Spring lamb prices

Robson99

Suits Revenue as well. Everything traceable. Gone are the days of the local butcher arriving in with a pocket full of cash

razor8

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Oh, I didnt know they emailed...

How do you get them to do this?

Just provide Enda or Finn with your email address

razor8

Jjameson wrote: »

And bless than one minute after the carcass is weighed the carcass gets a batch number(as is correct and right and makes sense) the individual tag number means nothing. They have made something very simple very complicated for no purpose.
Yes wrangler the uk lambs always had similar tagging to our own.

Because of the nonsensical system we allowed be inflicted on us the eid is a godsend for reading the little numbers. And the Chinese can tuck into their paddy whack with local roasted bat safe in the knowledge that somewhere on landfill there’s an ear with a plastic eid tag buried!

Who told you that. They have image scans for all tags and if an issue with a carcass they will give you a vet cert for that individual animal

It’s not for everyone but I’m recording here for years and use it to improve the flock.

razor8

razor8 wrote: »

Who told you that. They have image scans for all tags and if an issue with a carcass they will give you a vet cert for that individual animal

It’s not for everyone but I’m recording here for years and use it to improve the flock.

I didnt know this

I always tag,when weighing and cross-check afterwards for kill-outs etc (found it helps for drafting)

But used always be disappointed with at least 1 lamb per batch killing out,alot less than what they should have in one factory in particular

kk.man

I sent a cast ewe to the factory a while ago. Perfect healthy. Factory docket stated she was condemned. I looked at her tag number and it did not match my ewe.

I rang factory and I was reimbursed. It did not leave me with great faith in their use of tags.

Kevhog1988

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I didnt know this

I always tag,when weighing and cross-check afterwards for kill-outs etc (found it helps for drafting)

But used always be disappointed with at least 1 lamb per batch killing out,alot less than what they should have in one factory in particular

I find the same. One lamb per batch kills out poorly even when drafted at a similar weight to the others. Had one last year at 44kg that they reckoned killed out at 20

charolais0153

Kevhog1988 wrote: »

I find the same. One lamb per batch kills out poorly even when drafted at a similar weight to the others. Had one last year at 44kg that they reckoned killed out at 20

Wouldn't be unknown,
All our lambs are marked and go through a group, so u know they are matched up, always going going to be some your disappointed with and others that killout well,.just one of those things

wrangler

Kevhog1988 wrote: »

I find the same. One lamb per batch kills out poorly even when drafted at a similar weight to the others. Had one last year at 44kg that they reckoned killed out at 20

We've done trials Here weighing full and then 12 hrs later and we've had differences of 0 - 4 kg between full and empty weight, so if you're not weighing empty, you'll never be sure of KO

Jjameson

razor8 wrote: »

Who told you that. They have image scans for all tags and if an issue with a carcass they will give you a vet cert for that individual animal

It’s not for everyone but I’m recording here for years and use it to improve the flock.

The hanging lamb after the weighbridge only has a stamp relating to the batch/flocknumber. They are sent to different parts of the cold rooms depending on weights then.
That why it’s not a consumer or buyer issue.
The individual number makes no sense and makes meat no more traceable.

But yes I concur that it is interesting to note a lambs live weight and compare deadweight after.
But is it worth the hassle,paper work? You ain’t goons change the result.
Wouldn’t it be grand if you just put one tag in a lambs ear at point of slaughter with the flock number on. If bought as stores, cut out all other tags and sell with just your own flocknumber and just the number of sheep on the dispatch docket.

Jjameson

kk.man wrote: »

I sent a cast ewe to the factory a while ago. Perfect healthy. Factory docket stated she was condemned. I looked at her tag number and it did not match my ewe.

I rang factory and I was reimbursed. It did not leave me with great faith in their use of tags.

The eid readers in the plants has helped with that kind of mistake. Manual reading is a pain.

wrangler

Jjameson wrote: »

The hanging lamb after the weighbridge only has a stamp relating to the batch/flocknumber. They are sent to different parts of the cold rooms depending on weights then.
That why it’s not a consumer or buyer issue.
The individual number makes no sense and makes meat no more traceable.

But yes I concur that it is interesting to note a lambs live weight and compare deadweight after.
But is it worth the hassle,paper work? You ain’t goons change the result.
Wouldn’t it be grand if you just put one tag in a lambs ear at point of slaughter with the flock number on. If bought as stores, cut out all other tags and sell with just your own flocknumber and just the number of sheep on the dispatch docket.

If they have an antibiotic/hormone/wormer residue then, how do you know which farm the lamb was born in. A farmer buying in thousands of lambs often turns the heaviest shortly after buying. We're food producers now so we just have to man up and do it right

Jjameson

wrangler wrote: »

If they have an antibiotic/hormone/wormer residue then, how do you know which farm the lamb was born in. A farmer buying in thousands of lambs often turns the heaviest shortly after buying. We're food producers now so we just have to man up and do it right

In fairness yes but prior to the eid readers the factories weren’t reading the individual flock numbers at at all. All that would be on a lamb carcass in the cold room would be the batch/flocknumber.
But perhaps yes now that they are there might be some merit in them in that regard.
But does responsibility for withdrawal slaughter fit sheep going through the mart not fall to the buyer?
This is a grey area at best.

wrangler

Jjameson wrote: »

In fairness yes but prior to the eid readers the factories weren’t reading the individual flock numbers at at all. All that would be on a lamb carcass in the cold room would be the batch/flocknumber.
But perhaps yes now that they are there might be some merit in them in that regard.
But does responsibility for withdrawal slaughter fit sheep going through the mart not fall to the buyer?
This is a grey area at best.

Once they have the eartag number and the movement docket they can trace a lamb back to farm of origin. I often smelt sheep dip off lambs in the lairage
That's why the buyers insist on QA when product is plentifull, Supermarket buyers would often say that they weren't going to be chasing around the country looking for who used illegal substances or didn't adhere to withdrawal period so the QA meant that last farm had them for the longest withdrawal period which I think is 60 or 70 days.
When product is scarce that goes out the window

kk.man

wrangler wrote: »

Once they have the eartag number and the movement docket they can trace a lamb back to farm of origin. I often smelt sheep dip off lambs in the lairage
That's why the buyers insist on QA when product is plentifull, Supermarket buyers would often say that they weren't going to be chasing around the country looking for who used illegal substances or didn't adhere to withdrawal period so the QA meant that last farm had them for the longest withdrawal period which I think is 60 or 70 days.
When product is scarce that goes out the window

But that's exactly my point 'when. Product is scarce'.. Food is food scarce or not. The same rules should apply. I'm here in. A mc Donald's I hope the meat in the burger has passed its withdrawal dates. I deserve providence of the product I buy.

My lambs were absolutely spotless and yet I got a. Clipping charge. This is not sour taste (pardon the pun) but if factories want to be seen as credible then play by the rules and farmers might believe that they are having trouble shifting product or whatever to justify a deflated price.

It's not much to ask. Maybe I'm too niave.

Dinzee Conlee

Jjameson wrote: »

The hanging lamb after the weighbridge only has a stamp relating to the batch/flocknumber. They are sent to different parts of the cold rooms depending on weights then.
That why it’s not a consumer or buyer issue.
The individual number makes no sense and makes meat no more traceable.

But yes I concur that it is interesting to note a lambs live weight and compare deadweight after.
But is it worth the hassle,paper work? You ain’t goons change the result.
Wouldn’t it be grand if you just put one tag in a lambs ear at point of slaughter with the flock number on. If bought as stores, cut out all other tags and sell with just your own flock number and just the number of sheep on the dispatch docket.

I buy store lambs, not many now, but a few...

This year, all I had to do was read the tags when they were going to factory and that was it.
Why would I want to go cutting out ear tags as I had to do before?

I take your point re EID, and the primary producer has to pick up the cost. But from my perspective, as a middle man, not having to cut and retag is far easier...

razor8

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

I buy store lambs, not many now, but a few...

This year, all I had to do was read the tags when they were going to factory and that was it.
Why would I want to go cutting out ear tags as I had to do before?

I take your point re EID, and the primary producer has to pick up the cost. But from my perspective, as a middle man, not having to cut and retag is far easier...

I never write in any tags numbers going to Navan anymore. Just sign the docket, put the number of sheep at the top of page & write the spray mark on page

It’s a great job

Jjameson

kk.man wrote: »

But that's exactly my point 'when. Product is scarce'.. Food is food scarce or not. The same rules should apply. I'm here in. A mc Donald's I hope the meat in the burger has passed its withdrawal dates. I deserve providence of the product I buy.

My lambs were absolutely spotless and yet I got a. Clipping charge. This is not sour taste (pardon the pun) but if factories want to be seen as credible then play by the rules and farmers might believe that they are having trouble shifting product or whatever to justify a deflated price.

It's not much to ask. Maybe I'm too niave.

You are naive and wrangler is also naive to believe that an individual lamb is going to be traced accurately to farm of birth or that there’s practicality to it. Tags fall out, ears get infected and you have to cut them out.
The only way to cure this is it should be a legal requirement for live sheep sellers to declare if there’s anthelmintics or treatment in sheep at point of sale.
At least then there might be a grain of sense to it.

The buck stops with the farm that kills them and once they leave the previous owners yard it’s impossible to say who dosed or treated before or after . That’s who’s responsible so it’s up to him to ensure withhold dates are adhered to.


There isn’t one publicised incidence where this system has shown any benefit in tracing anything.

paddysdream

Jjameson wrote: »

You are naive and wrangler is also naive to believe that an individual lamb is going to be traced accurately to farm of birth or that there’s practicality to it. Tags fall out, ears get infected and you have to cut them out.
The only way to cure this is it should be a legal requirement for live sheep sellers to declare if there’s anthelmintics or treatment in sheep at point of sale.
At least then there might be a grain of sense to it.

The buck stops with the farm that kills them and once they leave the previous owners yard it’s impossible to say who dosed or treated before or after . That’s who’s responsible so it’s up to him to ensure withhold dates are adhered to.


There isn’t one publicised incidence where this system has shown any benefit in tracing anything.

The FCI declaration on the back of the dispatch docket covers the producer/seller being responsible for withdrawl period as far as I know.

Jjameson

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

I buy store lambs, not many now, but a few...

This year, all I had to do was read the tags when they were going to factory and that was it.
Why would I want to go cutting out ear tags as I had to do before?

I take your point re EID, and the primary producer has to pick up the cost. But from my perspective, as a middle man, not having to cut and retag is far easier...

You had to read tags front and back.
And write them all down.
If your lucky it wasn’t raining, your pen keep writing and your sheep hadn’t lost either tag.
Had you been allowed use just a tag with just your flocknumber(this is the only number that follows the lamb after weighing and grading)
You only have to count the lambs and ensure they have one cheap easy read tag in their ear. Relating to the person who is taking responsibility for the sheep and getting the cheque.


Something very simple has been made very complicated.

paddysdream

Jjameson wrote: »

You are naive and wrangler is also naive to believe that an individual lamb is going to be traced accurately to farm of birth or that there’s practicality to it. Tags fall out, ears get infected and you have to cut them out.
The only way to cure this is it should be a legal requirement for live sheep sellers to declare if there’s anthelmintics or treatment in sheep at point of sale.
At least then there might be a grain of sense to it.

The buck stops with the farm that kills them and once they leave the previous owners yard it’s impossible to say who dosed or treated before or after . That’s who’s responsible so it’s up to him to ensure withhold dates are adhered to.


There isn’t one publicised incidence where this system has shown any benefit in tracing anything.

EID has advantages for the store purchaser but none really for the primary producer apart from a cost .
2 tags on a bullock/heifer/cow are a small portion of the overall cost but a euro twenty or more is a fair bit on a mountainy store lamb making 40/50 euro.

From a practical point of view how many have ever bought or even seen the red tags supposed to be used if you cannot identify a sheep's original tag number ?
Know I have had a fair few sheep here since tagging was introduced and in all that time have never bought one and think one ewe was purchased with a red tag .
Normal thing here is to tag all the replacements at scanning and after that the next time a ewe will see the taggers is at sale (or if an inspection is happening).
Not much point in tagging a ewe to see her pull out the tag and drop a euro plus in the field .
The Dept. view is an ideal scenario where you get the sheep in everytime you see a tag missing and retag,correlating it in the book etc etc.

wrangler

Jjameson wrote: »

You are naive and wrangler is also naive to believe that an individual lamb is going to be traced accurately to farm of birth or that there’s practicality to it. Tags fall out, ears get infected and you have to cut them out.
The only way to cure this is it should be a legal requirement for live sheep sellers to declare if there’s anthelmintics or treatment in sheep at point of sale.
At least then there might be a grain of sense to it.

The buck stops with the farm that kills them and once they leave the previous owners yard it’s impossible to say who dosed or treated before or after . That’s who’s responsible so it’s up to him to ensure withhold dates are adhered to.


There isn’t one publicised incidence where this system has shown any benefit in tracing anything.

My tag losses are tiny..... maybe .1%
Farmers can be as crooked as factories ever were, if you want the department to clamp down I'm sure they can do it, As I've said when the EU vets came here they weren't satisfied with our traceability and they thought at the time that every lamb in the country was tagged at birth like ours. What do you think their reaction would be if they knew the truth. I was in a factory in Belgium two years ago and our lambs were there and the barcode had our information on it, the barcode on the packaging was twice as long as the barcodes here such is the requirement for information
If farmers know so much about market requirements and how to run factories why don't they build their own factories, they don't because they're clueless.
I'm not naive, I know farmers are getting away with murder in the production of food,

Jjameson

paddysdream wrote: »

EID has advantages for the store purchaser but none really for the primary producer apart from a cost .
2 tags on a bullock/heifer/cow are a small portion of the overall cost but a euro twenty or more is a fair bit on a mountainy store lamb making 40/50 euro.

From a practical point of view how many have ever bought or even seen the red tags supposed to be used if you cannot identify a sheep's original tag number ?
Know I have had a fair few sheep here since tagging was introduced and in all that time have never bought one and think one ewe was purchased with a red tag .
Normal thing here is to tag all the replacements at scanning and after that the next time a ewe will see the taggers is at sale (or if an inspection is happening).
Not much point in tagging a ewe to see her pull out the tag and drop a euro plus in the field .
The Dept. view is an ideal scenario where you get the sheep in everytime you see a tag missing and retag,correlating it in the book etc etc.

And if you have sheep with swelled puss filled ears?

Jjameson

wrangler wrote: »

My tag losses are tiny..... maybe .1%
Farmers can be as crooked as factories ever were, if you want the department to clamp down I'm sure they can do it, As I've said when the EU vets came here they weren't satisfied with our traceability and they thought at the time that every lamb in the country was tagged at birth like ours. What do you think their reaction would be if they knew the truth. I was in a factory in Belgium two years ago and our lambs were there and the barcode had our information on it, the barcode on the packaging was twice as long as the barcodes here such is the requirement for information
If farmers know so much about market requirements and how to run factories why don't they build their own factories, they don't because they're clueless.
I'm not naive, I know farmers are getting away with murder in the production of food,

The big bad EU. They who made legislation to close all our family butchers!
From my travels I would rather take my chances with lamb from the greatest Irish “rooter” than the run of Italian french or Spanish product.

Big Phil used the same line when bullying through the great white elephant Irish water.
We the Irish are like a big stupid dog for rolling over to perceived authority.

I buy 2 to 300 stores most years and between infected ears and losses it would definitely easily be 10%. And I haven’t ever used or seen a red tag.
I comply 100% with treatments withhold and my flocknumber is the only number that’s traceable in any case 20 minutes after the sheep is slaughtered.

razor8

Jjameson wrote: »

And if you have sheep with swelled puss filled ears?

Then your not putting them in right.

Jjameson

razor8 wrote: »

Then your not putting them in right.

A lot of people not putting them in right. Too young.
Whatever reason and a lot of holy than though characters less than truthful.

wrangler

Jjameson wrote: »

And if you have sheep with swelled puss filled ears?

I'm trying to remember ever having one of those, I tag all my sheep,
If you buy sheep the seller won't give a ****e, he'll tag them in the trailer, every sheep jumps when he closes the tagger, those sheep will be in trouble. That farmers BPS should be penalised. I saw a lamb with his mouth nearly gone with orf in a discussion forum, That farmer should be penalised and as for the farmer that recommended treating with petrol I'll leave that to your imagination.....all for the want of a scratch with scabivax. Department should be on to that immediately
These are the people who criticise the factories, the rules...... you couldn't make it up

Jjameson

wrangler wrote: »

I'm trying to remember ever having one of those, I tag all my sheep,
If you buy sheep the seller won't give a ****e, he'll tag them in the trailer, every sheep jumps when he closes the tagger, those sheep will be in trouble. That farmers BPS should be penalised. I saw a lamb with his mouth nearly gone with orf in a discussion forum, That farmer should be penalised and as for the farmer that recommended treating with petrol I'll leave that to your imagination.....all for the want of a scratch with scabivax. Department should be on to that immediately
These are the people who criticise the factories, the rules...... you couldn't make it up

I seen the petrol, burnt oil, I even had it out with a chap recommending fluke french for a week old scouring lamb before and had to leave it so! Now I think best not to look.

Dinzee Conlee

Jjameson wrote: »

You had to read tags front and back.
And write them all down.
If your lucky it wasn’t raining, your pen keep writing and your sheep hadn’t lost either tag.
Had you been allowed use just a tag with just your flocknumber(this is the only number that follows the lamb after weighing and grading)
You only have to count the lambs and ensure they have one cheap easy read tag in their ear. Relating to the person who is taking responsibility for the sheep and getting the cheque.


Something very simple has been made very complicated.

For me, its easier to write down a tag number, as I like to weigh before I sent them to the factory. As much for my own comparison as anything...

This is compared to ordering new tags, cutting out old tags, putting in new tags - that in my view would be a lot more hassle...

Jjameson wrote: »

The big bad EU. They who made legislation to close all our family butchers!
From my travels I would rather take my chances with lamb from the greatest Irish “rooter” than the run of Italian french or Spanish product.

Big Phil used the same line when bullying through the great white elephant Irish water.
We the Irish are like a big stupid dog for rolling over to perceived authority.

I buy 2 to 300 stores most years and between infected ears and losses it would definitely easily be 10%. And I haven’t ever used or seen a red tag.
I comply 100% with treatments withhold and my flock number is the only number that’s traceable in any case 20 minutes after the sheep is slaughtered.

I would only have maybe 100 or so store lambs - I haven't had any loses of tags this year.
Previous years, where I would have had to cut the old ear tag out, I dont think I had many tag losses then either.

eire23

razor8 wrote: »

I never write in any tags numbers going to Navan anymore. Just sign the docket, put the number of sheep at the top of page & write the spray mark on page

It’s a great job

I just write the first number and that's it and like wise with the spray mark. It's a great job surely.

eire23

With regard to the tagging and the ears getting infected, I think it's near impossible to avoid this while the weather is warm. So the store buyer gets a certain amount of this In the summer.
Do see it here in the odd ewe lamb that's tagged. Had a neighbour that bought ewe lambs one year amd tahhed them going into the shed, 50% must have got infected.