icbf funding

Bellview

Seeing a lot of press on challenges with icbf funding. Do icbf publish accounts and where can we view them.

Bass Reeves

It was getting 800-900k from the tag levy. As well all discussion group members have to join. Just another quango that is struggling when the farmers get a choice. As well lots of pedigree clinics threatening to leave over star rating. In reality GLAS, BTAP etc are starting to be backdoor funding to Teagasc, advisory system and ICBF. Vets are on the loop now as well as arecsoil testers

alps

The annual report including accounts is available on the website under publications......

jaymla627

Bellview wrote: »

Seeing a lot of press on challenges with icbf funding. Do icbf publish accounts and where can we view them.

Just had a look at them for 2015, staff numbers where 53 and average wage including pension contributions and prsi etc was just shy of 53000 euro, with a surplus of 147,000 euro....
The poor dears mighty have to take a pay cut if theirs a good uptake of lads opting out of the tag levy

boggerman1

Isn't the icbf not registered as a charity,so they pay no tax at all.

Keepgrowing

There's no other organisation collating the info on our national herd. We are very lucky to have such an organisation.

If you're buying, selling, culling etc all the relevant information one needs is there. You have breed societies jumping up and down because the info collected is allowing us as farmers see the true value of our own stock. The breeders are now in some cases being exposed as the emporers with no clothes.

It's a national jewel and the envy of many.

As an aside they are the only group who've come out and told LIC to take a run and jump with their contract proposal, and rightly so.

It would be a great pity to compromise their finances and the work they do be withholding the levy.

mahoney_j

Keepgrowing wrote: »

There's no other organisation collating the info on our national herd. We are very lucky to have such an organisation.

If you're buying, selling, culling etc all the relevant information one needs is there. You have breed societies jumping up and down because the info collected is allowing us as farmers see the true value of our own stock. The breeders are now in some cases being exposed as the emporers with no clothes.

It's a national jewel and the envy of many.

As an aside they are the only group who've come out and told LIC to take a run and jump with their contract proposal, and rightly so.

It would be a great pity to compromise their finances and the work they do be withholding the levy.

Well said and fully agree ,Icbf/herdplus etc a huge bonus and we are very lucky to have them .tags ordered a few weeks back and didn't have to think twice about paying the levy .

rangler1

mahoney_j wrote: »

Well said and fully agree ,Icbf/herdplus etc a huge bonus and we are very lucky to have them .tags ordered a few weeks back and didn't have to think twice about paying the levy .

You'd spend more on a night out, if the farmers don't support it and the government definitely won't support it.
Farmers will have to stop submitting poor information though, hard to believe that stars could be so erratic if information is correct

tismesoitis

Agree with keepgrowing %100. Not paying the tag levy would be a classic case of penny wise pound foolish!!

whelan2

Is there a breakdown of the figure not paying the tag levy? They still have the milk recording and ai straw levy which are 87c and 50 cent each.

Waffletraktor

Keepgrowing wrote: »

There's no other organisation collating the info on our national herd. We are very lucky to have such an organisation.

If you're buying, selling, culling etc all the relevant information one needs is there. You have breed societies jumping up and down because the info collected is allowing us as farmers see the true value of our own stock. The breeders are now in some cases being exposed as the emporers with no clothes.

It's a national jewel and the envy of many.

As an aside they are the only group who've come out and told LIC to take a run and jump with their contract proposal, and rightly so.

It would be a great pity to compromise their finances and the work they do be withholding the levy.

Its a case of those techinically unable to use the data and lack the ability to see a use for it and those that can and do.
Its like the Btaps scheme, most will have joined for the handy money as they see it and not to put a floor on their knowledge. I hope this kind of farming by throwing a dog a bone so they can whinge and bemoan for another round of creative subs creation has a longterm future or else alot of farms are in for a shock.

Bass Reeves

I think it has nothing to do with use of data but cost being added to farmer's by the way of Levy's is getting out of control. Take GLAS which is an environmental scheme which is also used to support those with SAC , commonage and harrier land. Yet sneaky tricks prevent these farmers from accessing decent payments. Rates for SAC land are quite low. Take the payment for a ring fort if you have reseeded near it you cannot enter it for extensive grass land as when you split the parcel you cannot claim. These really hit those who the scheme is supposed to compensate. If you have soilsamples taken last year you can use for nutrient plan but must sample in three years time. As Teagasc is running most BTAP half the yearly cost is gone on them. ICBF is 60 euro on top . 450for a GLAS that a lot are only managing to access 2-3k on. Is ICBF any use to a drystock farmers unless in sucklers. When you add up all the bits and pieces they add to more Thana few pints and then you go to the BTAP beef meeting and you wonder which side of the table the bigger idiots are. Advisors when they get any experience are off to the milk side

milligan2

I think it's a great service for the money,granted the first few years figures are going to be erratic but it will be a serious tool in a few years.
I wouldn't be too impressed with the pedigree breeders throwing their toys out of their prams after being caught out telling porkies.
Fair play to the Limm boys for signing up.

Bellview

milligan2 wrote:

I think it's a great service for the money,granted the first few years figures are going to be erratic but it will be a serious tool in a few years. I wouldn't be too impressed with the pedigree breeders throwing their toys out of their prams after being caught out telling porkies. Fair play to the Limm boys for signing up.

To be fair to pedigree guys it wad the breeders who participated in the maternal bull program that were acting the pr $ck and unfortunately icbf did not name and shame them... which is a pity as all pedigree breeders are getting crap thrown at them..
While icbf have great data the stars are average and look like running herds down narrow bloodlines..

milligan2

Bellview wrote: »

To be fair to pedigree guys it wad the breeders who participated in the maternal bull program that were acting the pr $ck and unfortunately icbf did not name and shame them... which is a pity as all pedigree breeders are getting crap thrown at them..
While icbf have great data the stars are average and look like running herds down narrow bloodlines..

An honest question,what is the difference between the breeders and the pedigree breeders

Red

bogman_bass

I love how farmers always go on about "nobody does anything for farmers" but then there is an organisation that is putting money in farmers pockets but same farmers give out for putting their hand in their pocket to pay for it

Bellview

milligan2 wrote:

An honest question,what is the difference between the breeders and the pedigree breeders

Sorry not clear. The breeders are pedigree breeders who took part in icbf program. When these folks were found messing icbf went to press to tarnish all breeders in the same bad light and did not name or kick out the messers . It would be good to know if icbf bought bulls from these messers or how icbf will police the new program different to the maternal one since icbf did not punish anyone..

Bellview

bogman_bass wrote:

I love how farmers always go on about "nobody does anything for farmers" but then there is an organisation that is putting money in farmers pockets but same farmers give out for putting their hand in their pocket to pay for it

I always agree with data but icbf are not getting the beef baseline right. The stars have been around for a while and they are still fluctuating like crazy. For anyone in the scheme this is really frustrating as you will think today you are doing the right breeding program but in three years time you are wrong according to the stars.. this will take money out of people's pocket not put it in.

Tail painter

I am encouraged by the support shown to ICBF on the forum here. ICBF is the envy of many countries. It is funded by farmers for the benefit of farmers, not private companies. It is very short sighted to withdraw the tag levy. I will admit that dairy farmers have gained more than beef farmers so far. That is mainly to do with the fact that ICBF only had one breed society to deal with - IHFA. With beef, there are several breed society's jostling to try to be number one. It will take time to get agreement with them all. Well done to the Limousin society in committing to ICBF and showing what is important -profit for farmers.

Bellview

I will admit I'm not a fan of icbf not because of what they try to achieve but because of their arrogant approach particularly in beef.
One great outcome of opening up the tag supplier we are all made aware of a hidden optional levy..which icbf never told us about.
Interesting now that icbf are now seeking a statutory levy. Hope minister goes against this as will turn into an upward only tax on farmers. If icbf can show their relevance across farming with logical approach to farming challenges rather than the monopoly approach they take today then they will get support. A good example here is he testing that icbf are doing on the taste gene...all beef tastes the same.. not sure a butcher would agree with this.

Once icbf are willing to engage and stop the approach they used for genomic scheme and using the farmers journal to leak and bad mouth folks who disagree with them then I would pay the levy..until I see this is like a large number of farmers will not pay the levy.

Interesting few months ahead and here hoping creed stays strong and make icbf work for farmers not yhe other way around

Tail painter

Bellview wrote: »

I will admit I'm not a fan of icbf not because of what they try to achieve but because of their arrogant approach particularly in beef.
One great outcome of opening up the tag supplier we are all made aware of a hidden optional levy..which icbf never told us about.
Interesting now that icbf are now seeking a statutory levy. Hope minister goes against this as will turn into an upward only tax on farmers. If icbf can show their relevance across farming with logical approach to farming challenges rather than the monopoly approach they take today then they will get support. A good example here is he testing that icbf are doing on the taste gene...all beef tastes the same.. not sure a butcher would agree with this.

Once icbf are willing to engage and stop the approach they used for genomic scheme and using the farmers journal to leak and bad mouth folks who disagree with them then I would pay the levy..until I see this is like a large number of farmers will not pay the levy.

Interesting few months ahead and here hoping creed stays strong and make icbf work for farmers not yhe other way around

ICBF never hid the tag levy. It was always public knowledge. As for a statutory levy - how else should they fund the organisation when some farmers are too tight to pay 38c per animal?

Bullocks

Tail painter wrote: »

ICBF never hid the tag levy. It was always public knowledge. As for a statutory levy - how else should they fund the organisation when some farmers are too tight to pay 38c per animal?

There are abviously farmers that couldn't give a flying **** about what the ICBF is doing for breeding and that's their own choice .
Likewise there are farmers that really appreciate what they do and thats also a fair choice , so why shouldnt the funding be by choice also ?
Is'nt there enough statutory crap to farming without adding more

Bellview

Tail painter wrote:

ICBF never hid the tag levy. It was always public knowledge. As for a statutory levy - how else should they fund the organisation when some farmers are too tight to pay 38c per animal?

Firstly I never have an issue paying for anything once I see a return on that investment so calling all folks mean may be more than a little unfair.
When ordering tags I was never given an option to pay or not so it was hidden especially when ordering online
Once icbf show value for the levy then there would be no issue as the majority of farmers would pay. If guys feel that icbf is targeted at a minority of farmers then this may be one reason they will vote with their cash and stop paying.
As a beef farmer icbf have a lot of damage done and if you give them any feedback they will just try to blind you with science rather than look at practical execution and the results. The stars are crazy inconsistent, yet we all risk penalty if we fall on the wrong side of their stars. I have 1 star cows that are doing the business and even with off Spring they stay get same or even get worse. The scheme that icbf wrote for coveney you can use scrub bulls...and now icbf think all beef tastes the same as they work on the taste gene... in my opinion icbf are doing harm and if they spent the same money on fixing the stars and knowing the bloodlines then I will support them...but today when you engage with icbf you only get arrogance. Anotger example is the icbf maternal bull program breeders were found filling in false data on calving etc yet icbf painted this as all pedigree breeders are lying and did not kick the guys that they found lying in a scheme ..these are some of the reasons I have zero confidence in icbf. Another interesting facts on the maternal bull program is the scoring of bulls was done by folks who had not seen the bulls... and some guys were scoring their own bulls...

Sorry for the rant...but icbf need to become a lot more transparent and ensure they are see themselves as working for farmers and not get other way around..icbf need to engage and listen not bully. lets see how the majority of farmers ordering tags will decide on levy now that we all know it's optional and it's no longer hidden

Bass Reeves

Tail painter wrote: »

ICBF never hid the tag levy. It was always public knowledge. As for a statutory levy - how else should they fund the organisation when some farmers are too tight to pay 38c per animal?

I would have to disagree with you there. While the left y was not hid neither was it exists because common knowledge, similar to the EIF levy it exists because was shrouded and hid from those that were paying it. The problem with Levy's is that they become monsters that often lead to decay in the organisation that they support. The levy on silage plastic is similar organisation funded by such money have no reason to change

Who2

I could be wrong here but do lads not see a slightly more balanced rating on the last round. I for one reckon it's better than it was bit still on a lot of work to do incorporating the calving ease in such a way that it's not totally against ch.

Coolfresian

Just noticed the icbf have increased the charges for herdplus. 60 euro this year plus an additional 50c per Cow. Rising to 100 euro next with the 50c per cow charge remaining. This increase along with the compulsory tag levy is a bit much and I won't be renewing this year. How are they justifying such an increase or feel it's not value for the increase?

Bellview

Once icbf have all your data they will charge you for it...starting to see this in dairy and beef is on the same track.

alps

Coolfresian wrote: »

Just noticed the icbf have increased the charges for herdplus. 60 euro this year plus an additional 50c per Cow. Rising to 100 euro next with the 50c per cow charge remaining. This increase along with the compulsory tag levy is a bit much and I won't be renewing this year. How are they justifying such an increase or feel it's not value for the increase?

There justification is that the 60 euro fee was introduced years ago and was never increased. ICBF now delivers more than it did at that time, and an increase that should have been introduced before now is correct as milk price can take it...

There is no attempt to justify it on a means basis, in fact a look at accounts would suggest there is no need for it...

It is plain out gouging, allowed by farmer board members, albeit from an organisation that supplies a great service to farmers...

KatyMac

I only joined icbf because it was a requirement of KT group. Once I'm done with KT I will be done with icbf....still no sign of KT money either!

tanko

KatyMac wrote: »

I only joined icbf because it was a requirement of KT group. Once I'm done with KT I will be done with icbf....still no sign of KT money either!

I dont think that its a requirement of the current KT groups that you have be signed up to ICBF Herdplus.
Im open to correction about this.

Hard Knocks

tanko wrote: »

I dont think that its a requirement of the current KT groups that you have be signed up to ICBF Herdplus.
Im open to correction about this.

We were told we had to, facilitator had forms for everyone not signed up this time last year

Aravo

You have to sign up to ICBF for KT. The next KT meeting will be interesting.

tanko

tanko wrote: »

I dont think that its a requirement of the current KT groups that you have be signed up to ICBF Herdplus.
Im open to correction about this.

Checked this today, i was wrong.

Donegalforever

Keepgrowing wrote: »

There's no other organisation collating the info on our national herd. We are very lucky to have such an organisation.

If you're buying, selling, culling etc all the relevant information one needs is there. You have breed societies jumping up and down because the info collected is allowing us as farmers see the true value of our own stock. The breeders are now in some cases being exposed as the emporers with no clothes.

It's a national jewel and the envy of many.

As an aside they are the only group who've come out and told LIC to take a run and jump with their contract proposal, and rightly so.

It would be a great pity to compromise their finances and the work they do be withholding the levy.

The accuracy of some of their information is suspect.
It is difficult to have absolute confidence in their ratings when owners of cows rated by ICBF as one Star produce superior calves that cows rated by ICBF as four star.
I have a cow out of Limousin Bull VDT. ICBF rates her Docility within Lim Breed as 2 Stars and across all breeds 1 Star. The cow is so quiet that she will stand to be scratched. It is difficult therefore to have confidence in the official rating.