should be based on the percentage of the herd found to have tb and not the number of animals which have tb.
53. When a farmer's herd has had 2 clear tests after a high-risk breakdown this should be enough. The 3 subsequent check tests should be scrapped.
54. The money saved due to the reduced number of bovine retests both after high risk breakdowns and as a result of less contiguous herd testing to be spent testing all wild life and removing infected wildlife.
55. That every culled badger to be tested for TB. At the moment this is not happening. The information learned from such a move has to be important for any serious TB eradication program.
56. Farmers time has a value in the very same way that a department official or a vet's time has a value. In this regard when it comes to preparing for and testing of cattle the farmer's time should be paid for. This should be done as a bare minimum at all times other than the annual herd test where there is an extra burden placed on affected farmers.
57. As a farm safety incentive that all departments should reduce the workload on farmers by reducing unnecessary herd tests, inspections, form filling and cut red tape so as to lower stress and to allow farmers farm.
58. The failure of the current TB eradication scheme has imposed serious consequences on the rights of farmers. Countless heavy-handed demands on farmers time and threats of stopping single farm payments are not leaving farmers in a good place. A complete revision of the scheme is needed.
59. Where tissue samples are been taken on the factory floor to be sent to a lab to be tested for T.B. the farmer representative (as per proposal 26) supervises the taking of a b sample and sends it to an independent lab on the farmers behalf.
PHASE 3
PURCHASING GROUPS
60. Expertise from purchasing groups already operating to be used to encourage and facilitate farmers nationwide to roll out purchasing groups.
61. That we apply pressure to have obstacles removed to allow farm purchasing groups purchase directly from the manufacturers and importers to allow farmers have access to inputs at wholesale prices.
PHASE 4
62. With regard to the other government Schemes that we are seeking change in such as the BDGP and the KT schemes etc. We send the relevant body in a list of the areas that we are seeking change in. If we don't get a satisfactory response within a specified time. We withdraw cooperation with that scheme (go on strike) until we are happy.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
63. All farms involved in the BDGP scheme buy 2 tissue tags for the required number of female calves and bull calves intended for breeding. They then tag them within 21 days of birth. Farmers not involved in the BDGP buy one tissue test as before. This will then satisfy the B.V.D. testing and the BDGP scheme.
64. As regards the BDGP scheme the following changes could be made which would save time for the farmer and at the same time add to the accuracy and usefulness of the data.
- One continuous screen with columns prepopulated with the calf's number, dob, dam, sire, and the other columns for the data required, as loading a different screen for every calf is very time consuming.
- Cows milking ability;(could be prepopulated from the previous year and then edited if it had changed as in the case of the majority of cows it will stay the same),
- Cows docility ;(could be prepopulated from the previous year again for the majority of cows it will be the same year to year),
- Sires feet and leg traits; (when a farmer submits the feet and leg traits once that year for a particular bull in all cases that year where the same bull has been used that one input of data should fill in automatically to all other calves that year with the same sire.)
- Scour; if a calf's dam has been vaccinated for scour this box serves no purpose and could be omitted under those circumstances.
- Pneumonia; If the calf has been vaccinated for pneumonia this box serves no purpose and could be omitted under those circumstances. "
66. In the KT scheme a farmer should be able to write up his own Health Plan.
67. Where a farmer's only use of Teagasc is for the KT scheme, the €500 per farmer that Teagasc get from the EU should be enough without Teagasc getting an additional figure from the farmers concerned.
68. We must stress upon the government that the protection of the national suckler herd must be a priority for government and Farm bodies. Any policy to undermine suckler numbers for dairy expansion to conform with emission and environmental targets cannot be accepted. If Ireland is to be a quality beef producer it cannot do so as a by-product of the dairy sector. As it currently exists there will be a reduction in the numbers of sucklers due to the age profile of farmers and the lack of profitability to encourage young farmers.
PHASE 5
FARM SAFETY
69. Any solution addressing the issue of farmer safety must address profitability at Farm level as lack of profitability at Farm level means farmers are forced to work unacceptable long hours even when tired which leads to poor decision making which is a major cause of farm accidents.
70. An attractive retirement scheme to be introduced as a means of tackling Farm safety as there are many elderly farmers working on farms who could be persuaded to retire with the right scheme.
71. As a farm safety incentive that all departments should reduce the workload on farmers by reducing unnecessary herd tests, inspections, form filling and cut red tape so as to lower stress and to allow farmers farm.
72. As a farm safety measure the Department of Agriculture must take into consideration the less docile nature of our suckler herds and also the increasing age profile of suckler farmers, so as to engage with farmers who have fragmented holdings, to conduct TB testing in an agreeable period and location, safe and manageable for all.
73. A farm safety workshop to be set up for farm children and other young helpers who are present or help out on farms. These people are in a high-risk category and more should be done to make them aware of the dangers. It should be free of charge so there are no barriers to discourage them from attending.
74. Many farmers are now stretched to their limit on top of this we have the uncertainty around farm prices and the extra pressure caused by extreme weather events all these can play on the mental health of farmers. This is an important aspect of this plan of ours to give these farmers some stability and hope.
https://www.beefplan.ie/read-the-plan#h.p_t9-fNxSEDzoX
muckymanor
Well-Known Member
fourth part
PHASE 6
PRODUCER GROUPS STAGE 2
Marketing Producer Groups Cattle
75. Identify factories who would be willing and who have sufficient capacity to kill our farmers cattle under contract locally.
76. A working group to be set up to include the following bodies; producer groups, Board Bia, Department of Agriculture and small abattoirs. The idea would be that these bodies would work with groups of farmers to do everything they could to Simplify, fast track and remove obstacles with the following objectives;
78. To set up Irish Farm shops in other countries.
https://www.beefplan.ie/read-the-plan#h.p_QTXejX_Cg0WB
PHASE 7
FARM UNIONS
79. Our farm unions should engage, consult and get consensus on all matters from their members.
80. We should make a huge effort to get every farmer to become a member of a farm union and to regularly attend meetings, or give feedback and get involved through what's app groups or other social media set up for this purpose and to nominate leaders who are fearless and proactive in working for us farmers.
81. If there are people in our unions who are not performing or who are counterproductive we need to have a system in place which will easily allow these people to be replaced with productive ones. To be fair to all farmers in this struggling industry the farmers interest has to be number 1.
82. That all our key farm union representatives should have their performances reviewed by an appointed panel of people with expertise in the area of assessment of productive employment. Where our key farm union representatives are deemed to have under-performed by this appointed panel these key farm union representatives are then replaced.
Some examples of criteria to measure performance level could include;
84. That farmer representatives for a particular commodity must be active farmers in that sector for a minimum of 5 years before and after appointment. If their role in the organisation is so onerous that they have to opt out of active work on their own farm then they must employ someone who continues to work with the same commodity on their behalf.
85. That it be pointed out to factories, the department of Agriculture and all other stakeholders in the beef industry that any farm organisation that no longer has the support of a significant number of farmers in a particular commodity then that organisation should no longer be exclusively involved in any negotiations involving that sector.
https://www.beefplan.ie/read-the-plan#h.p_M37Q_BjEg0WX
https://www.beefplan.ie/read-the-plan#h.p_RIH4lDVqg0Vg
PHASE 6
PRODUCER GROUPS STAGE 2
Marketing Producer Groups Cattle
75. Identify factories who would be willing and who have sufficient capacity to kill our farmers cattle under contract locally.
76. A working group to be set up to include the following bodies; producer groups, Board Bia, Department of Agriculture and small abattoirs. The idea would be that these bodies would work with groups of farmers to do everything they could to Simplify, fast track and remove obstacles with the following objectives;
- To enable the producer group to contract out the killing of its cattle to smaller abattoirs with excess capacity.
- To set up farm shops and online selling.
- To establish brands.
- To establish overseas markets and contracts and to facilitate transport to these. "
78. To set up Irish Farm shops in other countries.
https://www.beefplan.ie/read-the-plan#h.p_QTXejX_Cg0WB
PHASE 7
FARM UNIONS
79. Our farm unions should engage, consult and get consensus on all matters from their members.
80. We should make a huge effort to get every farmer to become a member of a farm union and to regularly attend meetings, or give feedback and get involved through what's app groups or other social media set up for this purpose and to nominate leaders who are fearless and proactive in working for us farmers.
81. If there are people in our unions who are not performing or who are counterproductive we need to have a system in place which will easily allow these people to be replaced with productive ones. To be fair to all farmers in this struggling industry the farmers interest has to be number 1.
82. That all our key farm union representatives should have their performances reviewed by an appointed panel of people with expertise in the area of assessment of productive employment. Where our key farm union representatives are deemed to have under-performed by this appointed panel these key farm union representatives are then replaced.
Some examples of criteria to measure performance level could include;
- Farmer survey of satisfaction with performance, rate 1-10
- Progress in implementation of a plan for that sector.
- Percentage increase or decrease in the commodity price since taking office.
- The track record in communicating with farmers and keeping them informed in what is going on.
- Their ability to listen to and take farmers views on board.
- Their record in getting things done.
- Their track record in making good decisions.
84. That farmer representatives for a particular commodity must be active farmers in that sector for a minimum of 5 years before and after appointment. If their role in the organisation is so onerous that they have to opt out of active work on their own farm then they must employ someone who continues to work with the same commodity on their behalf.
85. That it be pointed out to factories, the department of Agriculture and all other stakeholders in the beef industry that any farm organisation that no longer has the support of a significant number of farmers in a particular commodity then that organisation should no longer be exclusively involved in any negotiations involving that sector.
https://www.beefplan.ie/read-the-plan#h.p_M37Q_BjEg0WX
https://www.beefplan.ie/read-the-plan#h.p_RIH4lDVqg0Vg
muckymanor
Well-Known Member
Final Part
PHASE 8
ABATTOIR
86. A working group be put together as part of a longer-term plan (taking account of the progress of producer groups in contracting cattle kill) with the objective of leasing or buying an existing abattoir which would be run by a farmer cooperative. With the attractive grants that are available this working group should also look at the possibility of building an abattoir.
https://www.beefplan.ie/read-the-plan#h.p_rXK662N_g0Wa
Implementation of this plan
The scale of the task of implementing this plan will require a serious policy change within our farm organisations and will require strong and brave leadership. It would be utterly unfair to expect one man to implement a redress plan of this nature due to the seriousness and scale of the task.
An implementation committee to be put together from the different farm organisations and representatives from the individual farmers not involved in any organisations. They would all help out, pool resources and work together in a positive manner to make it happen. Their task would be to implement this plan in the phases as outlined above.
https://www.beefplan.ie/read-the-plan#h.p_oEn9Ya9ZiJIi
Conclusion
We accept that this plan is not perfect and do not claim it to be, we are however of the opinion that a slightly imperfect plan is better than no plan. We see this plan as a rolling document that can be adjusted and added to as circumstances change and as new expertise and resources get behind it.
PHASE 8
ABATTOIR
86. A working group be put together as part of a longer-term plan (taking account of the progress of producer groups in contracting cattle kill) with the objective of leasing or buying an existing abattoir which would be run by a farmer cooperative. With the attractive grants that are available this working group should also look at the possibility of building an abattoir.
https://www.beefplan.ie/read-the-plan#h.p_rXK662N_g0Wa
Implementation of this plan
The scale of the task of implementing this plan will require a serious policy change within our farm organisations and will require strong and brave leadership. It would be utterly unfair to expect one man to implement a redress plan of this nature due to the seriousness and scale of the task.
An implementation committee to be put together from the different farm organisations and representatives from the individual farmers not involved in any organisations. They would all help out, pool resources and work together in a positive manner to make it happen. Their task would be to implement this plan in the phases as outlined above.
https://www.beefplan.ie/read-the-plan#h.p_oEn9Ya9ZiJIi
Conclusion
We accept that this plan is not perfect and do not claim it to be, we are however of the opinion that a slightly imperfect plan is better than no plan. We see this plan as a rolling document that can be adjusted and added to as circumstances change and as new expertise and resources get behind it.
Farmerbigballs
Well-Known Member
The push for increasing the increments between the the grades is music to the industry’s ears.
The larger tonnage of beef is always going to be the lower grading carcasses but this is the the top end supermarket retail stuff. Cut size, fat cover, and marbling is far more likely to be correct on your average dairy cross bullock or heifer than a u grade suckler bull, bullock or heifer.
And to put the cap on it for the processors they have a firm grip on the actual grading due to their ownership, and operation of the grading machines.
jay gatsby
Well-Known Member
Just a few musings here that I'm sure many will ardently oppose. In my experience there is more money to be made in highly regulated industries than unregulated. The reason for this is generally that it's very expensive to get into the industry but you can kind of close the door behind you and put off competition entering the market.
Farmers say there is a lot of paperwork and regulation but it doesn't seem to put off anyone from entering the market, rules can be flouted and abused and every cowboy with money to spend turns up at mart rings and looks to have a twist out of stock.
What about more targeted regulation. Qa requiring stock to be on a farm for much longer - 12 months for example. Connect the number of stock allowable on a farm to the number of acres owned or on long term lease. Put a stop to feedlots, dealers, factories buying stock for short stay fattening etc.
The above are only small steps in this area and might be a bit off the wall but what I really mean is that the lobbying needs to aimed at regulatory powers and law makers to amend the industry.
Lobbying factories is a waste of time, their aim will always be to maximise their own profits. There is no way around that, they wouldn't be good at their job if they did otherwise and they are very good at their job.
Farmers say there is a lot of paperwork and regulation but it doesn't seem to put off anyone from entering the market, rules can be flouted and abused and every cowboy with money to spend turns up at mart rings and looks to have a twist out of stock.
What about more targeted regulation. Qa requiring stock to be on a farm for much longer - 12 months for example. Connect the number of stock allowable on a farm to the number of acres owned or on long term lease. Put a stop to feedlots, dealers, factories buying stock for short stay fattening etc.
The above are only small steps in this area and might be a bit off the wall but what I really mean is that the lobbying needs to aimed at regulatory powers and law makers to amend the industry.
Lobbying factories is a waste of time, their aim will always be to maximise their own profits. There is no way around that, they wouldn't be good at their job if they did otherwise and they are very good at their job.
jcb411abuser
Well-Known Member
I see Aldi has Angus minced beef at 7euro a kilo. Magic thing is that everything eats the same when it's minced so it being Angus doesn't add any value.
But you can see my point you could have a jersey x Angus cow at 10 years old and her beef could sell in the shop for 7 euro
But you can see my point you could have a jersey x Angus cow at 10 years old and her beef could sell in the shop for 7 euro
jcb411abuser
Well-Known Member
I'll be honest I skimmed over the plan. It seems a bit naive to think you'll force the processor to bend to your whim and give you the price you want when they know you eventually will have to put that beef through their facility at some stage.
I really do think that the most successful route would be to form brand name supplied by a group of farmers who will assure a quality product produced in a way as to ensure consistency and process and sell that themselves.
In essence I'm suggesting we buy a chain of shops or set them up, with the intention of eventually processing ourselves as well, maybe initially partner with local small abattoirs/butchers to process and operate under our brand.
I really do think that the most successful route would be to form brand name supplied by a group of farmers who will assure a quality product produced in a way as to ensure consistency and process and sell that themselves.
In essence I'm suggesting we buy a chain of shops or set them up, with the intention of eventually processing ourselves as well, maybe initially partner with local small abattoirs/butchers to process and operate under our brand.
nashmach
Well-Known Member
I've been reading the posts in this thread over the past few days with interest and some rambling thoughts.
80+ points in a plan is a failure from the outset, there is not a hope in hell that all will be achieved and a lot in my view are pie in the sky.
Factories must be rubbing their hands in glee to see another group forming. I'm reminded of the adage divide and conquer.
It has been shown that factories margins are slim, typically 1 to 3%. That's for those who publish accounts. Unfortunately we don't know where the real money is made. Is it in offal, or more likely is it in wholesaling or definitely in retailing (just look at Tesco or M&S or any other retailer and their margins). The focus is on the wrong outlet
It keeps gettng forgotten that we are an exporting nation especially when it comes to beef, we (processors ) are a price taker, it's no different to milk powder or butter in the dairy sector.
Global warming is going to be a serious issue. Beef farming has had no quotas since 2002ish with the removal of the suckler quota. We are not prepared for such. I could very much see some sort of system like in Holland currently for phosphorus limits. This could lead to even more destocking.
Beef is not being well served by research bodies. I noticed this week one of the so called model farms is killing heifers at an AVERAGE of 255kgs. With bonuses these are struggling to make 1000..... These are or very close to out of spec. Is this really what we want in this country. And in a way with the BEEP scheme going to show more favour to smaller cows, this is going to be more widespread. Dairy farmers have made great strides with EBI and increasing solids which still continues so will weather the storm.
Factories are rubbing their hands with all these extra cows too. I don't have the exact figures but there are about 0.5m more dairy cows in the country now. I would think dairy cows are culled earlier than suckler cows so let's say there are no extra cows in the country and they are culled at 9 versus 10 years old, that's 50k cows more which in terms of liveweight is a handy weeks killing so 2% more straightaway...
Finally and most won't agree there has to be an element of looking inside ones own gate. I don't care about stocking rate but to me it's a cardinal sin the ratio of calves to cows in this country and the calving interval too. And that's only focusing on the average numbers.
Very rambling I know
80+ points in a plan is a failure from the outset, there is not a hope in hell that all will be achieved and a lot in my view are pie in the sky.
Factories must be rubbing their hands in glee to see another group forming. I'm reminded of the adage divide and conquer.
It has been shown that factories margins are slim, typically 1 to 3%. That's for those who publish accounts. Unfortunately we don't know where the real money is made. Is it in offal, or more likely is it in wholesaling or definitely in retailing (just look at Tesco or M&S or any other retailer and their margins). The focus is on the wrong outlet
It keeps gettng forgotten that we are an exporting nation especially when it comes to beef, we (processors ) are a price taker, it's no different to milk powder or butter in the dairy sector.
Global warming is going to be a serious issue. Beef farming has had no quotas since 2002ish with the removal of the suckler quota. We are not prepared for such. I could very much see some sort of system like in Holland currently for phosphorus limits. This could lead to even more destocking.
Beef is not being well served by research bodies. I noticed this week one of the so called model farms is killing heifers at an AVERAGE of 255kgs. With bonuses these are struggling to make 1000..... These are or very close to out of spec. Is this really what we want in this country. And in a way with the BEEP scheme going to show more favour to smaller cows, this is going to be more widespread. Dairy farmers have made great strides with EBI and increasing solids which still continues so will weather the storm.
Factories are rubbing their hands with all these extra cows too. I don't have the exact figures but there are about 0.5m more dairy cows in the country now. I would think dairy cows are culled earlier than suckler cows so let's say there are no extra cows in the country and they are culled at 9 versus 10 years old, that's 50k cows more which in terms of liveweight is a handy weeks killing so 2% more straightaway...
Finally and most won't agree there has to be an element of looking inside ones own gate. I don't care about stocking rate but to me it's a cardinal sin the ratio of calves to cows in this country and the calving interval too. And that's only focusing on the average numbers.
Very rambling I know
bagenal
Well-Known Member
I had a beef dinner in what I would consider a recognised eating house today, I wouldn't consider the beef that was on the plate to be of a quality that I would have expected from such an establishment, if I had gotten it in a so called discount supermarket I wouldn't have a crib. I'm not a fussy type having sampled the best of military cuisine before they became all posh.
Just a thought on reading Nash's post above, do farmers get paid for the offal from the animals?
It's only when I read it it reminded me of the offal bays in Rungis market and the like where pallets of offal are sold.
Just a thought on reading Nash's post above, do farmers get paid for the offal from the animals?
It's only when I read it it reminded me of the offal bays in Rungis market and the like where pallets of offal are sold.
ithastopay
Well-Known Member
@muckymanor
Thanks for putting up the plan I’ve read it once,
I’ll have to read it again, there’s so much in it, first impressions there some sensible points, some are pie in the sky, there’s too many points and many are repeated throughout.
I honestly don’t know where we will be in the future, there’s a small margin in finishing cattle, dependent on doing the job well, buying right and selling right, as long as we or someone else continues to work for these margins nothing will change, beef price will move 35 to 50c/kg most years to allow for stores to drop, enabling finishers to buy stores, keep the wheels turning and the cycle goes on.
The reality is the world doesn’t owe me a living, or anyone else imv, there’s so many farmers making so little out of beef, one would have to wonder why they still do it.
If it’s not paying some farmers why do it?
The answer I think.
1. Is that they can do it (finance is there, tax bills could be an issue, the current sfp etc all make it possible, or as some farmers may see it a nessesity to keep doing it)
2. They want to do it, definitely not making much, but are they really loosing money? if they were they couldn’t continue?
I’m talking about all farmers involved in beef from a sucker farmer with 10 cows to a farmer finishing 1000’s of cattle.
As long we continue to do what we do, very little will change, there’ll be just enough of a margin to keep us at it.
Factories are excellent at what they do and with their own feedlots they know all the costs and the performance that can be achieved.
The number of suckler cows will drop, I expect there will be more incentives to plant forestry in the new cap.
We all need to think very carefully about what we are doing and why we are doing it.
We may end up feeding half as many cattle in 5 years time, or we may be turning twice or three times as many as what we are doing currently, one things for sure we won’t be standing still.
Thanks for putting up the plan I’ve read it once,
I’ll have to read it again, there’s so much in it, first impressions there some sensible points, some are pie in the sky, there’s too many points and many are repeated throughout.
I honestly don’t know where we will be in the future, there’s a small margin in finishing cattle, dependent on doing the job well, buying right and selling right, as long as we or someone else continues to work for these margins nothing will change, beef price will move 35 to 50c/kg most years to allow for stores to drop, enabling finishers to buy stores, keep the wheels turning and the cycle goes on.
The reality is the world doesn’t owe me a living, or anyone else imv, there’s so many farmers making so little out of beef, one would have to wonder why they still do it.
If it’s not paying some farmers why do it?
The answer I think.
1. Is that they can do it (finance is there, tax bills could be an issue, the current sfp etc all make it possible, or as some farmers may see it a nessesity to keep doing it)
2. They want to do it, definitely not making much, but are they really loosing money? if they were they couldn’t continue?
I’m talking about all farmers involved in beef from a sucker farmer with 10 cows to a farmer finishing 1000’s of cattle.
As long we continue to do what we do, very little will change, there’ll be just enough of a margin to keep us at it.
Factories are excellent at what they do and with their own feedlots they know all the costs and the performance that can be achieved.
The number of suckler cows will drop, I expect there will be more incentives to plant forestry in the new cap.
We all need to think very carefully about what we are doing and why we are doing it.
We may end up feeding half as many cattle in 5 years time, or we may be turning twice or three times as many as what we are doing currently, one things for sure we won’t be standing still.
Last edited:
Green Grass
Well-Known Member
Imo if there was to be a substantial subsidy for suckler farmers ,it should be for them to reduce the number of sucklers .There is more then enough cows already in the country ,maybe dairy farmers should be encouraged to bred a better type of calf to sell to all these suckler men who can not make a rex out of sucklers . Surely with icbf and teagasc they could come with bulls that would be suitable for this .I breed all cows to hereford and buy in calved heifers but i would need a reasonable price for my calves to sustain this .No good selling good hereford calves for the same price as a holstein/jersey cross calves because the hereford will knock more off the cow calving!!!
Imagine any year we might not be able to export fr bull calves ,there would be so many cattle in the country they would eat each other tails .Surely icbf/teagasc could put there heads together for some idea like i mentioned .If the suckler man could get a guaranteed decent quality calf off the dairy man surely it would be a benefit across all the beef industry!!
Imagine any year we might not be able to export fr bull calves ,there would be so many cattle in the country they would eat each other tails .Surely icbf/teagasc could put there heads together for some idea like i mentioned .If the suckler man could get a guaranteed decent quality calf off the dairy man surely it would be a benefit across all the beef industry!!
Last edited:
WestCorkBoy
Well-Known Member
Icbf are already looking at this, they are doing trials in Tully on crosses from the dairy herd looking at feed efficiency, kill out, growth rates etc was at an open day they had last year, big jump will be to get dairy farmers to buy in, the market I.e the calf rearer needs the information to make better buying decisions ( terminal traits on boards in Marts) the Dept is also moving towards dna tagging to prevent sire fraud.
muckymanor
Well-Known Member
Some great points.
What shocks me about suckling is the amount of farmers that are making a loss. They are not just losing money at breeding cattle, but they are spending the CAP money that they bring in to keep cattle fed and making a loss along the way. I'm not saying that I make a lot of money, and even some years I make a loss, but I have an off farm job and I have reinvested a lot of the money that I have made on the farm, back into the farm so that when the time came in the last 2 years that I needed an income from the farm because of reduced off farm working hours, it was able to provide that income.
I met with a couple of friends/colleagues/farmers at a small networking meting last night who are of similar age to me and have a similar interest in farming and that's the point that I took away home with me. I'm not going to stand still. I'm going to try to do things better than the average person, breed better cattle than the average person, get better than average results. Going to take advantage of what's out there - be it Tams grants to improve safety or working conditions, Beep Scheme, environmental schemes, BDGP, etc. No matter what type of land we have, how long our winters are, and how we are disadvantaged, if we are at the top of our game we are miles ahead of the ones that are just going through the motions.
If we're going to stay farming, the first thing to improve is what's inside our gate.
I can't understand lads who didn't take up Glas. Further to that, I can't understand those that didn't take up BDGP. I hearing this rhetoric about how BDGP has suckler cattle ruined because of dairy cross breeding to bring up stars. I saw figures last night for animal breeds and crosses in BDGP. Only 15% of the 600,000 cows in it are dairy cross or second generation dairy cross. 85% of the animals in it have met their star targets in the scheme without having to breed using dairy animals. The problem is that the voices that we hear complaining about these schemes don't represent the majority of farmers who are happy with them, but instead represent someone or a small few who have a loud voice and are disgruntled. And they are able to shout loud enough to get attention! Or lads won't go to discussion groups to learn new information or practices because they don't pay enough when in other industries, you have to pay to learn, not be paid to attend.
No matter what we think or what we want. The future of beef is less suckler cows. I can't quote national figures, but I can tell you about all of the farms within 1 square mile of home and what they did up to 1990. Half of their herd was a milking herd and the other half was a suckling herd. And that was the same for most of the county. There was only half of the suckler cows in the county compared to what's there now. That's where it needs to be. How do we get there? We have to accept that forestry is one major way of doing this. I have my reservations about it. We need to see a change in the grant system which will stop investment companies buying up swarts of land for forestry or already in forestry and we need to see a grant system which encourages farmers to plant their land, remain living in rural communities and work maintaining their forestry. What's happening at the moment is criminal! But it suits the government for meeting climate change targets and that's more important to them than rural communities.
jcb411abuser
Well-Known Member
I'm all for looking at our farming practices and improving them. But for the most part what seems efficient and cuts costs is in the long term neither.
Just one example is the slatted tank, anyone now building anything else for cattle would be deemed mad. Yet it's very expensive to to build initially, i dare anyone to take a millennial citdiot to a slatted shed and say that animal welfare is as good as it is in a bedded shed, and no one has ever died from gas in a straw bedded shed either.
To top it off composting of the bedding is both an effective way of releasing nutrients to enrich the land and to kill pathogens shed by the cattle, where slurry pits are not.
But after 10 years it is a cheaper system to run as the initial cost is covered, but how many cattle might under perform how much more disease is carried out to the land again, how is our public image damaged, your own satisfaction in your work, your own safety, just so you can produce beef for a euro less a kilo?
Just one example is the slatted tank, anyone now building anything else for cattle would be deemed mad. Yet it's very expensive to to build initially, i dare anyone to take a millennial citdiot to a slatted shed and say that animal welfare is as good as it is in a bedded shed, and no one has ever died from gas in a straw bedded shed either.
To top it off composting of the bedding is both an effective way of releasing nutrients to enrich the land and to kill pathogens shed by the cattle, where slurry pits are not.
But after 10 years it is a cheaper system to run as the initial cost is covered, but how many cattle might under perform how much more disease is carried out to the land again, how is our public image damaged, your own satisfaction in your work, your own safety, just so you can produce beef for a euro less a kilo?
I never built a slatted tank for those reasons and the grant structure was such that building anything else was not viable because of the hold cement roadstone had over the department . If we cut costs the supermarkets would want the product supplied cheaper .
My Beef Plan would be " That every beef farmer would empty a load of Silage effluent into their nearest river if the Meat factories or Department had misbehaved in the previous twelve months ". My last yard of fattening cattle left the place 22 years ago and it has only got worse and the farmers are still negotiating with them .
The biggest mistake farmers ever made was to start tagging cattle in the 1950,s .
6600
Well-Known Member
There's nothing wrong with slats they just need mats on them! A 6 span 9' tank with 14'6" slats on top will cost you €25k plus vat. It will last a lifetime.
Last edited:
muckymanor
Well-Known Member
80% of suckler cows kept in this country in 2017 were kept at a loss. Similar figure for the years before that. Farmers selling cattle below the cost of production devalues beef industry as much as supermarket's selling beef as a loss leader. Lads selling suckler weanlings at less than it cost to keep the cow for the year are more to blame than anyone else in the chain. The only solution is to produce less weanlings!
scoffcruddle
Well-Known Member
Sexed beef semen or cost efficient embryo transfer would be the answer from dairy herds.
I agree we get more efficient and the supermarket take our efficiency and keep it for themselves,the real crux is foods way too cheap and the modern household want quick food,they can't be arsed cooking anymore.