Spring lamb prices

wrangler

Willfarman wrote: »

The transparency is to Stop the don't give a feck attitude some lads have with bringing in dirty wet lambs.

It might stop the don't give a feck attitude but it doesn't stop the whingeing about clipping charges.......you'd think it was €50/lamb

thelegend1979

Ive just one point to make and id be very interested in hearing peoples opinions on the subject. Every year we have the same old story with factory prices and farmers being taken advantage of. I cant understand why more farmers dont breed nice ewe lambs and sell wethers as stores. Ive seen lightish ewe lambs not heavy enough to breed as yearlings make 136 and 149 at local mart this year. With alot of sheep farmers getting on in age there is a premium being paid for ewe lambs with sharp heads. You will only ever get the going rate in the factory and its the farmer that puts the extra in your pocket. This has always been the case. These ewe lambs cost no extra to produce. No meal feeding needed either and no need to lamb so early.

kk.man

thelegend1979 wrote: »

Ive just one point to make and id be very interested in hearing peoples opinions on the subject. Every year we have the same old story with factory prices and farmers being taken advantage of. I cant understand why more farmers dont breed nice ewe lambs and sell wethers as stores. Ive seen lightish ewe lambs not heavy enough to breed as yearlings make 136 and 149 at local mart this year. With alot of sheep farmers getting on in age there is a premium being paid for ewe lambs with sharp heads. You will only ever get the going rate in the factory and its the farmer that puts the extra in your pocket. This has always been the case. These ewe lambs cost no extra to produce. No meal feeding needed either and no need to lamb so early.

I startrd to do that last year and got that type of money up to 162€. You need to feed them over the winter especially now. I'm going to feed mine better this year to see I it makes a difference. The sheep yards are full of ewe lamb/hogget in the summer and margins are tight.
As the fellow says there is no such thing as a quick buck.

thelegend1979

Sorry i was talking about ewe lambs not hoggets. I agree that margins for buying in ewe lambs and selling ewe hoggets are very tight but there are farmers of a certain age that just want nice stock and are quite happy to collect the basic payment.

thelegend1979

I see how you took me up wrong. Should have used the word produce nice ewe lambs instead of breed.

wrangler

thelegend1979 wrote: »

Ive just one point to make and id be very interested in hearing peoples opinions on the subject. Every year we have the same old story with factory prices and farmers being taken advantage of. I cant understand why more farmers dont breed nice ewe lambs and sell wethers as stores. Ive seen lightish ewe lambs not heavy enough to breed as yearlings make 136 and 149 at local mart this year. With alot of sheep farmers getting on in age there is a premium being paid for ewe lambs with sharp heads. You will only ever get the going rate in the factory and its the farmer that puts the extra in your pocket. This has always been the case. These ewe lambs cost no extra to produce. No meal feeding needed either and no need to lamb so early.

It's hard to justify those prices for ewe lambs, good hoggets wouldn't be much dearer and would be in production immediately and would be likely to have two lambs. There's a lot of farmers feeding ewe lambs this year so it'll be an interesting market for hoggets next september......sometimes when this happens farmers are sick of them by now and easily tempted to slaughter but hogget trade is too poor at the moment.
Nice ewe lambs were worth €105 to slaughter last November, what would you have to be getting nearly a year later to make money.
I'm in the same discussion group as John Fagan that writes in the indo, he was saying that he got it very hard to get anything extra for his ewe lambs this year and his ewe lambs would a perentage mule, nice looking sheep.

thelegend1979

I totally agree that its hard to justify the prices for ewe lambs but good luck to the man thats getting those prices. You wont get paid for the ewe lambs unless there is suffolk through them. Impossible to get big money for any type of white or continental type ewe lambs regardless of prolific genetics.Suffolk and suffolk cross by far the best seller as ewe lambs and hoggets. Those lambs that hit the big money where milford suffolk cross and were bought to breed next year. I didnt think Mr Fagan used many suffolk rams so he wudnt have a very maketable ewe lamb out of mayo mules with any other cross.

wrangler

thelegend1979 wrote: »

I totally agree that its hard to justify the prices for ewe lambs but good luck to the man thats getting those prices. You wont get paid for the ewe lambs unless there is suffolk through them. Impossible to get big money for any type of white or continental type ewe lambs regardless of prolific genetics.Suffolk and suffolk cross by far the best seller as ewe lambs and hoggets. Those lambs that hit the big money where milford suffolk cross and were bought to breed next year. I didnt think Mr Fagan used many suffolk rams so he wudnt have a very maketable ewe lamb out of mayo mules with any other cross.

Between €115 and €120 Is what I was charging for my ewe lambs, but they'd be breeding this year.
There's hoggets beside me bought in tullow last august for €170 and they scanned 1.8 early january, no matter what the breeding is they're way ahead of a ewe that's not going to lamb until 2019.

Willfarman

150 was buying grand big Suffolk cross hoggets here last September. They are making no more now scanned in lamb but it'd be a complete lottery as to ram type and lambing date.

wrangler

Willfarman wrote: »

150 was buying grand big Suffolk cross hoggets here last September. They are making no more now scanned in lamb but it'd be a complete lottery as to ram type and lambing date.

Yea, hoggets were good value last year, neighbour reckoned it was cheaper they were getting as the year went on.......usually it'd be the other way

thelegend1979

Thats exactly the point im trying to make. Youve got one man who thinks 115 to 120 for a ewe lamb he is going to breed is a great buy which it is.Then you have another man who is working off a tight margin that wants to be selling good hoggets the next autumn who pays up to 125 or 130 and will make 50 or 60 a head before costs in a fairly good year. This shows how big a demand there is for the right ewe lamb. There are plenty of guys selling charollais and other type of continental ewe lambs for 80-85 euro giving out about a 10 cent drop in factory prices.In my opinion the suffolk cross is a win win. Nice ewe lambs and good store wethers.

charolais0153

thelegend1979 wrote: »

Thats exactly the point im trying to make. Youve got one man who thinks 115 to 120 for a ewe lamb he is going to breed is a great buy which it is.Then you have another man who is working off a tight margin that wants to be selling good hoggets the next autumn who pays up to 125 or 130 and will make 50 or 60 a head before costs in a fairly good year. This shows how big a demand there is for the right ewe lamb. There are plenty of guys selling charollais and other type of continental ewe lambs for 80-85 euro giving out about a 10 cent drop in factory prices.In my opinion the suffolk cross is a win win. Nice ewe lambs and good store wethers.

More charrollais or maybe vendeen/hampshire down going to be used instead of suffolk here in the future

Green farmer

Just read an article on farmireland. Bird bia were brought in to the joint oireachtas committee and questioned on meats producers abroad, but brought here, chopped up and labeled Irish. Their answer that they’ve no role in policing this. Fair disappointing. chocolate teapot springs to mind.

wrangler

Green farmer wrote: »

Just read an article on farmireland. Bird bia were brought in to the joint oireachtas committee and questioned on meats producers abroad, but brought here, chopped up and labeled Irish. Their answer that they’ve no role in policing this. Fair disappointing. chocolate teapot springs to mind.

They'd have no power there nor would it be their role, Department of agriculture would be entitled to look after policing that. and don't start me on the public service

Green farmer

wrangler wrote: »

They'd have no power there nor would it be their role, Department of agriculture would be entitled to look after policing that. and don't start me on the public service

They all seem to be washing their hands of the issue.

wrangler

Green farmer wrote: »

They all seem to be washing their hands of the issue.

Just because you need a magnifying glass and a law degree to read the label, it doesn't mean they're doing anything illegal.
And i forgot to add a barcode reader to the above list, apparently all the information about the product is in the barcode

ganmo

wrangler wrote: »

And i forgot to add a barcode reader to the above list, apparently all the information about the product is in the barcode

I can't see how that'd be true.
Barcodes are a series of numbers that a a computer reads and then links that number to something in a database.

wrangler

ganmo wrote: »

I can't see how that'd be true.
Barcodes are a series of numbers that a a computer reads and then links that number to something in a database.

Yea, saw it when we saw our lambs in belgium, they had the original traceabilty barcode when they got to Belgium and then there was another five or six characters added on and apparently it was the law in Belgium to have it that detailed.
My lambs were there with my name on them...

ganmo

wrangler wrote: »

Yea, saw it when we saw our lambs in belgium, they had the original traceabilty barcode when they got to Belgium and then there was another five or six characters added on and apparently it was the law in Belgium to have it that detailed.
My lambs were there with my name on them...

That's good!

We should see bord bia as a brand, can only enforce products that use their brand.

wrangler

Apparently there was 800 lambs rejected for dirt in Athleague yesterday out of 1300 delivered, anyone hear anything about it,
my source is fairly reliable.
Let the battle begin

paddysdream

wrangler wrote: »

Apparently there was 800 lambs rejected for dirt in Athleague yesterday out of 1300 delivered, anyone hear anything about it,
my source is fairly reliable.
Let the battle begin

Think a fellow countyman of yours had a few "unsuitable" ones which were moved to a farm from the lairage and are due to be clipped tomorrow before going back to the factory.
As far as I know all the sheep were "rejected" despite only a proportion of them falling into category 3.Case of all or nothing it seems.Margins are small enough without the added cost of this plus the immenent arrival of EID for farm to factory lambs.
Apparently the factories are less concerned about this hygiene issue than the Dept.It seems the pressure is coming from the AO's and not from the factory personnel.

wrangler

paddysdream wrote: »

Think a fellow countyman of yours had a few "unsuitable" ones which were moved to a farm from the lairage and are due to be clipped tomorrow before going back to the factory.
As far as I know all the sheep were "rejected" despite only a proportion of them falling into category 3.Case of all or nothing it seems.Margins are small enough without the added cost of this plus the immenent arrival of EID for farm to factory lambs.
Apparently the factories are less concerned about this hygiene issue than the Dept.It seems the pressure is coming from the AO's and not from the factory personnel.

Yea, it was the factory personnel that rejected ours last October, Now it seems to be the AOs in ICM that have the final say.
It's going to be a cost now if your lambs are transported to another farm, shorn and brought back the following day plus the reduction in value of the shorn hide,
And as you say they're rejecting the whole bunch if there's only a few affected.
Apparently class B is being rejected too,
As for the AOs......just another symptom of the public servants insulation from the real world, as you say processors aren't as particular about clean sheep.
This effort is supposed to be due to targetting the china trade

razor8

What’s AO stand for?

Large numbers of lambs were sent home from Navan yesterday including 4 of mine. Factory said it was nothing to do with them & it was vets you were calling the shots

paddysdream

razor8 wrote: »

What’s AO stand for?

Large numbers of lambs were sent home from Navan yesterday including 4 of mine. Factory said it was nothing to do with them & it was vets you were calling the shots

AO is Agricultural Officer ie Dept.official or what many call vets.Although most are grand,they,like the Garda,get a certain proportion of people who have "issues"
Some would be as thick as s**t and rely on their perceived powers to gloss over their lack of knowledge.

kk.man

If rejected sheep are transported to another place pre slaughter is that not a 'movement' under dept rules? Not to mention back to the factory again for slaughter!
I would question if it happened to me if movement documents were filled out for those movements. The useless IF A should demand such documents under the freedom of information act.

wrangler

kk.man wrote: »

If rejected sheep are transported to another place pre slaughter is that not a 'movement' under dept rules? Not to mention back to the factory again for slaughter!
I would question if it happened to me if movement documents were filled out for those movements. The useless IF A should demand such documents under the freedom of information act.

Sounds a bit OTT to me, things are bureaucratic enough, we'll be lucky if the sheep that aren't fit to be killed aren't skipped the way things are going at the moment.
There's no onus on the factory at the moment to resolve this situation. what happened yesterday was just a gesture and completely unsustainable.
I don't think bringing them home is allowed either, this is a serious situation

wrangler

A meeting last night reminded me of something we learnt in Belgium.
ICM are now going under the name Celtic Lamb for some of their product, it's a mixture of English and Irish lamb.

razor8

wrangler wrote: »

Sounds a bit OTT to me, things are bureaucratic enough, we'll be lucky if the sheep that aren't fit to be killed aren't skipped the way things are going at the moment.
There's no onus on the factory at the moment to resolve this situation. what happened yesterday was just a gesture and completely unsustainable.
I don't think bringing them home is allowed either, this is a serious situation

I don’t think it is. There’s needs to be more clarity of who is driving this policy. Is it the factories, vets or potential importers of our products

My lambs were dry when loaded and certainly not as dirty as shown in category C leaflets that came in post

If there’s a batch of rejected lambs turned away. Let the AO catch the lambs and record full tag numbers and sent a dispatch dockets back with lambs. If we have stringent protocols they should have to adher to them too

paddysdream

razor8 wrote: »

I don’t think it is. There’s needs to be more clarity of who is driving this policy. Is it the factories, vets or potential importers of our products

My lambs were dry when loaded and certainly not as dirty as shown in category C leaflets that came in post

If there’s a batch of rejected lambs turned away. Let the AO catch the lambs and record full tag numbers and sent a dispatch dockets back with lambs. If we have stringent protocols they should have to adher to them too

Think the problem is that once a lamb enters a lairage then you are not allowed to bring them home.Assume a disease protocol re foot and mouth etc.
Don't think number of movements per se are an issue with sheep unlike cattle.

Often think protocols are enforced only when the farmer is the one with the "problem"
One AO in a particular factory used to(probably still does)insist on full tag number including check digit being written on the dispatch docket.Pointed out to him one morning that he didn't know what he was talking about.Left it at that as he was too thick to see that the IE part plus herd no. etc was actually preprinted on the sheet.Plus the check digit is only there to check that the tag number is one issued by Dept.
Asked the man who designed the NSIS and his answer was that if you sent consequitively numbered lambs from your farm to the factory the correct thing to do was write first number on sheet(no need for IE ,flock designator etc) draw an arrow down the page and write in last number.No more no less.

Lambman

paddysdream wrote: »

razor8 wrote: »

I don’t think it is. There’s needs to be more clarity of who is driving this policy. Is it the factories, vets or potential importers of our products

My lambs were dry when loaded and certainly not as dirty as shown in category C leaflets that came in post

If there’s a batch of rejected lambs turned away. Let the AO catch the lambs and record full tag numbers and sent a dispatch dockets back with lambs. If we have stringent protocols they should have to adher to them too

Think the problem is that once a lamb enters a lairage then you are not allowed to bring them home.Assume a disease protocol re foot and mouth etc.
Don't think number of movements per se are an issue with sheep unlike cattle.

Often think protocols are enforced only when the farmer is the one with the "problem"
One AO in a particular factory used to(probably still does)insist on full tag number including check digit being written on the dispatch docket.Pointed out to him one morning that he didn't know what he was talking about.Left it at that as he was too thick to see that the IE part plus herd no. etc was actually preprinted on the sheet.Plus the check digit is only there to check that the tag number is one issued by Dept.
Asked the man who designed the NSIS and his answer was that if you sent consequitively numbered lambs from your farm to the factory the correct thing to do was write first number on sheet(no need for IE ,flock designator etc) draw an arrow down the page and write in last number.No more no less.

Explains it all inside first page off dispatch book and yes your correct