Spring lamb prices

Jjameson

paddysdream wrote: »

Agree 100%.Have BPS ,GLAS and Sheep Welfare scheme here and without those things would be tight to say the least.
Just pointing out what you would need from market returns alone which some seem to think is the way forward !!!

Far as I can see all the direct supports are much more important than the actual price received for the lamb at times although a good price is also very welcome.

Direct headache payments benefit everyone bar the farmer. Short memories!
Payments for bio diversity, environmentally compliance in tandem but if you put a payment on the head of a ewe Larry Goodman is going to have it with the head.

wrangler

Jjameson wrote: »

Direct headache payments benefit everyone bar the farmer. Short memories!
Payments for bio diversity, environmentally compliance in tandem but if you put a payment on the head of a ewe Larry Goodman is going to have it with the head.

You're going to have the stock anyway if you're serious about farming, take any extra money you can get. Our representatives are a long time saying that we'll go broke if we don't get what we want, yet I don't see too many going broke.

Jjameson

wrangler wrote: »

You're going to have the stock anyway if you're serious about farming, take any extra money you can get. Our representatives are a long time saying that we'll go broke if we don't get what we want, yet I don't see too many going broke.

Not many going broke, but sheep is the one sector of farming where if the processors/retail don’t return a viable price the production falls in tandem.
Any headache payments that distort the balance that tip numbers in the processors favour they are merciless.

10€ on the lamb is €15 on the ewe.
Put 10€ sub on the ewe, that may otherwise be let off and it’s another lamb and a half in the system.

wrangler

Jjameson wrote: »

Not many going broke, but sheep is the one sector of farming where if the processors/retail don’t return a viable price the production falls in tandem.
Any headache payments that distort the balance that tip numbers in the processors favour they are merciless.

10€ on the lamb is €15 on the ewe.
Put 10€ sub on the ewe, that may otherwise be let off and it’s another lamb and a half in the system.

That's the reason that there's quotas, they've learnt that much anyway. EU won't give subsidies if there's a risk of increasing numbers

eire23

Jjameson wrote: »

Direct headache payments benefit everyone bar the farmer. Short memories!
Payments for bio diversity, environmentally compliance in tandem but if you put a payment on the head of a ewe Larry Goodman is going to have it with the head.

Youve got to play the game that's in front of you... Maximise what ever you can get and then it up to you to do what ever you want with stock numbers. Drive a place on or let it tick over.

Jjameson

eire23 wrote: »

Youve got to play the game that's in front of you... Maximise what ever you can get and then it up to you to do what ever you want with stock numbers. Drive a place on or let it tick over.

What I mean is any payment that’s not directly linked to production has a chance of being retained.

wrangler

Jjameson wrote: »

What I mean is any payment that’s not directly linked to production has a chance of being retained.

There hasn't been a subsidy that'd increase production in a long time, That was the whole point of decoupling in 2003

paddysdream

Jjameson wrote: »

Direct headache payments benefit everyone bar the farmer. Short memories!
Payments for bio diversity, environmentally compliance in tandem but if you put a payment on the head of a ewe Larry Goodman is going to have it with the head.

When I said direct supports meant BPS ,Glas etc not a rerun of the ewe premium or the beef premium.
A reintroduction of either would not be a good thing IMO.Plus EU has gone totally away from any likelyhood of direct producer supports returning.
Know the ewe welfare scheme and BGDP are those in reality if not in theory but no encouragement to increase numbers with those plus they are dressed up as green ,carbon neutral ,something something benefical.

Jjameson

wrangler wrote: »

There hasn't been a subsidy that'd increase production in a long time, That was the whole point of decoupling in 2003

Payments for retention of numbers isn’t any better. A optional payment to get rid of a ewe for the environment on the basis less carbon related inputs is what would shake up lamb price!

eire23

Jjameson wrote: »

Payments for retention of numbers isn’t any better. A optional payment to get rid of a ewe for the environment on the basis less carbon related inputs is what would shake up lamb price!

I persume you are referring to the sheep welfare scheme? I'd doubt anyone would up numbers on that payment alone. But its good to get it all the same, covers stuff that ya would be doing anyways.

TheDoc77

Getting 565 up to 22.5 kg for Monday in Camolin. Is that the run of it ?

Tileman

TheDoc77 wrote: »

Getting 565 up to 22.5 kg for Monday in Camolin. Is that the run of it ?

Is that including QA

Young95

TheDoc77 wrote: »

Getting 565 up to 22.5 kg for Monday in Camolin. Is that the run of it ?

Do you have many to go ? Just curious can you negotiate with a lower number of lambs now as lambs are scarce

Jjameson

eire23 wrote: »

I persume you are referring to the sheep welfare scheme? I'd doubt anyone would up numbers on that payment alone. But its good to get it all the same, covers stuff that ya would be doing anyways.

No one was upping numbers but anyone in it has to hold the number to the next census.
Unfortunately non of us can say no to a few Bob but the idea of lamb price being second or a “bonus” after payments is not good and it’s important to make sure directly subsidised sheep farming does not become the norm as the subs never stay where they should.
It would make better sense to just give it straight to the meat industry and spare our hips knees and backs!

wrangler

Jjameson wrote: »

No one was upping numbers but anyone in it has to hold the number to the next census.
Unfortunately non of us can say no to a few Bob but the idea of lamb price being second or a “bonus” after payments is not good and it’s important to make sure directly subsidised sheep farming does not become the norm as the subs never stay where they should.
It would make better sense to just give it straight to the meat industry and spare our hips knees and backs!

you don't have to hold your numbers, just notify them of the new number.

eire23

Jjameson wrote: »

No one was upping numbers but anyone in it has to hold the number to the next census.
Unfortunately non of us can say no to a few Bob but the idea of lamb price being second or a “bonus” after payments is not good and it’s important to make sure directly subsidised sheep farming does not become the norm as the subs never stay where they should.
It would make better sense to just give it straight to the meat industry and spare our hips knees and backs!

I agree with what your saying but the notion that we get a far better price for what we produce and not need subs is wishful thinking. it will be interesting to see what happens in England next year.

early_riser

wrangler wrote: »

you don't have to hold your numbers, just notify them of the new number.

Yeah that's grand and if you decide to increase numbers next year again you can't just notify them you have more and they give you extra money! I get paid for 95 ewes in the scheme and min I've lambed in the years after the reference years is 150

early_riser

TheDoc77 wrote: »

Getting 565 up to 22.5 kg for Monday in Camolin. Is that the run of it ?

Getting the same here Monday, dif factory

wrangler

early_riser wrote: »

Yeah that's grand and if you decide to increase numbers next year again you can't just notify them you have more and they give you extra money! I get paid for 95 ewes in the scheme and min I've lambed in the years after the reference years is 150

No open ended subsidies now, I've a quota for 400ewes that I don't use and can't rent out or sell.

MIKEKC

wrangler wrote: »

No open ended subsidies now, I've a quota for 400ewes that I don't use and can't rent out or sell.

Your quoto was turned into entitlements which you can rent out or sell. It certainly was not lost

wrangler

MIKEKC wrote: »

Your quoto was turned into entitlements which you can rent out or sell. It certainly was not lost

The sheep welfare quota was, which is the one that Early Riser was referring to, it was only brought in in the last 4 years , and it's non transferable
IFA are trying to change the reference year, a lot of flocks have changed in the last four years,

MIKEKC

wrangler wrote: »

The sheep welfare quota was, which is the one that Early Riser was referring to, it was only brought in in the last 4 years , and it's non transferable

You want jam on both sides of your bread. This was intended to improve welfare of stock, not to become an asset like the former quota did

wrangler

MIKEKC wrote: »

You want jam on both sides of your bread. This was intended to improve welfare of stock, not to become an asset like the former quota did

It was only a vehicle for getting money to farmers, that's the reason it's so easy complied with. It's stuff farmers shoulda been doing anyway

arctictree

I get feck all from the Sheep Welfare Scheme. In the reference year I had culled a lot of my older ewes and bought a load of ewe lambs.

Tileman

Anyone got prices for this week

Sami23

Tileman wrote: »

Anyone got prices for this week

I believe they were back a couple of euro in Athenry yesterday anyway

wrangler

Sami23 wrote: »

I believe they were back a couple of euro in Athenry yesterday anyway

And up 10c in the Indo today, will they be €6 before christmas

memorystick

wrangler wrote: »

And up 10c in the Indo today, will they be €6 before christmas

Just going back through this thread and lads got 5.20 in early October. Great lift at the moment

Box09

5.65 in icm

Tileman

Box09 wrote: »

5.65 in icm

Yea have a load that will be fit for Christmas . These were stores I bought in off the hill and did a serious thrive on grass alone. The ones I sold last week had eaten good but of meal. I’d say I would have done better on the group if I brought them to the mart.