Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Rumour about big meat factory - is it true?

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Dont be daft
    Registered Users Posts: 442 ✭✭Dont be daft


    paddysdream wrote: »

    Everybody on here is saying that something must be done and IFA etc are useless but what are the solutions as people on here seem to think they have the answer?

    The only time I've seen the Competition Authority and the IFA make the same headline was when the CA raided the IFA headquarters a couple of years ago.

    There seems to be enough there in terms of perceived price fixing and market manipulation to at least warrant an investigation by the CA. But my own gut feeling is there isn't the political will to push on such an investigation.

    The IFA have always talked the talk by using language like cartels and monopoly's etc. Well if they believe there truly is manipulation they need now to look to the European Commission and lobby for a full blown Commission Investigation.
    I'm open to correction on this but I do believe the Commission has wrapped the knuckles of the Irish Meat Processors before when the domestic authorities at the time found no fault, so there is precedence there.


  • Options
    #63
    case 956
    Closed Accounts Posts: 464 ✭✭case 956


    rancher wrote: »
    rancher wrote: »
    .
    We lobbied for a system to ensure that farmers SFP income wouldn't be reduced by up to 50% in one year.
    rancher wrote: »
    .
    case 956 wrote: »
    ye wouldn't have done that only the larger farmers would suffer, the small man is thrown in the corner and forgot about
    case 956 wrote: »

    .If you're a dairy farmer, you're better off than I am, so don't be playing the small farmer card, your sector has been protected since the 80s so its time the cards were dealt my way for a change.


    I had to leave the beef sector too year ago to try and improve the profitability of my business, I am 24 yrs of age and I was happy beef farming but because of poor prices it forced me out of beef to a different sector to make a living on the land, I wouldn't have left beef if the ifa and other farm organisation fought for our right with us and got us better prices or the commodity we work hard to produce, as the aying goes once in a lifetime you will need a doctor and priest but 3 times everyday you need a farmer and if the factories and co ops keep getting there way cutting prics there wont be farmers. been a new entrant costs big money to setup btw and has to be done cheap as possible so unless you know a exact farmers profit dont slander them as been better off than you, you don't know what finical struggles a farm family has, every enterprise has people aking serious money and people who struggle


  • Options
    #64
    kevin700
    Registered Users Posts: 57 ✭✭kevin700


    morebabies wrote: »
    I heard a rumour last week that a big meat producer is buying up a lot of suck calves in the south and getting them contract reared. The figure of 10,000 calves was mentioned. This could all be rubbish, does anyone know is there any truth in this?

    Yes its true 100%


  • Options
    #65
    TITANIUM.
    Registered Users Posts: 2,313 ✭✭✭TITANIUM.


    rancher wrote: »
    Well done, finally some cop on, Don't know what it is but I know he worked very hard, his father died young and he educated his siblings and he's not a rich dairy farmer

    Jesus you really are the blindly obedient foot soldier that the IFA top brass must love.


  • Options
    #66
    Farmer Pudsey
    Registered Users Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭Farmer Pudsey


    rancher wrote: »
    .If you're a dairy farmer, you're better off than I am, so don't be playing the small farmer card, your sector has been protected since the 80s so its time the cards were dealt my way for a change.

    Jayus rancher I have hated playing football against you as you continually play the man not the ball.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    rancher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,142 ✭✭✭rancher


    case 956 wrote: »
    rancher wrote: »
    rancher wrote: »
    .
    We lobbied for a system to ensure that farmers SFP income wouldn't be reduced by up to 50% in one year.
    rancher wrote: »
    .
    case 956 wrote: »
    ye wouldn't have done that only the larger farmers would suffer, the small man is thrown in the corner and forgot about


    I had to leave the beef sector too year ago to try and improve the profitability of my business, I am 24 yrs of age and I was happy beef farming but because of poor prices it forced me out of beef to a different sector to make a living on the land, I wouldn't have left beef if the ifa and other farm organisation fought for our right with us and got us better prices or the commodity we work hard to produce, as the aying goes once in a lifetime you will need a doctor and priest but 3 times everyday you need a farmer and if the factories and co ops keep getting there way cutting prics there wont be farmers. been a new entrant costs big money to setup btw and has to be done cheap as possible so unless you know a exact farmers profit dont slander them as been better off than you, you don't know what finical struggles a farm family has, every enterprise has people aking serious money and people who struggle

    Don't envy you starting to farm, I'm sure you're well advised away from it, so you must really want it. everyone needs food but not everyone is able to pay for it....


  • Options
    #68
    rancher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,142 ✭✭✭rancher


    TITANIUM. wrote: »
    Jesus you really are the blindly obedient foot soldier that the IFA top brass must love.

    I know Eddie many many years, before I was involved in ifa


  • Options
    #69
    rancher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,142 ✭✭✭rancher


    Farmer Pudsey wrote: »
    Jayus rancher I have hated playing football against you as you continually play the man not the ball.

    It wasn't simple renting land against dairy farmers after quota and before decent subsidies for drystock


  • Options
    #70
    TITANIUM.
    Registered Users Posts: 2,313 ✭✭✭TITANIUM.


    rancher wrote: »
    I know Eddie many many years, before I was involved in ifa

    Good for you.
    I was referring to your constant tunnel vision when it comes to ifa matters. Any thread! As soon as there mentioned, in you swing with your usual childish pro Ifa tripe. Its wearing thin at this stage.
    The way you aggressively try and to silence any decenters reeks of gastapo tactics. Blind obedience regardless of performance?
    I've come to one conclusion, (and believe me I don't have to hide behind an anonymous forum to do so). Your a fcuking idiot.


  • Options
    #71
    Base price
    Registered Users Posts: 11,164 ✭✭✭✭Base price


    paddysdream wrote: »
    Not an apologist for the IFA(as a certain poster on here will vouch for!) but;

    No one forces you or anyone else to pay those fees or levies,they are entirely voluntary and its child's play to stop them.All it takes is a phone call to the relevant office,mart,creamery,factory etc.
    Have a problem with the method of collecting them unless told otherwise buts thats an arguement for another day.

    For all those who complain;what are YOU doing about it and what do you propose(bearing in mind that this is real life so lets be realistic) to do about it.All well and fine complaining but whats the answer(assuming you go to meetings,are involved some ways in things etc)

    Ifa or any other organisation can only do what ACTIVE members propose or suggest ie the leaders must do what the majority of its members(not the majority of farmers) want.If its not what you want ,then join and lobby to change their policy.
    I am only home after a long week on the road/farm trying to make my repayments like lots of other farmers.
    I made a "naive" suggestion regarding how the IFA could disassociate itself from direct levies/funding on another thread a few weeks ago and my suggestion was cut down at the ankles. I agree with Whelan2 regarding any dissention re the IFA and the associated bullying that ensues.
    We have paid our IFA dues for the last 30 years but I feel now that the end is nigh.
    Over the years I have supported many protests in Dublin and surrounding counties, be it potatoes, beef, veg or sheep farmers.
    Other than the membership discount for insurance, phones etc, I feel that the IFA have nothing to offer us and I feel no longer represent our interests.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    whelan2
    Registered Users Posts: 29,153 ✭✭✭✭whelan2


    rancher wrote: »
    Well done, finally some cop on, Don't know what it is but I know he worked very hard, his father died young and he educated his siblings and he's not a rich dairy farmer
    i dont know any rich dairy farmers


  • Options
    #73
    leg wax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,296 ✭✭✭leg wax


    as i see it,this is whats wrong with the sfp, its now not going to go to the farmers the are farming here and now, too the people who need it now to get thru this crisis ,young or old farmers who have exspaned operations bigger numbers on hands now,if they had supported the active farmer now ,yes less money would have come in to the country via sfp due to there been less stock in the country, but a least it would now have gone to the workers.


  • Options
    #74
    rancher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,142 ✭✭✭rancher


    TITANIUM. wrote: »
    Good for you.
    I was referring to your constant tunnel vision when it comes to ifa matters. Any thread! As soon as there mentioned, in you swing with your usual childish pro Ifa tripe. Its wearing thin at this stage.
    The way you aggressively try and to silence any decenters reeks of gastapo tactics. Blind obedience regardless of performance?
    I've come to one conclusion, (and believe me I don't have to hide behind an anonymous forum to do so). Your a fcuking idiot.

    Why did you quote my post about Eddie, if you were referring to something else.....more spinning is it !!!!!
    You lot come up with ideas that seem to come from nowhere else, and then wonder why we're not taking them on, I'm supporting a county proposal at the moment regarding competition and we've got a commitment from coveney to relook at the legislation. If you think there's a need to look at a beef issue, put a resolution to the livestock committee if you want livestock farmers only to move on it, and don't jump at me because I couldn't get a cross section of farmers to support me.
    I told you all to do that months ago
    I drive on my local resolutions, I look after problems that come up here in the county and always get a result, likewise those that looked for fodder, We got the factory reps in to a meeting and farmers didn't say boo to them.
    I put up what we achieved over the last year, and a lot of the beef farmers on here have to have good single farm payments and we've saved them massive cuts and still they say we're doing nothing. Very easy to argue when you'd have a rough idea of their single farm payment and they say we're doing nothing


  • Options
    #75
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,410 ✭✭✭bbam


    The IFA are not the best thing since sliced bread.
    And many farmers think protecting the SFP was a self serving process for the elite. And indeed that the SFP is bad for farming anyway and would e better phased out sooner than later.
    Lads farming would have been better served it it were moved to current active farmers. And then kept there by a three to five year average activity review rather than lads getting money on the back of what Daddy did all those years ago.
    I feel that sooner or later the crooked relationship between the IFA and the meat Processors will indeed come out. Unfortunately the beef industry will be damaged before that and many producers lost from it.


  • Options
    #76
    rancher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,142 ✭✭✭rancher


    bbam wrote: »
    The IFA are not the best thing since sliced bread.
    And many farmers think protecting the SFP was a self serving process for the elite. And indeed that the SFP is bad for farming anyway and would e better phased out sooner than later.
    Lads farming would have been better served it it were moved to current active farmers. And then kept there by a three to five year average activity review rather than lads getting money on the back of what Daddy did all those years ago.
    I feel that sooner or later the crooked relationship between the IFA and the meat Processors will indeed come out. Unfortunately the beef industry will be damaged before that and many producers lost from it.

    Drystock farmers are the bottom of the league, income wise and their SFP should not be cut, it was targeted at the drystock sector at the start for a reason and that reason is still there


  • Options
    #77
    adne
    Registered Users Posts: 1,200 ✭✭✭adne


    rancher wrote: »
    Drystock farmers are the bottom of the league, income wise and their SFP should not be cut, it was targeted at the drystock sector at the start for a reason and that reason is still there

    What is the reason?


  • Options
    #78
    paddysdream
    Registered Users Posts: 1,776 ✭✭✭paddysdream


    bbam wrote: »
    The IFA are not the best thing since sliced bread.
    And many farmers think protecting the SFP was a self serving process for the elite. And indeed that the SFP is bad for farming anyway and would e better phased out sooner than later.
    Lads farming would have been better served it it were moved to current active farmers. And then kept there by a three to five year average activity review rather than lads getting money on the back of what Daddy did all those years ago.
    I feel that sooner or later the crooked relationship between the IFA and the meat Processors will indeed come out. Unfortunately the beef industry will be damaged before that and many producers lost from it.

    This gobsh...y idea that as soon as the SFP goes all will be well with farming.

    Prices will not rise ,stock will not become dearer,fert. prices will not fall etc etc. Basically what will happen is that the average farmer will have 9 to 10 k less in his pocket each year and everything else will be somewhat similar.If thats your idea of a good future then rule me out as I prefer to have a few bob.


  • Options
    #79
    rancher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,142 ✭✭✭rancher


    adne wrote: »
    What is the reason?

    Low incomes in the drystock sector


  • Options
    #80
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,410 ✭✭✭bbam


    paddysdream wrote: »
    This gobsh...y idea that as soon as the SFP goes all will be well with farming.

    Prices will not rise ,stock will not become dearer,fert. prices will not fall etc etc. Basically what will happen is that the average farmer will have 9 to 10 k less in his pocket each year and everything else will be somewhat similar.If thats your idea of a good future then rule me out as I prefer to have a few bob.

    As is the notion that somwhow we're better off since its introduction.
    SFP ios facilitating a vast cohort of producers to supply the market with at or below cost of production beef.

    Without the prop of the SFP these lads would have to return to viable production methods or at least stop supplying completly..

    Many would prefer a proper industury where the profit was based on the core activity rather than on some notional SFP which bears little/no resemblance to the current production on farms.

    Would its elimination be simple/easy, no it wouldn't it would be painful. Not all farms would make it through in their current form, but I don't think that is a bad thing either.


  • Options
    #81
    case 956
    Closed Accounts Posts: 464 ✭✭case 956


    rancher wrote: »
    Drystock farmers are the bottom of the league, income wise and their SFP should not be cut, it was targeted at the drystock sector at the start for a reason and that reason is still there


    Large Beef and Tillage farmers have a higher sfp than any dairy farmer rancher.... The reason drystock farmers not making a profit is because the factories have them by the balls with prices and th ifa or bno other organisation is fighting, but more worried about the sfp because there protecting there own income, ative farmers have no help. in 3 yrs time if this shambles is still going on there will be a lot of armchair farming going on


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    rancher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,142 ✭✭✭rancher


    case 956 wrote: »
    Large Beef and Tillage farmers have a higher sfp than any dairy farmer rancher.... The reason drystock farmers not making a profit is because the factories have them by the balls with prices and th ifa or bno other organisation is fighting, but more worried about the sfp because there protecting there own income, ative farmers have no help. in 3 yrs time if this shambles is still going on there will be a lot of armchair farming going on

    Think its common knowledge that drystock farming is a break even or a little better enterprise and the SFP is their income whereas dairying is supposed to be capable of €1000 cow +++++.......there is no SFP in that ball park.
    A 50 ha drystock farmer with €500/ha should not be cut and there's loads of suckler farmers at that level, what does people want to take off those farmers who are on a minimum wage already, That's the level I'm at, and I will resist the cuts every way I can. Teagsc rates my farm as 2 labour units and I am entitled to be paid for that sort of work.
    What else do we do it for


  • Options
    #83
    adne
    Registered Users Posts: 1,200 ✭✭✭adne


    rancher wrote: »
    Low incomes in the drystock sector

    But the SFP is not unique to drystock, correct me if i am wrong, can't tillage and dairy farmers claim SFP???


  • Options
    #84
    rancher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,142 ✭✭✭rancher


    adne wrote: »
    But the SFP is not unique to drystock, correct me if i am wrong, can't tillage and dairy farmers claim SFP???
    Its based on subsidies that originated in the early nineties and when they started, they were targeted at sheep/cattle, that's the way I remember it anyway


  • Options
    #85
    adne
    Registered Users Posts: 1,200 ✭✭✭adne


    rancher wrote: »
    Its based on subsidies that originated in the early nineties and when they started, they were targeted at sheep/cattle, that's the way I remember it anyway

    is that not the flaw in it, a lad whose father was farming sheep/cattle (low income sector) in the mid 90's could now be in a totally different sector and still claiming based on Daddy
    .


  • Options
    #86
    rancher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,142 ✭✭✭rancher


    adne wrote: »
    is that not the flaw in it, a lad whose father was farming sheep/cattle (low income sector) in the mid 90's could now be in a totally different sector and still claiming based on Daddy
    .

    And why should someone take a hit that's at the same level of production....its all flawed


  • Options
    #87
    adne
    Registered Users Posts: 1,200 ✭✭✭adne


    rancher wrote: »
    And why should someone take a hit that's at the same level of production....its all flawed

    The pot is a fixed size. therefore no historic payments should come into it.
    If the person is at the same level of production they have no worry other than more people now been at that level of production so they lose a little


  • Options
    #88
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,410 ✭✭✭bbam


    rancher wrote: »
    And why should someone take a hit that's at the same level of production....its all flawed
    The flaw could be easily broken if the proportion of remaining money was divided based on a current production rate, averages over three or five years. This would ensure active farmers are rewarded and there could be no sitting back drawing the fruits of Daddy's work.


  • Options
    #89
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    bbam wrote: »
    The flaw could be easily broken if the proportion of remaining money was divided based on a current production rate, averages over three or five years. This would ensure active farmers are rewarded and there could be no sitting back drawing the fruits of Daddy's work.


    even every second year would be bset


    you get paid on year before lasts work..

    in 2014 you get paid on 2012,in 2015 paid on 2013 and so on...would be fairest IMO


    **though this may cause the department of agriculture to grind to a complete halt!!:D


  • Options
    #90
    moy83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,701 ✭✭✭moy83


    bbam wrote: »
    The flaw could be easily broken if the proportion of remaining money was divided based on a current production rate, averages over three or five years. This would ensure active farmers are rewarded and there could be no sitting back drawing the fruits of Daddy's work.

    This is a tricky one , are there many people drawing the fruits of Daddys SFP ? I'm not because he is enjoying it himself and there are plenty like that around .
    He feels the farm would be in a better place if the subsidies and their conditions never came around the place and he was left to his own devices - sink or swim . But he gets tetchy enough when he loses a few quid of it because of anything .
    I have no SFP and don't need one as I am not full time , thats not to say I wouldn't take anything coming handy and try to hold on to it for as long as I could like alot are doing at the minute .
    If the SFP is to keep the small farmer on the land in rural ireland I think it should be directed at fulltime and young farmers that are genuinely farming the land , keeping it in good condition and producing as much as they can within the rules laid down by whoever pays it .
    If its for upping production of the country then it should go to the lads that can produce the most or best produce and only get it if its being spent in a viable manner that will help them expand and live from the land .

    We need clear directions from the EU about what they want the money spent on and what they expect as payback . We will always argue amongst ourselves about who deserves more of the cake but if everything is laid out in black and white it would put an end to that row .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    moy83 wrote: »
    This is a tricky one , are there many people drawing the fruits of Daddys SFP ? I'm not because he is enjoying it himself and there are plenty like that around .
    He feels the farm would be in a better place if the subsidies and their conditions never came around the place and he was left to his own devices - sink or swim . But he gets tetchy enough when he loses a few quid of it because of anything .
    I have no SFP and don't need one as I am not full time , thats not to say I wouldn't take anything coming handy and try to hold on to it for as long as I could like alot are doing at the minute .
    If the SFP is to keep the small farmer on the land in rural ireland I think it should be directed at fulltime and young farmers that are genuinely farming the land , keeping it in good condition and producing as much as they can within the rules laid down by whoever pays it .
    If its for upping production of the country then it should go to the lads that can produce the most or best produce and only get it if its being spent in a viable manner that will help them expand and live from the land .

    We need clear directions from the EU about what they want the money spent on and what they expect as payback . We will always argue amongst ourselves about who deserves more of the cake but if everything is laid out in black and white it would put an end to that row .



    there are very few full time and small farmers from my experience...everything else I would tend to agree with though


Advertisement