More evidence of bull beef dying a death

TUBBY

From the Angus website.

"Our policy on bull production is changing for 2014. Please take note of the following changes:
1) Angus Premium Payments
From 1 January 2014, Angus bulls will be excluded from our AAA scheme and from our Off-Season premium scheme. Therefore bulls will only receive a maximum premium of 10c/kg immaterial of which system of production they are produced under.
2) Age Limits
The following age limits will apply to all Angus bulls produced in 2014:

• From 1 January to 31 March 2014, bulls must be under 24 months of age to collect 10c/kg Angus premium.
• From 1 April to 31 July 2014, bulls must be under 20 months of age to collect 10c/kg Angus premium.
• From 1 August to 30 September 2014, bulls must be under 18 months of age to collect 10c/kg Angus premium.
• From 1 October to 31 December 2014, bulls must be under 16 months of age to collect 10c/kg Angus premium.

Bulls that fall outside of these age limits will be priced at commercial value.
3) Removal of Bulls from Certified Scheme
Angus bulls of any age will no longer be accepted in our scheme from 1 January 2015.
The reason behind these decisions is to ensure the quality of our Certified Irish Angus beef lives up to the increasing expectations of our discerning consumers."



The writing is on the wall for bulls.

bob charles

TUBBY wrote: »

From the Angus website.

"Our policy on bull production is changing for 2014. Please take note of the following changes:
1) Angus Premium Payments
From 1 January 2014, Angus bulls will be excluded from our AAA scheme and from our Off-Season premium scheme. Therefore bulls will only receive a maximum premium of 10c/kg immaterial of which system of production they are produced under.
2) Age Limits
The following age limits will apply to all Angus bulls produced in 2014:

• From 1 January to 31 March 2014, bulls must be under 24 months of age to collect 10c/kg Angus premium.
• From 1 April to 31 July 2014, bulls must be under 20 months of age to collect 10c/kg Angus premium.
• From 1 August to 30 September 2014, bulls must be under 18 months of age to collect 10c/kg Angus premium.
• From 1 October to 31 December 2014, bulls must be under 16 months of age to collect 10c/kg Angus premium.

Bulls that fall outside of these age limits will be priced at commercial value.
3) Removal of Bulls from Certified Scheme
Angus bulls of any age will no longer be accepted in our scheme from 1 January 2015.
The reason behind these decisions is to ensure the quality of our Certified Irish Angus beef lives up to the increasing expectations of our discerning consumers."



The writing is on the wall for bulls.

That has being the position for awhile regarding the AA bulls being excluded. Suppose the last line is the most important

49801

Crikey... I am not surprised by reduction of age to 16mth but total eradication of premium is in 2015 is a big change.

Is it the way the factories are positioning themselves for lots of dairy breeds post 2015?

Farmer Pudsey

You wonder with the expected increase in the dairy herd to prevent them being finished as bulls over the winter. It may well make the finishing of these cattle uneconomical.

Is this a move to allow them to control the market. Forces farmers to finish all cattle before 30 months. This would force sucklers farmers to breed cattle that can be killed at 24 months during there second winter. Friesians bullocks will provide cattle from June-October with traditional breeds filling the gap in between and the top up to the other two lots.

At least the AA scheme is being honest and putting a process in place to allow farmers to sell there stock. However most AA bulls will be outside the scheme by September as the majority of cattle are born Feb-April.

keep going

This eactly what the meat processors do with years.they decide they are going to use a category of cattle, young bulls , cows, angus certified, heifers whatever and they push the prices on this category and farmers see the margin and increase production,.then 12 or 18 months down the line when fellas have the numbers they cut the price and the cattle are there so they have to be killed so the processers are work7ng the market.it s got nothing to do with market returns. I see it first hand with fr bulls at the moment once cattle are fit they cant be stored indefinitely

keep going

This eactly what the meat processors do with years.they decide they are going to use a category of cattle, young bulls , cows, angus certified, heifers whatever and they push the prices on this category and farmers see the margin and increase production,.then 12 or 18 months down the line when fellas have the numbers they cut the price and the cattle are there so they have to be killed so the processers are work7ng the market.it s got nothing to do with market returns. I see it first hand with fr bulls at the moment once cattle are fit they cant be stored indefinitely

bob charles

It has being flagged going on two years that bull beef isnt a product that is in demand. with the improved DNA testing it has meant that before young bull and bullock beef could be sold together now this cannot happen. So who here would like to buy a pallet of bull beef instead of say a pallet of heifer beef with both trading in or around the same price. If you cant or wont adopt to what the market wants there is little point in complaining about the price paid when the time comes

TITANIUM.

bob charles wrote: »

It has being flagged going on two years that bull beef isnt a product that is in demand. with the improved DNA testing it has meant that before young bull and bullock beef could be sold together now this cannot happen. So who here would like to buy a pallet of bull beef instead of say a pallet of heifer beef with both trading in or around the same price. If you cant or wont adopt to what the market wants there is little point in complaining about the price paid when the time comes

What are we to do with all our bull/bullocks then bob. Finish them under 16 months in an uneconomical fashion.
No its to easy to say "this product isn't in demand". They can say what they want it doesn't make it a fact. I find bull beef lovely, especially when it has been hung for long enough. And as for the argument that the cuts are simply to big. Well I don't buy that either. If it keeps going at this rate we will have to bring in the animals already butchered and in the nice plastic shop containers. In order to save the factory the bother.

keep going

bob charles wrote: »

It has being flagged going on two years that bull beef isnt a product that is in demand. with the improved DNA testing it has meant that before young bull and bullock beef could be sold together now this cannot happen. So who here would like to buy a pallet of bull beef instead of say a pallet of heifer beef with both trading in or around the same price. If you cant or wont adopt to what the market wants there is little point in complaining about the price paid when the time comes

Its not really my business and maybe you know better but I think thats rubbish, for majority of customers beef is beef and by customers I mean McDonald's or multiple s.there a retired farmer near us that rears a couple of jersey bull calves and kills them, grandest stuff ever

Farmer Pudsey

bob charles wrote: »

It has being flagged going on two years that bull beef isnt a product that is in demand. with the improved DNA testing it has meant that before young bull and bullock beef could be sold together now this cannot happen. So who here would like to buy a pallet of bull beef instead of say a pallet of heifer beef with both trading in or around the same price. If you cant or wont adopt to what the market wants there is little point in complaining about the price paid when the time comes

Flagged and putting a process in place are two different things. Yes for the last two years they have being saying that, however when push came to shove they took bulls, I know a lad that got over 24 months bulls killed in September and he only 3or4 .

I wonder if they had not got there lairages full would they be so bullish excuse the pun

TITANIUM. wrote: »

What are we to do with all our bull/bullocks then bob. Finish them under 16 months in an uneconomical fashion.
No its to easy to say "this product isn't in demand". They can say what they want it doesn't make it a fact. I find bull beef lovely, especially when it has been hung for long enough. And as for the argument that the cuts are simply to big. Well I don't buy that either. If it keeps going at this rate we will have to bring in the animals already butchered and in the nice plastic shop containers. In order to save the factory the bother.

Big cust are a huge issue, striploins are the most valuable cut and as well everybody wants a bit of fat on there round roast not a lump of meat from the middle. With smaller familys and more couples people do not want a big lump of meat.

keep going wrote: »

Its not really my business and maybe you know better but I think thats rubbish, for majority of customers beef is beef and by customers I mean McDonald's or multiple s.there a retired farmer near us that rears a couple of jersey bull calves and kills them, grandest stuff ever

This is my point small carcasses like jerseys croses and Fresians killed at less than 350kgs DW are suitable however like bob said DNA states that it has to be what it says on the Tin.

The factory's promised that farmers would not have to pay for the horsemeat debacle but here we go we farmers are. I wonder if the horsemeat scandal had not happened would we have an issue with bulls.


Like I stated I would not have an issue with this if a process like the AA are doing had been put in place after all as late as September/October factory managers were telling farmers as long as bulls were under 24 months there would be no issue. That another type of flagging

J.O. Farmer

I'm struggling to understand how DNA testing can tell the difference between bull and Bullock.
The only difference between the two is the Bullock no longer produces sex hormones and sperm.
You can use it to tell between horses and cattle as they are different species and even heifers and bulls as they are different sex.
Maybe I'm wrong but DNA won't differentiate between bulls and bullocks. The only way I could see would be to test for difference in testosterone levels or something.

rancher

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Flagged and putting a process in place are two different things. Yes for the last two years they have being saying that, however when push came to shove they took bulls, I know a lad that got over 24 months bulls killed in September and he only 3or4 .

I wonder if they had not got there lairages full would they be so bullish excuse the pun



Big cust are a huge issue, striploins are the most valuable cut and as well everybody wants a bit of fat on there round roast not a lump of meat from the middle. With smaller familys and more couples people do not want a big lump of meat.




This is my point small carcasses like jerseys croses and Fresians killed at less than 350kgs DW are suitable however like bob said DNA states that it has to be what it says on the Tin.

The factory's promised that farmers would not have to pay for the horsemeat debacle but here we go we farmers are. I wonder if the horsemeat scandal had not happened would we have an issue with bulls.


Like I stated I would not have an issue with this if a process like the AA are doing had been put in place after all as late as September/October factory managers were telling farmers as long as bulls were under 24 months there would be no issue. That another type of flagging

Was talking to two factory managers in sept/ oct, one said to make sure the factory has a market before you start feeding and the other said they didn't want bulls, too many complaints coming back.
They have been flagging problems with bulls for over a year now.
If theres steer/heifer beef available, why would any supermarket buyer take bull beef

stanflt

bob charles wrote: »

It has being flagged going on two years that bull beef isnt a product that is in demand. with the improved DNA testing it has meant that before young bull and bullock beef could be sold together now this cannot happen. So who here would like to buy a pallet of bull beef instead of say a pallet of heifer beef with both trading in or around the same price. If you cant or wont adopt to what the market wants there is little point in complaining about the price paid when the time comes

Have to say bob that you have surprised me again with a very intelligent reply- are you feeling well- this is not the first useful comment you have made this year either- I'm seriously worried about you

Happy Christmas and all the best in 2014

TITANIUM.

rancher wrote: »

[/B]
Was talking to two factory managers in sept/ oct, one said to make sure the factory has a market before you start feeding and the other said they didn't want bulls, too many complaints coming back.
They have been flagging problems with bulls for over a year now.
If theres steer/heifer beef available, why would any supermarket buyer take bull beef

Sure we'll shoot all bulls at birth so to save ourselves rearing them.
Look there a part of the business ourselves and the factory's are in. One side of the house can't just say someday "no hang onto your bulls lads. We had a few complaints so we're only going to take your quality heifers from now on" all parties involved in this industry have a responsibility to each other. And I believe this kinda tripe that is currently happening is extremely short sighted.

freedominacup

They're only one Daily Mail headline away from serious problems with this stance. Something along the lines of UK supermarkets and slaughter houses forcing farmers to resume antiquated, barbaric practice with a photo of what will look to many consumers like the devils tooth pliers. An opening paragraph along the lines of

"After a number of years where farmers had been discontinuing the barbaric practice of castration, often without vetinary supervision despite regulations to the contrary, British supermarkets and slaughterhouses are forcing their farmer suppliers to resume this unessecary and cruel practice....."

and so on with a little dig about the lower performance of steers tempting farmers to consider using illegal growth promoters and the wheels will come off the we don't want bulls bandwagon. We have been doing bull beef here on and off for 20+ years and never had any problem getting them away at a reasonable return.

I'm with J.O. on his assertion that telling bull beef from bullock using a DNA test would at the very least be problematic.

severeoversteer

bob charles wrote: »

It has being flagged going on two years that bull beef isnt a product that is in demand. with the improved DNA testing it has meant that before young bull and bullock beef could be sold together now this cannot happen. So who here would like to buy a pallet of bull beef instead of say a pallet of heifer beef with both trading in or around the same price. If you cant or wont adopt to what the market wants there is little point in complaining about the price paid when the time comes

in the supermarket is there a label saying this is ''bull'' and this is ''heifer'' or ''bullock''. no there isn't. the customer doesn't know and wouldn't know the difference.

the factory pay more for each kilo of bullock and a bit less for the bull and then sell them under same label for same price

they can dna test all they like but for the time being people don't care whether its a bull or a bullock just as long as its traceable, irish and from an animal that isn't a horse !


but aside from this you will have your butcher type butty heifers that are top quality



as long as continental charolais etc bulls are paid on the grid for 16 months or under, the future for these bulls is ok for the minute

older bulls ( >16 months) and fr bulls days might be numbered

rancher

TITANIUM. wrote: »

Sure we'll shoot all bulls at birth so to save ourselves rearing them.
Look there a part of the business ourselves and the factory's are in. One side of the house can't just say someday "no hang onto your bulls lads. We had a few complaints so we're only going to take your quality heifers from now on" all parties involved in this industry have a responsibility to each other. And I believe this kinda tripe that is currently happening is extremely short sighted.

Factories won't buy bulls unless they can sell them, we have to produce for the markets, ''customer is always right'' and all that.
Plenty of bull calves being destroyed in other countries, why is that?
Will beef buyers take bull beef when heifer/steer beef gets scarce, whenever that is.....maybe they will

Hershall

We can all buy bks and hfrs this spring and they will be a rob in the marts. Have them fit to kill at the back end when lots of cattle around and the factories will discount them as well! !!!

Farmer Pudsey

I would imagine that a DNA test will show the level of testerone in a meat sample and trace to bull. However if handled right and if hung a little longer there is no discernible difference in quality.

AA has been using bull beef for ages however are now putting in place a process to exit the market. Factory's continually send out these so called flaggings however they never put a process in place to change supply from farmers it always a case of wait until a bit of a glut (in this case one manufactured by factory's I think) and then make a profit on the so called unwanted product.

In Ireland bacuase of the non avaibility of byproduct we cannot compete at winter finishing as the UK and the rest of Europe. To equalise supply we need a certain % of bulls in mix

J.O. Farmer

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I would imagine that a DNA test will show the level of testerone in a meat sample and trace to bull. However if handled right and if hung a little longer there is no discernible difference in quality.

A DNA test doesn't show the levels of anything in the system. It will show genes for production of testosterone are present not if they are being used.
They could use perhaps a different test to detect hormone levels but this is unrelated to DNA tests.
Anybody telling you that DNA can be used is either far more up on recent scientific developments than me or don't know what they're talking about. my bets is on the latter.

Farrell

Hershall wrote: »

We can all buy bks and hfrs this spring and they will be a rob in the marts. Have them fit to kill at the back end when lots of cattle around and the factories will discount them as well! !!!

Will this result in dairy herds going down the route of all female calves, putting more emphase on sexed ai

paddysdream

Think Bob hit the nail on the head but many of ye seemed to miss the point.

There is no use producing something that is not wanted ,no matter how good you think it is or how ever much it suits your system,way of farming etc.

Farmers have been, and in the vast vast majority of cases ,will always be following the market not leading it.

If we stick our heads in the sand and refuse to listen then we only have ourselves to blame.
If anyone thinks that there is a vast fortune in the meat industry could they please point out all the farmer run factories that they supply.

bob charles

freedominacup wrote: »

and so on with a little dig about the lower performance of steers tempting farmers to consider using illegal growth promoters and the wheels will come off the we don't want bulls bandwagon. We have been doing bull beef here on and off for 20+ years and never had any problem getting them away at a reasonable return.

I'm with J.O. on his assertion that telling bull beef from bullock using a DNA test would at the very least be problematic.

And I will argue all day that hormones should be allowed in beef production as they are so safe, doubt the customer would check out the research that states why.

A hormone test of meat will very quickly tell if it is bullock or bull beef. Every thing down as far as the tongues is now being labeled. I have being told that there is a test available if really wanted to determine the age of the meat. This is over my head so I just had to nod

TITANIUM.

paddysdream wrote: »

Think Bob hit the nail on the head but many of ye seemed to miss the point.

There is no use producing something that is not wanted ,no matter how good you think it is or how ever much it suits your system,way of farming etc.

Farmers have been, and in the vast vast majority of cases ,will always be following the market not leading it.

If we stick our heads in the sand and refuse to listen then we only have ourselves to blame.
If anyone thinks that there is a vast fortune in the meat industry could they please point out all the farmer run factories that they supply.

I understand what you're saying paddy but I think it's yere side of the debate thats missing the point. Who's saying this product isn't wanted, Only vested interests. I no yere saying we have to follow the market and all dat. But to simply say were not taking bulls because its a bit easier to sell heifer beef is completely unfair not to mention ethically unsound. It might be easy for the likes of Bob who (and im assuming here) buys in most of if not all the animals he finishes to simply buy heifers instead of young bulls and change his system immediately. Yere forgetting about the suckler to weanling man and the suckler to beef man. With sexed semen still unreliable what are we meant to do with our bulls. Castrate them? How long before they then tell us they don't want them anymore either.
I see the whole system as having three branches, each with their own responsibilities. The producer : to breed and provide top quality beef within the Numerous restrictions in place. The Manufacturer: source and process this product . The retailer: to provide an infrastructure to sell the product. And at a price (as this is the end of the line) that leaves a viable margin for all keeping the whole system healthy. If one of these branches (particularly the last two) decide to look entirely at themselves and forget about the remainder then the system will ultimately fall down at some point and fail.

mf240

When you castrate a bull and he becomes a bullock his DNA is unchanged.

paddysdream

TITANIUM. wrote: »

I understand what you're saying paddy but I think it's yere side of the debate thats missing the point. Who's saying this product isn't wanted, Only vested interests. I no yere saying we have to follow the market and all dat. But to simply say were not taking bulls because its a bit easier to sell heifer beef is completely unfair not to mention ethically unsound. It might be easy for the likes of Bob who (and im assuming here) buys in most of if not all the animals he finishes to simply buy heifers instead of young bulls and change his system immediately. Yere forgetting about the suckler to weanling man and the suckler to beef man. With sexed semen still unreliable what are we meant to do with our bulls. Castrate them? How long before they then tell us they don't want them anymore either.
I see the whole system as having three branches, each with their own responsibilities. The producer : to breed and provide top quality beef within the Numerous restrictions in place. The Manufacturer: source and process this product . The retailer: to provide an infrastructure to sell the product. And at a price (as this is the end of the line) that leaves a viable margin for all keeping the whole system healthy. If one of these branches (particularly the last two) decide to look entirely at themselves and forget about the remainder then the system will ultimately fall down at some point and fail.

What are we meant to do with our bulls?

Well if they are not wanted then dont produce them.
The bit about responsibilities sounds like you expect both the retailer and factory to do what suits the farmer wants and not the other way around.
As farmers we tend to see things the opposite way around.

The way I see it is as follows;
Retailers job is to sell what the customer wants,make a few bob for themselves and well and good if they can promote and sell new or different products.
Factories job is to source and process what the retailers want, at a price that leaves a margin, and make a few bob and well and good if they can find new markets for different products.
Farmers job is to produce the raw materials wanted by the consumer in a processed state ie that which the retailer can sell and the factory can process.

For example if you go into a shop and want a pair of size 10 boots but the shopkeeper tells you that, no we dont really stock them but we have size 8s at a very good price and thats all we will have for the next 2 years then what would you do?.Buy them?
Analogy mightnt be the best but can you understand what I mean.

freedominacup

paddysdream wrote: »

What are we meant to do with our bulls?

Well if they are not wanted then dont produce them.
The bit about responsibilities sounds like you expect both the retailer and factory to do what suits the farmer wants and not the other way around.
As farmers we tend to see things the opposite way around.

The way I see it is as follows;
Retailers job is to sell what the customer wants,make a few bob for themselves and well and good if they can promote and sell new or different products.
Factories job is to source and process what the retailers want, at a price that leaves a margin, and make a few bob and well and good if they can find new markets for different products.
Farmers job is to produce the raw materials wanted by the consumer in a processed state ie that which the retailer can sell and the factory can process.

For example if you go into a shop and want a pair of size 10 boots but the shopkeeper tells you that, no we dont really stock them but we have size 8s at a very good price and thats all we will have for the next 2 years then what would you do?.Buy them?
Analogy mightnt be the best but can you understand what I mean.

I don't hear a huge clamour from the consumer looking for bull beef to be taken off the shelves.maybe they're shouting about it quietly but I'd be more of the opinion that the factories are acting the maggot as usual.

paddysdream

freedominacup wrote: »

I don't hear a huge clamour from the consumer looking for bull beef to be taken off the shelves.maybe they're shouting about it quietly but I'd be more of the opinion that the factories are acting the maggot as usual.

But why oh why cant farmers get it into their heads that factories exist to make money,as much as possible, and not to support farmers or provide an outlet for our produce.

Nobody is saying consumers are rejecting bull beef.Its that the factories see an chance to make a few more quid.But basing your whole industry on something that may or may not be wanted is not a recepie for success.

For example will all the new dairy farmers be crying if after 2015 the milk price falls?Can see them blaming co ops for not paying enough etc etc.
At the end of the day we as primary producers are at the mercy of the market, fashion ,fads ,food scares ,and anything else you can think of.

freedominacup

paddysdream wrote: »

But why oh why cant farmers get it into their heads that factories exist to make money,as much as possible, and not to support farmers or provide an outlet for our produce.

Nobody is saying consumers are rejecting bull beef.Its that the factories see an chance to make a few more quid.But basing your whole industry on something that may or may not be wanted is not a recepie for success.

For example will all the new dairy farmers be crying if after 2015 the milk price falls?Can see them blaming co ops for not paying enough etc etc.
At the end of the day we as primary producers are at the mercy of the market, fashion ,fads ,food scares ,and anything else you can think of.

I don't disagree with anything you've posted there but the least they could do is stop patronising us with the sort of BS they're trotting out at the moment.

Farmer Pudsey

mf240 wrote: »

When you castrate a bull and he becomes a bullock his DNA is unchanged.

There are more tests than DNA tests, they test for medicine residue, they test for hormone, testerone is a hormone not sure if it is present in bullocks but would be at way lower levels than Bulls, so it would be able to distinguise the source.

However some contributors fail to see the point yes we know that factory's are in it to make money, but all parts of the chain have responsibility to the chain. If factory's were sure they were not going to take bull beef this Christmass then they should have signalled it clearly however they want it both way they want the bulls there in case there is a shortage.

In my opinion because of there access to CMMS and feet on the ground they had a fair idea of the level of produce available, did they then decide in Sept to buy up loads of fast finishing AA/HE stores. How come both of the main players did it and may have bought at a higher level than normal, and switched from continental heifers that were there main play before.

Hershall

Farmers loose the run of themselves when they want cattle (myself included in the past) and blame the factories when it doesn't work out! !!