Quality Assurance

AP2014

rangler1 wrote: »

Movement into the b+bs herd and movement back to your own herd counts as 2 movements altogether

Good old quality assurance, ensuring quality profits for factories and removing any hope for joe soap to make a few pound.

on the river

AP2014 wrote: »

Good old quality assurance, ensuring quality profits for factories and removing any hope for joe soap to make a few pound.

I thought you can get a extra few euros on QA cattle.
surely its some benefit to the farmer and consumer.

Is your livestock QA ?

AP2014

on the river wrote: »

I thought you can get a extra few euros on QA cattle.
surely its some benefit to the farmer and consumer.

Is your livestock QA ?

Do you honestly believe this? The vast majority of consumers don't have a rashers whether it is QA or not. They look at price. For heavens sake there was horse meat in factories and in beef products until someone stopped taking brown envelopes and spilled the beans.

Does it benefit the farmer? Lack of trade, restricted movements and at the mercy of factories on age. Its a stick used to beat farmers.

My cattle are QA because I am the 2nd or 3rd owner on most of them. If I was the 4th and they weren't would the beef taste different?

on the river

AP2014 wrote: »

Do you honestly believe this? The vast majority of consumers don't have a rashers whether it is QA or not. They look at price. For heavens sake there was horse meat in factories and in beef products until someone stopped taking brown envelopes and spilled the beans.

Does it benefit the farmer? Lack of trade, restricted movements and at the mercy of factories on age. Its a stick used to beat farmers.

My cattle are QA because I am the 2nd or 3rd owner on most of them. If I was the 4th and they weren't would the beef taste different?

Their is a niche market for quality beef , I have seen and contributed to quality
tasty beef up and down this island. Yes people will pay extra for quality and trace ability .

I know some farmers like yourself want to do the least possible for the most profit.

In essence people will pay extra for tasty produce.
I am committed to producing beef , which I am proud of.
Call me what you will.
I am passionate about beef and strongly defend my viewpoint.
for that I do not apologise.

AP2014

on the river wrote: »

Their is a niche market for quality beef , I have seen and contributed to quality
tasty beef up and down this island. Yes people will pay extra for quality and trace ability .

I know some farmers like yourself want to do the least possible for the most profit.

In essence people will pay extra for tasty produce.
I am committed to producing beef , which I am proud of.
Call me what you will.
I am passionate about beef and strongly defend my viewpoint.
for that I do not apologise.

Look, I am not calling you anything. I am calling QA a farce.

People obviously aren't paying more for quality, that's the problem with QA. Its a myth, 3.40kg recently for QA beef. Goal posts, specs, what qualifies as quality changing weekly.

All farmers should want to do the least possible for the most profit. That is called business and us farmers need to start thinking like that. Not working your ass off to lose money because you are committed to the great cause of producing quality beef!

You're fooling yourself.

on the river

AP2014 wrote: »

Look, I am not calling you anything. I am calling QA a farce.

People obviously aren't paying more for quality, that's the problem with QA. Its a myth, 3.40kg recently for QA beef. Goal posts, specs, what qualifies as quality changing weekly.

All farmers should want to do the least possible for the most profit. That is called business and us farmers need to start thinking like that. Not working your ass off to lose money because you are committed to the great cause of producing quality beef!

You're fooling yourself.

You can't change people mentality that easy.
Obviously your motivated by money and the profit you strife to make.

Call me fool and maybe I am.
Many farmers have taken major hits in the beef industry in recent months.

Its alright for you to play the safe game, producing a half hearted animal for the ring or factory.

If we all adopted your approach ,farming would be a sad place.

You may right in suggesting that this scheme is a cod.
Yet sitting at the table eating your own steak is quality at its best.
Something that is lovely and worthwhile

AP2014

on the river wrote: »

You can't change people mentality that easy.
Obviously your motivated by money and the profit you strife to make.

Call me fool and maybe I am.
Many farmers have taken major hits in the beef industry in recent months.

Its alright for you to play the safe game, producing a half hearted animal for the ring or factory.

If we all adopted your mentality ,farming would be a sad place.

You may right in suggesting that this scheme is a cod.
Yet sitting at the table eating your own steak is quality at its best.
Something that is lovely and worthwhile

You are away to sentimental and the tax payer isn't going to keep paying us to produce a steak that we can eat with pride but lose our shirts producing it.

The safe game? No the right game, very easy for me to be billy big balls paying hugh money for U grade quality weanlings. Why? to watch them go backwards and lose my shirt on them.

Half hearted animal is stupid talk, I produce as good an animal as anyone(not u grade), lads pay well for them, else I wouldn't be making money.

If some lads adopted my mentality beef wouldn't be in the mess it's in, I argue your mentality is the dangerous one.

At the end of the day we all need to be looking at money and profit. The mentality has to change.

rangler1

on the river wrote: »

You can't change people mentality that easy.
Obviously your motivated by money and the profit you strife to make.

Call me fool and maybe I am.
Many farmers have taken major hits in the beef industry in recent months.

Its alright for you to play the safe game, producing a half hearted animal for the ring or factory.

If we all adopted your approach ,farming would be a sad place.

You may right in suggesting that this scheme is a cod.
Yet sitting at the table eating your own steak is quality at its best.
Something that is lovely and worthwhile

Supermarkets see too many movements as not being in the interest of animal welfare, portraying an image of cattle being dragged round the country by dealers to every sales..........they mightn't be too far wrong

AP2014

rangler1 wrote: »

Supermarkets see too many movements as not being in the interest of animal welfare, portraying an image of cattle being dragged round the country by dealers to every sales..........they mightn't be too far wrong

Are you naive or do you honestly believe this? Look how one of the biggest supermarkets in the country is currently treating it's managers. Their profits are down so they are trying to move them to shop floor jobs or fire them.

If they treat their staff like this do people honestly believe they care about the welfare of animals. Maybe I am too cynical but I doubt it.

on the river

AP2014 wrote: »

You are away to sentimental and the tax payer isn't going to keep paying us to produce a steak that we can eat with pride but lose our shirts producing it.

The safe game? No the right game, very easy for me to be billy big balls paying hugh money for U grade quality weanlings. Why? to watch them go backwards and lose my shirt on them.

Half hearted animal is stupid talk, I produce as good an animal as anyone(not u grade), lads pay well for them, else I wouldn't be making money.

If some lads adopted my mentality beef wouldn't be in the mess it's in, I argue your mentality is the dangerous one.

At the end of the day we all need to be looking at money and profit. The mentality has to change.

Quality animal on a consistent basis. Never.
Your production of grass will become less and less profitable thus impacting massively on your future profit.
It seems you don't put anything into your farm .

Take Take and Take again it seems.
Yes you may be living off the Eu grants in the short term, yet you have failed to see the bigger picture , where beef is heading .

You have become so conservative in your approach that passion and
pride for your land means nothing.

I am under no dangerous mentality .
I know exactly what market I am focusing on and I have developed a good
working relationship with many butchers .

Its past time you start thinking long term.
The beef industry will become profitable again. I am afraid you are unprepared for the changes ahead of us .
I think your shirt is already off. You are bare
The grants have blurred your vision of reality.

rangler1

AP2014 wrote: »

Are you naive or do you honestly believe this? Look how one of the biggest supermarkets in the country is currently treating it's managers. Their profits are down so they are trying to move them to shop floor jobs or fire them.

If they treat their staff like this do people honestly believe they care about the welfare of animals. Maybe I am too cynical but I doubt it.

Customer will always be right, its tough if you don't agree, but you wont get far if you don't try to supply what the customer wants.
If you're not happy with the conditions, you can vote with your feet and sell somewhere else

on the river

rangler1 wrote: »

Customer will always be right, its tough if you don't agree, but you wont get far if you don't try to supply what the customer wants.
If you're not happy with the conditions, you can vote with your feet and sell somewhere else

Yes quality will always win out.:)

_Brian

AP2014 wrote: »

Look, I am not calling you anything. I am calling QA a farce.

People obviously aren't paying more for quality, that's the problem with QA. Its a myth, 3.40kg recently for QA beef. Goal posts, specs, what qualifies as quality changing weekly.

All farmers should want to do the least possible for the most profit. That is called business and us farmers need to start thinking like that. Not working your ass off to lose money because you are committed to the great cause of producing quality beef!

You're fooling yourself.

Maybe back off on calling names and shoving your viewpoint down people's neck!!

I think the industry needs people committed to better breeding and furthering the industry, calling them fools is just beig ignorant. QA when ran properly is supposed to reward for better proceess used, reduced movements is a key to that. And I think anyone wih their head on knows that the fewer moments then the less stress on animals and they are less likely to come in contact with disease.

Farmer Pudsey

The issue with QA is too few cattle qualify especially steer beef. It also allows processors and the dept to have figures that look good in that it keeps the R grade price artificially high and still allows processors to access cheap beef. It is easy to sell cheap beef.

Look at the way the processors cannot get enough cattle at present. This leaves farmers loosing money. However to anyone looking in from the outside cattle are not too far below the EU average as the R price is inflated compared to general prices.

We now see that the minister cares little about ordinary farmers and the organisations huffing and puffing was useless. Once again the processors are artificially inflating store prices as they buy cattle for feedlots to control winter price. Ordinary farmers that pay these prices will need prices in excess of 4.5/kg to break even next spring. Even Fr bulls have taken off in price in the marts as far as I can see.

So where with QA I think it is time we eith got rid of it or it was paid accross a greater percentage of cattle

AP2014

_Brian wrote: »

Maybe back off on calling names and shoving your viewpoint down people's neck!!

I think the industry needs people committed to better breeding and furthering the industry, calling them fools is just beig ignorant. QA when ran properly is supposed to reward for better proceess used, reduced movements is a key to that. And I think anyone wih their head on knows that the fewer moments then the less stress on animals and they are less likely to come in contact with disease.

Ain't calling any names, reread the thread and back off yourself! Supposed to reward is the key statement in your post. SUPPOSED

AP2014

on the river wrote: »

Yes quality will always win out.:)

It ain't that's the problem. The guys producing quality ain't getting the cash for it.

on the river

AP2014 wrote: »

Ain't calling any names, reread the thread and back off yourself! Supposed to reward is the key statement in your post. SUPPOSED

We may differ on view point. However name calling is just below
standard

AP2014

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The issue with QA is too few cattle qualify especially steer beef. It also allows processors and the dept to have figures that look good in that it keeps the R grade price artificially high and still allows processors to access cheap beef. It is easy to sell cheap beef.

Look at the way the processors cannot get enough cattle at present. This leaves farmers loosing money. However to anyone looking in from the outside cattle are not too far below the EU average as the R price is inflated compared to general prices.

We now see that the minister cares little about ordinary farmers and the organisations huffing and puffing was useless. Once again the processors are artificially inflating store prices as they buy cattle for feedlots to control winter price. Ordinary farmers that pay these prices will need prices in excess of 4.5/kg to break even next spring. Even Fr bulls have taken off in price in the marts as far as I can see.

So where with QA I think it is time we eith got rid of it or it was paid accross a greater percentage of cattle

Excellent post on QA!

on the river

AP2014 wrote: »

It ain't that's the problem. The guys producing quality ain't getting the cash for it.

Demonstrates farmers commitment to quality beef.
Assures the consumer what they are buying
A better image for the beef farmer.
Activate consumer demand.
THUS more sales.

AP2014

on the river wrote: »

We may differ on view point. However name calling is just below
standard

Of course it is, that's why the first line in my post said i ain't calling you anything!

So could yourself and Brian stop taking this off topic and stick to the argument on QA as pudsey has.

on the river

AP2014 wrote: »

Excellent post on QA!

On the one hand you are in the scheme . on the other your condemning it.
your full of contradictions

AP2014

on the river wrote: »

Demonstrates farmers commitment to quality beef.
Assures the consumer what they are buying
A better image for the beef farmer.
Activate consumer demand.
THUS more sales.

Read pudseys post. That ain't happening.

Does the consumer really care? Better image for beef? most consumers never heard of qa...it does nothing for sales. We are fooling ourselves.(thats not me calling you names)

on the river

AP2014 wrote: »

Read pudseys post. That ain't happening.

Does the consumer really care? Better image for beef? most consumers never heard of qa...it does nothing for sales. We are fooling ourselves.(thats not me calling you names)

The horse meat scandal , opened peoples eyes.

I suppose it dosent matter to you what the consumer eats

AP2014

on the river wrote: »

The horse meat scandal , opened peoples eyes.

I suppose it dosent matter to you what the consumer eats

Did it though? How long was it going on? What measures were put in place to stop it happening again? where is the report on it? who went to jail or were prosecuted for it?

How has it helped the consumer? This happened during QA.

huey1975

Tesco and other multiples sell their beef as "coming from quality assured farms". However they donot specify that individual steaks are from animals that achieved the QA bonus.
My farm has been quality assured for years but I seldom receive the QA bonus as most of my bullocks are over 30 months at slaughter ( a situation I hope to rectify in the future).
When beef was over €4/kg and the bonus was only 6c/kg I didn't see much benefit in pushing young cattle but when since they started discounting heavy overage cattle (while still selling it as Beef from our quality assured farms) I have had buy younger cattle in the hope of finishing them under 30 months. Instead of a bonus of 12c/kg the difference was 22c/kg which was about €90 per head.

AP2014

huey1975 wrote: »

Tesco and other multiples sell their beef as "coming from quality assured farms". However they donot specify that individual steaks are from animals that achieved the QA bonus.
My farm has been quality assured for years but I seldom receive the QA bonus as most of my bullocks are over 30 months at slaughter ( a situation I hope to rectify in the future).
When beef was over €4/kg and the bonus was only 6c/kg I didn't see much benefit in pushing young cattle but when since they started discounting heavy overage cattle (while still selling it as Beef from our quality assured farms) I have had buy younger cattle in the hope of finishing them under 30 months. Instead of a bonus of 12c/kg the difference was 22c/kg which was about €90 per head.

QA used against you. A farce.

paddysdream

on the river wrote: »

The horse meat scandal , opened peoples eyes.

I suppose it dosent matter to you what the consumer eats

Had to reply to this thread.

The horse meat scandal had nothing to do with QA.
That is long forgotten by the media until the next co*k up by the factories.
It was not farmers who inserted piebalds into pies.


AP2014 is correct in saying that the QA scheme is of benefit to the factories and the supermarkets plus the various quangos,NGO's etc who suck from the tit of state benevolence.
For the individual farmer is of little or no use.Instead of it being a means to receive a bonus for producing lamb or beef to a certain higher spec ,it is being used, in the beef sector esp.,to curtail and contain prices and justify a lower price for certain cattle.
If there was such faith in this scheme wouldn't you think that only cattle on which the QA bonus was paid could be sold as QA beef?
Instead we are led to believe that any cattle that come from a QA farm can be legally labeled and sold as QA beef,regardless of whether a bonus was paid or not.

To be frank and honest I am passionate about only one thing in farming and that is making a few bob ie squeezing what I can from what I have.If that entails finishing a few jersey/holstien crosses then so be it.Or horsing out big numbers of middling lambs.Or finishing E and U grade bulls at 12 months.Or drawing as much SFP etc as I can and farming to suit this .Or a mixture of the above.

coolshannagh28

paddysdream wrote: »

Had to reply to this thread.

The horse meat scandal had nothing to do with QA.
That is long forgotten by the media until the next co*k up by the factories.
It was not farmers who inserted piebalds into pies.


AP2014 is correct in saying that the QA scheme is of benefit to the factories and the supermarkets plus the various quangos,NGO's etc who suck from the tit of state benevolence.
For the individual farmer is of little or no use.Instead of it being a means to receive a bonus for producing lamb or beef to a certain higher spec ,it is being used, in the beef sector esp.,to curtail and contain prices and justify a lower price for certain cattle.
If there was such faith in this scheme wouldn't you think that only cattle on which the QA bonus was paid could be sold as QA beef?
Instead we are led to believe that any cattle that come from a QA farm can be legally labeled and sold as QA beef,regardless of whether a bonus was paid or not.

To be frank and honest I am passionate about only one thing in farming and that is making a few bob ie squeezing what I can from what I have.If that entails finishing a few jersey/holstien crosses then so be it.Or horsing out big numbers of middling lambs.Or finishing E and U grade bulls at 12 months.Or drawing as much SFP etc as I can and farming to suit this .Or a mixture of the above.

Good points farmers must primarily aim to profit ,in a subsidised market the market is rigged ,maximise subsidy and minimise losses on the farming . QA is fraud if animals from QA herds are being sold on as QA if the bonus is not paid on them ,another example of market manipulation which loads the deck for processors.

joejobrien

This talk that the consumer whats quality is over estimate imo. My reason , very recently an atricle on a daily newspaper, whereby a survey was carried out on a cross section of consumers suggested
1. price was all important...cheap.
2. Percieved to be value for money .
3. quality was number 3 in consumers mind.
If quality was so important they wouldnt be buying the boxed up rubbish in the fridiges, would they?
Also there is no point in comparing a niche/market versus "standard market" , argument.
Finally A farmer is entitiled to make a profit , and what ever way that is , go for it. It may not sit well with QA issues but personally profiit before vanity!!!

Farmer

A few things of note here...

Last week ye were all signing up to leave QA. Did the extra 5 cents from the factories buy everyone over

I imagine customers want good quality food at a reasonable price. Many will be concerned that the animal is not mistreated, but no more otherwise battery chicken wouldn't sell. Most will want their food to be free of antibiotic residue. I can't imagine that it matters a lot whether the animal was 29 months or 33 when killed. If it does, then someone needs to tell them where our 15 year old cull cows go

The QA scheme is a box tickers effort at this. It ensures that we accurately duplicate the department s herd records in our blue book, that we write in dates about medicines and that these written dates are within withdrawal limits. Yet it doesn't provide a mechanism for me to tell the next buyer that the animal he may slaughter in 20 days time was dosed yesterday - no field in the card, no panel on the mart display. That would involve effort on someone else's part.

Again, movement counts ...well counts movements! It doesn't guarantee that they weren't beat up on the trailer, driven in an animal sympathetic manner (no rapid braking or cornering), that they weren't left starving and thirsty for 16 hours in a mart because that mart insisted on using some crazy unpredictable lotto system to decide the order of sale and at the same time provided no drinkers - and I was in that mart last year for that gruelling day and can assure you that neither I or my animals will be back, but the QA inspector obviously was not there.

The QA scheme guarantees some other things that they must seem important to the customer, that I have a few signs - you know the ones that nobody reads - erected at the gate, that I have a map of all my bait points, that I dose my dog (he must be in the food chain somewhere!), that I have some consciousness of safety ( presumably in case I die and the cattle miss a meal). Yet, he never asks me if I feel driven to suicide by all the bs and box ticking that the system creates

I am sure also that the some customers would like to know that the producer gets a fair price, rather than some middle man making a killing. Yet, as has been pointed out, QA ensures the opposite!

Now, time to feed the cat!

rangler1

Farmer wrote: »

A few things of note here...

Last week ye were all signing up to leave QA. Did the extra 5 cents from the factories buy everyone over

I imagine customers want good quality food at a reasonable price. Many will be concerned that the animal is not mistreated, but no more otherwise battery chicken wouldn't sell. Most will want their food to be free of antibiotic residue. I can't imagine that it matters a lot whether the animal was 29 months or 33 when killed. If it does, then someone needs to tell them where our 15 year old cull cows go

The QA scheme is a box tickers effort at this. It ensures that we accurately duplicate the department s herd records in our blue book, that we write in dates about medicines and that these written dates are within withdrawal limits. Yet it doesn't provide a mechanism for me to tell the next buyer that the animal he may slaughter in 20 days time was dosed yesterday - no field in the card, no panel on the mart display. That would involve effort on someone else's part.

Again, movement counts ...well counts movements! It doesn't guarantee that they weren't beat up on the trailer, driven in an animal sympathetic manner (no rapid braking or cornering), that they weren't left starving and thirsty for 16 hours in a mart because that mart insisted on using some crazy unpredictable lotto system to decide the order of sale and at the same time provided no drinkers - and I was in that mart last year for that gruelling day and can assure you that neither I or my animals will be back, but the QA inspector obviously was not there.

The QA scheme guarantees some other things that they must seem important to the customer, that I have a few signs - you know the ones that nobody reads - erected at the gate, that I have a map of all my bait points, that I dose my dog (he must be in the food chain somewhere!), that I have some consciousness of safety ( presumably in case I die and the cattle miss a meal). Yet, he never asks me if I feel driven to suicide by all the bs and box ticking that the system creates

I am sure also that the some customers would like to know that the producer gets a fair price, rather than some middle man making a killing. Yet, as has been pointed out, QA ensures the opposite!

Now, time to feed the cat!

Very simple answer to some of your points, firstly it's irresponsible to sell stock within withdrawal periods, and secondly, I think they have to be on your farm 70 days before slaughter,
On the marts, QA ensures they're only bet around the marts four times in their life instead of maybe eight.
On the signs, every business, industry, merchant etc has to do the same, why should we be exonerated'
At the end of the day, its only good farming practise......just not common.
We are food producers after all.

Farmer Pudsey

rangler1 wrote: »

Very simple answer to some of your points, firstly it's irresponsible to sell stock within withdrawal periods, and secondly, I think they have to be on your farm 70 days before slaughter,
On the marts, QA ensures they're only bet around the marts four times in their life instead of maybe eight.
On the signs, every business, industry, merchant etc has to do the same, why should we be exonerated'
At the end of the day, its only good farming practise......just not common.
We are food producers after all.

Farmer is making the point about cattle sold in the mart. QA is a one way ticket to beat farmers with. Yes it a good marketing tool for processors and supermarkets. However it is nownot in farmers interest any longer to continue with this farce unless it is reformed and all cattle recieve bonus.

What happens with QA would be the same as the AA and HE schemes taking stock that did not qualify for bonus and selling as AA or HE premium product. As Farmer also states it is a box ticking excerise where the farmer has to tick the box but no one else has to do anything except profit by it.

I totally agree that number of movements is little use to the industry and actually takes money out of farmers pockets. However it is a limiting factor on farm sales. If an animal under 30 months has 5 movements the farmers fails to get QA but the processor still gets the benifit of sellin him as a QA animal. I notice in a lot of factory lairages water troughs do not work even if they are there. I have never been at a mart where all pens have water troughs.

QA is no longer in the interest of the majority of farmers. We should also note that even though we have the strictest agri health policy in Europe and a QA system in place we now have the lowest EU cattle price.

I was looking at the rag online last night. One thing stood out the US is now paying over4.5/kg for beef. I wonder at present is this why processors cannot get enough cheap beef, if it is not going to the UK is the rest going to the US.

AP2014

Farmer wrote: »

A few things of note here...

Last week ye were all signing up to leave QA. Did the extra 5 cents from the factories buy everyone over

I imagine customers want good quality food at a reasonable price. Many will be concerned that the animal is not mistreated, but no more otherwise battery chicken wouldn't sell. Most will want their food to be free of antibiotic residue. I can't imagine that it matters a lot whether the animal was 29 months or 33 when killed. If it does, then someone needs to tell them where our 15 year old cull cows go

The QA scheme is a box tickers effort at this. It ensures that we accurately duplicate the department s herd records in our blue book, that we write in dates about medicines and that these written dates are within withdrawal limits. Yet it doesn't provide a mechanism for me to tell the next buyer that the animal he may slaughter in 20 days time was dosed yesterday - no field in the card, no panel on the mart display. That would involve effort on someone else's part.

Again, movement counts ...well counts movements! It doesn't guarantee that they weren't beat up on the trailer, driven in an animal sympathetic manner (no rapid braking or cornering), that they weren't left starving and thirsty for 16 hours in a mart because that mart insisted on using some crazy unpredictable lotto system to decide the order of sale and at the same time provided no drinkers - and I was in that mart last year for that gruelling day and can assure you that neither I or my animals will be back, but the QA inspector obviously was not there.

The QA scheme guarantees some other things that they must seem important to the customer, that I have a few signs - you know the ones that nobody reads - erected at the gate, that I have a map of all my bait points, that I dose my dog (he must be in the food chain somewhere!), that I have some consciousness of safety ( presumably in case I die and the cattle miss a meal). Yet, he never asks me if I feel driven to suicide by all the bs and box ticking that the system creates

I am sure also that the some customers would like to know that the producer gets a fair price, rather than some middle man making a killing. Yet, as has been pointed out, QA ensures the opposite!

Now, time to feed the cat!

Should be a post of the month prize and this has to be the winner.

_Brian

AP2014 wrote: »

Should be a post of the month prize and this has to be the winner.

I just thought I'd reply here to you rather than the replying to the PM you sent boasting about how everybody was backing up your point and asking me not to be posting replies to you on the forum and then no more posts.

1. I don't come onto threads and just post against you. Your not that important. I post on threads where I have an opinion. Often I don't post further because I'm at work or some such other reason.
2. QA across many industries I've worked in had been a huge success. It has a place in beef production, it just needs proper implementation.
3. I think minimising and displaying the number of movements of animals is a positive thing.
4. I think your too quick to call fellas fools, you've laughed at neighbours for being progressive and even sneered at them for fencing their land. This attitude has born out across a number if threads and TBH it adds little to the whole forum.

Man up and say things in public rather than skulking round via PM, I took that crap from another poster and I'll not be taking it from you.

rangler1

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Farmer is making the point about cattle sold in the mart. QA is a one way ticket to beat farmers with. Yes it a good marketing tool for processors and supermarkets. However it is nownot in farmers interest any longer to continue with this farce unless it is reformed and all cattle recieve bonus.

What happens with QA would be the same as the AA and HE schemes taking stock that did not qualify for bonus and selling as AA or HE premium product. As Farmer also states it is a box ticking excerise where the farmer has to tick the box but no one else has to do anything except profit by it.

I totally agree that number of movements is little use to the industry and actually takes money out of farmers pockets. However it is a limiting factor on farm sales. If an animal under 30 months has 5 movements the farmers fails to get QA but the processor still gets the benifit of sellin him as a QA animal. I notice in a lot of factory lairages water troughs do not work even if they are there. I have never been at a mart where all pens have water troughs.

QA is no longer in the interest of the majority of farmers. We should also note that even though we have the strictest agri health policy in Europe and a QA system in place we now have the lowest EU cattle price.

I was looking at the rag online last night. One thing stood out the US is now paying over4.5/kg for beef. I wonder at present is this why processors cannot get enough cheap beef, if it is not going to the UK is the rest going to the US.

It doesn't matter whether mart or factory, selling inside withdrawal period is irresponsible, you can't guarantee that they're not going straight to the food chain, I've seen weanling heifers slaughtered straight from the mart.
Was through a lamb factory last week and I can tell you those guys do a lot more than tick boxes, and yes they had signs and bait boxes up...attention to detail was unreal, don't know whether they're regulated to do it or not, but they're doing it.
Don't know whether they can get non QA MEAT away as QA, but if the carcase isn't inspec its devalued to them, out of spec carcases definitely went to a different process, they were putting lamb chops. three to a tray and they were allowed a tolerance of 10g per tray...they filled 28000 trays the day before.....by hand
Lamb factories had every opportunity to floor the price but they didn't, I'd imagine the oversupply of lamb was much worse than the beef situation.
Beef factories are just abusing you, nothing to do with rules, regulation,....just cos they got the opportunity.
I would be very foolish to pull out of QA

Farmer Pudsey

rangler1 wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether mart or factory, selling inside withdrawal period is irresponsible, you can't guarantee that they're not going straight to the food chain, I've seen weanling heifers slaughtered straight from the mart.
Was through a lamb factory last week and I can tell you those guys do a lot more than tick boxes, and yes they had signs and bait boxes up...attention to detail was unreal, don't know whether they're regulated to do it or not, but they're doing it.
Don't know whether they can get non QA MEAT away as QA, but if the carcase isn't inspec its devalued to them, out of spec carcases definitely went to a different process, they were putting lamb chops. three to a tray and they were allowed a tolerance of 10g per tray...they filled 28000 trays the day before.....by hand
Lamb factories had every opportunity to floor the price but they didn't, I'd imagine the oversupply of lamb was much worse than the beef situation.
Beef factories are just abusing you, nothing to do with rules, regulation,....just cos they got the opportunity.
I would be very foolish to pull out of QA

First off I have often been at a mart and auctioneer announces on behalf of seller ''dosed and done for blackleg'' with weanlings and store cattle. I have never seen a withdrawal period limiting mart sale. However most sellers of forward cattle fit for slaughter will adhere to withdrawal periods, and some marts have special finished stock sale doring mart days. However there is no offical way of verfying or showing withdrawal periods for cattle at marts like other QA conditions.

A farmer is either Qa assured or not it is just factory's choose to pay bonus on as few cattle as possible. Redaing the interview with Browne from Dawn meats in the rag today it was interesting that he said that at certain time retailers may relax or take cattle out of spec. This is really saying that when supply is strong retailers will enforce there own conditions but when demand outstrips supply they will use hwat ever means to keep price down to maintain there margin.

And why do beef factory's abuse us because they can use what ever means they like to do same. They can use feedlot beef produces at a high cost to control price. They can use QA rules to force down prices of certain type of stock. It was interesting in the comic again today ( how it got past editing I do not know) that the point was made about how quite the farm orginisations were about the take over of Kildare chilling by Dawn when the said organisations are complaining about competition with in the sector in newspapers. But then it good publicity to complain and get you pictue chaining trollys for a few days its totally different to do anything that might annoy someone that collects is it 33% of your income. However we will not know the true figures until these organisations are forced to publish accounts next year.

Nettleman

rangler1 wrote: »

Very simple answer to some of your points, firstly it's irresponsible to sell stock within withdrawal periods, and secondly, I think they have to be on your farm 70 days before slaughter,
On the marts, QA ensures they're only bet around the marts four times in their life instead of maybe eight.
On the signs, every business, industry, merchant etc has to do the same, why should we be exonerated'
At the end of the day, its only good farming practise......just not common.
We are food producers after all.

Ah Jaysus, here we go again, IFA defending QA/factories/EIF/LG/themselves anybody except the beef farmer...I cant take it no more. I off to take me signs down, and dose the cat

AP2014

_Brian wrote: »

I just thought I'd reply here to you rather than the replying to the PM you sent boasting about how everybody was backing up your point and asking me not to be posting replies to you on the forum and then no more posts.

1. I don't come onto threads and just post against you. Your not that important. I post on threads where I have an opinion. Often I don't post further because I'm at work or some such other reason.
2. QA across many industries I've worked in had been a huge success. It has a place in beef production, it just needs proper implementation.
3. I think minimising and displaying the number of movements of animals is a positive thing.
4. I think your too quick to call fellas fools, you've laughed at neighbours for being progressive and even sneered at them for fencing their land. This attitude has born out across a number if threads and TBH it adds little to the whole forum.

Man up and say things in public rather than skulking round via PM, I took that crap from another poster and I'll not be taking it from you.

The PM wasn't boasting so don't go down that road. I was not ramming my opinion down peoples throats as you suggested. I pointed out I have an opinion on QA and a good few others share my opinion from reading this thread.

You can't knock that and there is no boasting about it. I do accept other peoples opinions as well but I questioned them and I should be entitled to do that.

1. Fair enough but you seem to come on once or twice with a heavy post or two against me and disappear. No problem maybe a coincidence. For example your post on this thread was accusing me of naming calling and ramming opinions down peoples throat. The first line in my post that you replied to with that had this line to another poster:

Look, I am not calling you anything. I am calling QA a farce.

Hence, I found your post unusual.

2. I slightly agree but I think the system is hughly abused and used by the factories and not a benefit to the farmer at the moment. On the contrary I think the last few months it also has been used as a punishment against farmers.

3. Maybe, but I think I should be allowed by of a neighbour sell to another neighbour at a certain stage and maybe a few more sales can occur without suffering penalties. I have seen my QA animals in the mart get the lard beaten out of them by idiots. Im sure those poor animals were killed as QA meat. Another thread on this here.

4. You are bringing baggage from other threads against me as I suspected which kills your argument in no.1 and proves my point. You were out to have a go.

That's why I sent you a PM, you need to leave that behind and focus on this thread or else PM your issues. Don't derail this interesting thread.

rangler1

Nettleman wrote: »

Ah Jaysus, here we go again, IFA defending QA/factories/EIF/LG/themselves anybody except the beef farmer...I cant take it no more. I off to take me signs down, and dose the cat

Nothing to do with IFA, have been QA probably longer than any one here, With the way I farm and my attention to detail, I find I'm QA with very little effort.
Where is the effort involved if you're farming properly.

As for beef farmers, if they don't want to protest......don't expect me to be a rent a crowd

on the river

AP2014 wrote: »

The PM wasn't boasting so don't go down that road. I was not ramming my opinion down peoples throats as you suggested. I pointed out I have an opinion on QA and a good few others share my opinion from reading this thread.

You can't knock that and there is no boasting about it. I do accept other peoples opinions as well but I questioned them and I should be entitled to do that.

1. Fair enough but you seem to come on once or twice with a heavy post or two against me and disappear. No problem maybe a coincidence. For example your post on this thread was accusing me of naming calling and ramming opinions down peoples throat. The first line in my post that you replied to with that had this line to another poster:

Look, I am not calling you anything. I am calling QA a farce.

Hence, I found your post unusual.

2. I slightly agree but I think the system is hughly abused and used by the factories and not a benefit to the farmer at the moment. On the contrary I think the last few months it also has been used as a punishment against farmers.

3. Maybe, but I think I should be allowed by of a neighbour sell to another neighbour at a certain stage and maybe a few more sales can occur without suffering penalties. I have seen my QA animals in the mart get the lard beaten out of them by idiots. Im sure those poor animals were killed as QA meat. Another thread on this here.

4. You are bringing baggage from other threads against me as I suspected which kills your argument in no.1 and proves my point. You were out to have a go.

That's why I sent you a PM, you need to leave that behind and focus on this thread or else PM your issues. Don't derail this interesting thread.

1. You called me a fool

2. In relation to QA I agree that the factories have used this against the farmer. Yet all beef needs assurances and traceability for the customers.

3. Every mart is different, maybe try selling at another one or finish them
yourself.

4. No one has brought baggage to this thread. Everyone is discussing the statements made by posters.

No need to send pm. if you have something to say state it on the thread ,otherwise don't engage.

Lets not revert to ' making money beef' thread. Obviously we differ on opinion and i respect that.

I am just trying to produce a quality animal for my target market.

Tokyo

Mod Note:

It's worth noting for all, that PM's can be reported by the recipient, and if the content or tone is questionable, admin do act on them. If any members here receive a PM that's questionable, then please report it (the icon in the top right of the PM) and admin will look into it. Abuse of the PM system is not taken lightly.

Common sense would dictate keeping the discussion in the main forum where (a) all can see and discuss the points raised, and (b) it can't be interpreted as a behind-the-scenes dig at another member.

AP2014

on the river wrote: »

1. You called me a fool

2. In relation to QA I agree that the factories have used this against the farmer. Yet all beef needs assurances and traceability for the customers.

3. Every mart is different, maybe try selling at another one or finish them
yourself.

4. No one has brought baggage to this thread. Everyone is discussing the statements made by posters.

No need to send pm. if you have something to say state it on the thread ,otherwise don't engage.

Lets not revert to ' making money beef' thread. Obviously we differ on opinion and i respect that.

I am just trying to produce a quality animal for my target market.

1. You called me a fool

Not true, you are no fool. I questioned your practices as been foolish. It's a bit much saying I called you a fool or you are being over sensitive on this. I apologize if taken the wrong way

3. Every mart is different, maybe try selling at another one or finish them
yourself.

Nonsense, why should I have to sell in a different mart. How many QA animals go through that mart? So because standards aren't kept enforced at a mart I need to finish my cattle myself. Weak argument. Money losing game I ain't going into.

4. No one has brought baggage to this thread. Everyone is discussing the statements made by posters. I think the only baggage brought was by Brian going back over the money in beef stuff. Hence the PM to him cause I wanted it kept off this thread. Obvious he still has an issue with me since that post as highlighted by his last post. Thats done and dusted and he needs to let it go. Thats why I sent him a pm as lads are sick of it aired in different threads.

I commend you for producing quality and my argument is you ain't getting paid for it and QA isn't working. I stand by that.

AP2014

_Brian wrote: »

I just thought I'd reply here to you rather than the replying to the PM you sent boasting about how everybody was backing up your point and asking me not to be posting replies to you on the forum and then no more posts.

Man up and say things in public rather than skulking round via PM, I took that crap from another poster and I'll not be taking it from you.

mike_ie wrote: »

Mod Note:

It's worth noting for all, that PM's can be reported by the recipient, and if the content or tone is questionable, admin do act on them. If any members here receive a PM that's questionable, then please report it (the icon in the top right of the PM) and admin will look into it. Abuse of the PM system is not taken lightly.

Common sense would dictate keeping the discussion in the main forum where (a) all can see and discuss the points raised, and (b) it can't be interpreted as a behind-the-scenes dig at another member.

To put this to bed I really don't think the PM below is boasting or having a go at anyone. But I'll man up and post it here anyway. A mod can verify the PM. This is taken away from a good QA debate though.

well
Did you read back over that thread yesterday? If you did you would see there was no name calling as is the first line in my post that you replied to.

I think as that thread developed it was clear my points were valid. Can you ease up popping into a thread to have a go at me and then leaving.

I don't do it to you so no need to do it to me. Apologies if I have taken this up wrong but it seemed you posted just to have a go at me.

on the river

AP2014 wrote: »

To put this to bed I really don't think the PM below is boasting or having a go at anyone. But I'll man up and post it here anyway. A mod can verify the PM. This is taken away from a good QA debate though.

well
Did you read back over that thread yesterday? If you did you would see there was no name calling as is the first line in my post that you replied to.

I think as that thread developed it was clear my points were valid. Can you ease up popping into a thread to have a go at me and then leaving.

I don't do it to you so no need to do it to me. Apologies if I have taken this up wrong but it seemed you posted just to have a go at me.

A pm means a private message between two members. meaning private.
You our obviously bringing this thread off topic for personal interest.
This thread is about QA movements, not personal dislike you may have for a member.
I got my fair share of pms and never once discussed them openly.
By doing what you just did , is just stirring up more tension.
It seems you are more interested in personal jibes then the topic at hand.:(

Farmer Pudsey

AP2014 wrote: »

To put this to bed I really don't think the PM below is boasting or having a go at anyone. But I'll man up and post it here anyway. A mod can verify the PM. This is taken away from a good QA debate though.

well
Did you read back over that thread yesterday? If you did you would see there was no name calling as is the first line in my post that you replied to.

I think as that thread developed it was clear my points were valid. Can you ease up popping into a thread to have a go at me and then leaving.

I don't do it to you so no need to do it to me. Apologies if I have taken this up wrong but it seemed you posted just to have a go at me.

_Brian wrote: »

I just thought I'd reply here to you rather than the replying to the PM you sent boasting about how everybody was backing up your point and asking me not to be posting replies to you on the forum and then no more posts.

1. I don't come onto threads and just post against you. Your not that important. I post on threads where I have an opinion. Often I don't post further because I'm at work or some such other reason.
2. QA across many industries I've worked in had been a huge success. It has a place in beef production, it just needs proper implementation.
3. I think minimising and displaying the number of movements of animals is a positive thing.
4. I think your too quick to call fellas fools, you've laughed at neighbours for being progressive and even sneered at them for fencing their land. This attitude has born out across a number if threads and TBH it adds little to the whole forum.

Man up and say things in public rather than skulking round via PM, I took that crap from another poster and I'll not be taking it from you.

on the river wrote: »

A pm means a private message between two members. meaning private.
You our obviously bringing this thread off topic for personal interest.
This thread is about QA movements, not personal dislike you may have for a member.
I got my fair share of pms and never once discussed them openly.
By doing what you just did , is just stirring up more tension.
It seems you are more interested in personal jibes then the topic at hand.:(

I think to be fair to AP that he quoted the PM only after Brian decided to answer it on this thread. Brian quoted in the post that AP was boasting if AP post is the total content of the PM I cannot see where this comes from. I consider the PM polite and to the point.

Brian post was a fairly sharp attack on him and I can see no reason why he should not publish the post. It would be a totally different issue if he published a PM or a reply to a PM send to him.

I consider your attack unfair, maybe you should again read the two posts. It was Brian who first decided to discuss a PM openly. He had the choice of reporting same he choose instead to answer in in this forum.

All the above is assuming that AP PM is as he posted it.

AP2014

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I think to be fair to AP that he quoted the PM only after Brian decided to answer it on this thread. Brian quoted in the post that AP was boasting if AP post is the total content of the PM I cannot see where this comes from. I consider the PM polite and to the point.

Brian post was a fairly sharp attack on him and I can see no reason why he should not publish the post. It would be a totally different issue if he published a PM or a reply to a PM send to him.

I consider your attack unfair, maybe you should again read the two posts. It was Brian who first decided to discuss a PM openly. He had the choice of reporting same he choose instead to answer in in this forum.

All the above is assuming that AP PM is as he posted it.

Thank you Pudsey....It is indeed. Maybe Brian can man up as he would say and tell the truth.

Mods you have full permission to check my sent items and confirm this.

_Brian

AP2014 wrote: »

Thank you Pudsey....It is indeed. Maybe Brian can man up as he would say and tell the truth.

Mods you have full permission to check my sent items and confirm this.

I'm well sick of this "he said - she said" shiite !
I know full well the intention of the PM, there was no other reason to make it a PM only to poke an argument and for no good reason, the rest of us could post our opinions in the open, like them or not, at least we're not skulking in the background..

I've no vendetta against anyone, but a previous member had a rip at me through the PM system and I'll not take it again..

I'll not be posting on this thread again, AP added to my ignore list and maybe you could do the same for me and that way you'll not have the need to PM me about issues I post again..

on the river

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I think to be fair to AP that he quoted the PM only after Brian decided to answer it on this thread. Brian quoted in the post that AP was boasting if AP post is the total content of the PM I cannot see where this comes from. I consider the PM polite and to the point.

Brian post was a fairly sharp attack on him and I can see no reason why he should not publish the post. It would be a totally different issue if he published a PM or a reply to a PM send to him.

I consider your attack unfair, maybe you should again read the two posts. It was Brian who first decided to discuss a PM openly. He had the choice of reporting same he choose instead to answer in in this forum.

All the above is assuming that AP PM is as he posted it.

I completely reject the thesis that I am attacking AP.
It all times I have conducted myself in a respectful manner to all.
AP posted his pm omitting the true history behind his disagreement with Brian.
We can only assume what was said. Brian and AP know exactly whats behind all of this.
I think its a bit far fetched rallying to support a individual , where you know limited knowledge.
Its obvious that AP is derailing this threat to satisfy his own aims.
The last post by AP justifies this statement.

Look , I repeat , I am hear to discuss the QA not posters.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and also equally entitled to discuss other posters opinions.
Bringing pm to focus and discussing them on threads is just ridiculous.
Assumptions are only assumptions not the fact.

Tokyo

AP2014 wrote: »

Mods you have full permission to check my sent items and confirm this.

Mods, CMods and admin don't have the ability to view the PMs of posters unless somebody reports a PM, and even if I did I have no interest in trawling through your sent items to try and prove some sort of point for you.

As it stands, I'm done with the soapboxing and the derailing of threads - the OP's post stated:

charityboy wrote: »

Was thinking of going down the bed and breakfast route with some cattle this winter , what way does this work via moving cattle in to another herd no for the winter and will it clock up as a movement on my cattle for quality assurance

Now tell me how 90% of the posts here remotely relate to that. Can hardly blame the OP for not posting again in the thread.

AP2014 - last warning on dragging threads off-topic to soapbox your personal opinions. Arguing and bickering across numerous threads is having no constructive effect whatsoever. If you want to debate quality assurance or anything else, then start a thread on it (or better still I'll break this discussion off into its own thread) and argue the point there.

_Brian - as I pointed out earlier, if you've had someone let "rip at you through the PM system", then report the PM so that admin can cast an eye over it and act on it accordingly. You don't get to ignore that option, yet drag the PM into the thread as a point of argument. Either report it or let it go.

Regards,
Mike

on the river

rangler1 wrote: »

Very simple answer to some of your points, firstly it's irresponsible to sell stock within withdrawal periods, and secondly, I think they have to be on your farm 70 days before slaughter,
On the marts, QA ensures they're only bet around the marts four times in their life instead of maybe eight.
On the signs, every business, industry, merchant etc has to do the same, why should we be exonerated'
At the end of the day, its only good farming practise......just not common.
We are food producers after all.

I agree

Farmers purpose is to create a quality product for their market.

A farmer can only do his own bit to create the best product.

Price is outside farmers control, something I hope can change

AP2014

_Brian wrote: »

I'm well sick of this "he said - she said" shiite !
I know full well the intention of the PM, there was no other reason to make it a PM only to poke an argument and for no good reason, the rest of us could post our opinions in the open, like them or not, at least we're not skulking in the background..

I've no vendetta against anyone, but a previous member had a rip at me through the PM system and I'll not take it again..

I'll not be posting on this thread again, AP added to my ignore list and maybe you could do the same for me and that way you'll not have the need to PM me about issues I post again..

I posted a PM not to derail this thread. Then you bring it out into the open here. My PM was anything but boastful and a reasonable poster like Pudsey confirmed that. So don't try and slander me. Stand over your attack no skulking in the background like that attack.

on the river wrote: »

I completely reject the thesis that I am attacking AP.
It all times I have conducted myself in a respectful manner to all.
AP posted his pm omitting the true history behind his disagreement with Brian.
We can only assume what was said. Brian and AP know exactly whats behind all of this.
I think its a bit far fetched rallying to support a individual , where you know limited knowledge.
Its obvious that AP is derailing this threat to satisfy his own aims.
The last post by AP justifies this statement.

Look , I repeat , I am hear to discuss the QA not posters.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and also equally entitled to discuss other posters opinions.
Bringing pm to focus and discussing them on threads is just ridiculous.
Assumptions are only assumptions not the fact.

Are you on something? There is no true story behind the disagreement. I got attacked by the poster and slandered that I posted a boastful pm. I sent the pm and sorted that out.


You really need to read thee posts to see who brought the pm into focus. Thank god for Pudsey on this forum.