Beef Plan Movement (READ OP BEFORE POSTING)

jaymla627

Albert Johnson wrote: »

The certification may ensure a public perception of a green and grass fed product but this is only half the issue in my opinion. Any system that's reliant on feeding large amounts of concentrates to achieve it's aims is looking less sustainable in this country. We are at a competitive advantage with our ability to grow grass but are at a major cost disadvantage regarding cereals for animal feed.

As to how advocating another concentrate based system with ever increasing costs can be seen as helpful is in my mind misguided. There's lots of ways to be a busy fool in beef currently without campaigning for more. Feeding anything apart from grazed grass is going to add cost to the system regardless of whether the end consumer is aware of this fact or not.

It seems ironic to me at least that despite all the calls to market our beef as "green" and grass fed that many of the proposed solutions involve the complete opposite. I think we're at a crossroads and we as an industry need to assess whether our produce will be grass fed and a premium product or corn fed and a commodity. The end result will have more impact on our future than any beef blockades or splinter groups thus far.

I don't believe it's unfair to suggest that producing beef as a commodity product has done little other than inspire a race to the bottom regards returns to the primary producers. We cannot compete with other countries as regards cheap exports and should therefore desist from trying. The niche of a superior grass fed product is our only hope of survival in my opinion.

In response to the above quirp that it works for the dairy industry I am reminded of another quote from some other contributer on this forum. I can't remember the specifics but it was in regards to high imput dairying. It was reckoned that if they inheireted the keys to a feed mill that a high imput system would win hands down over any other, of course until the feed ran out. Grass versus grain may be the biggest obstacle to our future success as an industry.

Basing 95% plus of your feed requirements on grass is a lovely picturecard scenario on paper, but when you get a year weatherwise like 18 where do you turn, all well and good chastising the high output dairy man but if he didn’t exist would the infrastructure and mills even have existed to keep the national herd feed during the spring/summer we have just endured.....

Albert Johnson

jaymla627 wrote: »

Basing 95% plus of your feed requirements on grass is a lovely picturecard scenario on paper, but when you get a year weatherwise like 18 where do you turn, all well and good chastising the high output dairy man but if he didn’t exist would the infrastructure and mills even have existed to keep the national herd feed during the spring/summer we have just endured.....

I'm not chastising anyone simply stating the facts as they appear to me. The high imput dairy comment was more to air a different view point, as with everything in farming your own personal circumstances dictate your decisions. There wasn't a cow milked here since my father's time and I have little knowledge of modern dairying, I haven't the information or the interest to debate the best practices regards milking cows.

As to whether the infrastructure that is currently in place it will be there while lads continue to utilise it, market forces dictate this and are largely out of our control. The late spring was an expensive period here in the north west but the drought had little impact on us. If we could get a summer like that every year farming marginal land would be much easier, wet summers and marginal land are something that need to be experienced to be understood.

Perhaps in dairying it may not be feasible to aim for a yearly average of 95% grazed grass with little supplementation but I don't see how it couldn't be achieved with beef. Dry stock farms are usually running a lower stocking rate from the outset and another drop in beef cattle numbers would be little harm imo. If moderately stocked then I don't see how grazed grass couldn't make up the Lions share of any diet. Feeding anything else is only adding cost that in most cases will not be rewarded in the economic return.

A dairy farmer will probably see some benefit from upping his production but a beef farmer usually doesn't enjoy such prosperity. An increase in the weekly kill mostly corresponds with a pull of the quotes so it's hard to motivate an increase in output. I see the same lads every year being overstocked and the hardship that entails be it buying fodder, renting farms here there and everywhere and constantly battling full slurry tanks. In many cases a hefty single payment from the reference years props up these enterprises but that day is coming to an end.

I believe that the next round of CAP will be much more environment based and we need to adapt to take advantage of this. A few worthwhile scheme's and a smaller national herd that can be produced and marketed sustainably is the way forward as I see it.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Albert Johnson wrote: »

I'm not chastising anyone simply stating the facts as they appear to me. The high imput dairy comment was more to air a different view point, as with everything in farming your own personal circumstances dictate your decisions. There wasn't a cow milked here since my father's time and I have little knowledge of modern dairying, I haven't the information or the interest to debate the best practices regards milking cows.

As to whether the infrastructure that is currently in place it will be there while lads continue to utilise it, market forces dictate this and are largely out of our control. The late spring was an expensive period here in the north west but the drought had little impact on us. If we could get a summer like that every year farming marginal land would be much easier, wet summers and marginal land are something that need to be experienced to be understood.

Perhaps in dairying it may not be feasible to aim for a yearly average of 95% grazed grass with little supplementation but I don't see how it couldn't be achieved with beef. Dry stock farms are usually running a lower stocking rate from the outset and another drop in beef cattle numbers would be little harm imo. If moderately stocked then I don't see how grazed grass couldn't make up the Lions share of any diet. Feeding anything else is only adding cost that in most cases will not be rewarded in the economic return.

A dairy farmer will probably see some benefit from upping his production but a beef farmer usually doesn't enjoy such prosperity. An increase in the weekly kill mostly corresponds with a pull of the quotes so it's hard to motivate an increase in output. I see the same lads every year being overstocked and the hardship that entails be it buying fodder, renting farms here there and everywhere and constantly battling full slurry tanks. In many cases a hefty single payment from the reference years props up these enterprises but that day is coming to an end.

I believe that the next round of CAP will be much more environment based and we need to adapt to take advantage of this. A few worthwhile scheme's and a smaller national herd that can be produced and marketed sustainably is the way forward as I see it.

I wouldn't argue with that, Albert, but there's grass and then there's grass.


To get grass grazed at the optimum time for maximum weight gain and maximum growth is a good bit different from what most farmers, myself included here, are doing. Good grass management is a bit different to 'sure they aren't hungry' management.

Albert Johnson

I would agree that there is a significant difference between grazing to maximize growth rates and grazing to prevent starvation. It may seem to many that I'm advocating a return to the feudal system of land lying fallow and the communal herd grading on the commons but I'm not that extreme. My own grazing set up leaves a lot to be desired but it works for the moment.

The average farmer is going to be hard pressed to find the capital or indeed the desire to enact a lot of the "advice" metered out by the comic and state bodies. Indeed research stations such as the Derrypatrick herd and others have shown that despite almost limitless resources it still couldn't be made profitable. It's going to be hard for the average Joe with a fragmented holding and 12 cows to enact much of the above advice.

This is not saying that all investment is unnecessary but that targeted spending is required. In an industry that already shows poor returns it would seem to me at least wise to be hesitant to throw good money after bad. Increased productivity should come after adequate profitability and not the other way round imo. If we're to produce more for the same or even less of a return that I struggle to see the point of being even busier fools.

As with everything in the world a balance is required to keep all in harmony. There is bound to be a way to produce a sustainable beef product be it from sucklers or dairy that is profitable and environmentally friendly. If we could identify a way to achieve the above than we have a chance of survival, it's not reinventing the wheel but a hefty task none the less.

Cavanjack

What's the story with this American lad going to give a fiver a kg for our beef. Sounds far fetched to me. Anyone know his background or where they found him. I hope it works out.

Bass Reeves

Cavanjack wrote: »

What's the story with this American lad going to give a fiver a kg for our beef. Sounds far fetched to me. Anyone know his background or where they found him. I hope it works out.

First off it is for grass fed beef. I imagine that it would need some branding and some rules and regulations. I think we need to start seeing the bigger picture. At present the processors are selling all our beef (even the HE and AA beef) as a commodity product. They dump it onto the bottom shelf of supermarkets across Europe. You would not try to sell wine to the french. Board Bia has been lazy taking our money and running generic promotion campaign's accross the world.

There seems to be a demand for grass fed hormone free beef that is not fed genetically modified grain(maize and soya mainly). Can we develop such a product, brand it and produce it. It is not in the processors interest to develop such a product as they cannot use feedlot beef or large beef finishers to control the product. In general feedlots use straights, byproducts and maize silage to finish cattle. The processors use this feedlot beef to control beef prices. They then put all this beef together and dump it onto bottom shelves across Europe.

If Irish beef can be repositioned maybe by taking 30-50K calves into grass fed rose veal and developing grass fed beef to take another 300-500K head it will lift the floor price of Irish beef. You will also reduce tonnage and this should rise prices as well. As well if we get producer groups legislation passed it would change the imbalance we have at present. At the meeting I was at a lad was talking about top class suckler bulls hitting 500k. Lads need to get away from this type of product. If you are winter feeding cattle you need a contract if no contract leave the shed empty next winter. Winter feeding costs are too high to gamble any longer.

patsy_mccabe

Great post there BR. But not just grass fed beef, we also need to push the whole GM free, lowest carbon footprint, high animal welfare unique selling points.

Bass Reeves

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Great post there BR. But not just grass fed beef, we also need to push the whole GM free, lowest carbon footprint, high animal welfare unique selling points.

Yes we need to sort the carbon BS not just for beef but for milk as well. We need to get a proper carbon analysis of beef and milk produced off grass with low and medium rates of rations fed versus feedlot beef and milk. As AJ posted earlier we may need to reduce output to increase profitability. If we can increase profitability we can then consider upping output in the are's that are profitable without compromising the product.

There is a **** load of money being given to quango's in the form of direct government payments, GLAS money, farmer subscriptions and leavies on everything from slaughtered cattle, on tags and on milk to allow research into not just carbon footprint research but also into the genomics of dairy beef bull sires etc. We also need taht if Forestry is planted that this carbon credit goes to farms and against the agri footprint not to be swallowed by the Ireland Inc footprint.

TooOldBoots

I don't know how we can honestly claim to be producing a grass based product (Beef or Dairy) any more. Currently most dairy cows here are supplemented with several kg of soya/maize based feed.
As for the beef, its worse with factory finishing units feeding up to 10 -15kg of grain based nuts per animal.Every Weanling you see in the mart has been pushed and hot-housed with meal to the point that they loose the hair.
There's a serious amount of Soya and other grains imported into Ireland

coolshannagh28

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Yes we need to sort the carbon BS not just for beef but for milk as well. We need to get a proper carbon analysis of beef and milk produced off grass with low and medium rates of rations fed versus feedlot beef and milk. As AJ posted earlier we may need to reduce output to increase profitability. If we can increase profitability we can then consider upping output in the are's that are profitable without compromising the product.

There is a **** load of money being given to quango's in the form of direct government payments, GLAS money, farmer subscriptions and leavies on everything from slaughtered cattle, on tags and on milk to allow research into not just carbon footprint research but also into the genomics of dairy beef bull sires etc. We also need taht if Forestry is planted that this carbon credit goes to farms and against the agri footprint not to be swallowed by the Ireland Inc footprint.

The BPM seems to be well aware of these issues and hopefully will move in the direction of addressing the potential margin in upselling our product instead of a large financial exposure in processing .
On your second point , the creep into farmers subsidy has to be reversed , the benefit must go directly to farmers not govt, again the BPM seems switched on to this but the message must be concise.
With forestry ,as per a recent discussion group , the people involved long term had only positives regarding the financial returns and are well aware of the potential of carbon credits in the future if the govt will relinquish them.
One message that was clear from those running the group was that suckler farming has been seen as finished by strategists within the department for at least a decade ,farming is definitely at a crossroads but the balance between the needs of govt, processors and farmers needs to be realigned .

K9

What would be the cut off point from grass fed beef to grain fed with regards the amount of meal fed to an animal?

Coonagh

Lads would want to very careful about making a song and dance about feedlots, GM, high welfare and all that Jazz. Do you think the consumer/public will be able to see any difference between cattle killed out of feedlots and cattle killed out of slatted sheds during the winter months? Regarding GHG’s, carbon etc it is worth mentioning that intensively finished young cattle compare very favorably to 100% grass fed cattle and we are still only 4th or 5th in the world in terms of our beef sectors carbon footprint.

Say my name

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/food-and-drink/what-s-your-beef-the-problem-with-eating-less-meat-1.3767783

Buford T. Justice XIX

Say my name wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/food-and-drink/what-s-your-beef-the-problem-with-eating-less-meat-1.3767783

I read as far as Darragh McCullough and deleted the tab.


Did I miss anything?

Say my name

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I read as far as Darragh McCullough and deleted the tab.


Did I miss anything?

5euro/kilo and selling it in Hong Kong as the Irish wagyu.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Say my name wrote: »

5euro/kilo and selling it in Hong Kong as the Irish wagyu.

So that's a no?:P

Say my name

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

So that's a no?:P

You only get 3 articles free (I believe) from the Irish times. So be careful with those early withdraws.

Fair phucks to her anyway.

coolshannagh28

Say my name wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/food-and-drink/what-s-your-beef-the-problem-with-eating-less-meat-1.3767783

Top girl !

Say my name

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

Top girl !

Those Dexters should be classed as a half livestock unit for nitrates and phos calculations.
But then I suppose the people keeping them wouldn't be bothered with such and would be extensive anyway.

coolshannagh28

Say my name wrote: »

Those Dexters should be classed as a half livestock unit for nitrates and phos calculations.
But then I suppose the people keeping them wouldn't be bothered with such and would be extensive anyway.

They count as a full unit for all the schemes so hard to square the circle

Bass Reeves

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

They count as a full unit for all the schemes so hard to square the circle

Nitrates, carbon and stocking units it is hard to even circle the square ( you have to think about that one but it is easier). Between sucklers and dairy bred stock all these calculation are done under the influence of magic mushroom's and a bit of crack cocaine. Add in grass and where it is grazed and if it is land suitable for forrestry or hen harrier land or other ecological bullsh!t what happens is mindboggling. The lads that invented the game have no clue either. That is why the lancet could publish the BS they did last week

coolshannagh28

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Nitrates, carbon and stocking units it is hard to even circle the square ( you have to think about that one but it is easier). Between sucklers and dairy bred stock all these calculation are done under the influence of magic mushroom's and a bit of crack cocaine. Add in grass and where it is grazed and if it is land suitable for forrestry or hen harrier land or other ecological bullsh!t what happens is mindboggling. The lads that invented the game have no clue either. That is why the lancet could publish the BS they did last week

Its a game the trick is to try to stay one step ahead of the keeper , we are back at a pre 03 scenario where nobody can fully grasp the array of options and it will have to be rationalised ; one thing I do know is that the individual has few friends but in the next few years the pendulum will swing back .

wrangler

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

The BPM seems to be well aware of these issues and hopefully will move in the direction of addressing the potential margin in upselling our product instead of a large financial exposure in processing .
On your second point , the creep into farmers subsidy has to be reversed , the benefit must go directly to farmers not govt, again the BPM seems switched on to this but the message must be concise.
With forestry ,as per a recent discussion group , the people involved long term had only positives regarding the financial returns and are well aware of the potential of carbon credits in the future if the govt will relinquish them.
One message that was clear from those running the group was that suckler farming has been seen as finished by strategists within the department for at least a decade ,farming is definitely at a crossroads but the balance between the needs of govt, processors and farmers needs to be realigned .

Not a lot of progress yet, what's all these meetings for,
What's been done about beef price, we're a month into a year, price still veering down, the ''creep'' into farmer subsidies are only a pittance compared to the price issue, Are they afraid of the real issues

_Brian

wrangler wrote: »

Not a lot of progress yet, what's all these meetings for,
What's been done about beef price, we're a month into a year, price still veering down, the ''creep'' into farmer subsidies are only a pittance compared to the price issue, Are they afraid of the real issues

Seems the plan is to continue building numbers to have more farmers to represent at the table.
I can see the sense in that.

IFA have had how long??, and prices are still slipping, they say they were trying all along, so I think a bit of time to build momentum for this new group is to be expected.

Damo810

_Brian wrote: »

Seems the plan is to continue building numbers to have more farmers to represent at the table.
I can see the sense in that.

IFA have had how long??, and prices are still slipping, they say they were trying all along, so I think a bit of time to build momentum for this new group is to be expected.

Trying to do something and failing would sink them straight away. They really need to be sure of success before doing anything or any farmer backing they have will disappear, imo.

wrangler

_Brian wrote: »

Seems the plan is to continue building numbers to have more farmers to represent at the table.
I can see the sense in that.

IFA have had how long??, and prices are still slipping, they say they were trying all along, so I think a bit of time to build momentum for this new group is to be expected.

Farmers aren't fools, the price is the price across Europe and farmers know that, all our income is coming from EU yet the whinge on facebook is to take away the funding from the only lobby body that's marking that issue,
It was unbelievable the movement we got on the last CAP Reform, If BPM had their way we'd have no subsidiy as well as poor beef price

coolshannagh28

wrangler wrote: »

Not a lot of progress yet, what's all these meetings for,
What's been done about beef price, we're a month into a year, price still veering down, the ''creep'' into farmer subsidies are only a pittance compared to the price issue, Are they afraid of the real issues

You are myopic when it comes to the IFA , they have had their day and made a contribution re CPO BPS etc but are perceived negatively now by many farmers and too willing to row in with the dept and processors who are putting money out of farmers pockets , time for new blood now particularly when beef farming in particular is at a crossroads.

Base price

wrangler wrote: »

Farmers aren't fools, the price is the price across Europe and farmers know that, all our income is coming from EU yet the whinge on facebook is to take away the funding from the only lobby body that's marking that issue,
It was unbelievable the movement we got on the last CAP Reform, If BPM had their way we'd have no subsidiy as well as poor beef price

What's this? EIF levy?

patsy_mccabe

Guess who's already exporting to China.

Beef exports increased in 2018, with a €50m three-year deal struck by ABP with a restaurant chain in China and exports to the US also up.

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/rich-list-2019/profiles/larry-goodman-37749081.html

wrangler

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

You are myopic when it comes to the IFA , they have had their day and made a contribution re CPO BPS etc but are perceived negatively now by many farmers and too willing to row in with the dept and processors who are putting money out of farmers pockets , time for new blood now particularly when beef farming in particular is at a crossroads.

If BPM want to move forward they will have to learn to be 'in' with the department etc and they certainly won't make headway with the present whingefest against Bord Bia, dept, etc..
What do you think happens when a scheme is proposed and you don't get your own way, do you hold it up because it stipulates professional involvement and you make the dept send it back to brussels and delay it for another year.
Again I ask why would processors purposely overtrim when they have an easy €35/hd to pick up by dropping the price 10c, a bit of cop on is needed.
How can Bord Bia do any promotions with the criticism of the Irish Beef industry that's being put up by farmers on social media because of BPM.
High lighting intensive farming and GM in Irish beef on social media is a joke........talk about shooting yourself in the foot

gerryirl

have you gone to any BPM meeting to express your views wrangler. You have many points
As for your beloved IFA. I'm still a member but being a member is a bit like buying a bus ticket on line and then you wait at the bus station for a bus to arrive but it never comes. You wait for years until one day you get fed up. Thats what its like being an IFA member at the minute. There are great people in the IFA dont get me wrong but the bus is not coming so I have to go get the train (BPM). The train might derail but at least its trying to go somewhere

wrangler

gerryirl wrote: »

have you gone to any BPM meeting to express your views wrangler. You have many points
As for your beloved IFA. I'm still a member but being a member is a bit like buying a bus ticket on line and then you wait at the bus station for a bus to arrive but it never comes. You wait for years until one day you get fed up. Thats what its like being an IFA member at the minute. There are great people in the IFA dont get me wrong but the bus is not coming so I have to go get the train (BPM). The train might derail but at least its trying to go somewhere

IFA is not a one trick pony, they would have many issues going on at any one time......who knows may be the beef price issue is unsolveable, Subsidies stop the market from working properly, potatoes used to be a prime example of market working, price goes down, producers reduce, price goes up, everyone grew some and the price goes down again,
There's obviously enough subsidies floating around now for beef farmers to stay on the wheel without going broke.
Bad mouthing the Irish beef industry on social media is not the way to go

charolais0153

All this about selling beef as gm free etc is just limiting options. People arent going to pay extra for it so its just more work for nothing.

coolshannagh28

wrangler wrote: »

IFA is not a one trick pony, they would have many issues going on at any one time......who knows may be the beef price issue is unsolveable, Subsidies stop the market from working properly, potatoes used to be a prime example of market working, price goes down, producers reduce, price goes up, everyone grew some and the price goes down again,
There's obviously enough subsidies floating around now for beef farmers to stay on the wheel without going broke.
Bad mouthing the Irish beef industry on social media is not the way to go

I understand your cynicism in light of the subsidized nature of the marketplace and in my own business I maximise subsidy as I see it as the main source of profit , however many farmers willnot or can not accept this and require profit to justify their input where they see others profit further up the foodchain , the IFA and the dept seem to have accepted the status quo but the future wont work like this and primary producers may use the BPM to make their point on this.

wrangler

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

I understand your cynicism in light of the subsidized nature of the marketplace and in my own business I maximise subsidy as I see it as the main source of profit , however many farmers willnot or can not accept this and require profit to justify their input where they see others profit further up the foodchain , the IFA and the dept seem to have accepted the status quo but the future wont work like this and primary producers may use the BPM to make their point on this.

It's a bit unrealistc given the price across Europe, do they think the UK will give Red Tractor priceto us out of loyalty when there's cheaper beef coming in from mainland EU and elsewhere

coolshannagh28

wrangler wrote: »

It's a bit unrealistc given the price across Europe, do they think the UK will give Red Tractor priceto us out of loyalty when there's cheaper beef coming in from mainland EU and elsewhere

I do understand that and when the kill number is at 40000 per week then commodity beef price will be on the floor but farmers do not feel well served in this area our product is not well enough branded or marketed , subsidy may be to blame for this but normal service is not going to continue .

Bass Reeves

charolais0153 wrote: »

All this about selling beef as gm free etc is just limiting options. People arent going to pay extra for it so its just more work for nothing.

It is all about branding. There is a demand for grass fed hormone free beef. Gm free is not such a big extra jump. Feedlots can not mass produce it as it requires access to land. The only beef that is profitable is the beef produced odd grass. At best beef produced off ration is break even for the majority of smaller producer unless it is bull beef carried to massive weights. At the BPM meeting I heard one lad speak about high genetic potential bulls hitting 500 kgs DW. Very few markets look for this type of beef for reasons I have posted about often.

It was interesting in the comic this week that we are starting to see the first moves in the 2020 BPS changes. The dept is looking at a BPS cut off of 60K. IFA is lobbying for workers wages to be allowed to rise BPS. INHFA is happy with the 60K. The IFA is not lobbying for you and me, just like it is lobbying against producer groups. Just like it lobbying ruined REPS for the smaller and mid sized farmer especially on marginal land it is once again lobbying for the select few.

As I have posted I have issues with the BPM however at least I know where they stand on issues. I know that they are speaking straight. The same cannot be said for the IFA. It is once again lobbying for the select few larger farmers that have large BPS. It is of no benefit to the vast majority of farmers. Once again it will try to look after its golden circle. For all it talk IFA is a one trick pony. Look after the big guy F00K the rest.

patsy_mccabe

Jasus, my Dad used to always say that the IFA were only interested in loking after the big farmer. I used to always think he was very cynical.

wrangler

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It is all about branding. There is a demand for grass fed hormone free beef. Gm free is not such a big extra jump. Feedlots can not mass produce it as it requires access to land. The only beef that is profitable is the beef produced odd grass. At best beef produced off ration is break even for the majority of smaller producer unless it is bull beef carried to massive weights. At the BPM meeting I heard one lad speak about high genetic potential bulls hitting 500 kgs DW. Very few markets look for this type of beef for reasons I have posted about often.

It was interesting in the comic this week that we are starting to see the first moves in the 2020 BPS changes. The dept is looking at a BPS cut off of 60K. IFA is lobbying for workers wages to be allowed to rise BPS. INHFA is happy with the 60K. The IFA is not lobbying for you and me, just like it is lobbying against producer groups. Just like it lobbying ruined REPS for the smaller and mid sized farmer especially on marginal land it is once again lobbying for the select few.

As I have posted I have issues with the BPM however at least I know where they stand on issues. I know that they are speaking straight. The same cannot be said for the IFA. It is once again lobbying for the select few larger farmers that have large BPS. It is of no benefit to the vast majority of farmers. Once again it will try to look after its golden circle. For all it talk IFA is a one trick pony. Look after the big guy F00K the rest.

They looked after me well on 50has, if the begrudgers think that's a big farm then, as you say. fook the rest.....it's only 12 HAs over the national average.
The harder you work the luckier you get you know.
There's parttime farmers now with €20 -50000 in entitlements that their parents accumulated and they're bringing in 50 -100000 salaries, are these the small farmers now you're shouting for..... you only need look it up, plenty of public servants pulling in good entitlements . are these the ones we should be lobbying for.......how dare IFA lobby for full time farmers to get extra entitlements for having workers employed.

There's last years annual report, all 166 pages, not bad for a one trick pony,
There's a list of national officers at the back....a lot of farmers for begrudgin

https://www.ifa.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/IFA-AnnualReport-2018.pdf

jaymla627

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It is all about branding. There is a demand for grass fed hormone free beef. Gm free is not such a big extra jump. Feedlots can not mass produce it as it requires access to land. The only beef that is profitable is the beef produced odd grass. At best beef produced off ration is break even for the majority of smaller producer unless it is bull beef carried to massive weights. At the BPM meeting I heard one lad speak about high genetic potential bulls hitting 500 kgs DW. Very few markets look for this type of beef for reasons I have posted about often.

It was interesting in the comic this week that we are starting to see the first moves in the 2020 BPS changes. The dept is looking at a BPS cut off of 60K. IFA is lobbying for workers wages to be allowed to rise BPS. INHFA is happy with the 60K. The IFA is not lobbying for you and me, just like it is lobbying against producer groups. Just like it lobbying ruined REPS for the smaller and mid sized farmer especially on marginal land it is once again lobbying for the select few.

As I have posted I have issues with the BPM however at least I know where they stand on issues. I know that they are speaking straight. The same cannot be said for the IFA. It is once again lobbying for the select few larger farmers that have large BPS. It is of no benefit to the vast majority of farmers. Once again it will try to look after its golden circle. For all it talk IFA is a one trick pony. Look after the big guy F00K the rest.

The subject of armchair farmers claiming the sfp and pocketing 200 plus odd euro in rent would be a far greater red line issue, along with the scraping of historicial payments based on what you where doing 18 odd years ago during the reference years.....
I’d be judging them on the above before the max payment issue, any concentrated efforts by the IFA to keep the status quo would be very telling

wrangler

jaymla627 wrote: »

The subject of armchair farmers claiming the sfp and pocketing 200 plus odd euro in rent would be a far greater red line issue, along with the scraping of historicial payments based on what you where doing 18 odd years ago during the reference years.....
I’d be judging them on the above before the max payment issue, any concentrated efforts by the IFA to keep the status quo would be very telling

I doubt any organisation that represents all farmers is going to promote taking one farmers income and giving it to another ........
There'll be 100 IFA officers at the AGM tomorrow from all different enterprises,the only policy they can have is, same as last time, that no one should lose much and retain all the funding
Of course the INHFA will be lobbying for the hill farmer to take it all and ICSA will be lobbying to take it off the dairy farmers,
There's eight feckin farm orgs now.

coolshannagh28

wrangler wrote: »

I doubt any organisation that represents all farmers is going to promote taking one farmers income and giving it to another ........
There'll be 100 IFA officers at the AGM tomorrow from all different enterprises,the only policy they can have is, same as last time, that no one should lose much and retain all the funding
Of course the INHFA will be lobbying for the hill farmer to take it all and ICSA will be lobbying to take it off the dairy farmers,
There's eight feckin farm orgs now.

Your argument is not logical , above you are decrying part time farmers and Public Servants pulling down historical payments and rental income tax free , yet you constantly throw out the " Im all right Jack " regarding your own income , this does your organisation no favours and encapsulates perfectly the frustration of farmers with the IFA.

wrangler

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

Your argument is not logical , above you are decrying part time farmers and Public Servants pulling down historical payments and rental income tax free , yet you constantly throw out the " Im all right Jack " regarding your own income , this does your organisation no favours and encapsulates perfectly the frustration of farmers with the IFA.

My argument is logical, it's because all size of farmers and all ages are represented that IFA can not pull from one sector to give to another. Bass thinks that the core farmers, the full time ones shouldn't be subsidised to the size of their enterprise yet two teachers grossing 100000 have no problem getting BPS. It's irellevant anyway as any maximum payment can be got around with a bit of imagination
Surely there's thousands of farmers with similar systems to mine, this BS about same payment's for 18 years, farms don't stand still, alot of the good BPS farms have moved on to he next generation, some even benefitting from young farmer partnership, which is more BS.... Money for ''Coppers'' night club and come home once a month and my BPS is reduced to finance that.
There would be none of this messing if every farmer maximised their payments in the reference years

jaymla627

wrangler wrote: »

My argument is logical, it's because all size of farmers and all ages are represented that IFA can not pull from one sector to give to another. Bass thinks that the core farmers, the full time ones shouldn't be subsidised to the size of their enterprise yet two teachers grossing 100000 have no problem getting BPS. It's irellevant anyway as any maximum payment can be got around with a bit of imagination
Surely there's thousands of farmers with similar systems to mine, this BS about same payment's for 18 years, farms don't stand still, alot of the good BPS farms have moved on to he next generation, some even benefitting from young farmer partnership, which is more BS.... Money for ''Coppers'' night club and come home once a month and my BPS is reduced to finance that.
There would be none of this messing if every farmer maximised their payments in the reference years

So in your view, a 100 cow suckler man say farming 150 acres and a good historically sfp of 40 grand plus say down to around 30k now is entitled to keep this money in the new cap and a new entrant say in the last 10 years that inherited a carbon copy of the above farm same cow numbers and acres that had no entitlements with him applying to national reserve and maybe recieving 15k should stay at this level so as to keep the older lad in a new land cruiser every 3 years its some pretty f**ked up logic you have

bogman_bass

wrangler wrote: »

My argument is logical, it's because all size of farmers and all ages are represented that IFA can not pull from one sector to give to another. Bass thinks that the core farmers, the full time ones shouldn't be subsidised to the size of their enterprise yet two teachers grossing 100000 have no problem getting BPS. It's irellevant anyway as any maximum payment can be got around with a bit of imagination
Surely there's thousands of farmers with similar systems to mine, this BS about same payment's for 18 years, farms don't stand still, alot of the good BPS farms have moved on to he next generation, some even benefitting from young farmer partnership, which is more BS.... Money for ''Coppers'' night club and come home once a month and my BPS is reduced to finance that.
There would be none of this messing if every farmer maximised their payments in the reference years

Sorry wrangler i’m Not having thatfarm partnerships are an essential part of generational change in the industry. Young farmers are investing in their farms old farmers are not. Taking a swing at young farmers is out of line

amacca

wrangler wrote: »

I doubt any organisation that represents all farmers is going to promote taking one farmers income and giving it to another

Would that not depend on the relative sizes of the groups the money might travel between............ and how much influence they have either in terms of power in numbers (and demonstrating a willingness to act) or how many brown envelopes they can muster etc

wrangler

jaymla627 wrote: »

So in your view, a 100 cow suckler man say farming 150 acres and a good historically sfp of 40 grand plus say down to around 30k now is entitled to keep this money in the new cap and a new entrant say in the last 10 years that inherited a carbon copy of the above farm same cow numbers and acres that had no entitlements with him applying to national reserve and maybe recieving 15k should stay at this level so as to keep the older lad in a new land cruiser every 3 years its some pretty f**ked up logic you have

Top third of suckler farmers made €362/ha last year and a good bit less this year, so €20000 from cows and €30000 from subs so €50000, if he's farming since the nineties it's the least he should have, the new entrant has plenty of other options without taking an income from someone that's too old to change.
If his OH isn't working, he won't be changing the LC every 3 years either.
Why didn't the new entrant think out his options if 15k isn't enough.
Nurses on 40000 are saying now it isn't enough, no way Is 50000 overpaid for minding 100 cows

wrangler

bogman_bass wrote: »

Sorry wrangler i’m Not having thatfarm partnerships are an essential part of generational change in the industry. Young farmers are investing in their farms old farmers are not. Taking a swing at young farmers is out of line

Like everything it's being abused. I might be generalising but it's happening, people are generalising about retired farmers even though those in the retirement scheme had their entitlements taken off them in the last CAP REFORM.
You should study the farms around you in the scheme

jaymla627

wrangler wrote: »

Top third of suckler farmers made €362/ha last year and a good bit less this year, so €20000 from cows and €30000 from subs so €50000, if he's farming since the nineties it's the least he should have, the new entrant has plenty of other options without taking an income from someone that's too old to change.
If his OH isn't working, he won't be changing the LC every 3 years either.
Why didn't the new entrant think out his options if 15k isn't enough.
Nurses on 40000 are saying now it isn't enough, no way Is 50000 overpaid for minding 100 cows

So the cap should remain as a de facto pension fund for older farmers, and the younger generation can whistle for it/ should basically forget about farming as a career, if that’s along the lines the top tier in the ifa are thinking along its pathetic to put it mildly.....

wrangler

jaymla627 wrote: »

So the cap should remain as a de facto pension fund for older farmers, and the younger generation can whistle for it/ should basically forget about farming as a career, if that’s along the lines the top tier in the ifa are thinking along its pathetic to put it mildly.....

I got no 15000/yr when I started farming, whinge on about IFA then, everyone else does when they know I have a point. Hopefully who ever get;s the dosh in the new CAP reform will have to pull their finger out and work for it like we did.
Mine is a pension now alright, how long will the pension last, probably two years,
Let's face facts, my subs are down from 40k to 25 because some farmers didn't maximise their payments, that's not right either, the Irish budget should be two billion not one point three billion.
That mythical farmer you described lives near here and he has three kids in College......you'll do a great job on him won't you, I can assure you e isn't blowing the subs in ''coppers'' or on toyotas either. but sure why would you care