Proposed suckler scheme. IFA vs ICSA

Willfarman

I'm surprised to see no thread about this yet. The IFA want a headage payment of €200 on the sacred suckler cows.
The ICSA propose a reduction in the suckler herd of maybe 15% and pay €200 a head to reduce the herd.

In my opinion the IFAs proposal will do nothing but cheapen cattle for the processers.. Make more paperwork and make jobs for the pen pushers.
I think other idea is a far better deal for farmers.
Perhaps not for the industry but what does maintaining volume exports from sucklers achieve only millionaire beef barons and boning halls full of South American on minimum wage and busy minimum margin highly stocked farms . To the detriment of the environment, the animals health and most importantly the farmers..

rangler1

Willfarman wrote: »

I'm surprised to see no thread about this yet. The IFA want a headage payment of €200 on the sacred suckler cows.
The ICSA propose a reduction in the suckler herd of maybe 15% and pay €200 a head to reduce the herd.

In my opinion the IFAs proposal will do nothing but cheapen cattle for the processers.. Make more paperwork and make jobs for the pen pushers.
I think other idea is a far better deal for farmers.
Perhaps not for the industry but what does maintaining volume exports from sucklers achieve only millionaire beef barons and boning halls full of South American on minimum wage and busy minimum margin highly stocked farms . To the detriment of the environment, the animals health and most importantly the farmers..

Dairy calves will pick up the slack from now on, a reduction in sucklers won't make a lot of difference.
Unless they keep the numbers tight like the ewe scheme it will cheapen cattle......to subsidise cows

Willfarman

rangler1 wrote: »

Dairy calves will pick up the slack from now on, a reduction in sucklers won't make a lot of difference.
Unless they keep the numbers tight like the ewe scheme it will cheapen cattle......to subsidise cows

Maybe a dairy calf destruct scheme as well. Wouldn't the skins make right aul bodhrans!

tractorporn

I can't see a €200 euro payment for just keeping a cow getting over the line at European level. The reduction scheme could be sold along the same lines as the BDGP scheme as a environmental scheme reducing agri emissions.

The added benefit of taking stock out of the system is a no brainer IMO. People seem to be forgetting that we may lose our biggest export market in the next two years or be tarriffed out of the market. Without the opening of some significant export markets we could be in extreme oversupply with beef in a very short space of time.

rangler1

Willfarman wrote: »

Maybe a dairy calf destruct scheme as well. Wouldn't the skins make right aul bodhrans!

At the prices they're making they'll destruct the farmer, you'd need to be given money with those calves

Willfarman

rangler1 wrote: »

At the prices they're making they'll destruct the farmer, you'd need to be given money with those calves

I have to agree.. Pure stupidity to be outbidding exporters. 5 weeks ago good type Friesian bullocks in enniscorthy mart 480kg @ €680. Now a middling 3 week old fr bull calf that you won't know his qaulity for 6 months is bringing €200.

Perhaps a stupid farmer destruct scheme is the answer!

Irish Beef

These two proposal are not exactly the same thing are they, so if a suckler farmer agrees to reduce his herd he'll get 200 euro per cow as a one off payment is that it, what good would that be, while the first proposal would be yearly payment of 200 euro, Obviously most of you don't mind seeing the suckler herd reduced as this would allow more room for friesian and jersey type cattle. More suckler cows does mean more cattle but so does more dairy cows but don't see anyone complaining about that here. such a scheme could work, seemingly France have something similar.

tractorporn

Irish Beef wrote:

These two proposal are not exactly the same thing are they, so if a suckler farmer agrees to reduce his herd he'll get 200 euro per cow as a one off payment is that it, what good would that be, while the first proposal would be yearly payment of 200 euro, Obviously most of you don't mind seeing the suckler herd reduced as this would allow more room for friesian and jersey type cattle. More suckler cows does mean more cattle but so does more dairy cows but don't see anyone complaining about that here. such a scheme could work, seemingly France have something similar.

My understanding of the reduction proposal is that you would be paid annually on the amount of cows under a reference amount, maybe I took that up wrong but a once off payment wouldn't be worth implementing.

Willfarman

tractorporn wrote: »

My understanding of the reduction proposal is that you would be paid annually on the amount of cows under a reference amount, maybe I took that up wrong but a once off payment wouldn't be worth implementing.

That's my understanding also.

Irish Beef

Even if its a annual payment I don't think its the way to go, Say a fellow has 20 cows and decides to take up this offer and gets rid of all the cows, he'll get 4k a year "Not to farm". This proposal could equally be adopted to dairy sector as this would also reduce the supply of unwanted cattle and I'm sure a reduction in the supply of milk would also push up milk prices, Its hardly surprising that ICMSA want a reduction in the suckler herd and . The IFA proposal on the other hand is trying to help the suckler herd and even increase it size.

TITANIUM.

Willfarman wrote: »

I'm surprised to see no thread about this yet. The IFA want a headage payment of €200 on the sacred suckler cows.
The ICSA propose a reduction in the suckler herd of maybe 15% and pay €200 a head to reduce the herd.

In my opinion the IFAs proposal will do nothing but cheapen cattle for the processers.. Make more paperwork and make jobs for the pen pushers.
I think other idea is a far better deal for farmers.
Perhaps not for the industry but what does maintaining volume exports from sucklers achieve only millionaire beef barons and boning halls full of South American on minimum wage and busy minimum margin highly stocked farms . To the detriment of the environment, the animals health and most importantly the farmers..

I'm presuming you have incorrectly put icMsa in your thread title?

Willfarman

TITANIUM. wrote: »

I'm presuming you have incorrectly put icMsa in your thread title?

You presume correctly! Can't change it though...

Willfarman

Irish Beef wrote: »

Even if its a annual payment I don't think its the way to go, Say a fellow has 20 cows and decides to take up this offer and gets rid of all the cows, he'll get 4k a year "Not to farm". This proposal could equally be adopted to dairy sector as this would also reduce the supply of unwanted cattle and I'm sure a reduction in the supply of milk would also push up milk prices, Its hardly surprising that ICMSA want a reduction in the suckler herd and . The IFA proposal on the other hand is trying to help the suckler herd and even increase it size.

It's the Irish cattle and sheep association that proposing this. I agree a complete herd disposal payment couldn't be allowed. It has to be limited to a percentage of the herd.

The idea of subsidising suckler beef production does nothing but load Larry Goodmans guns for him.

greysides

Willfarman wrote: »

You presume correctly! Can't change it though...

You're wish.....

rangler1

Willfarman wrote: »

It's the Irish cattle and sheep association that proposing this. I agree a complete herd disposal payment couldn't be allowed. It has to be limited to a percentage of the herd.

The idea of subsidising suckler beef production does nothing but load Larry Goodmans guns for him.

Aren't suckler farmers getting nearly €100/cow already in the genomics, can't see another 200 being a runner,

tractorporn

Irish Beef wrote:

Even if its a annual payment I don't think its the way to go, Say a fellow has 20 cows and decides to take up this offer and gets rid of all the cows, he'll get 4k a year "Not to farm". This proposal could equally be adopted to dairy sector as this would also reduce the supply of unwanted cattle and I'm sure a reduction in the supply of milk would also push up milk prices, Its hardly surprising that ICMSA want a reduction in the suckler herd and . The IFA proposal on the other hand is trying to help the suckler herd and even increase it size.

And just what is an increase in the size of the national suckler herd going to achieve at this point in time? It will only further depress incomes and provide the processors with more quality cheap cattle.

AFAIK the ICSA propose that a maximum limit be put on the level you can decrease your stock, 15-20 percent is what they are proposing. Bearing in mind that the national suckler herd has an average herd size of between 10 and 15 cows that is only going to result in a decrease in 1 - 3 cows on the majority of farms.

Bass Reeves

Irish Beef wrote: »

Even if its a annual payment I don't think its the way to go, Say a fellow has 20 cows and decides to take up this offer and gets rid of all the cows, he'll get 4k a year "Not to farm". This proposal could equally be adopted to dairy sector as this would also reduce the supply of unwanted cattle and I'm sure a reduction in the supply of milk would also push up milk prices, Its hardly surprising that ICMSA want a reduction in the suckler herd and . The IFA proposal on the other hand is trying to help the suckler herd and even increase it size.

The first thing to remember is that as drystock farmers we have no control on the amount of dairy cows in the system. The last milk reduction scheme did not have huge take up in Ireland when the milk price was 25c/L so little hope in reducing cow numbers with milk price climbing fast. Dairy bred calves will always be in the system. But a plan to bring in a suckler cow payment that could increase suckler cow numbers is crazy. The IFA's proposal is more in the processors interest than in the farmers interest. The ICSA plan would see suckler cow numbers drop. The farmer with 20 cows that might reduce them by 5 would get 1k per year of a payment he could then either carry his existing calves further to a store or finish or buy in calves or stores fireplace the cows.

MF290

oh ffs... A subsidy to reduce numbers... The only payments that should be given are payments based on either efficiency or productivity.
You often hear that the like of my generation won't stay farming with the current returns. Honestly I hope that's true... people will need to stop farming if they're not making money for there to a future in farming. I hope I'll have to sense to either find a way to make a living farming or get out when my turn comes around...

Username John

MF290 wrote: »

oh ffs... A subsidy to reduce numbers... The only payments that should be given are payments based on either efficiency or productivity.
You often hear that the like of my generation won't stay farming with the current returns. Honestly I hope that's true... people will need to stop farming if they're not making money for there to a future in farming. I hope I'll have to sense to either find a way to make a living farming or get out when my turn comes around...

Why would they pay you to be more productive?
I think the reality is we have plenty beef and lamb, and they hardly going to pay to produce milk...

I half agree with you re to make a living some people need to stop farming - to reduce supply.

But then to have rewards to increase supply gain - makes no sense... as this might cancel the reduction in lads getting out of farming... So you'd imagine you'd be back to square 1 again... ?

MF290

Username John wrote: »

Why would they pay you to be more productive?
I think the reality is we have plenty beef and lamb, and they hardly going to pay to produce milk...

I half agree with you re to make a living some people need to stop farming - to reduce supply.

But then to have rewards to increase supply gain - makes no sense... as this might cancel the reduction in lads getting out of farming... So you'd imagine you'd be back to square 1 again... ?

I understand how it is in a way contradictory. The fact is that we have a higher COP and far more restrictions than many parts of the world and need subsidies to in some way try to level the playing field. The only fair way to distribute these subsidies imo, is by the amount produced. Would this lead to an increase in production? Possibly.. but that would in turn lead to a decrease in price and and thus production. To reward farmers with subsidies for producing less is bonkers, maybe to indirecly produce less through environmental schemes...

Username John

MF290 wrote: »

I understand how it is in a way contradictory. The fact is that we have a higher COP and far more restrictions than many parts of the world and need subsidies to in some way try to level the playing field. The only fair way to distribute these subsidies imo, is by the amount produced. Would this lead to an increase in production? Possibly.. but that would in turn lead to a decrease in price and and thus production. To reward farmers with subsidies for producing less is bonkers, maybe to indirecly produce less through environmental schemes...

I would say reduction through environmental schemes are prob the future...

I think the European consumer cares more about Ireland looking well, like it does on postcards - than its beef and sheep farmers making a living...

tractorporn

Username John wrote:

I would say reduction through environmental schemes are prob the future...

Username John wrote:

I think the European consumer cares more about Ireland looking well, like it does on postcards - than its beef and sheep farmers making a living...

All the murmurings from the CAP reform suggest that all future payments will be linked to environmental performance, eg water quality, lowering methane emissions etc. Payments for production are nearing the end. Like John says it will be more about keeping the place looking well than pumping out beef. It will be reduction by a different method.

MF290

Username John wrote: »

I would say reduction through environmental schemes are prob the future...

I think the European consumer cares more about Ireland looking well, like it does on postcards - than its beef and sheep farmers making a living...

Looks like that's the way it's going to go alright

_Brian

MF290 wrote: »

Looks like that's the way it's going to go alright

In times when we export 90% of beef produced, largest customer potentially to be locked out, struggling for alternative markets, a diversion of payments to sensible environmental schemes seems the best thing.

Irish Beef

I think this measure is to try and help suckler farmers make a make a return and also increases suckler numbers as I'm sure there falling, so if the average suckler farmer has 15 to 20 cows and reduces his herd by 15% that's 3 cows, so he'll get 600 euro. He won't be made up will he, also he'll have less cows to sell calfs from so this will bring him back to where he started. This will also have a tiny impact on Cattle numbers across the country as not all suckler farmers would participate. On the other hand the same suckler farmer with his twenty cows would get 4000 from The Ifa scheme, so these are two very different schemes and would also be big differences in the cost to implement, You mightn't agree with the Ifa proposal but surely the Icsa one would
have no effect. Cant understand how anybody in Suckling would agree with Icsa proposal.

tractorporn

Irish Beef wrote:

I think this measure is to try and help suckler farmers make a make a return and also increases suckler numbers as I'm sure there falling, so if the average suckler farmer has 15 to 20 cows and reduces his herd by 15% that's 3 cows, so he'll get 600 euro. He won't be made up will he, also he'll have less cows to sell calfs from so this will bring him back to where he started. This will also have a tiny impact on Cattle numbers across the country as not all suckler farmers would participate. On the other hand the same suckler farmer with his twenty cows would get 4000 from The Ifa scheme, so these are two very different schemes and would also be big differences in the cost to implement, You mightn't agree with the Ifa proposal but surely the Icsa one would have no effect. Cant understand how anybody in Suckling would agree with Icsa proposal.

No 600 euro won't make anyone up but not so long ago the Farmers bible was telling us that it was costing around the 700 euro to keep cow for the year. Yes the farmer will be down 900/1000 from the sale of his weanlings but when the opportunity cost is factored in, in reality he will only be down 300 euro.

3 less calves born may not sound like a lot but there are 80000 suckler farmers in the country which equates to 240000 less calves straight away. To put that in context the much lauded and needed export trade to Turkey only took 20000 head of cattle what we are talking about here would take over ten times more cattle out of the system overnight.

patsy_mccabe

_Brian wrote: »

In times when we export 90% of beef produced, largest customer potentially to be locked out, struggling for alternative markets, a diversion of payments to sensible environmental schemes seems the best thing.

Exactly, 90% of our beef is exported, how will reducing suckler numbers have any effect on factory prices.:mad:

Willfarman

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Exactly, 90% of our beef is exported, how will reducing suckler numbers have any effect on factory prices.:mad:

The volume of available stock for the weekly kill and the beef price paid are directly linked. Cut the weekly kill to the processers and the price will rise. This we know to be an absolute truth.

Compare 2014 European and British price to the Irish beef price 2014 2015.

Leave the thing as it is and let the market cure itself and Let poor prices gradually curb production.

Subsidise production and even increase it.. Keep cows and produce cattle below the price of production like minions for Larry.

Or encourage a curb in production by incentivising a reduction in the national suckler herd. A decrease in the amount of qaulity coloured cattle will increase competition for them between gentleman finishers and exporters. It will reduce the number of cattle and overall tonnage of beef and curtail teagasc and the industry's craving for the race to the bottom.
It will reduce the production price of the remaining cattle in feed costs and fertiliser.
It increases slurry and dung storage on these farms and is good environmental pr.
And it's a lot more likely to get passed due to it costing only 15 to 20% of the IFA proposal.

Bass Reeves

There are slightly over 1 million suckler cows in Ireland. A 10% reduction in the suckler herd would reduce calves by 80k isn't. That is equivalent to 4 times what Turkey took last year. ICSA proposal should have targeted a higher paying in the 3-350 mark but it makes a lot more sense than an increase in production which IFA's would cause. If we can export another 200k between weanlings and calves it changes the number of cattle available to farmers. A calf slaughter schemes only put a base price under dairy bred calves that is to the advantage of dairy farmers. A calf slaughter scheme would put a base price of 100 euro on any dairy bred calf.

It is unlikely that IFA's target of 200/ cow would be attainable more than likely any such headache payment would be perfect in the 100-150 mark and would have to be linked to some herd management plan that would involve extra cost to farmers and the extra calves would reduce calf prices if production increased. At present we have 1.25 million dairy cows and this is expected to climb to 1.5 million. In real terms long-term this means that the dairy herd will put over 1 million calves for the beef market and 350k+ cull cows. We can do nothing about that fact. Add in suckler bred cattle at present numbers about another 850k calves and 200k cull cows. That will bring the yearly kill to over 2 million or over 40k per week. The last thing we want is an incentive to add more sucklers to the system

Sheep breeder

A lot of the reason there is the number of suckler cows in this country is the land quality and size of farms and the big thing is age profile of farmers.
A lot of suckler land does not suit dairying and if milking cows increases don't be fooled that the likes of the co op won't turn out to like uncle Larry with the beef.
A destruction scheme for the bad dairy calf is wrong to prop up the dairy herd, let the dairy man send the poor calf to the knackery or find a market for the calf.

Irish Beef

If there is 1.25 million dairy cows in this country and increasing to 1.5 million. That's a 250000 increase in dairy calf births, what good is an 80000 reduction then. What do we do then increase the incentive still further and have another blow at the Suckler herd until we don't have enough decent weanling to meet the exporters demands, that will just be market lost. The only suckler man who will take up this offer is somebody already considering reducing numbers anyway or someone also in dairy.

Username John

Irish Beef wrote: »

The only suckler man who will take up this offer is somebody already considering reducing numbers anyway or someone also in dairy.

Don't have sucklers, so won't profess to know anything about them...

But from reading the threads on here, the feeling I get is that the majority of suckler lads are planning to either maintain numbers or even reduce, the very odd person says they have expansion plans?

I wonder would this incentive move a lot more from the maintain numbers to the reduce camp?

pedigree 6

As an outsider looking in on this it's hard to know what way this would play out.

I've had some experiences with sport horses in this country and during the Celtic tiger years there was an increase in breeding numbers and there was also an increase in quality (although some would dispute this).
There was a big home market and there was an increase in foreign first time buyers coming here too lured by the horse board incentive schemes for foreign buyers.
Then the recession hit and the market dropped through the floor. Cattle and sheep farmers think they've seen it bad but this was end of the world stuff.
Horses that were making 20,000 before couldn't get a bid and the vet charges the same for a sport horse as a thoroughbred. You had foals with stallion fees of 1600 euro and vets fees of 250 getting no bid in the sales ring.
The next year the best of sport horse mares went to the factory or were put down. But the wise people told us that this was a correction that was needed and that when horses got scarce that prices would increase.

What happened? The foreign buyer now didn't come back as the horses were gone and went to Europe instead to buy their eventers and showjumpers helping their markets instead.

The horse board has had a tough job to get these buyers back here or even to create new buyers by laying on Big Go for Gold sales where they can view trained eventers and showjumpers working on one day and then bid the next day in a big fancy hotel with a slap up meal and tux and tails attire. Making a whole show out of the auction.

But anyway back to the cattle. Will a reduction in numbers increase prices?
I don't know. What it will do is close some factories and some marts.
But increasing numbers won't increase prices either so....
I haven't got a crystal ball.

sonnybill

Place would grow wild if we were to stick to the 0.15lu per hectare currently in place for min stocking level for ANC , if we were paid to reduce past this sure it'll just be scrub all sides again

grassroot1

The suckler may be breaking the farmer but it is a wealth creator for Ireland INC.
This will have an impact on the views that our overlords will take, 200 euro a cow to keep the suckler herd wont cast them a thought.
What will happen is the BPS will be refigured it wont be 200 extra by the way just redistribution.

Irish Beef

Cant think too many if the posters here are suckler men if they were surly they would be in favor of the ifa proposal. Why would you favour a 200 euro incentive on the 10% you get rid of instead of the 100% you keep. If you want to reduce numbers there is nothing stopping you for doing this. But to think reducing suckler numbers by this small amount will increase the price back to the suckler man you are deluding yourself, the dairy man will have that gap filled instantly.

Hurling Hereford

As a Suckler farmer which organisation would I trust to represent my views ..... the ICSA of course. They actually try to represent the small/medium farmers. The other shower, don't get me going!

tractorporn

Irish Beef wrote:

Cant think too many if the posters here are suckler men if they were surly they would be in favor of the ifa proposal. Why would you favour a 200 euro incentive on the 10% you get rid of instead of the 100% you keep. If you want to reduce numbers there is nothing stopping you for doing this. But to think reducing suckler numbers by this small amount will increase the price back to the suckler man you are deluding yourself, the dairy man will have that gap filled instantly.

Your missing some of the point the dairy man has the gap filled before it even exists.

The reason some are behind a reduction scheme is that we hope it will provide a long term benifit of increased prices due to depressed supply of quality cattle rather than the short term gain of 200 euro for every cow you have and continued just above break even prices. As said earlier we don't have a crystal ball but that would be the hope.

Irish Beef

tractorporn wrote: »

Your missing some of the point the dairy man has the gap filled before it even exists.

The reason some are behind a reduction scheme is that we hope it will provide a long term benifit of increased prices due to depressed supply of quality cattle rather than the short term gain of 200 euro for every cow you have and continued just above break even prices. As said earlier we don't have a crystal ball but that would be the hope.

That's my point, like you said the gap is already filled, so there would be no increase in price due to a shorage. All that will result is less quality cattle to export out of the country, so no benefit to reduction scheme.

Bass Reeves

If the ICSA proposal was adopted it would encourage the lad producing the 5-600 weanling to reduce production. The !As at the upper end would continue. Like the milk reduction scheme farmers could offer to reduce as much as possible but a tendering system could be put in place to achieve a maximum 15-20% reduction

If farmer A with 25 cows opts not to reduce farmer B with 20 cows might have the option of reducing by 6-10 cows. There could be an option for lads with low cow numbers maybe less that 5-6 to exit completely. If the payment was for 5 years it might allow these farmers to change over to calf to stores systems or to sheep. At the end of five years they could re-enter sucklers if they wished.

Willfarman

Irish Beef wrote: »

That's my point, like you said the gap is already filled, so there would be no increase in price due to a shorage. All that will result is less quality cattle to export out of the country, so no benefit to reduction scheme.

we can't do anything to quell the rise in numbers black and white cattle ... But a reduction in suckler cattle is a definate reduction. I'm not sure if you are trolling or really can't grasp a very simple mathematical scenario. If your dairy farming neighbour increases his herd by 10. And you reduce your sucklers by 5 yes there are 5 more calves on the ground but it's better than 10...

tractorporn

Irish Beef wrote:

That's my point, like you said the gap is already filled, so there would be no increase in price due to a shorage. All that will result is less quality cattle to export out of the country, so no benefit to reduction scheme.

My point was there is no gap just oversupply. You say there will be less quality cattle I say that should drive up the price of the quality cattle that are left it's simple supply and demand.

ganmo

if either of these proposals come about the beef genomics will go simple as.

To those that want efficiency or productivity to be rewarded-ain't gonna happen it's one of the current cornerstones of the currrent supports that they won't encourage any increase in production

patsy_mccabe

Willfarman wrote: »

The volume of available stock for the weekly kill and the beef price paid are directly linked. Cut the weekly kill to the processers and the price will rise. This we know to be an absolute truth...
l.

I know that is the case, but that is just the normal price fluctuation from month to month depending on the number of cattle arriving at the factory gate.
I cant see how Ireland reducing its suckler numbers by say 10%, will have one iota of a difference on global beef prices. And its on global beef prices that we depend.

rangler1

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

I know that is the case, but that is just the normal price fluctuation from month to month depending on the number of cattle arriving at the factory gate.
I cant see how Ireland reducing its suckler numbers by say 10%, will have one iota of a difference on global beef prices. And its on global beef prices that we depend.

+1
Price in europe seems to be the same as here, how wiil a few less calves make any difference
I don't think either proposal is in the real world....but then i though the same of the sheep subsidy proposal

Willfarman

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

I know that is the case, but that is just the normal price fluctuation from month to month depending on the number of cattle arriving at the factory gate.
I cant see how Ireland reducing its suckler numbers by say 10%, will have one iota of a difference on global beef prices. And its on global beef prices that we depend.

Global beef price and Irish beef price paid to farmers are not directly linked. It has a bearing at times yes, but irish processers always act the maggot if the weekly kill is over 30,000 cattle a week regardless of what the market is returning to them.
They have the whole thing tied up here.

rangler1

Willfarman wrote: »

Global beef price and Irish beef price paid to farmers are not directly linked. It has a bearing at times yes, but irish processers always act the maggot if the weekly kill is over 30,000 cattle a week regardless of what the market is returning to them.
They have the whole thing tied up here.

They're always close enough to european price and well over some.
There's 20% difference in domestic/imported lamb price in France due to loyalty, lucky the beef isn't affected likethat

Username John

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

I know that is the case, but that is just the normal price fluctuation from month to month depending on the number of cattle arriving at the factory gate.
I cant see how Ireland reducing its suckler numbers by say 10%, will have one iota of a difference on global beef prices. And its on global beef prices that we depend.

But then, the other side of it - if it's a global price - how comes it's a different price in different places?
I thought the meat plants in the U.K. paid more per kg?

This link shows France seems to pay more as well last week than Ireland...
http://www.bordbia.ie/industry/farmers/pricetracking/cattle/pages/default.aspx

So whilst there is a global price, local
Supply and demand feeds into it as well I guess?

Bass Reeves

Yes global/European prices are reflected back in Irish prices but the thtee biggest factors are the UK price, the euro sterling rate and the amount of cattle available. In Ireland we cannot do anything about the first two. But both proposals from ICSA and IFA will have different influences on the market.

You only have to look at the sheep industry and the effect that the reduction in lamb numbers since the noughties has had. The biggest influence has being in the hogget lamb market in the spring, with the absence of a holding period a more orderly slaughter of these hoggets takes P!Ace and the glut of ewe hoggets that was used to collapse the late spring early summer price has disappeared. Now you have a more ordererly market.

It is the same with beef as Will says above 30k processors and retainers combine to act the maggot below 30 k there is more bit in the marketplace. All that a suckler cow premium will do is fill Larry's plants with cheap beef. I think the possible effect of Brexit is exaggerated I think the UK market will still remain high priced due to retailer's demands for high spec beef. But that market only remains viable if we can keep slaughter numbers at 30k and below for most of the year

rangler1

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Yes global/European prices are reflected back in Irish prices but the thtee biggest factors are the UK price, the euro sterling rate and the amount of cattle available. In Ireland we cannot do anything about the first two. But both proposals from ICSA and IFA will have different influences on the market.

You only have to look at the sheep industry and the effect that the reduction in lamb numbers since the noughties has had. The biggest influence has being in the hogget lamb market in the spring, with the absence of a holding period a more orderly slaughter of these hoggets takes P!Ace and the glut of ewe hoggets that was used to collapse the late spring early summer price has disappeared. Now you have a more ordererly market.

It is the same with beef as Will says above 30k processors and retainers combine to act the maggot below 30 k there is more bit in the marketplace. All that a suckler cow premium will do is fill Larry's plants with cheap beef. I think the possible effect of Brexit is exaggerated I think the UK market will still remain high priced due to retailer's demands for high spec beef. But that market only remains viable if we can keep slaughter numbers at 30k and below for most of the year

Okay at the moment they're tendering to supply 30k, but if their supply drops they'd be foolish to tender for anymore than say 27k and the next magic figure would be that, they're not fools, they don't seem to mind working four day weeks.
I hear there's no problem getting Polish meat in London, ABP won't be caught out anyway if supply drops.

patsy_mccabe

The other side of it then is at farm level. Reducing numbers will increase fixed costs per animal. I know this would be well offset by the new payment but still it has to be factored in too.