beef price tracker

Fireside Solicitor

Muckit wrote: »

Your post wreeks of begrudgery. He is a businessman with a business head and you hold this against him? He has it sussed where the money is and runs his farm accordingly. Yes farming is good for tax writeoffs. The world and his mother knows this. It's deliberately done so. If the part time farmer gave up in the morning the whole economy would go wallop. It's given as a "sweetner." I always said there was money in farming, just not for the farmer.
The man may drive a flash beemer but you can be damn sure farming didn't pay for it!! And if it did, we all could do worse than listen to him.

Leaving out the begrudgery bit. Subsidies should be paid to active farmers only and similarly this test should follow through to the tax assessment with Revenue with restrictions for non active farmers. An active farmer test should be an economic one - if the individual derives 75% of his income from the farm including the subsidies. That still allows a spouse to work off farm. I totally disagree that the whole thing would go wallop. It will go wallop for definite as is with the EU pulling subsidies over the next decade. What’s left in the pot should go to active farmers only. This businessman can always lease the land and pay no tax on the lease income.

Muckit

I see where u are coming from. But l can't see subsidies going anytime soon. They will always be there in some guise. Maybe I'm wrong. But l think they, along with generous grants and vat refunds for buidings and farm infrastructure are a cheaper way of getting farm produce than paying a decent price for it in the first place.

wrangler

Limestone Cowboy wrote: »

Plenty of middling stock here. Hard to get them all right even with the best will in the world.

They do have 'ordinary' sucklers too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHScgFiWq_Q

wrangler

Fireside Solicitor wrote: »

Leaving out the begrudgery bit. Subsidies should be paid to active farmers only and similarly this test should follow through to the tax assessment with Revenue with restrictions for non active farmers. An active farmer test should be an economic one - if the individual derives 75% of his income from the farm including the subsidies. That still allows a spouse to work off farm. I totally disagree that the whole thing would go wallop. It will go wallop for definite as is with the EU pulling subsidies over the next decade. What’s left in the pot should go to active farmers only. This businessman can always lease the land and pay no tax on the lease income.

Most rule s can be got around.....forming a company would probably keep the entitlements

farisfat

2+2=36

Bass Reeves

Fireside Solicitor wrote: »

Leaving out the begrudgery bit. Subsidies should be paid to active farmers only and similarly this test should follow through to the tax assessment with Revenue with restrictions for non active farmers. An active farmer test should be an economic one - if the individual derives 75% of his income from the farm including the subsidies. That still allows a spouse to work off farm. I totally disagree that the whole thing would go wallop. It will go wallop for definite as is with the EU pulling subsidies over the next decade. What’s left in the pot should go to active farmers only. This businessman can always lease the land and pay no tax on the lease income.

We are back to the so called active farmer. What will be decided as off farm income. Any self employed businessperson can put the business in there spouses name and work the system. You can also put it in a company form and take minimum income out of it every year. We had this before with grants for farm buildings. The only person it effects is the PAYE worker, income limits were set so low that those PAYE workers that had a qualifying off farm invome could not afford to invest and did not. While those that could afford to did not as there was no viable return.

It would close down the drystock sector expecially in area where land is poor quality. It would discourage transfering farms to younger farmers as older farmer would fit the profile to draw grants and subsidity's. It would also become the preserve of lads that had capital and could work the system. As well it would means that for many farmers as happens in the milksector at present mammy or daddy have to be well set up so as that you can enter farming. This idea that only full time farmers need to be preserved is shortsighted and especially now as 90% of drystock farmers have incomes that are not derived from drystock

patsy_mccabe

wrangler wrote: »

They do have 'ordinary' sucklers too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHScgFiWq_Q

That Tricia Kennedy does a great job with cattle videos. She has done a few now for high profile dispersal sales.

croot

Fireside Solicitor wrote: »

Leaving out the begrudgery bit. Subsidies should be paid to active farmers only and similarly this test should follow through to the tax assessment with Revenue with restrictions for non active farmers. An active farmer test should be an economic one - if the individual derives 75% of his income from the farm including the subsidies.

Because it suits you?

I have a good off farm income as does most of my friends because in the west/north west especially full time farming is nonviable. In my DG all of the farmers are part time and and some of them are absolutely on top of their game. Coupled to that, BPS benefits are not that high in these areas. Going by your criteria that would wipe out 90% of suckler farms in this region. Are you more productive than all of these or do you just think you are?

jooksavage

croot wrote: »

Because it suits you?

I have a good off farm income as does most of my friends because in the west/north west especially full time farming is nonviable. In my DG all of the farmers are part time and and some of them are absolutely on top of their game. Coupled to that, BPS benefits are not that high in these areas. Going by your criteria that would wipe out 90% of suckler farms in this region. Are you more productive than all of these or do you just think you are?

100% this. If we go with a model like the one proposed, only the biggest, most profitable farmers (i.e. dairy), or the flat-out, zero-prospect stay-at-home wasters (we all know 'em) would draw subsidies. The part-time/full-time thing is more nuanced than that.

patsy_mccabe

If you get rid of subsidies (not sucklers) , then the present margin would have to be reflected in a factory price increase. People may produce at very low margins, but they won't produce at a loss. We are stupid, but we ain't that stupid. The only income then from land would be to work it hard, leading to even more cattle in the country.

Sorry - edited..

Willfarman

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

If you get rid of sucklers, then the present margin would have to be reflected in a factory price increase. People may produce at very low margins, but they won't produce at a loss. We are stupid, but we ain't that stupid. The only income then from land would be to work it hard, leading to even more cattle in the country.

Patsy never underestimate the stupidity of farmers!
Payments on suckers have been decoupled a long time now but suggesting daisy gets the bullet is akin to trying to take peig sairs rosary beads and telling her to snap out of it and enjoy whatever time she has left!

Fireside Solicitor

Well that’s my point entirely. The system as is facilitates external “investors” who legitimately manipulate the system to their advantage and in the process reduce what is available to other farmers - for example they absorb subsidies for being non productive and they pay non market related prices for cattle because they don’t need to make a profit - furthermore it prolongs the slow death of certain areas.

If by going my way we wipe out inefficient area within sectors then maybe that’s the cost because it’s going there slowly and no amount of us on blathering here will change that. Europe and food retail will drive it that way over the next decade. Ask yourself why would you encourage a young person to get involved in a subscale farming operation - let them go away and get skilled and they can some back at weekend to look at the field and take in the fresh air.

Recouple to production, revise the tax code around farming as I said nothing to stop investors buying and leasing land on favorable tax terms.

Market rules will apply. Those that can stay profitable will stay at it and those that won’t will leave the sector. You mightn’t like what I’m saying but that’s where it’s heading for non dairy.

Fireside Solicitor

On active farmer - see my earlier post and take this example which happens near us - and no Muckit this is not begrudgery.

A 125 acre farm that has 40 cattle and pays a subsidy of 22k. Grass is let go wild and 2 fields have gone to seed since this man inherited it. What benefit is there to anyone in this system being allowed continue?

A new definition of active farmer is needed and the above sort of thing is a waste. Use it or lose it.

jooksavage

Fireside Solicitor wrote: »

On active farmer - see my earlier post and take this example which happens near us - and no Muckit this is not begrudgery.

A 125 acre farm that has 40 cattle and pays a subsidy of 22k. Grass is let go wild and 2 fields have gone to seed since this man inherited it. What benefit is there to anyone in this system being allowed continue?

A new definition of active farmer is needed and the above sort of thing is a waste. Use it or lose it.

That's fair enough but that guy sounds like an outlier and certainly doesn't resemble any of the lads I know who are holding down off-farm jobs. Hard cases make bad law and all that. If his farm is gone half wild, he should be penalised accordingly: keeping his land in Good Agricultural Environmental Condition is a requirement for the payment.

Assessing everyone on the basis of farm vs. off-farm income is too blunt and doesnt allow for people like me who've taken over underperforming, under-invested farms and are working, with the help of the payment, towards making it more efficient and profitable.

wrangler

jooksavage wrote: »

That's fair enough but that guy sounds like an outlier and certainly doesn't resemble any of the lads I know who are holding down off-farm jobs. Hard cases make bad law and all that. If his farm is gone half wild, he should be penalised accordingly: keeping his land in Good Agricultural Environmental Condition is a requirement for the payment.

Assessing everyone on the basis of farm vs. off-farm income is too blunt and doesnt allow for people like me who've taken over underperforming, under-invested farms and are working, with the help of the payment, towards making it more efficient and profitable.

That's one of the problems, in a drystock farm efficiency doesn't always mean more profit, there's probably better investments out there for your SFP.
Extensive farming is probably seen to be more GAEC friendly than intensive farming at the moment........Hill farmers did very well out of the last CAP reform with a min stocking rate of 1 ewe to the hectare if they can control the gorse

Willfarman

Fireside Solicitor wrote: »

On active farmer - see my earlier post and take this example which happens near us - and no Muckit this is not begrudgery.

A 125 acre farm that has 40 cattle and pays a subsidy of 22k. Grass is let go wild and 2 fields have gone to seed since this man inherited it. What benefit is there to anyone in this system being allowed continue?

A new definition of active farmer is needed and the above sort of thing is a waste. Use it or lose it.

The farm is a living eco system for wildlife, And not stockpiling beef for the barons to carve up between them. This man is doing no other farmer any harm.

patsy_mccabe

Fireside Solicitor wrote: »

Well that’s my point entirely. The system as is facilitates external “investors” who legitimately manipulate the system to their advantage and in the process reduce what is available to other farmers - for example they absorb subsidies for being non productive and they pay non market related prices for cattle because they don’t need to make a profit - furthermore it prolongs the slow death of certain areas.

If by going my way we wipe out inefficient area within sectors then maybe that’s the cost because it’s going there slowly and no amount of us on blathering here will change that. Europe and food retail will drive it that way over the next decade. Ask yourself why would you encourage a young person to get involved in a subscale farming operation - let them go away and get skilled and they can some back at weekend to look at the field and take in the fresh air.

Recouple to production, revise the tax code around farming as I said nothing to stop investors buying and leasing land on favorable tax terms.

Market rules will apply. Those that can stay profitable will stay at it and those that won’t will leave the sector. You mightn’t like what I’m saying but that’s where it’s heading for non dairy.

1 - If they pay non 'market prices' as you say, who do they buy these cattle from., why other farmers, of course. Do you hear them complaining?

2- If ' Market rules apply', then we'd all be eating Brazilian beef.

Bass Reeves

Fireside Solicitor wrote: »

Well that’s my point entirely. The system as is facilitates external “investors” who legitimately manipulate the system to their advantage and in the process reduce what is available to other farmers - for example they absorb subsidies for being non productive and they pay non market related prices for cattle because they don’t need to make a profit - furthermore it prolongs the slow death of certain areas.

If by going my way we wipe out inefficient area within sectors then maybe that’s the cost because it’s going there slowly and no amount of us on blathering here will change that. Europe and food retail will drive it that way over the next decade. Ask yourself why would you encourage a young person to get involved in a subscale farming operation - let them go away and get skilled and they can some back at weekend to look at the field and take in the fresh air.

Recouple to production, revise the tax code around farming as I said nothing to stop investors buying and leasing land on favorable tax terms.

Market rules will apply. Those that can stay profitable will stay at it and those that won’t will leave the sector. You mightn’t like what I’m saying but that’s where it’s heading for non dairy.

I have highlighted a few parts. First off most of the lads paying non market related prices for cattle tend to be summer grazers, those that are semi-retired on big SFP. TBH they tend to fund the lads producing non economic suckler cattle. When they go the suckler cow will finally go.

If we have learned anything it is that efficient farmimg dose not pay. Maybe that businessman you alluded to is making more than you think. John Heney has a bit in todays Indo regard why he is gone extensive rather than intensive. Basically he was making nothing extra out of ration and fertlizer in his opinion. Would not totally agree with all that but it is valid to an extent.

Your point about young people is actually valid, let them go away get an education, see the world and come back and farm in a profit efficient manner. Look at profit rather than output. Recoupling to production will only make extra monety for processors not for drystock farmers.We all see how when cattle supply numbers rise to processors price falls to farmer. How will you revise the tax code, the tax code cannot discrimate on your production or income level. If it is applied to farming it has to be applied to the local pub, shop and solicitor.

Market rules are applying, more and more small to mid sized units are going part time because you could run a 100+ acre drystock farm that is set up right that you live on in 20-30 hours a week, maybe even less. Therefore lads that have smaller units are setting these up to draw the maximun profit with minimum input. A partimer with 50 good acres keeping 50-60 cattle all year around, either finishing or selling as forward stores making maybe 200/head has 10-12K + his SFP, GLAS and ANC as profit. He might have an income of 20-25K for maybe 20 hours/week work. All he needs to do is draw it down in an efficient manner the same as any business man will do. There are the lads that are profitable and staying in the game.

wrangler

I see the new beef lobby group is going to look for a voluntary reduction of 10%in calves born in the country,
Also a challenge to the Competition Authority.
Being led by a member of the IFA livestock commitee and looking for a meeting with IFA.
This has all happened before ......resulting in ICSA
Doh...am I missing something

Dickie10

To be honest i think cash flow is king, i see the profit moniter on some all beef farms i dont know how they survive, going six months plus without any payment i dont know how they keep bills paid. i think sheep and beef are a good combinnation last year as i was doing the accounts i seen that only april was the only month i didnt have a cheque coming in. cash flow is what u need

charolais0153

Dickie10 wrote: »

To be honest i think cash flow is king, i see the profit moniter on some all beef farms i dont know how they survive, going six months plus without any payment i dont know how they keep bills paid. i think sheep and beef are a good combinnation last year as i was doing the accounts i seen that only april was the only month i didnt have a cheque coming in. cash flow is what u need

I dont see how 1k every month is any different to 12 k at the start of the year

Willfarman

Peace of mind. Being able to pay your bills with no credit. Yer one with the foreign accent in Aldi likes the few bob on the day too.

But yes the maths is the same.

patsy_mccabe

wrangler wrote: »

I see the new beef lobby group is going to look for a voluntary reduction of 10%in calves born in the country,
Also a challenge to the Competition Authority.
Being led by a member of the IFA livestock commitee and looking for a meeting with IFA.
This has all happened before ......resulting in ICSA
Doh...am I missing something

When we export 80% of our beef, a reduction in numbers, voluntary or otherewise wouldn't make one iota of difference. I think people confuse factory price fluctuations due to factories looking to fill contracts on a weekly basis with the far bigger picture of a global market.
We sell into a huge market at the end of the day and any reduction in numbers here would have have feck all effect on price. Factories would just commit to lower contract volumes and continue as normal.

wrangler

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

When we export 80% of our beef, a reduction in numbers, voluntary or otherewise wouldn't make one iota of difference. I think people confuse factory price fluctuations due to factories looking to fill contracts on a weekly basis with the far bigger picture of a global market.
We sell into a huge market at the end of the day any reduction in numbers here would have have feck all effect on price. Factories would just commit to lower contract volumes and continue as normal.

That'd be my thoughts too yet you wouldn't believe how many time over the years I've been hassled with that proposal and here it is again from another group.......also the proposal to take on the CA ....I'd love to see the rest of their 86 point program...they're just reinventing the wheel...the good point's will have been worked on before now and the bad ones won't.
Factory run by farmers,....been done,enough said. Producer groups, a producer group in laoise have tried selling beef and lamb, and it's hard hard work. Must be twenty years going now if it was a good idea we'd have heard about it

http://glasfarmplanners.ie/beef-plan-2018-2025-blueprint-calls-for-reform-of-farm-unions/

MfMan

Back on topic, what's being paid this week?

CloughCasey1

MfMan wrote: »

Back on topic, what's being paid this week?

Not enough

Cavanjack

MfMan wrote: »

Back on topic, what's being paid this week?

€3.75 for bullocks

Fireside Solicitor

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

1 - If they pay non 'market prices' as you say, who do they buy these cattle from., why other farmers, of course. Do you hear them complaining?

2- If ' Market rules apply', then we'd all be eating Brazilian beef.

Patsy if you recoupled subsidies to production only then yes market forces would apply but with the safety net of a subsidy per head or some similar. The point of my argument is to Target what declining resources there are to active farmers not to passive landowners. What is active we can debate. Inflated cattle prices are doing nobody any good and is anyone making a decent margin??

Recouple subsidies, the arm chair boys will exit and let the trade find a new floor.

The alternative is the death spiral we’re all in.

Fireside Solicitor

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I have highlighted a few parts. First off most of the lads paying non market related prices for cattle tend to be summer grazers, those that are semi-retired on big SFP. TBH they tend to fund the lads producing non economic suckler cattle. When they go the suckler cow will finally go.

If we have learned anything it is that efficient farmimg dose not pay. Maybe that businessman you alluded to is making more than you think. John Heney has a bit in todays Indo regard why he is gone extensive rather than intensive. Basically he was making nothing extra out of ration and fertlizer in his opinion. Would not totally agree with all that but it is valid to an extent.

Your point about young people is actually valid, let them go away get an education, see the world and come back and farm in a profit efficient manner. Look at profit rather than output. Recoupling to production will only make extra monety for processors not for drystock farmers.We all see how when cattle supply numbers rise to processors price falls to farmer. How will you revise the tax code, the tax code cannot discrimate on your production or income level. If it is applied to farming it has to be applied to the local pub, shop and solicitor.

Market rules are applying, more and more small to mid sized units are going part time because you could run a 100+ acre drystock farm that is set up right that you live on in 20-30 hours a week, maybe even less. Therefore lads that have smaller units are setting these up to draw the maximun profit with minimum input. A partimer with 50 good acres keeping 50-60 cattle all year around, either finishing or selling as forward stores making maybe 200/head has 10-12K + his SFP, GLAS and ANC as profit. He might have an income of 20-25K for maybe 20 hours/week work. All he needs to do is draw it down in an efficient manner the same as any business man will do. There are the lads that are profitable and staying in the game.

Bass on the tax code, if we all agree that farming is important for rural Ireland as the politicians call it and if we all agree the profit is going out of it then an farm specific tax code could apply. No reason why not. Manufacturing companies got it for years. Tech companies get it today. Why not for active farmers?

Burning Tires

Cavanjack wrote: »

€3.75 for bullocks

3.75 here too. Agent thinks it wont drop to 3.70 either. I've 9 of this years stock to send to tge factory, about 6 are coming fit for it.

Ive been looking back on the financial side of my farming this year, and 2 things have stood out beef cattle.
1. I made more money from sell standing crops of silage this year than cattle . I know this is only because of the drought abd demand was high.
2. I'll never be a full time farmer unless i go dairy farming. (Not likely to hapoen)

Bass Reeves

Fireside Solicitor wrote: »

Patsy if you recoupled subsidies to production only then yes market forces would apply but with the safety net of a subsidy per head or some similar. The point of my argument is to Target what declining resources there are to active farmers not to passive landowners. What is active we can debate. Inflated cattle prices are doing nobody any good and is anyone making a decent margin??

Recouple subsidies, the arm chair boys will exit and let the trade find a new floor.

The alternative is the death spiral we’re all in.

Any recoupling of subsidies will play into the hand of processors and dairy farmers who will control supply. It willa slo paly into the hands of advisors and millers. It will force beef farmers into playing for extra ration, fertlizer and nitrates plans. As well as reseeding and contractors. Soa heap more works and costs for no return

Fireside Solicitor wrote: »

Bass on the tax code, if we all agree that farming is important for rural Ireland as the politicians call it and if we all agree the profit is going out of it then an farm specific tax code could apply. No reason why not. Manufacturing companies got it for years. Tech companies get it today. Why not for active farmers?

But you associate an active farmer is a lads that is farming full time. Like many from areas where the better land is there is a snobbery about a lad working and farming part time

Fireside Solicitor

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Any recoupling of subsidies will play into the hand of processors and dairy farmers who will control supply. It willa slo paly into the hands of advisors and millers. It will force beef farmers into playing for extra ration, fertlizer and nitrates plans. As well as reseeding and contractors. Soa heap more works and costs for no return





But you associate an active farmer is a lads that is farming full time. Like many from areas where the better land is there is a snobbery about a lad working and farming part time

No I don’t. I would means test it and I would link subsidies to production. I would end the day of just because I own land I get an entitlement. I know the system has grown around this concept over the past 30 years but it will kill us. Why? Because the money just won’t be there for it over the next 10-15 years. My issue is that as time goes on more land is moving into “passive” hands or at least it is where we are and the current system allows them stay passive and reap the benefits of the system. I want all of us real farmers who yes may have off farm income - I had one myself contracting - to get what’s in the pot first. I want the passive men who typically own decent land not to get entitlements based on land ownership They are wealthier first off and secondly they should be leasing the land tax free to an active farmer who will be productive. I’m not a socialist and neither do I begrudge these businesspeople but I believe that farmers produce good food and do a service to rural communities and that they are getting squeezed out by the current system and will get more squeezed. It’s a question of dividing the pie between who needs/deserves it and who doesn’t.

Bass Reeves

Fireside Solicitor wrote: »

No I don’t. I would means test it and I would link subsidies to production. I would end the day of just because I own land I get an entitlement. I know the system has grown around this concept over the past 30 years but it will kill us. Why? Because the money just won’t be there for it over the next 10-15 years. My issue is that as time goes on more land is moving into “passive” hands or at least it is where we are and the current system allows them stay passive and reap the benefits of the system. I want all of us real farmers who yes may have off farm income - I had one myself contracting - to get what’s in the pot first. I want the passive men who typically own decent land not to get entitlements based on land ownership They are wealthier first off and secondly they should be leasing the land tax free to an active farmer who will be productive. I’m not a socialist and neither do I begrudge these businesspeople but I believe that farmers produce good food and do a service to rural communities and that they are getting squeezed out by the current system and will get more squeezed. It’s a question of dividing the pie between who needs/deserves it and who doesn’t.

If you tie subsiditiers to production even if it not directy tied to animals it will still be that are the main benificery's will not drstock farmers. If you do not tie it to animals you have to tie it to a stocking rate or to nitrates. This will mean you have to stock at a higher rate to get a higher subsidity. This will increase competition around the ring and the main benificary will be dairy farmers. There are 1.4 million dairy cows and about 550K suckler cows. If to access these higher rates of subsidities suckler farmer expand or other farmers expand into sucklers then the processors will have more cattle to kill and they will drop the price of beef as production expands. To maintain this level of production it means more reseeding, more fertlizer, more ration and guess who wins the those that provide these services or sell these products. As well it will mean that exporters wuill find it harder to compete for calves and weanlings so more cattle remain in the country to be slaughtered so procossers have more stock to access so they lower the price.

Muckit

MfMan wrote: »

Back on topic, what's being paid this week?

3.80 heifers

coolshannagh28

Bass Reeves wrote: »

If you tie subsiditiers to production even if it not directy tied to animals it will still be that are the main benificery's will not drstock farmers. If you do not tie it to animals you have to tie it to a stocking rate or to nitrates. This will mean you have to stock at a higher rate to get a higher subsidity. This will increase competition around the ring and the main benificary will be dairy farmers. There are 1.4 million dairy cows and about 550K suckler cows. If to access these higher rates of subsidities suckler farmer expand or other farmers expand into sucklers then the processors will have more cattle to kill and they will drop the price of beef as production expands. To maintain this level of production it means more reseeding, more fertlizer, more ration and guess who wins the those that provide these services or sell these products. As well it will mean that exporters wuill find it harder to compete for calves and weanlings so more cattle remain in the country to be slaughtered so procossers have more stock to access so they lower the price.

Its a nil equation , as you say coupled payments disadvantage most farmers and the actual income is dispersed to retailers and processors; decoupled payments in a way are more advantageous to the farmer but again the actual payments are eaten up by advisors, vets etc ala BDGP /GLAS scheme so it is barely worthwhile participating .

_Brian

Coupling patients to production will drive beef numbers further and prices will slump completly.
As we’ve seen with Turkey live export markets are a precarious thing, meat consumption is down right across Europe (last numbers I saw anyway)

Doing something that drives increases in beef production needs to be carefully thought out regarding where all the extra beef is expected to be sold. We shouldn’t look to produce something just because we can, there needs to be a solid sustainable market for it.

The only changes I see with payments is more and more moving towards how land is farmed rather than production or farming type.

charolais0153

10 euro/ewe hasnt resulted in an increase in ewe numbers.
Bdgp hasnt resulted in an increase in suckler cow numbers.

patsy_mccabe

Where is the evidence that a suckler cow subsidy would simply pass on to the factories?

wrangler

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Where is the evidence that a suckler cow subsidy would simply pass on to the factories?

The subsidy won't be allowed if there's the slightest chance of an increase in numbers.
If if it was paid on present numbers using the last few years as reference years it won't distort the trade but trying to get that simple fact through peoples skulls is near impossible.
Sucklers are unsustainable maybe but are they any worse than feeding poorly made freisian calves

_Brian

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Where is the evidence that a suckler cow subsidy would simply pass on to the factories?

That’s where all the rest of the profit has migrated to, that’s absolute evidence that they will engineer a system where it is passed to them. I’ve no doubt. History has proven it.

Goodeone

Anyone hear any prices for bulls?
Got quoted 3.75 from an agent for U grade bulls around 18 months old.

gerryirl

got 3.70 base for bullocks yesterday. got €4 a kilo with all in. Super cattle . they could have taken more feeding but whats the point

Cavanjack

Goodeone wrote: »

Anyone hear any prices for bulls?
Got quoted 3.75 from an agent for U grade bulls around 18 months old.

Heard 3.85-3.90 for u grades

Willfarman

gerryirl wrote: »

got 3.70 base for bullocks yesterday. got €4 a kilo with all in. Super cattle . they could have taken more feeding but whats the point

You had underage u grade cattle?

gerryirl

Willfarman wrote: »

You had underage u grade cattle?

Yes. They killed out 425 but they could have been fed for another two months without getting fat

Muckit

Got on well with heifers.
Bit of learning though with 4th one. She was a super girl and l thought she done. She just slipped out of QA....just. Had she made the 2+ she would have made an extra 18c all in and would have left another €70!

patsy_mccabe

Throw up the full docket. We won't tell anyone.

Muckit

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Throw up the full docket. We won't tell anyone.

Twud only confuse you Patsy!!

patsy_mccabe

Muckit wrote: »

Twud only confuse you Patsy!!

Ya, big money wrecks me head.

CloughCasey1

Muckit wrote: »

Twud only confuse you Patsy!!

Scored well Muckit. What hanging weights and ages ave?