Beef Plan Movement (READ OP BEFORE POSTING)

Genghis Cant

Beef Plan Movement. It's in the thread title.

Please back on topic. Thanks!

memorystick

Genghis Cant wrote: »

Beef Plan Movement. It's in the thread title.

Please back on topic. Thanks!

Not too many beef lads able to pay into a pension scheme or have off farm investment. Sums everything up really.

Siamsa Sessions

memorystick wrote: »

Genghis Cant wrote: »

Beef Plan Movement. It's in the thread title.

Please back on topic. Thanks!

Not too many beef lads able to pay into a pension scheme or have off farm investment. Sums everything up really.

As with the animal, the farmer must survive first before he/she can think about thriving.

Re BPM: any word on how the meeting with the Dept went?

wrangler

Siamsa Sessions wrote: »

As with the animal, the farmer must survive first before he/she can think about thriving.

Re BPM: any word on how the meeting with the Dept went?

Badmouthing the Department for the last two months wouldn't have been a help for a start.
I could imagine them trying to represent a farmer with a BPS problem at the mo,

gerryirl

wrangler wrote: »

Badmouthing the Department for the last two months wouldn't have been a help for a start.
I could imagine them trying to represent a farmer with a BPS problem at the mo,

Well kissing the Dept's arse wouldn't have helped much either

wrangler

gerryirl wrote: »

Well kissing the Dept's arse wouldn't have helped much either

Always found them the best of the Public Service, You wouldn't believe the cockups farmers make.
Bettter to have them as an allie

wrangler

gerryirl wrote: »

Well kissing the Dept's arse wouldn't have helped much either

No one's going to do anything for them when they're at what they're at, never saw factories put up the price while we were at the gates, be funny if that was what was stalling the price rise the the moment, processors won't be bullied

gerryirl

wrangler wrote: »

No one's going to do anything for them when they're at what they're at, never saw factories put up the price while we were at the gates, be funny if that was what was stalling the price rise the the moment, processors won't be bullied

What you recommend they do ?. Start spit shining there shoes for them is it

wrangler

gerryirl wrote: »

What you recommend they do ?. Start spit shining there shoes for them is it

Like the nurses they need to a lot more aggressive, even if they start killing a couple thousand cattle/week they're not going to make much impact on beef price.They'd be too much like the new boy at the ring in the mart and you know what happens them.

tractorporn

Check this out on Agriland - 4 movement rule ‘a private arrangement’ between MII and IFA https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/4-movement-rule-a-private-arrangement-between-mii-and-ifa/

I am really interested in how they are going to defend this one?

wrangler

tractorporn wrote: »

Check this out on Agriland - 4 movement rule ‘a private arrangement’ between MII and IFA https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/4-movement-rule-a-private-arrangement-between-mii-and-ifa/

I am really interested in how they are going to defend this one?

simple, factories wanted it restricted to three movements, would you suggest IFA stayed out of it
There's times they'd be better to stay out of it.
What's wrong with BPM now, why aren't they withdrawing supplies now to get their way

tractorporn

wrangler wrote: »

simple, factories wanted it restricted to three movements, would you suggest they stayed out of it

In a word yes!

Because now it looks like they are complicit. If they factories wanted it restricted on their own we at least know that they are the ones setting an anti competitive agenda.

If you can't see the optics of this to the average farmer your out of touch.

Bass Reeves

TBH I do not have an issue with the 4 movement rule. In a way it prevents some messing around the ring. It only effects cattle that qualify for QA so 0= or better. it is immaterial to bulls and cows. I am not sure what the hang up some lads have over it. I think getting O- cattle into the bonus is more important

wrangler

tractorporn wrote: »

In a word yes!

Because now it looks like they are complicit. If they factories wanted it restricted on their own we at least know that they are the ones setting an anti competitive agenda.

If you can't see the optics of this to the average farmer your out of touch.

So you want farmers unrepresented, all rules and regulations brought in unchallenged, we were QA on our lambs long before bord bia etc took it on.
Why don't farmers stop paying subs and stop this incessant whinge, I've long since said fiuckem, and I don't mean the organisation

wrangler

Bass Reeves wrote: »

TBH I do not have an issue with the 4 movement rule. In a way it prevents some messing around the ring. It only effects cattle that qualify for QA so 0= or better. it is immaterial to bulls and cows. I am not sure what the hang up some lads have over it. I think getting O- cattle into the bonus is more important

I never found QA onerous, always flew it and I would always take part in any promotion ICM or Bord bia wanted,

tractorporn

wrangler wrote: »

So you want farmers unrepresented, all rules and regulations brought in unchallenged, we were QA on our lambs long before bord bia etc took it on.
Why don't farmers stop paying subs and stop this incessant whinge, I've long since said fiuckem, and I don't mean the organisation

No I want real representation that works for us. That when unfair rules and regulations which are not part of any DAFM/EU regulations are brought in and they are backed into a corner, go publish the details and name and shame the parties, not lie over and make a deal.

To my mind the 30 month rule, 4 movements, 70 day residence and travel restrictions for offal are all anti competitive and should not have been allowed in or in the case of the 30 month rule scrapped once bse had been eliminated from the country.

Willfarman

Bass Reeves wrote: »

TBH I do not have an issue with the 4 movement rule. In a way it prevents some messing around the ring. It only effects cattle that qualify for QA so 0= or better. it is immaterial to bulls and cows. I am not sure what the hang up some lads have over it. I think getting O- cattle into the bonus is more important

There no great bother with the movements here either I have always been in agreement with it. but I completely agree with bass I am running into bother at times with o- on well finished square cattle. 4+ Fats is the other trapdoor. Prime top shelf British supermarket beef at canner cow price.

wrangler

tractorporn wrote: »

No I want real representation that works for us. That when unfair rules and regulations which are not part of any DAFM/EU regulations are brought in and they are backed into a corner, go publish the details and name and shame the parties, not lie over and make a deal.

To my mind the 30 month rule, 4 movements, 70 day residence and travel restrictions for offal are all anti competitive and should not have been allowed in or in the case of the 30 month rule scrapped once bse had been eliminated from the country.

Are you going to withdraw supplies until you achieve that
That's what BPM promised and reneged on, Factories can set the standards until suppliers develop backbone
Standards of four movements and 70 days residence are voluntary, quality assurance should be available to farmers who want to stand over their produce. ICSA asked farmers to withdraw from QA but they couldn't be bothered, sitting in a cold mart two or three nights a week isn't going to achieve a lot
Factories are probably entitled to set the 30 month age limit too, if I was buying something I'd be setting the specification too

Willfarman

Representation can’t be all things to all people. The ifa is opposing the new proposal around tb. But it’s in store buyers interests that the rules come in. Who pays most membership and levies?
No one fits all cap but while organization finances and coffers remain the number one priority there’s always going to be some members getting shouted contrary to the greater good. And bpm is no going to be no different!

_Brian

wrangler wrote: »

Are you going to withdraw supplies until you achieve that
That's what BPM promised and reneged on, Factories can set the standards until suppliers develop backbone
Standards of four movements and 70 days residence are voluntary, quality assurance should be available to farmers who want to stand over their produce. ICSA asked farmers to withdraw from QA but they couldn't be bothered, sitting in a cold mart two or three nights a week isn't going to achieve a lot
Factories are probably entitled to set the 30 month age limit too, if I was buying something I'd be setting the specification too

The absolute irony of a staunch IFA supporter, an organisation who not only presided over but likely actively suppressed the beef industry while taking back payments from factories to shush, the irony to talk down a competitive representation group who seek to represent those forgotten by the IFA, it’s laughable if there weren’t so many farms suffering because of the IFA one sided approach.
It’s
Like a quasi dictatorship plundering a countries wealth while the clueless footsoldiers on the ground go on spewing the rhetoric and trying to quash anyone who would threaten their supreme organisation. Frankly it’s disgusting!

I’ve supported the BPM for many reasons not the least that they might put down the IFA hold on farming lobbying which has done as much damage as good.

wrangler

Willfarman wrote: »

Representation can’t be all things to all people. The ifa is opposing the new proposal around tb. But it’s in store buyers interests that the rules come in. Who pays most membership and levies?
No one fits all cap but while organization finances and coffers remain the number one priority there’s always going to be some members getting shouted contrary to the greater good. And bpm is no going to be no different!

The organisation has to go with the policy of the commitees, be no point in farmers going to dublin to meetings if decisions was based on a revenue league,
Common sense would tell you that there has to be a premovement test, but you'd be shot for accepting it

wrangler

_Brian wrote: »

The absolute irony of a staunch IFA supporter, an organisation who not only presided over but likely actively surprised the beef industry while taking back payments from factories to shush, the irony to talk down a competitive representation group who seek to represent those forgotten by the IFA, it’s laughable if there weren’t so many farms suffering because of the IFA one sided approach.
It’s
Like a quasi dictatorship plundering a countries wealth while the clueless footsoldiers on the ground go on spewing the rhetoric and trying to quash anyone who would threaten their supreme organisation. Frankly it’s disgusting!

I’ve supported the BPM for many reasons not the least that they might put down the IFA hold on farming lobbying which has done as much damage as good.

I'm just telling you the way it is in the real world, customer is always right,
I was quite happy to leave BPM alone until THEY started spewing sh...
It's ironic that corley has a massive entitlement being defended by IFA at the moment while he's leading the charge against them....now that's irony
Until BPM take a stand they'll achieve nothing, It's only an ego trip for a few so far

_Brian

wrangler wrote: »

I'm just telling you the way it is in the real world, customer is always right,
I was quite happy to leave BPM alone until THEY started spewing sh...
It's ironic that corley has a massive entitlement being defended by IFA at the moment while he's leading the charge against them....now that's irony
Until BPM take a stand they'll achieve nothing, It's only an ego trip for a few so far

Can be funny sometimes who recognises am ego trip !

wrangler

_Brian wrote: »

Can be funny sometimes who recognises am ego trip !

It's not hard to in BPM, FULL OF IT

patsy_mccabe

wrangler wrote: »

I'm just telling you the way it is in the real world, customer is always right,
I was quite happy to leave BPM alone until THEY started spewing sh...
It's ironic that corley has a massive entitlement being defended by IFA at the moment while he's leading the charge against them....now that's irony
Until BPM take a stand they'll achieve nothing, It's only an ego trip for a few so far

The fact that Corley has a single payment (like every other farmer in the country) is entirely his own business and to mention it on a public forum like this is a cheap shot, to say the least.

wrangler

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

The fact that Corley has a single payment (like every other farmer in the country) is entirely his own business and to mention it on a public forum like this is a cheap shot, to say the least.

Taxpayers money, seemingly it's everyones business, there you go eaten bread etc etc multiply it from 2012 -2020

Bass Reeves

TBH wrangler you have been on about this for the last months. It is interesting that he is willing to see the bigger picture. Maybe his payment is not as high as you thing. One thing we do know is that the IFA only want to represent fulltime farmers. Joe Healy was harping on about it again last week in Kerry. They also see no issue with lobbying for small minority of farmers with payments over 60K. Most of there lobbying is of no use to a lot of ordinary smaller farmers.

In the last reorganisation of CAP we had the General secretary threatening western farmers about regionalisation. We have Joe now arguing against front loading and for payments over 60K. We all know exactly who they represent. Just like the lobbyed against producer groups. just like the lobbied for a suckler payment that would have distorted beef production. Just like the lobbied for REPS AEOS and GLAs schemes that are of no benefit to farmers on poorer quality land but are very hand to retired full time farmers.

wrangler

Bass Reeves wrote: »

TBH wrangler you have been on about this for the last months. It is interesting that he is willing to see the bigger picture. Maybe his payment is not as high as you thing. One thing we do know is that the IFA only want to represent fulltime farmers. Joe Healy was harping on about it again last week in Kerry. They also see no issue with lobbying for small minority of farmers with payments over 60K. Most of there lobbying is of no use to a lot of ordinary smaller farmers.

In the last reorganisation of CAP we had the General secretary threatening western farmers about regionalisation. We have Joe now arguing against front loading and for payments over 60K. We all know exactly who they represent. Just like the lobbyed against producer groups. just like the lobbied for a suckler payment that would have distorted beef production. Just like the lobbied for REPS AEOS and GLAs schemes that are of no benefit to farmers on poorer quality land but are very hand to retired full time farmers.

That's all bulls..t.

_Brian

wrangler wrote: »

That's all bulls..t.

I really don’t think your viewpoint is impartial on this.
I’d say if anyone who has lined their pockets from the hardship of other farmers was asked their viewpoint would be the same, the IFA is a representative group for select farms, not all farmers. They’ve had the platform to themselves for far too long and don’t little to help anyone but themselves.

wrangler

_Brian wrote: »

I really don’t think your viewpoint is impartial on this.
I’d say if anyone who has lined their pockets from the hardship of other farmers was asked their viewpoint would be the same, the IFA is a representative group for select farms, not all farmers. They’ve had the platform to themselves for far too long and don’t little to help anyone but themselves.

That too is bull**** and even slanderous,
Select farmers maybe if by select you mean farmers that aren't too lazy to attend meetings , lobby politicians, attend protests.
God help your innocence if you think I lined my pockets out of farmers hardship.
Feck the difference it makes to me now whether IFA survives or not, I've enough, BPM hasn't a hope against the beef processors, farmers will let them down,

Bass himself knows his post was BS, as far as I'm concerned it was a windup

_Brian

wrangler wrote: »

That too is bull**** and even slanderous,
Select farmers maybe if by select you mean farmers that aren't too lazy to attend meetings , lobby politicians, attend protests.
God help your innocence if you think I lined my pockets out of farmers hardship.
Feck the difference it makes to me now whether IFA survives or not, I've enough, BPM hasn't a hope against the beef processors, farmers will let them down,

Bass himself knows his post was BS, as far as I'm concerned it was a windup

To be clear, I did not say above you lined your pockets, interesting though it would be you conclusion.

Anyway, to be clear, I never said you did anything or took anything.

wrangler

_Brian wrote: »

To be clear, I did not say above you lined your pockets, interesting though it would be you conclusion.

Anyway, to be clear, I never said you did anything or took anything.

I wouldn't be bothered, why would I,
In house consultants, economists, and environmentalist at the end of a phone.
Isn't that enough of a bonus

Bass Reeves

wrangler wrote: »

That's all bulls..t.

wrangler wrote: »

That too is bull**** and even slanderous,
Select farmers maybe if by select you mean farmers that aren't too lazy to attend meetings , lobby politicians, attend protests.
God help your innocence if you think I lined my pockets out of farmers hardship.
Feck the difference it makes to me now whether IFA survives or not, I've enough, BPM hasn't a hope against the beef processors, farmers will let them down,

Bass himself knows his post was BS, as far as I'm concerned it was a windup

So nobody can have a different view point to the great retired farmer Wrangler. For the last 20-30 years IFA has been and is more and more a representive organisation for only a select group of farmers. It no longer even represents the the majority of farmers. It rules exclude the vast majority of farmers from now being on County, regional or national committee and executives. For years too many were paying membership thinking it was costing them nothing because they received a vouchers with a few euro off this and that. What is happening now is it is no longer the radical organisation it was 40-60 years ago.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Lads, if you front load the BPS for the first 10ha, all that's going to happen is family farms and larger farms will be split up to maximise the number of 10ha plots that can be drawn on.


I was advised to set up my land to do that a good number of years ago. We can even draw down 4 front loaded BPS sections if it's delayed for another two years. Tbh, it achieves nothing and Joe Healy explained it as such last week.


There's been numerous debates about convergence and how to achieve it as fairly as possible and the IFA aren't the only ones against convergence across the EU but convergence will happen, there's no other way forward. Faster than some IFA stalwarts would like but slower than the EU would like.



Each Ha gets the same payment and the better the land is farmed, the better the income for the farmer.

wrangler

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Lads, if you front load the BPS for the first 10ha, all that's going to happen is family farms and larger farms will be split up to maximise the number of 10ha plots that can be drawn on.


I was advised to set up my land to do that a good number of years ago. We can even draw down 4 front loaded BPS sections if it's delayed for another two years. Tbh, it achieves nothing and Joe Healy explained it as such last week.


There's been numerous debates about convergence and how to achieve it as fairly as possible and the IFA aren't the only ones against convergence across the EU but convergence will happen, there's no other way forward. Faster than some IFA stalwarts would like but slower than the EU would like.



Each Ha gets the same payment and the better the land is farmed, the better the income for the farmer.

Same with the 90 limit for the beef premium I know one family with four herd numbers, one of the herd owners wouldn't know where to find the cattle shed.
60000 limit will be the same

_Brian

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Lads, if you front load the BPS for the first 10ha, all that's going to happen is family farms and larger farms will be split up to maximise the number of 10ha plots that can be drawn on.


I was advised to set up my land to do that a good number of years ago. We can even draw down 4 front loaded BPS sections if it's delayed for another two years. Tbh, it achieves nothing and Joe Healy explained it as such last week.


There's been numerous debates about convergence and how to achieve it as fairly as possible and the IFA aren't the only ones against convergence across the EU but convergence will happen, there's no other way forward. Faster than some IFA stalwarts would like but slower than the EU would like.



Each Ha gets the same payment and the better the land is farmed, the better the income for the farmer.

Nothing to stop a reference year being taken to avoid guys making changes to benefit themselves.

wrangler

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Lads, if you front load the BPS for the first 10ha, all that's going to happen is family farms and larger farms will be split up to maximise the number of 10ha plots that can be drawn on.


I was advised to set up my land to do that a good number of years ago. We can even draw down 4 front loaded BPS sections if it's delayed for another two years. Tbh, it achieves nothing and Joe Healy explained it as such last week.


There's been numerous debates about convergence and how to achieve it as fairly as possible and the IFA aren't the only ones against convergence across the EU but convergence will happen, there's no other way forward. Faster than some IFA stalwarts would like but slower than the EU would like.



Each Ha gets the same payment and the better the land is farmed, the better the income for the farmer.

convergence would be tough, low income farmers would use it to live, high income farmers would have it for the dry period skiing trip

wrangler

_Brian wrote: »

Nothing to stop a reference year being taken to avoid guys making changes to benefit themselves.

Be interesting to test the constitutionality of confiscating entitlements, even the last time they let landlords sell them, some tax free rather than confiscate them. and sure mulder clients in the eighties got a fortune for not getting quota

wrangler

Bass Reeves wrote: »

So nobody can have a different view point to the great retired farmer Wrangler. For the last 20-30 years IFA has been and is more and more a representive organisation for only a select group of farmers. It no longer even represents the the majority of farmers. It rules exclude the vast majority of farmers from now being on County, regional or national committee and executives. For years too many were paying membership thinking it was costing them nothing because they received a vouchers with a few euro off this and that. What is happening now is it is no longer the radical organisation it was 40-60 years ago.

Neither is it's farmers I can tell you
I know nothing about your supposed rules, but you do have to make yourself available for meetings etc or get out and rightly so ......wasn't Corley cited on the journal for not attending an important meeting. Sending a sub is a poor substitute

Willfarman

Bass Reeves wrote: »

wrangler wrote: »

That's all bulls..t.

wrangler wrote: »

That too is bull**** and even slanderous,
Select farmers maybe if by select you mean farmers that aren't too lazy to attend meetings , lobby politicians, attend protests.
God help your innocence if you think I lined my pockets out of farmers hardship.
Feck the difference it makes to me now whether IFA survives or not, I've enough, BPM hasn't a hope against the beef processors, farmers will let them down,

Bass himself knows his post was BS, as far as I'm concerned it was a windup

So nobody can have a different view point to the great retired farmer Wrangler. For the last 20-30 years IFA has been and is more and more a representive organisation for only a select group of farmers. It no longer even represents the the majority of farmers. It rules exclude the vast majority of farmers from now being on County, regional or national committee and executives. For years too many were paying membership thinking it was costing them nothing because they received a vouchers with a few euro off this and that. What is happening now is it is no longer the radical organisation it was 40-60 years ago.

All valid points bass however bpm will be more of the same. It’s predominantly a flogger of a nonsensical intensive suckler farming from my understanding.

Willfarman

Bass Reeves wrote: »

wrangler wrote: »

That's all bulls..t.

wrangler wrote: »

That too is bull**** and even slanderous,
Select farmers maybe if by select you mean farmers that aren't too lazy to attend meetings , lobby politicians, attend protests.
God help your innocence if you think I lined my pockets out of farmers hardship.
Feck the difference it makes to me now whether IFA survives or not, I've enough, BPM hasn't a hope against the beef processors, farmers will let them down,

Bass himself knows his post was BS, as far as I'm concerned it was a windup

So nobody can have a different view point to the great retired farmer Wrangler. For the last 20-30 years IFA has been and is more and more a representive organisation for only a select group of farmers. It no longer even represents the the majority of farmers. It rules exclude the vast majority of farmers from now being on County, regional or national committee and executives. For years too many were paying membership thinking it was costing them nothing because they received a vouchers with a few euro off this and that. What is happening now is it is no longer the radical organisation it was 40-60 years ago.

All valid points bass however bpm will be more of the same. It’s predominantly a flogger of a nonsensical intensive suckler farming from my understanding.

Bass Reeves

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Lads, if you front load the BPS for the first 10ha, all that's going to happen is family farms and larger farms will be split up to maximise the number of 10ha plots that can be drawn on.


I was advised to set up my land to do that a good number of years ago. We can even draw down 4 front loaded BPS sections if it's delayed for another two years. Tbh, it achieves nothing and Joe Healy explained it as such last week.


There's been numerous debates about convergence and how to achieve it as fairly as possible and the IFA aren't the only ones against convergence across the EU but convergence will happen, there's no other way forward. Faster than some IFA stalwarts would like but slower than the EU would like.



Each Ha gets the same payment and the better the land is farmed, the better the income for the farmer.

This issue of lads splitting farms into 10HA plots is a red herring just as the idea of farms being split draw down larger than 60k in payments. Actually the main reason koe gave was the old hobby farmer story. Front loading could just as easy be given over the first 20-25HA which would reduce the sum/HA but be meaningful payment to smaller farmers. Not even sure I am totally in favour of it but it show where IFA is in representing farmers and who it represents. I agree that convergence will continue and we may see considerable support for it by the other Irish farm organisations.

Say my name

Bass Reeves wrote: »

This issue of lads splitting farms into 10HA plots is a red herring just as the idea of farms being split draw down larger than 60k in payments. Actually the main reason koe gave was the old hobby farmer story. Front loading could just as easy be given over the first 20-25HA which would reduce the sum/HA but be meaningful payment to smaller farmers. Not even sure I am totally in favour of it but it show where IFA is in representing farmers and who it represents. I agree that convergence will continue and we may see considerable support for it by the other Irish farm organisations.

CAP payments are currently front loaded by nine countries in the EU to smaller farmers.

http://www.arc2020.eu/cap-poland-options-small-organic-producers/

wrangler

Say my name wrote: »

CAP payments are currently front loaded by nine countries in the EU to smaller farmers.

http://www.arc2020.eu/cap-poland-options-small-organic-producers/

I can't believe I'd be benefiting from a frontloaded payment :cool:

Robson99

tractorporn wrote: »

No I want real representation that works for us. That when unfair rules and regulations which are not part of any DAFM/EU regulations are brought in and they are backed into a corner, go publish the details and name and shame the parties, not lie over and make a deal.

To my mind the 30 month rule, 4 movements, 70 day residence and travel restrictions for offal are all anti competitive and should not have been allowed in or in the case of the 30 month rule scrapped once bse had been eliminated from the country.

At least them rules dont change. What really pisses me off is the weight restrictions whet it suits them. No problem in summer but bring it in when they like in winter. Knobs

wrangler

Bass Reeves wrote: »

So nobody can have a different view point to the great retired farmer Wrangler. For the last 20-30 years IFA has been and is more and more a representive organisation for only a select group of farmers. It no longer even represents the the majority of farmers. It rules exclude the vast majority of farmers from now being on County, regional or national committee and executives. For years too many were paying membership thinking it was costing them nothing because they received a vouchers with a few euro off this and that. What is happening now is it is no longer the radical organisation it was 40-60 years ago.

I can't believe that processors aren't dropping the price 10c/kg/ a week while this harassment goes on, oh I forgot, they're doing it to the sheep

Bass Reeves

Robson99 wrote: »

tractorporn wrote: »

No I want real representation that works for us. That when unfair rules and regulations which are not part of any DAFM/EU regulations are brought in and they are backed into a corner, go publish the details and name and shame the parties, not lie over and make a deal.

To my mind the 30 month rule, 4 movements, 70 day residence and travel restrictions for offal are all anti competitive and should not have been allowed in or in the case of the 30 month rule scrapped once bse had been eliminated from the country.

At least them rules dont change. What really pisses me off is the weight restrictions whet it suits them. No problem in summer but bring it in when they like in winter. Knobs

I can understand the case for the 70day , 30 month, and 4 movement rules. The 30 month rules serves two purposes it keeps cattle weights down and stars cattle moving in early August rather than mid/late September. Removing it would cause a bigger glut than already there. Most dosing has less than 70 days withdrawal it put the onus of the withdrawal period on the final farmer. Changing the 4 movement rule will only put more money in the pockets of marts and cattle hauliers.

Cormac Healy spoke again a few weeks ago about cattle weight . Again he spoke about maximum carcass weights of 360-380kgs. I know this causes huge issues with suckler bred stock as it virtually makes them and bull beef unviable but that is a market reality. It's a market reality as well that O- beef is as suitable as R+ and maybe more suitable for the supermarket trade yet is not getting the QA.

The other three will not put a whole pile of extra money in farmers pockets . Getting QA for O- cattle would stop the temptation of processors to manipulate the grid as it would leave less room below the QA qualifining grades to shove cattle into. This might put more money into the farming pot. At the end of the day as a finisher it is immaterial to me as I just take my margin and pass the rest back down the chain

Bass Reeves

wrangler wrote: »

I can't believe that processors aren't dropping the price 10c/kg/ a week while this harassment goes on, oh I forgot, they're doing it to the sheep

It's the economics of not leaving the door open. At present we are only about 20c/ kg ahead of the Netherlands and Poland on cattle prices. A lower base might encourage the an outside processors to look at buying either a few unused processing plants or some of the still independent processors. Another issue if we hit the same price as Poland and the Netherlands it might encourage the EU to send in there Competition Authority to investigate. You also have the issue that the big three are buying up the independent one by one if they are more profitable it costs more to buy them. Finally the more they drop the winter price the more farmers that exit winter finishing. As with sucklers it takes little to start a snowball effect

wrangler

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It's the economics of not leaving the door open. At present we are only about 20c/ kg ahead of the Netherlands and Poland on cattle prices. A lower base might encourage the an outside processors to look at buying either a few unused processing plants or some of the still independent processors. Another issue if we hit the same price as Poland and the Netherlands it might encourage the EU to send in there Competition Authority to investigate. You also have the issue that the big three are buying up the independent one by one if they are more profitable it costs more to buy them. Finally the more they drop the winter price the more farmers that exit winter finishing. As with sucklers it takes little to start a snowball effect

I'll have to sit down and have a chat with myself......I'm after agreeing with your last two posts.
Farmers can't seem to get their heads around the fact that the market is what it is and we have to go by their specs, Processors can sell the few overweights that come in early summer but as you say once August comes they have to draw a line to stop farmers letting them go Overweight

Buford T. Justice XIX

wrangler wrote: »

Be interesting to test the constitutionality of confiscating entitlements, even the last time they let landlords sell them, some tax free rather than confiscate them. and sure mulder clients in the eighties got a fortune for not getting quota

Not quite right there, wrangler.


SLOM I farmers signed a cessation of milk scheme when depopulated with Brucellosis in the early 80s and had to remain female free for those 5 years. There was a clause in the contract signed by both parties that, in the event of quotas being established, they would be entitled to a quota equivalent to the 12 month period prior to depopulation.


Despite seeking the quotas they were entitled to, their rights to a quota were denied both by the Irish Government and EEC quota section.


After 3 years in court, their case was accepted in full by the EEC Courts. And compensation was paid because of the denial of their rights to return to milk production as specified in the original contract.