Beef in Crisis

RightTurnClyde

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Then I bet he's got massive loan to pay off the shiny big machinery. You don't need to be driving around on top of a hayshed to make money at farming.

Well, he's sitting on probably 3million worth of assets, he shouldn't have to be farming on a '35' either.
"Making a living" is all relative really, if I was sitting on 300 acres ( assuming good land @10k an acre) , I wouldn't consider anything under 80k a decent living either.

Farmer Pudsey

onyerbikepat wrote: »

I was talking to a man recently whose son was farming over 300 acres of reasonable land and he said he couldn't make a living off it.

If he inherited it debt free, I be asking questions of the way he is farming rather than anything else. Yes you will have bad years however in general if land is of a reasonable quality no reason you cannot make a decent living even at beef off it.

Biggest issue may be farm managment. A lot of fellas do not value things handed to them. That is 120 HA. With a below average SFP @ 200/HA he have 24K/year. Stocked at 1 suckler cow to the HA he be carrying 120 of them or 150-200 bullocks. Biggest issue with thid type of enterprise is the amount of money you are turning every year and having the knowhow to relise how little is yours.

mf240

onyerbikepat wrote: »

I was talking to a man recently whose son was farming over 300 acres of reasonable land and he said he couldn't make a living off it.

In all fairness even a chap that went to a special school, should be able to make a living out of that.

ellewood

onyerbikepat wrote: »

I was talking to a man recently whose son was farming over 300 acres of reasonable land and he said he couldn't make a living off it.

Kick in the hole he should get, with a big size 12 boot

Charliebull

onyerbikepat wrote: »

I was talking to a man recently whose son was farming over 300 acres of reasonable land and he said he couldn't make a living off it.

but maybe the poor bastard is on a mountain, or even over here in the west of ireland;),

Reggie.

Charliebull wrote: »

but maybe the poor bastard is on a mountain, or even over here in the west of ireland;),

Real waste lands over in the whest is there Charlie ?

Username John

Maybe its that the father had 300 acres, and he had a very good living off it - so they are accustomed to the farm providing a certain standard of living.

Now - his son is farming it, and it cant support the same standard of living - so the father says he couldn't make a living off it.

As other posters have said - its relative. What one person could live comfortably on, someone else would consider it too little.

Timmaay

300 fairly good acres would surely make 150e/acre in rent, or 45k a year. Problem solved

Ralphdejones

RightTurnClyde wrote: »

Well, he's sitting on probably 3million worth of assets, he shouldn't have to be farming on a '35' either.

Like the only alternative to driving around on top of a giant hayshed is a '35

amacca

TUBBY wrote: »

will be shot for this but i personally would love to see a "use it or lose it rule". Farm the land or it is put up for market value for someone who will.
i know it is impractical and cant happen but it is true that there are people with large tracts of land that waste it.
if there is an elephant in the room for beef farming, this is it.

Wouldn't that just lead to more competition for you the efficient farmer?

If everyone was perfect wouldn't that just push production and standards up even more... to such a pitch that prices would drop even more for even the best of produce - you'd have to work much harder for less of a payoff or have to monopolise some resource to make money rather than share it around.

I always liked to see gob****es and wasters (as long as they weren't doing it with mine or interfering with me) it left more room for someone with a brain to make hay so to speak - if everyones effectively forced into being efficient wheres your edge/gain from being efficient/canny with how you operate?

+its a slippery slope for everyone allowing any sort of confiscation of property if its not being used the way some board/set of regulations decides it should be used - what if the person is sick, doesn't have the money to invest in the machinery etc after buying the land - it leaves no wriggle room for the smaller guys to grow or aspire to anything if there under the cosh like that - basically it would be the big mans game imo

+arent you just sick of fcukin rules and regulations with very little for you the individual (I presume) to show for it?

I always thought that when you are in reality competing with those around you its nearly always best if they are as wasteful/stupid as possible in most areas - that leaves it easier on you.

The more the merrier (gob****es that is) - they're good for lots of business too, wasteful spending etc

Willfarman

amacca wrote: »

Wouldn't that just lead to more competition for you the efficient farmer?

If everyone was perfect wouldn't that just push production and standards up even more... to such a pitch that prices would drop even more for even the best of produce - you'd have to work much harder for less of a payoff or have to monopolise some resource to make money rather than share it around.

I always liked to see gob****es and wasters (as long as they weren't doing it with mine or interfering with me) it left more room for someone with a brain to make hay so to speak - if everyones effectively forced into being efficient wheres your edge/gain from being efficient/canny with how you operate?

+its a slippery slope for everyone allowing any sort of confiscation of property if its not being used the way some board/set of regulations decides it should be used - what if the person is sick, doesn't have the money to invest in the machinery etc after buying the land - it leaves no wriggle room for the smaller guys to grow or aspire to anything if there under the cosh like that - basically it would be the big mans game imo

+arent you just sick of fcukin rules and regulations with very little for you the individual (I presume) to show for it?

I always thought that when you are in reality competing with those around you its nearly always best if they are as wasteful/stupid as possible in most areas - that leaves it easier on you.

The more the merrier (gob****es that is) - they're good for lots of business too, wasteful spending etc

A few inefficant farms are no harm in the job at all. The were invaluable in the fodder crisis in spring13. But... I don't think they should be getting CAP payments.

mayota

Willfarman wrote: »

A few inefficant farms are no harm in the job at all. The were invaluable in the fodder crisis in spring13. But... I don't think they should be getting CAP payments.

Since when did reserves of fodder mean inefficiency.

Toplink

Just spoke to a farmer who got an average of 1370 a head for 7 x 9 month old blue bulls in Roscommon last week for the Italian market.

What crisis?

Willfarman

mayota wrote: »

Since when did reserves of fodder mean inefficiency.

Reserves of badly saved ****e hay that you couldn't give away of a normal year taking up valuable shed space. As I say one year in 20 or so these kind of fellas are invaluable.

tanko

Toplink wrote: »

Just spoke to a farmer who got an average of 1370 a head for 7 x 9 month old blue bulls in Roscommon last week for the Italian market.

What crisis?

Any farmer that doesn't have export quality animals for sale is fooked. ( I don't have too many of them).
Even that farmer might only be making a modest profit tho. Did he say what his net profit is? His system is probably a high input one. He wouldn't want to be too far away from his cows when those lads are landing.

mayota

Willfarman wrote: »

Reserves of badly saved ****e hay that you couldn't give away of a normal year taking up valuable shed space. As I say one year in 20 or so these kind of fellas are invaluable.

****e hay is ****e hay.

Willfarman

mayota wrote: »

****e hay is ****e hay.

****e hay was better than no hay that spring!

TUBBY

amacca wrote: »

Wouldn't that just lead to more competition for you the efficient farmer?

If everyone was perfect wouldn't that just push production and standards up even more... to such a pitch that prices would drop even more for even the best of produce - you'd have to work much harder for less of a payoff or have to monopolise some resource to make money rather than share it around.

I always liked to see gob****es and wasters (as long as they weren't doing it with mine or interfering with me) it left more room for someone with a brain to make hay so to speak - if everyones effectively forced into being efficient wheres your edge/gain from being efficient/canny with how you operate?

+its a slippery slope for everyone allowing any sort of confiscation of property if its not being used the way some board/set of regulations decides it should be used - what if the person is sick, doesn't have the money to invest in the machinery etc after buying the land - it leaves no wriggle room for the smaller guys to grow or aspire to anything if there under the cosh like that - basically it would be the big mans game imo

+arent you just sick of fcukin rules and regulations with very little for you the individual (I presume) to show for it?

I always thought that when you are in reality competing with those around you its nearly always best if they are as wasteful/stupid as possible in most areas - that leaves it easier on you.

The more the merrier (gob****es that is) - they're good for lots of business too, wasteful spending etc

Hi A mac. I am by no means efficient or large scale but I explained what I meant in a later post. There is a beef crisis due to prices but we all have to look inside our farm gates for efficiency too IMHO it is not right that at present, it pays more to be an armchair farmer than farm intensively especially high input finishing. This in itself is inherently wrong. Where is the incentive to produce goods rather than stock at your 0.2lu/hec for 7 months only. Also, it stops any land mobility.

tanko

TUBBY wrote: »

Hi A mac. I am by no means efficient or large scale but I explained what I meant in a later post. There is a beef crisis due to prices but we all have to look inside our farm gates for efficiency too IMHO it is not right that at present, it pays more to be an armchair farmer than farm intensively especially high input finishing. This in itself is inherently wrong. Where is the incentive to produce goods rather than stock at your 0.2lu/hec for 7 months only. Also, it stops any land mobility.

The single farm payment has very little to do with farming and lots to do with politics. It's main function is to buy votes in rural areas in elections.

on the river

Willfarman wrote: »

****e hay was better than no hay that spring!

I agree. Farmers were paying top dollar for moulded crap.

Worth keeping.

amacca

TUBBY wrote: »

Hi A mac. I am by no means efficient or large scale but I explained what I meant in a later post. There is a beef crisis due to prices but we all have to look inside our farm gates for efficiency too IMHO it is not right that at present, it pays more to be an armchair farmer than farm intensively especially high input finishing. This in itself is inherently wrong. Where is the incentive to produce goods rather than stock at your 0.2lu/hec for 7 months only. Also, it stops any land mobility.

Ill agree with some reservations on that point, It does seem wrong that lads can make more doing little or nothing than producing to the maximum but then its back to incentivising production then isn't it, and they probably won't be doing that anytime soon.

And if they did then wouldn't there be an even bigger glut of stock driving prices even further down.

I'm not sure i agree with rewarding high input finishing either with anything other than a higher price that a fair/equitable market (not a monopoly or cartel) is willing to pay for the extra weight/quality - It seems a lot like chasing your tail to me - maybe I'm wrong but the cost of feed/fertiliser to get either large numbers of stock or large weight gain at earlier and earlier ages is ultimately a zero sum game for the farmer/primary producer - It seems to me using a system where breeds that are suitable for the climate/soils are given time to come to decent weights with stocking rates that require a minimum of inputs over and above hay/silage for wintering would be much more beneficial for a larger number of farmers if enough were implementing it.

Then perhaps there wouldn't be oversupply or at least there might be a reduction and a more stable number killed from year to year hopefully leading to a rise in prices and more predictability/less volatility

+farmers wouldn't have to spend crazy amounts on fertiliser/feed etc in the "hope" they'll get it back in the price of the animal farther on down the line

Another advantage of being a bit understocked for me is that I have capacity to save more feed and have a longer grazing period which means I can hold animals for significant periods if the market is bad - I pity the lads that have to get rid of their animals by a certain time because they have nothing for them - they are at the mercy of price fluctuations/market big time.

Anyway I suppose what I'm trying to say is my idea of efficiency might not be everyones - and sometimes whats labelled as efficiency may not be for the good of the primary producer - if farmers as a whole were a little less efficient (at least in terms of how teagasc etc would define it) I think they might be better off as strange as that may seem

I think our efficiency is really their efficiency - its really only rewarding those further up the line and squeezing us - we are working harder to get less with their brand of efficiency - I'd like efficiency (for me) to yield the opposite effect….I want a lesser workload for better pay and not the other way around which is where I ultimately see their efficiency driving the small to medium size guy……and possibly to the wall eventually (maybe even some of the bigger operators that get too leveraged might eventually suffer this fate)

Its a pity a larger body of farmers don't think this way and would be willing to implement it imho

I am willing to admit I could be totally wrong though as it seems to be complex area and although I've been farming for quite some time I'm still prepared to admit I don't know whats really going on half the time - which is why this forum is such an interesting read for me at times.

TUBBY

amacca wrote: »

Ill agree with some reservations on that point, It does seem wrong that lads can make more doing little or nothing than producing to the maximum but then its back to incentivising production then isn't it, and they probably won't be doing that anytime soon.

And if they did then wouldn't there be an even bigger glut of stock driving prices even further down.

I'm not sure i agree with rewarding high input finishing either with anything other than a higher price that a fair/equitable market (not a monopoly or cartel) is willing to pay for the extra weight/quality - It seems a lot like chasing your tail to me - maybe I'm wrong but the cost of feed/fertiliser to get either large numbers of stock or large weight gain at earlier and earlier ages is ultimately a zero sum game for the farmer/primary producer - It seems to me using a system where breeds that are suitable for the climate/soils are given time to come to decent weights with stocking rates that require a minimum of inputs over and above hay/silage for wintering would be much more beneficial for a larger number of farmers if enough were implementing it.

Then perhaps there wouldn't be oversupply or at least there might be a reduction and a more stable number killed from year to year hopefully leading to a rise in prices and more predictability/less volatility

+farmers wouldn't have to spend crazy amounts on fertiliser/feed etc in the "hope" they'll get it back in the price of the animal farther on down the line

Another advantage of being a bit understocked for me is that I have capacity to save more feed and have a longer grazing period which means I can hold animals for significant periods if the market is bad - I pity the lads that have to get rid of their animals by a certain time because they have nothing for them - they are at the mercy of price fluctuations/market big time.

Anyway I suppose what I'm trying to say is my idea of efficiency might not be everyones - and sometimes whats labelled as efficiency may not be for the good of the primary producer - if farmers as a whole were a little less efficient (at least in terms of how teagasc etc would define it) I think they might be better off as strange as that may seem

I think our efficiency is really their efficiency - its really only rewarding those further up the line and squeezing us - we are working harder to get less with their brand of efficiency - I'd like efficiency (for me) to yield the opposite effect….I want a lesser workload for better pay and not the other way around which is where I ultimately see their efficiency driving the small to medium size guy……and possibly to the wall eventually (maybe even some of the bigger operators that get too leveraged might eventually suffer this fate)

Its a pity a larger body of farmers don't think this way and would be willing to implement it imho

I am willing to admit I could be totally wrong though as it seems to be complex area and although I've been farming for quite some time I'm still prepared to admit I don't know whats really going on half the time - which is why this forum is such an interesting read for me at times.

But what kills me is the advisors less than a year ago spouting about harvest 2020 and upping stocking rates. Yet As soon as numbers go over 30k, we are screwed.

amacca

TUBBY wrote: »

But what kills me is the advisors less than a year ago spouting about harvest 2020 and upping stocking rates. Yet As soon as numbers go over 30k, we are screwed.

I know, I get a twitch when I hear Coveney talking about it, have a big problem with "advisors" of any ilk

Heres what I think

Financial advisors have ruined peoples finances

I can't imagine agricultural advisors would ultimately have a different effect -

Their advice could potentially be useful if everyone wasn't getting it but if everyone is ultimately being advised to do the same supposedly right thing (i.e.: not just good management but upping production by forcing a system beyond what it can comfortably carrying using high inputs etc ) then its going to mess everyone up because production goes up along with associated workload and the end product becomes less valuable………….terrible plan for us really - great for big business and parasites though.

If you ask me the trouble with a lot of people is they are less and less willing to take on the burden of thinking for themselves…..they want someone else to take that burden…….I've never met an advisor of any sort yet whose advice was worth paying for or whose advice I couldn't come up with myself…….I think if you want to be a success then you have to think for yourself or you'll be taken advantage of ultimately……..but thats just another hobby horse of mine, I've turned into the broken record type of person I always avoided like the plague:eek:

Base price

Some excellent points amacca and I agree with a lot of what you are saying.
I read a report from the IFA meeting in Navan last week and there was a guy from Dunbia (I think) who stated that in his opinion the UK market, in future years would require finished bull at 14 months and if us Irish were not prepaired to supply that market then some other country would.
Now I don't know what everyone else thinks about this but for me it goes against everything that I believe an Irish beef animal should be.
I wonder how Bord Bia is going to deal with an image of intensively reared Irish calves who never see a touch of grass let alone walk in it.
Seems to me that there is a push for Irish produced Rose beef or am I getting it wrong.

rangler1

Base price wrote: »

Some excellent points amacca and I agree with a lot of what you are saying.
I read a report from the IFA meeting in Navan last week and there was a guy from Dunbia (I think) who stated that in his opinion the UK market, in future years would require finished bull at 14 months and if us Irish were not prepaired to supply that market then some other country would.
Now I don't know what everyone else thinks about this but for me it goes against everything that I believe an Irish beef animal should be.
I wonder how Bord Bia is going to deal with an image of intensively reared Irish calves who never see a touch of grass let alone walk in it.
Seems to me that there is a push for Irish produced Rose beef or am I getting it wrong.

There definitely is a market for what you call rose beef, but the families on the continent prefer that white grain fed beef, and the polish supply that market.
Padraig browne (Dunbia) is out in the market and he sees the thrends . He never liked selling bull beef and many times warned us about the problems associated with it, and it's because of that that I think we should heed what he says

Base price

rangler1 wrote: »

There definitely is a market for what you call rose beef, but the families on the continent prefer that white grain fed beef, and the polish supply that market.
Padraig browne (Dunbia) is out in the market and he sees the thrends . He never liked selling bull beef and many times warned us about the problems associated with it, and it's because of that that I think we should heed what he says

So do we now forget about our reputation for naturally grass fed beef that Bord Bia, Lidl, Aldi etc have been marketing for years?
I understood that the very same reputation made us unequal when it came to producing milk & butter and particularly the production of "infant formula" which is in high demand in the Asian market.
Do we just chuck that branding aside because Tesco or some other UK Supermarket chain shouted JUMP!

As an aside how did your meeting go. Are you back "in" or "out"?
From my point of view, I hope you are back "in" as enjoy your contributions and our discussions.

rangler1

Base price wrote: »

So do we now forget about our reputation for naturally grass fed beef that Bord Bia, Lidl, Aldi etc have been marketing for years?
I understood that the very same reputation made us unequal when it came to producing milk & butter and particularly the production of "infant formula" which is in high demand in the Asian market.
Do we just chuck that branding aside because Tesco or some other UK Supermarket chain shouted JUMP!

As an aside how did your meeting go. Are you back "in" or "out"?
From my point of view, I hope you are back "in" as enjoy your contributions and our discussions.

Wow thanks for that, yea I relented, got lots of promises of support etc, we'll see in tomorrows 'Hit' whether they turn out

Base price

rangler1 wrote: »

Wow thanks for that, yea I relented, got lots of promises of support etc, we'll see in tomorrows 'Hit' whether they turn out

Best of luck. You argue/discuss excellently - most of the time
No one on this site could ever doubt your commitment to the IFA and for that I admire you.
I may not agree with everything you post but I do respect you for same.

TUBBY

Angus group not paying bonus on bulls from 1st Oct over 16 months.
This is change from previous spec of 18 months which was introduced a few months back.

Reggie.

TUBBY wrote: »

Angus group not paying bonus on bulls from 1st Oct over 16 months.
This is change from previous spec of 18 months which was introduced a few months back.

Goalposts moving agsin

Farmer Pudsey

TUBBY wrote: »

Angus group not paying bonus on bulls from 1st Oct over 16 months.
This is change from previous spec of 18 months which was introduced a few months back.

Reggie. wrote: »

Goalposts moving agsin

To be fair they signaled this 12 months ago from Jan 1st 2015 they will be taking no bulls. They have given farmers the chance to work present stock through system

tanko

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

To be fair they signaled this 12 months ago from Jan 1st 2015 they will be taking no bulls. They have given farmers the chance to work present stock through system

Have they said why they will not take bulls next year?

Farmer Pudsey

tanko wrote: »

Have they said why they will not take bulls next year?

It was back to general preference against bulls across beef industry back last January.

I said

Lidl ballinasloe is been picketed this evening

Damo810

I said wrote: »

Lidl ballinasloe is been picketed this evening

I can't see how picketing one supermarket is going to change this. Proper disruption is whats needed like the French do. I'm sure a bit of googling will find the video.

Markcheese

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

It was back to general preference against bulls across beef industry back last January.

How long does it take to finish Angus bullocks on maiy grass and silage ( assuming decent stock with no hiccups along the way..)
Would you do it in 16 months...

Username John

Damo810 wrote: »

I can't see how picketing one supermarket is going to change this. Proper disruption is whats needed like the French do. I'm sure a bit of googling will find the video.

The French lads do go all out in their pickets / protests.
But would the same work here?
Would lads have the same appetite to do so?

I'm not sure disrupting a load of people, who have nothing to do with farming would achieve much?

Damo810

Markcheese wrote: »

How long does it take to finish Angus bullocks on maiy grass and silage ( assuming decent stock with no hiccups along the way..)
Would you do it in 16 months...

You could. But like everything else in beef, you'd have to question the economics of it. And with so many of the angus calves I'm seeing not all would be suitable. Wouldn't buy any aax calves here if it were up to me. Theres a huge amount of stumpy, short arse ones about that will never make much.

TUBBY

Markcheese wrote: »

How long does it take to finish Angus bullocks on maiy grass and silage ( assuming decent stock with no hiccups along the way..)
Would you do it in 16 months...

without meal Mark no Imo. Especially the taller dairy type ones.

Farmer Pudsey

Damo810 wrote: »

I can't see how picketing one supermarket is going to change this. Proper disruption is whats needed like the French do. I'm sure a bit of googling will find the video.

Username John wrote: »

The French lads do go all out in their pickets / protests.
But would the same work here?
Would lads have the same appetite to do so?

I'm not sure disrupting a load of people, who have nothing to do with farming would achieve much?

I have to agree the reality is that any pickets are only disrupting Irish customers who only buy 10% of our beef. Now for a really good arse kicking protest you should target Tesco and the labeling issue and there refusal to stock Irish beef.

Maybe print 100K flyers, take out adds in a few national papers, go onto Joe (the cribber) Duffy and ask consumers to boycott Tesco and do there shopping elsewhere for a weekend. I say that would change there tune if it was even 30% sucessful.

Damo810

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I have to agree the reality is that any pickets are only disrupting Irish customers who only buy 10% of our beef. Now for a really good arse kicking protest you should target Tesco and the labeling issue and there refusal to stock Irish beef.

Maybe print 100K flyers, take out adds in a few national papers, go onto Joe (the cribber) Duffy and ask consumers to boycott Tesco and do there shopping elsewhere for a weekend. I say that would change there tune if it was even 30% sucessful.

All Tesco would have to do is drop their price 25% and they'd have more sales than usual.

Pressurising the likes of Coveney and creating hassle for the factories, along with disruption of the retailers in our own country is a start.

Calling Joe Duffy will only get you a load of responses from others like what we saw over in After Hours.

People only care about one things and thats price, they couldn't give a rats arse about us, our grass fed lingo or how we manage to put food on our own table.

I just don't see the point in printing flyers that will be thrown in the bin straight away.

Farmer Pudsey

Damo810 wrote: »

All Tesco would have to do is drop their price 25% and they'd have more sales than usual.

Pressurising the likes of Coveney and creating hassle for the factories, along with disruption of the retailers in our own country is a start.

Calling Joe Duffy will only get you a load of responses from others like what we saw over in After Hours.

People only care about one things and thats price, they couldn't give a rats arse about us, our grass fed lingo or how we manage to put food on our own table.

I just don't see the point in printing flyers that will be thrown in the bin straight away.

you will not stop everyone however if you manage to drop there sales by 30% once off they be afraid of a concerted effort that might damage them longterm. they are struggling with market share at present and it might soften there stance on nomad cattle.

It si competition that is the issue, it getting the CA to look at the rendering issue etc. You have to go for the juglar. This idae that a picture of you chaining trolly's on the Farming indo or FJ will solve the issue is a waste of time.

I really think we have to go after Tesco and the QA issue if we are to have any sucess.

Damo810

Username John wrote: »

The French lads do go all out in their pickets / protests.
But would the same work here?
Would lads have the same appetite to do so?

I'm not sure disrupting a load of people, who have nothing to do with farming would achieve much?

Whats our alternative, block up an odd supermarket around the west for a few hours? What will that achieve?

Willfarman

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I have to agree the reality is that any pickets are only disrupting Irish customers who only buy 10% of our beef. Now for a really good arse kicking protest you should target Tesco and the labeling issue and there refusal to stock Irish beef.

Maybe print 100K flyers, take out adds in a few national papers, go onto Joe (the cribber) Duffy and ask consumers to boycott Tesco and do there shopping elsewhere for a weekend. I say that would change there tune if it was even 30% sucessful.

I think this is exactly what's needed. Image is very important in retail. If they discount the beef in response then we need to step into the stores then and empty the shelves a few times and donate it to sfp or just give it away.

Cavanjack

I said wrote: »

Lidl ballinasloe is been picketed this evening

This is just ifa trying to let on they are doing something about the whole situation. As somebody else pointed out 90% of our beef leaves the country.
Say 20% of the beef that stays in the country is sold in lidl (doubt the figure is that high) that means lidl buy 2% of our beef. Or maybe I'm missing something. What's the point in protesting them. It's hardly worth talking about all the beef they buy.

rangler1

Damo810 wrote: »

I can't see how picketing one supermarket is going to change this. Proper disruption is whats needed like the French do. I'm sure a bit of googling will find the video.

Factories hate us annoying their customers, lidls supplier isn't far from ballinasloe
We tied up the trolleys for three hrs, most shoppers just drove in and out again, shop was almost empty for those three hrs
French farmers are now copying our style of protest.
Tesco England have requested a meeting with IFA because of last weeks hit, Eddie and Henry meeting them in the morning
Another hit tomorrow in the south

Farmer Pudsey

Cavanjack wrote: »

This is just ifa trying to let on they are doing something about the whole situation. As somebody else pointed out 90% of our beef leaves the country.
Say 20% of the beef that stays in the country is sold in lidl (doubt the figure is that high) that means lidl buy 2% of our beef. Or maybe I'm missing something. What's the point in protesting them. It's hardly worth talking about all the beef they buy.

Lidl had about 8-10% of retail share I think, they are not big meat sellers I imagine that it is nearer 0.2% than 2%

Willfarman

rangler1 wrote: »

We tied up the trolleys for three hrs, most shoppers just drove in and out again, shop was almost empty for those three hrs
French farmers are now copying our style of protest.
Tesco England have requested a meeting with IFA because of last weeks hit, Eddie and Henry meeting them in the morning
Another hit tomorrow in the south

Are you not seeing that consumers are interpreting these protests as protests against them? I appreciate the effort now that guys like yourself are making in fairness and that is a positive development.

Damo810

rangler1 wrote: »

Factories hate us annoying their customers, lidls supplier isn't far from ballinasloe
We tied up the trolleys for three hrs, most shoppers just drove in and out again, shop was almost empty for those three hrs
French farmers are now copying our style of protest.
Tesco England have requested a meeting with IFA because of last weeks hit, Eddie and Henry meeting them in the morning
Another hit tomorrow in the south

If it works then fire away, I just think these isolated incidents are too minor to get real notice. Had all these 'hits' happened on the same day then they would have more impact, imv. Even if Lidl was closed for 3 hours, your talking about a loss of less than 2K profit, nothing for a chain like that.

Damo810

Willfarman wrote: »

Are you not seeing that consumers are interpreting these protests as protests against them? I appreciate the effort now that guys like yourself are making in fairness and that is a positive development.

Customers don't give a rats arse about us though. We'll never be anything but greedy farmers. How many would even read fliers given out to them when they don't even care about where their food comes from.