beef price tracker

johnnyw20

WTF were these cattle doing with 4 movements and only 340 kgs. I have no sympathy for the owner he bough them at 3 movements. Both lots of cattle were stupid money IMO[/quote]

Prob bought by a dealer as a calf and resold

Then offered as a yearling and bought by a dealer and then resold at the other side of the country!

Bass Reeves

Anto_Meath wrote: »

Bass, that is what you get when you have farmers just farming for entitlements. The second lot were bough by a lad who keeps a lot less cattle than he used to, enough to keep the grass short and will sell them again in October. The first lot were sold by a young lad who is only after taking over the farm and seems to be turning it around from a beef finishing farm to a short stay store enterprise, ie buying little light stock keeping them fora few months and then flipping them on again. The mart trade didn't make sense at all last night, it was very dear for light cattle.

I do not quite agree. It when you have lads not understanding the business they are in. I can understand the second lad if he is only buying limited cattle to draw ANC. However if he is stocking at a fairly mid level he is an idiot.

I have little sympathy for the first lad either if he paid too much for them with no movement left to sell them. There is little enough margin in cattle without lads hauling them around the country and in and out of marts each time they change hands costs 10-40 euro/head

johnnyw20 wrote: »

Prob bought by a dealer as a calf and resold

Then offered as a yearling and bought by a dealer and then resold at the other side of the country!

No they were suckler bred according to Anto. If they were only yearlings this is there 4 move in six months. If they are older 18+ months they are a very poor weight for age as well. Even if they were dairy bred storesthat number of moves at 350kgs is stupid. There is 40 euro in QA gone off there finishing price and another 30-40 in AA bonus but they may be not too salable because of age as well if they are up on 24 months.

When cattle hit the limit on moves only lads willing to finish them should bid on them.

Albert Johnson

johnnyw20 wrote: »

WTF were these cattle doing with 4 movements and only 340 kgs. I have no sympathy for the owner he bough them at 3 movements. Both lots of cattle were stupid money IMO

Prob bought by a dealer as a calf and resold

Then offered as a yearling and bought by a dealer and then resold at the other side of the country![/quote]

The above is a possible cause for the moves but there is other reasons cattle acquire multiple movements other than dealing. For example a calf sold as part of a suckler team could acquire a movement shortly after birth and if put into a BnB setup over winter would be another movement. I've seen cull cows sold locally that have 10-12 movements due to being put into a BnB style wintering system, these cows had been moved between the herd of origin and the BnB herd multiple times over several winters.

I agree that multiple movements mean increased costs and reduced efficiency but dealing or other means of movement aren't exactly a new concept either. Movements are an industry based issue and to attempt to market them as a consumer issue is bull**** imo. The consumer doesn't care if there meat has 3 or 13 moves and it's only another excuse by the processor's to pull the price. In times of scarcity a jack ass could be mixed in through the kill and nothing would be said. QA status is a help to marketing Irish beef but basing it upon an arbitrary figure be it age, movements or residencies is a mistake imo.

lalababa

49801 wrote: »

any interest in having a factory beef price tracker on here?


got 4 hiefers to go, 3rs and 1o

got the following quotes for base price on Mon 23 Jan

4.10e/kg aibp bandon
4.15e/kg aibp cahir

quotes including bord bia
am holding tough as hoping for 4.25e/kg

Yeah somebody put this up a few pages back, this is the 1st post on this thread 7years ago. I looked up what the value of 4.20 euro 10 years ago was today. It is 4.40 today according to the Irish inflation calculator.
3.75 in 2019 was worth 3.58 in 2009.
I was looking up graphs of historical beef prices on the CSO and there's a 30% steady trajectory jump from start 2011 to end of 2012 and then plateaux s on steady? I for the life of me can't recall this jump. What was the reason?

kk.man

lalababa wrote: »

Yeah somebody put this up a few pages back, this is the 1st post on this thread 7years ago. I looked up what the value of 4.20 euro 10 years ago was today. It is 4.40 today according to the Irish inflation calculator.
3.75 in 2019 was worth 3.58 in 2009.
I was looking up graphs of historical beef prices on the CSO and there's a 30% steady trajectory jump from start 2011 to end of 2012 and then plateaux s on steady? I for the life of me can't recall this jump. What was the reason?

There was a shortage of supply in 2012 due to a number of factors. The main ones were we got a massive spring followed by a hungry early summer. Then the London Olympics happened in mid summer I sold Fresian bullocks at 4.27 flat that July the came into 1427 per head. I think the live trade took more cattle out of the country in 2011 that the factories hadn't bargined for.
Oh the glory days..we live for those!

Anto_Meath

Albert I agree with you, QA status should be applied to all cattle coming from a QA herd, yes I agree that it should be only paid for qualifying grades and possibly an age limit of 36 months (30 months was for the BSE scare that was doing the rounds at the time) but I don't agree with the number of movements effecting the QA status of the animal. I have my doubts if factories get it more difficult to sell beef from an animal that moved 5 -6 times than an animal that has moved 3 times.
Bass the animals I was referring to from last nights mart between 9 an 13 months of age.

SuperTortoise

I thought the whole idea of limited movements was to stop the dealer flipping cattle? Going back years ago when i used to go to the marts more often it would'nt be unusual to see the same cow in 3 different marts in the space of a week!

mr.stonewall

SuperTortoise wrote: »

I thought the whole idea of limited movements was to stop the dealer flipping cattle? Going back years ago when i used to go to the marts more often it would'nt be unusual to see the same cow in 3 different marts in the space of a week!

Think there has to be some sort of top up on the QA for cattle that have no movements. Born, raised and finished on the one farm.Surely this is some marketing strenght

Anto_Meath

mr.stonewall wrote: »

Think there has to be some sort of top up on the QA for cattle that have no movements. Born, raised and finished on the one farm.Surely this is some marketing strenght

Yes that would be a good idea, reward the farmer that brings the animal from birth to hook, its a long road and I would agree with giving a bit extra for that, but 1 movement or 6 movements shouldn't make any difference.

Albert Johnson

mr.stonewall wrote: »

Think there has to be some sort of top up on the QA for cattle that have no movements. Born, raised and finished on the one farm.Surely this is some marketing strenght

This would be a marketing strength but not any more than grass fed, GM free, hormone free and so on. There doesn't seem to be much appetite to capitalise on any of the above so why the fixation with movements. The cynic in me believes that movements are just another bargaining chip for the processor and another stick to beat us with.

Take for example farmer A with a bunch of organic traditional bred bullocks that spend the vast majority of there lifetime outdoors in as natural an environment as possible. They have received little concentrates, no hormone's or antibiotics and are the epitome of what Irish grass fed beef should be. However because there over 30 months and have passed through a few too many marts there now ineligible for premium prices.

Farmer B has a bunch of under 16 months continental bulls who've spent most of there life looking out through a barrier at the outside world. They've consumed almost 2 tonnes of concentrates each and could have been produced in any feedlot in the world at almost certainly a more competitive rate. However as they've been on farm since birth and don't know what a mart is there eligible for the going market rate.

Both farmers are indeed entitled to a return on there investment but which image is more in keeping with our so called "green advantage". Lads need to take stock of where beef production is going in this country. I believe that a sustainable and premium product is our only chance of success long-term. Those who want to operate a feedlot and compete at producing the cheapest commodity beef would be better suited to buying a cowboy hat and boarding the next plane to the American wild west imo.

Danzy

Albert Johnson wrote: »

This would be a marketing strength but not any more than grass fed, GM free, hormone free and so on. There doesn't seem to be much appetite to capitalise on any of the above so why the fixation with movements. The cynic in me believes that movements are just another bargaining chip for the processor and another stick to beat us with.

Take for example farmer A with a bunch of organic traditional bred bullocks that spend the vast majority of there lifetime outdoors in as natural an environment as possible. They have received little concentrates, no hormone's or antibiotics and are the epitome of what Irish grass fed beef should be. However because there over 30 months and have passed through a few too many marts there now ineligible for premium prices.

Farmer B has a bunch of under 16 months continental bulls who've spent most of there life looking out through a barrier at the outside world. They've consumed almost 2 tonnes of concentrates each and could have been produced in any feedlot in the world at almost certainly a more competitive rate. However as they've been on farm since birth and don't know what a mart is there eligible for the going market rate.

Both farmers are indeed entitled to a return on there investment but which image is more in keeping with our so called "green advantage". Lads need to take stock of where beef production is going in this country. I believe that a sustainable and premium product is our only chance of success long-term. Those who want to operate a feedlot and compete at producing the cheapest commodity beef would be better suited to buying a cowboy hat and boarding the next plane to the American wild west imo.

I've a cousin in Oz, 12000 acres in Queensland and 4k head of cattle.

He isn't big there, he would be known by first name here to nearly every farmer in Ire land.

Albert Johnson

Anto_Meath wrote: »

Yes that would be a good idea, reward the farmer that brings the animal from birth to hook, its a long road and I would agree with giving a bit extra for that, but 1 movement or 6 movements shouldn't make any difference.

I guarantee that if a premium of let's say 10 cent a kg was offered to first movement stock that a penalty of the same would be placed on all other that failed to meet this criteria. It's happening at the moment with concepts such as QA, movements and the like have nothing to do with beef quality or saleability despite what we're told. These are all processer lead demands and are used solely for price manipulation, it's only another step towards total processer monopoly.

Muckit

Danzy wrote: »

I've a cousin in Oz, 12000 acres in Queensland and 4k head of cattle.

He isn't big there, he would be known by first name here to nearly every farmer in Ire land.

This is the crux of it. 20 cattle on 60acres. No fuss. No hassle. It's the way rhings need to go.

amacca

Albert Johnson wrote: »

I guarantee that if a premium of let's say 10 cent a kg was offered to first movement stock that a penalty of the same would be placed on all other that failed to meet this criteria. It's happening at the moment with concepts such as QA, movements and the like have nothing to do with beef quality or saleability despite what we're told. These are all processer lead demands and are used solely for price manipulation, it's only another step towards total processer monopoly.

Thats the problem with gob****es taking on more and more box ticking for short term gain ...... literally giving away what little independence and control over their destiny they have imo.

wrangler

Albert Johnson wrote: »

I guarantee that if a premium of let's say 10 cent a kg was offered to first movement stock that a penalty of the same would be placed on all other that failed to meet this criteria. It's happening at the moment with concepts such as QA, movements and the like have nothing to do with beef quality or saleability despite what we're told. These are all processer lead demands and are used solely for price manipulation, it's only another step towards total processer monopoly.

Agreed, Farmers haven't enough power to put anything up for negotiation,
Renegotiating QA, the grid, price, will only lead to losing ground.

Danzy

Muckit wrote: »

This is the crux of it. 20 cattle on 60acres. No fuss. No hassle. It's the way rhings need to go.

I've given up on maximizing output,.

More time at the part time job and minimize the time on the land.

Actually get more done for it, lot of things done to be spot on, that weren't cash creating.

The best beef farmer now gets as much as he can for as little hours, there is nothing wrong with that, it is actually farming for the long term.

Hit the base load and **** with being mighty at it.

For all that I'm still trying hard everyday to improve as a farmer and the farm but i think it is better to be decent than mighty, pays better per hour.

80/20 rule, most of your profit comes from 20% of effort.

The job can still pay but cut the hours to meet the reward as much as possible, might not feel comfortable but the old approach is no longer an option in my humble, opinion.

Robson99

riemann wrote: »

I'd think very carefully before you decide to leave the QA scheme.

There is no guarantee you will get the Base Price when producing out of spec cattle, can easily be cut >10c. That's all assuming you can get them killed in the first place as when numbers are high, out of spec cattle are at the back of the queue. When numbers are low you wouldn't have any bother.

It's easy for the usual lads to give you a clap on the back for sticking it to the man, that won't translate to cash in your pocket. QA is possible one of the easiest box ticking exercises there is, most of it is common sense and good practice. The factories use the 30month limit to control demand which is obviously market manipulation, however you deciding to leave the scheme won't solve that particular problem.

Not planning on leaving the scheme just will be buying value in continental cattle and not worrying about movements or age once I have them killed before 36 months. If I kill 50 cattle in the year I will have no problem getting 10 or 15 of them that are out of QA spec killed. All I Lose is the 12 cent. Cattle with 3+ movements are much easier to buy as are cattle that may not be fit to kill at 30 months.
No of movements is a load of bull. 1 nights B and B can mean 1 movement. Does the steak taste different after the 3rd movement??
Also 30 months limit just takes the power away from the farmers uniting to stop sending cattle in to the factory
Then you have in spec cattle but you are 4+ in fat trying to get the last bit of weight on to make ends meet. You loose your QA. Common sense and good practice have nothing to do with it. Common sense went out the door when the gob****es who negotiated this QA with the factories agreed to these specs.

Albert Johnson

wrangler wrote: »

Agreed, Farmers haven't enough power to put anything up for negotiation,
Renegotiating QA, the grid, price, will only lead to losing ground.

I agree to a point wrangler and farmer's are on the back foot regards negotiation. However despite what we are led to believe feedlots control little of the annual kill, farmers in there many forms supply the bulk of the raw product. Temporarily withdrawing supplies isn't a viable option for a myriad of reasons as you are well aware but a long term reduction in supply is within our grasp.

I believe that there is at least twice to much cattle and subsequent beef available in this country at the present time. Yes suckler numbers have decreased significantly and live exports have increased but the ever expanding dairy herd has left overall cattle numbers largely unchanged. Until the supply of raw product is greatly reduced we are fighting a losing battle imo. The suckler sector has been repeatedly shown to be unviable in the majority of cases and should therefore be largely wound down. This could take the form of a suckler reduction subsidy or similar. Such a view is no doubt unpalatable to many but is I believe necessary for the good of the entire beef sector.

A drastic reduction in finished cattle numbers would have numerous spin off benefits to the country as a whole. Less cattle would mean less chemical fertilizers and feed stuff being imported as well as a reduction in methane emissions from a smaller national herd. This would be a step in the right direction regarding ongoing environmental concerns. Less stock would also mean a reduction in the workload of farmers and would no doubt be positively received by the majority. Any financial savings as an economy could be targeted at worthwhile environmental schemes that would have a positive impact upon our environment rather than lining the pockets of main processor's.

I understand that if we cut the weekly kill to 10 carcasses that the processor's would only have contract's to sell 8 but this is only one factor in making such a decision. We've tried mass production and cutting costs to the bone in recent years with little success. Despite calls for increased productivity at all costs we've done little but create a race to the bottom. It's ludicrous imo to expect a similar mindset to fix the same problems it's created.

If beef is a mere commodity product and premium markets such a niche then a reduction in supplies nationally will make not one iota of a difference globally. It's time for farmers to put farmers first and not all those further up the production line. If beef is not truly capable of adequate returns then we have little to lose by reducing production. Conversely if an adequate margin can be returned then a shortage will only help to remind the processor's of our importance as primary producer's. The opportunity is always there for processor's to become primary producer's and perhaps a stint at rearing sucks or calving cows would do more to focus there outlook than any protests or BPM.

lalababa

Albert Johnson wrote: »

I agree to a point wrangler and farmer's are on the back foot regards negotiation. However despite what we are led to believe feedlots control little of the annual kill, farmers in there many forms supply the bulk of the raw product. Temporarily withdrawing supplies isn't a viable option for a myriad of reasons as you are well aware but a long term reduction in supply is within our grasp.

I believe that there is at least twice to much cattle and subsequent beef available in this country at the present time. Yes suckler numbers have decreased significantly and live exports have increased but the ever expanding dairy herd has left overall cattle numbers largely unchanged. Until the supply of raw product is greatly reduced we are fighting a losing battle imo. The suckler sector has been repeatedly shown to be unviable in the majority of cases and should therefore be largely wound down. This could take the form of a suckler reduction subsidy or similar. Such a view is no doubt unpalatable to many but is I believe necessary for the good of the entire beef sector.

A drastic reduction in finished cattle numbers would have numerous spin off benefits to the country as a whole. Less cattle would mean less chemical fertilizers and feed stuff being imported as well as a reduction in methane emissions from a smaller national herd. This would be a step in the right direction regarding ongoing environmental concerns. Less stock would also mean a reduction in the workload of farmers and would no doubt be positively received by the majority. Any financial savings as an economy could be targeted at worthwhile environmental schemes that would have a positive impact upon our environment rather than lining the pockets of main processor's.

I understand that if we cut the weekly kill to 10 carcasses that the processor's would only have contract's to sell 8 but this is only one factor in making such a decision. We've tried mass production and cutting costs to the bone in recent years with little success. Despite calls for increased productivity at all costs we've done little but create a race to the bottom. It's ludicrous imo to expect a similar mindset to fix the same problems it's created.

If beef is a mere commodity product and premium markets such a niche then a reduction in supplies nationally will make not one iota of a difference globally. It's time for farmers to put farmers first and not all those further up the production line. If beef is not truly capable of adequate returns then we have little to lose by reducing production. Conversely if an adequate margin can be returned then a shortage will only help to remind the processor's of our importance as primary producer's. The opportunity is always there for processor's to become primary producer's and perhaps a stint at rearing sucks or calving cows would do more to focus there outlook than any protests or BPM.

Twould be a way to go...reduce stock and inputs drastically countrywide in next few years.
Lot's of guys with small mickies though who always want to have more head than the neighbors.

Bass Reeves

I think too many lads blame QA for all there ills. While I am not a fan of it and have issues with it and grading I in general have no issues with age or movements issues. There is too much messing going on with cattle. Limiting number of moves limits a lot of the messing going around the ring and prevents Dealer's from completely controlling marts.

Those that talk about renegotiating the QA and the grid in general have proposals that will take money out of farmers pockets. TBH I think there was a demand for limiting the number of movements from retailers at the time of its setup. The reason was that the scare of BSE was still present and TB and brucellous were a bigger issue than they are presently. I agree the emphasis that lads put on the value of it is not aligned with reality. In reality on cattle QA is worth about 30-50 euro/head and another 28-50 euro on AA and HE cattle.

If movement and ages changes the processors will bring in weight limits, they are trying to all the time at present and IMO it is only a matter of time before there is a permanent penalty on cattle over 380kgs DW. The biggest issue in farming is that small to medium finisher profitability has been eroded over the last 2-3 years. Costs have increased as the compete with dairy farmers for land, ration and feeds have climbed in price and grading has become very variable. As well the processors have turned winter finishing into the lowest priced time of year using there own and contracted feedlots to reduce beef prices. At present any beef produced using excessive ration as an input is loss making but too many farmers are unwilling to comtemplate reducing output by reducing ration as an input. Loads of farmers have no clue of there cost and cannot see what is profitable and what is not.

gerryirl

sold a few heavy stores yesterday. got over 900 with the weight. One lad 715kg got 1630. He was no where near killing . What was the point filling him with nuts to get him in spec and then get cut cause he would be way over the dead weight cut off point. I'll let someone else take the hit. One time we would have the place full of cattle like him . We used to kill when they would be 850kg , No point now. Continental cattle are finished with while they keep the magic weight limit

whelan2

gerryirl wrote: »

sold a few heavy stores yesterday. got over 900 with the weight. One lad 715kg got 1630. He was no where near killing . What was the point filling him with nuts to get him in spec and then get cut cause he would be way over the dead weight cut off point. I'll let someone else take the hit. One time we would have the place full of cattle like him . We used to kill when they would be 850kg , No point now. Continental cattle are finished with while they keep the magic weight limit

What age?

Bass Reeves

gerryirl wrote: »

sold a few heavy stores yesterday. got over 900 with the weight. One lad 715kg got 1630. He was no where near killing . What was the point filling him with nuts to get him in spec and then get cut cause he would be way over the dead weight cut off point. I'll let someone else take the hit. One time we would have the place full of cattle like him . We used to kill when they would be 850kg , No point now. Continental cattle are finished with while they keep the magic weight limit

If I bough that type of bullock I be hoping to have him on a hook by 10th June. I expect him to do 110-135kgs LW in that time. He be on good grass until then and would also eat 200kgs of maize/Barley/Hulls costing 47 euro. I expect him to kill 450DW. The problem would be the price. usually processors do not cut for overweight cattle in late May and early June. Also the price is at it zenith. Last year he have made a base of 4.10/kg if he graded R+ his net price would be 4.33/kg he gross 1950 euro last year leaving a gross margin of 320 euro. Take costs he leave a net margin of 165 euro.

At present this year it is not looking likely we will hit the same price height as last June so the buyer may be a bit ambitious. However every days a school day

memorystick

Would it be a good year to buy fr bullocks at 300kgs? Can sell as stores or finish in June 20. Can't be any worse than plain AA heifers.

gerryirl

he was 24 months. they are cutting at 430kg dead here 450 in some places. I know a lad that got a bad doing with cattle over 500 kg dead

gerryirl

Bass Reeves wrote: »

If I bough that type of bullock I be hoping to have him on a hook by 10th June. I expect him to do 110-135kgs LW in that time. He be on good grass until then and would also eat 200kgs of maize/Barley/Hulls costing 47 euro. I expect him to kill 450DW. The problem would be the price. usually processors do not cut for overweight cattle in late May and early June. Also the price is at it zenith. Last year he have made a base of 4.10/kg if he graded R+ his net price would be 4.33/kg he gross 1950 euro last year leaving a gross margin of 320 euro. Take costs he leave a net margin of 165 euro.

At present this year it is not looking likely we will hit the same price height as last June so the buyer may be a bit ambitious. However every days a school day

Yes your right.I usually kill a few around this time every year as the price is usually higher.I got away grand the last few years. id have a few lads lads born from october onwards 2 years earlier. So from april on they were getting near the 30 months Id be killing to gather a few pounds. Its just not worth doing at the minute. Ive lighter lads there now and I'll let them off to grass and kill later on in the year. grass is still the cheapest feed. finishing good cattle is now gone like the fr to beef job. You'd need quantity to make anything reasonable. The margins are just unreal tight. But as my father does say when prices are bad, if one died it would be worse..lol

Robson99

Cut in place for next week. B*stards

kk.man

Robson99 wrote: »

Cut in place for next week. B*stards

Heard for a fact Slaney was on 3.70/3.80 this week.

memorystick

Sold cattle a week and a half ago and still no money. Why are they so slow this year?

whelan2

memorystick wrote: »

Sold cattle a week and a half ago and still no money. Why are they so slow this year?

Ring them.

KAMG

Took 2 weeks for my cheque to come after my last few cattle went last November.

kk.man

After hearing 3.60 and 3.70 for prime cattle in the offering.

kk.man

KAMG wrote: »

Took 2 weeks for my cheque to come after my last few cattle went last November.

Alot of product going into cold storage. Processors won't be paid for a while either.

Danzy

I was going to type something but fu"k it.

blue5000

Danzy wrote: »

I was going to type something but fu"k it.

Don't be shy Danzy, if you were ringing an agent you'd hardly hang up mid-sentence.

jaymla627

Large swathes of the American beef herd has just been wiped out in the floods their recently losses in the millions of head, Couple that with the huge losses in Queensland recently due to flooding you’d have to imagen their will be a bounce in beef price

whelan2

KAMG wrote: »

Took 2 weeks for my cheque to come after my last few cattle went last November.

Sent cows on Sunday evening got cheque yesterday

KAMG

whelan2 wrote: »

Sent cows on Sunday evening got cheque yesterday

That's the way it should be.

Say my name

Any verdict on Glanbia own brand quality beef?

https://www.glanbiaconnect.com/news/glanbia-keepak-twenty20-beef-club

Methane reducing feed additives being used as well.
It's a bit late in the year announcing unless you were 'in the know'. Most of the spring calved herd have finished and aax and hex sold.

Mooooo

Say my name wrote: »

Any verdict on Glanbia own brand quality beef?

https://www.glanbiaconnect.com/news/glanbia-keepak-twenty20-beef-club

Methane reducing feed additives being used as well.
It's a bit late in the year announcing unless you were 'in the know'. Most of the spring calved herd have finished and aax and hex sold.

First paragraph says it all, transparent pricing at time of slaughter. That price should be stated at time of purchase of calf

Say my name

Mooooo wrote: »

First paragraph says it all, transparent pricing at time of slaughter. That price should be stated at time of purchase of calf

I suppose this way it'll always be above the "market" price.
If a price was stated and the market price went above that there would be uproar.

Whatever about the input costs?

This closed loop system controlled by the processor seems to be the way farming is going.
Any independent farm input suppliers or processors are gradually being hoovered up or put out of business. Independent farmers same thing if there ever was a thing.

I'm a bit meh on the thing. Only benefit might be the market for my few beef calves.....next year.

jaymla627

Mooooo wrote: »

First paragraph says it all, transparent pricing at time of slaughter. That price should be stated at time of purchase of calf

Agriland have a good breakdown of the pricing structure, it’s a good scheme to be fair, the only sticker would be will glanbia put the boot in re inputs with inflated prices, but if they are anyway reasonable it is definitely a winner for a struggling beef farmer who wants some security of price going forward

Danzy

The first lad to post a beef price rise will be modded for off topic posting at this stage.

Cavanjack

Say my name wrote: »

Any verdict on Glanbia own brand quality beef?

https://www.glanbiaconnect.com/news/glanbia-keepak-twenty20-beef-club

Methane reducing feed additives being used as well.
It's a bit late in the year announcing unless you were 'in the know'. Most of the spring calved herd have finished and aax and hex sold.

Another nail in the coffin for the suckler cow?

Bass Reeves

jaymla627 wrote: »

Agriland have a good breakdown of the pricing structure, it’s a good scheme to be fair, the only sticker would be will glanbia put the boot in re inputs with inflated prices, but if they are anyway reasonable it is definitely a winner for a struggling beef farmer who wants some security of price going forward

I would not be so sure. Looking at it why is the bonus split in two a club premium and a club protocol. Club protocol is the same as QA 12c/kg so will you qualify for QA as well ???. Why is the club premium variable from 15-25c/kg ???. The seasonality Bonus is only for April, May and June. As well as inputs from Glanbia calves have to be sourced from Glanbia milk suppliers. Will these calves cost a premium or will you be charged a buying fee. They are also looking at a 24 month cut off on age in 5 years time.

If club Protocol is the same as QA a 300 Kg DW animal will make 45-75 euro extra but if you are paying a calf sourcing fee or a premium on calf price that will take some of the good out of it. Not a huge fan of this 35/month either this will trap you in the scheme longterm. Then they are talking about efficiency, using methane reducing feedstuffs, and looking for farmers to increase output. This smells of farmers taking all the risk and increased costs to produce a farm assured product with little or nothing out of it for the farmers involved.

Problem with such schemes is you are tied at slaughter to the processor. They can claw back some of the premium by reducing the base price or by your inability to negotiate on base price. This especially happen's if cattle are scarce and we see it already with AA and HE schemes when the price rises these cattle do not make fancy base prices or flat prices.

Even if I was a Glanbia member I pass this one.

jaymla627

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I would not be so sure. Looking at it why is the bonus split in two a club premium and a club protocol. Club protocol is the same as QA 12c/kg so will you qualify for QA as well ???. Why is the club premium variable from 15-25c/kg ???. The seasonality Bonus is only for April, May and June. As well as inputs from Glanbia calves have to be sourced from Glanbia milk suppliers. Will these calves cost a premium or will you be charged a buying fee. They are also looking at a 24 month cut off on age in 5 years time.

If club Protocol is the same as QA a 300 Kg DW animal will make 45-75 euro extra but if you are paying a calf sourcing fee or a premium on calf price that will take some of the good out of it. Not a huge fan of this 35/month either this will trap you in the scheme longterm. Then they are talking about efficiency, using methane reducing feedstuffs, and looking for farmers to increase output. This smells of farmers taking all the risk and increased costs to produce a farm assured product with little or nothing out of it for the farmers involved.

Problem with such schemes is you are tied at slaughter to the processor. They can claw back some of the premium by reducing the base price or by your inability to negotiate on base price. This especially happen's if cattle are scarce and we see it already with AA and HE schemes when the price rises these cattle do not make fancy base prices or flat prices.

Even if I was a Glanbia member I pass this one.

It’s all explained in Agri-land article the 15-25 cent premium relates to what level base beef price is at, if base beef price is 3.50, a 25 cent top-up is paid, likewise if base beef price is over 3.85, a flat rate of a 15 cent top up is paid regardless of how high base price goes a 15 cent top up is paid....
Base beef price is also calculated of a basket-price as published in the journal factory league table so I can’t see how they will manage to doctor it to much...
Regards inputs they’ll roast lads alright unless your a big customer with some pull you’ll be paying a premium of 15-20% on inputs then what you’d source for independently

I says

jaymla627 wrote: »

It’s all explained in Agri-land article the 15-25 cent premium relates to what level base beef price is at, if base beef price is 3.50, a 25 cent top-up is paid, likewise if base beef price is over 3.85, a flat rate of a 15 cent top up is paid regardless of how high base price goes a 15 cent top up is paid....
Base beef price is also calculated of a basket-price as published in the journal factory league table so I can’t see how they will manage to doctor it to much...
Regards inputs they’ll roast lads alright unless your a big customer with some pull you’ll be paying a premium of 15-20% on inputs then what you’d source for independently

3.50 a kg so next year that’s beef fcuked so.
More market manipulation.

Bass Reeves

jaymla627 wrote: »

It’s all explained in Agri-land article the 15-25 cent premium relates to what level base beef price is at, if base beef price is 3.50, a 25 cent top-up is paid, likewise if base beef price is over 3.85, a flat rate of a 15 cent top up is paid regardless of how high base price goes a 15 cent top up is paid....
Base beef price is also calculated of a basket-price as published in the journal factory league table so I can’t see how they will manage to doctor it to much...
Regards inputs they’ll roast lads alright unless your a big customer with some pull you’ll be paying a premium of 15-20% on inputs then what you’d source for independently

So unless beef is completely fooked you get 15c/kg or 45 euro on a 300kg carcass. Definately a brain fart of a scheme and you would be crazy to consider it. All risk loaded onto the farmer again and jumping through hoops and paying through the nose for 50 euro extra which will be swallowed in extra costs.

kk.man

If steers are at 3.70 in the factory what would Fresian bullocks make?
0- and p+ under 30 months less than 4 movements and herd is QA.

Jjjack77

kk.man wrote: »

If steers are at 3.70 in the factory what would Fresian bullocks make?
0- and p+ under 30 months less than 4 movements and herd is QA.

3.46 o- and 3.40 p plus