Jim Power's and Suckler supports

Bass Reeves

I have read the parts published online and by the FI , FJ etc. He has come out for more Suckler supports. In a way you could take some of this with a grain of salt as he was employed by the IFA to produce this report.

He has reported that Suckler supports are vital to the West of Ireland from an economic view point.

But I have to say it a lazy analysis. In a time of surplus production supporting a sector will prevent natural reduction in the sector. The other issue is that if you bring in a Suckler support system it will be nationwide not just a support to targeted area along the west cost.

We have all agriculture experts saying dairying can continue to expand, yet they fail to explain how we can square this with climate change, pressure on calf exports, rising calf slaughter numbers and planned nitrates reductions for dairy cows.

Now I would have no problems with a targeted Suckler scheme if it was only for area's that were incapable of supporting other agriculture production. But this is not possible.

IMO what we need for these area's is a proper greening payment, a whole farm enviormental scheme similar to reps with stocking levels and agri plans,. Any payment that encourages extra production or puts stability under production is against farming interest's.

In a way I cannot understand the facination with suckler's by some farmers. Suckler's only really took off in the 80&90's when you had both beef price supports and premia together. Now whether we like it or not supports are reducing and the market place is the only solution to our lack of income. That means that supporting production in certain sectors only benefits processor's

djmc

i would agree with you the old punch system back in the 90s only worked for the processors at the mart an animal never punched cost 200 with its weight an animal with one punch was worth 100 with its weight and one with the 2 punches drawn was only worth its weight
a punch was worth 90 punts so in other all the farmer got was paperwork and the factories were flooded with cattle from lads trying to draw slaughter premium.

wrangler

djmc wrote: »

i would agree with you the old punch system back in the 90s only worked for the processors at the mart an animal never punched cost 200 with its weight an animal with one punch was worth 100 with its weight and one with the 2 punches drawn was only worth its weight
a punch was worth 90 punts so in other all the farmer got was paperwork and the factories were flooded with cattle from lads trying to draw slaughter premium.

It worked well for those that bred their own cattle too,
IFA were naive to think that processors would let Jim Power have any information, I'd say factories are laughing at farmers talk of transparency.
I knew he hadn't a hope of doing a proper report . We have to accept it's none of our business what they do in their factories

Cattlepen

Having looked at a lot of Jim’s stuff I don’t agree with the “lazy” tag you stuck on it . He’s always been plucky and honest in what I’ve seen of his comments over the years. What he has said this time is fairly unbiased and honest. If the suckler sector is to survive it needs some form of subsidy. If not, so be it

wrangler

Cattlepen wrote: »

Having looked at a lot of Jim’s stuff I don’t agree with the “lazy” tag you stuck on it . He’s always been plucky and honest in what I’ve seen of his comments over the years. What he has said this time is fairly unbiased and honest. If the suckler sector is to survive it needs some form of subsidy. If not, so be it

Yea, he's very good, won't be bought off either, all opinions are his own

wrangler

Jjameson wrote: »

So after no engagement from the factories or retailers this report has has limited value.. though it is increasing rapidly. Toilet paper can’t be kept on the shelves in much of the world at the minute!

Farmers should leave the processors alone now, what they're at is stupid and making the situation worse.
Lazy attitude to criticise the beefprocessing industry without developing a better one.
Equally lazy of Beef plan to undermine Irish agriculture without providing a better alternative

wrangler

Jjameson wrote: »

We were led to believe that this report was going to be a tremendous insight as to to what the cartel and retailers margins are and give a clear understanding as to if we were at anything shaking our fist at the said cartel over excessive profiteering. All it tells us is we aren’t making money and demand more money from the taxpayer and hope the cartel don’t move the goalposts again to Pocket it?

Beef plan is dead in the water and I can’t see them gaining traction again. My last few cattle are going in the next few weeks in any case and I’m going to buy shares in abp if it floats.

I was at an IFA meeting last summer ,they knew then they wouldn't get the information they needed .
Corley was in IFA, if he ever put any effort into IFA he'd have known that what he's at now would only aggravate the situation. Some people never learn.

kk.man

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I have read the parts published online and by the FI , FJ etc. He has come out for more Suckler supports. In a way you could take some of this with a grain of salt as he was employed by the IFA to produce this report.

He has reported that Suckler supports are vital to the West of Ireland from an economic view point.

But I have to say it a lazy analysis. In a time of surplus production supporting a sector will prevent natural reduction in the sector. The other issue is that if you bring in a Suckler support system it will be nationwide not just a support to targeted area along the west cost.

We have all agriculture experts saying dairying can continue to expand, yet they fail to explain how we can square this with climate change, pressure on calf exports, rising calf slaughter numbers and planned nitrates reductions for dairy cows.

Now I would have no problems with a targeted Suckler scheme if it was only for area's that were incapable of supporting other agriculture production. But this is not possible.

IMO what we need for these area's is a proper greening payment, a whole farm enviormental scheme similar to reps with stocking levels and agri plans,. Any payment that encourages extra production or puts stability under production is against farming interest's.

In a way I cannot understand the facination with suckler's by some farmers. Suckler's only really took off in the 80&90's when you had both beef price supports and premia together. Now whether we like it or not supports are reducing and the market place is the only solution to our lack of income. That means that supporting production in certain sectors only benefits processor's

From what I have read so far I agree with you on it been a lazy analysis. It's actually disappointing to say the least.
For such a prominent economist he used very little academic language which seems to be playing to the farmer tune ie he paymasters the IFA. Which in reality is an insult to farmers. The fact that the report was delayed didn't help add to its credibility. I know the factories were not going to supply him with any information but they are ways around this which should have been explored.

wrangler

kk.man wrote: »

From what I have read so far I agree with you on it been a lazy analysis. It's actually disappointing to say the least.
For such a prominent economist he used very little academic language which seems to be playing to the farmer tune ie he paymasters the IFA. Which in reality is an insult to farmers. The fact that the report was delayed didn't help add to its credibility. I know the factories were not going to supply him with any information but they are ways around this which should have been explored.

No one takes farming serious now and the farmer carry on over the last twelve months won't have helped.
I'd be surprised if power didn't do his best, unfortunately any of us could've written, and probably have written, what was published

Mac Taylor

We’ve been over and back on this too many times to count now, Irish sucker cows are the cause of global warming (fact). Keeping sucklers in poor land when you could plant non native trees that would poison all around it is determined to be the best way forward, processors and retailers are only killing and selling meat for the greater good, God bless them there not making a cent out of it either. The way forward is to give up ye’re auld suckler cows, plant the land, rear a few calves and hope Larry et al continue there loss making activities to take them off us. The EU might give us a few quid at us for keeping the countryside tidy. If we want meat there is plenty more environmental friendly beef being reared in Brazil, America etc that we can import.

Hard Knocks

Bass Reeves wrote: »

In a way I cannot understand the facination with suckler's by some farmers. Suckler's only really took off in the 80&90's when you had both beef price supports and premia together. Now whether we like it or not supports are reducing and the market place is the only solution to our lack of income. That means that supporting production in certain sectors only benefits processor's

Suckler herds increased in this area around that time due to cost of living lads had to get a job and it was hard to milk 20-35 cows and have a job, but you could run a suckler herd of same size with w job

Hard Knocks

wrangler wrote: »

No one takes farming serious now and the farmer carry on over the last twelve months won't have helped.

I gather you mean the public and powers that be rather that the men & women busting a gut in these weather conditions

kk.man

Jjameson wrote: »

There’s nothing new in it essentially but there’s no lies in it either as far as I can see but what use is it?
A real effort to grasp the uk and Irish retail value of Irish prime beef is what should have been attempted. A 3 month price watch of uk and Irish retailers. A 3 month price watch of Irish wholesale beef prices to the catering industry. (They are adamant that they too are being rode..)

That's one way to get a insight into the margins but Power relied on a quotation from a Cormac Healy radio interview which IMO was unprofessional. He used this quote to put a estimate figure on what was the factory controlled feedlots percent of the Beef kill.

I am not slamming IFA now but I'd love to know what they paid him for this investigation. I have good time for Power as an economicst but this report was not his finest hour.

Bass Reeves

Jjameson wrote: »

Bord bias stab at it is that r grade steer @ 3.97 a kg, a average retail price of €8.90 (Which looks low?) is 59% returned to producer. Excluding the elusive fifth quarter.

With regard to corley his rise to the top of such an enormous and enthusiastic militant movement wasn’t dissimilar to the rise of a lot Of Sinn Fein TDS. Made the right noises but has nothing to back them up.

Not only is the retail beef price looking low but they chose an r grade steer at 3.97/kg. At present an R grade steer is making 3.85/kg, the average over the last 13 months is about 3.6/kg or lower. But the vast majority of beef slaughtered is at O grade and lower. Did O= QA steers average 3.55 in the last 12 months. Average in cow and over 30months beef prices as well as bull beef prices and even if the 8.9/kg is right you get a way different result. If Bord Bia told me the sun was shining I look out the window to make sure

But what I cannot understand is that they managed to link suckler cows to this sh!the report. No mention of calf export or calf slaughtering and the effects this may have on the beef industry, no mention of continued dairy expansion in it and there effects. No it critical for a beef industry that we bring in supports for the suckler cow. It so funny you would laugh at it if it was not serious.

Wrangler I see again you cannot post in any thread with out bringing in BP and blaming it for something or other. Mac I do not believe that afforrestation is the answer to rural Ireland issue I do think on farms that we need to start including it as part of the solution I have seen returns from lads that have planted 15-20% of there poorer land and it can bring in a lump sum to educate children or provide a supplement to a pension. However nether do I consider an extra 50-100euro on a Suckler cow as an answer and I definitely can see that we need to downsize our beef production output.

If Jim has mentioned suckler's with the intention of bringing in a grass fed beef brand I would have understood that. It's my opinion that smaller producers need is a grass fed beef brand to distinguish there beef from what is becoming a commodity product finished out of feedlots. Across the industry (in both beef and dairying) there is a head in sand attitude that everything will be all right on the day. But what many fail to see is the present cycle cannot continue as there are too many dogs tied in places that will be left loose or start barking at some stage.

wrangler

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Not only is the retail beef price looking low but they chose an r grade steer at 3.97/kg. At present an R grade steer is making 3.85/kg, the average over the last 13 months is about 3.6/kg or lower. But the vast majority of beef slaughtered is at O grade and lower. Did O= QA steers average 3.55 in the last 12 months. Average in cow and over 30months beef prices as well as bull beef prices and even if the 8.9/kg is right you get a way different result. If Bord Bia told me the sun was shining I look out the window to make sure

But what I cannot understand is that they managed to link suckler cows to this sh!the report. No mention of calf export or calf slaughtering and the effects this may have on the beef industry, no mention of continued dairy expansion in it and there effects. No it critical for a beef industry that we bring in supports for the suckler cow. It so funny you would laugh at it if it was not serious.

Wrangler I see again you cannot post in any thread with out bringing in BP and blaming it for something or other. Mac I do not believe that afforrestation is the answer to rural Ireland issue I do think on farms that we need to start including it as part of the solution I have seen returns from lads that have planted 15-20% of there poorer land and it can bring in a lump sum to educate children or provide a supplement to a pension. However nether do I consider an extra 50-100euro on a Suckler cow as an answer and I definitely can see that we need to downsize our beef production output.

If Jim has mentioned suckler's with the intention of bringing in a grass fed beef brand I would have understood that. It's my opinion that smaller producers need is a grass fed beef brand to distinguish there beef from what is becoming a commodity product finished out of feedlots. Across the industry (in both beef and dairying) there is a head in sand attitude that everything will be all right on the day. But what many fail to see is the present cycle cannot continue as there are too many dogs tied in places that will be left loose or start barking at some stage.

And you badmouth IFA and IFJ, so we're even.

Loads of experts like you around yet we are where we are.
''He who can does; he who cannot, teaches.''
and Critics are even worse

Siamsa Sessions

I asked at our county meeting last week, what would this report be used for? The county chair was at a national council meeting that day, when the report was published.

Farmers have paid for it, through the IFA, and I'm sure Jim Power doesn't work for free. So how much did it cost and what will we get for it?

It's been 13 months in the making apparently. That's the bones of 56 weeks. Say Jim Power worked on it for the equivalent of one full day per week. A bog-standard consultant will look for 700 euro/day, but I'm sure Jim Power charges more and the IFA top-brass would hardly drive a hard bargain when faced with a man in an expensive suit and a nice accent.

Say they gave him "only" 800/day, so for 56 days that's 44,800 euro. Add in some travel expenses for Jim Power, editing and graphic design, printing, and whatever time the staffers at the Farm Centre spent on it. All ballpark figures, but you're talking about a minimum of 50k.

So, what are we going to get for our 50k?

* Strong evidence to back up the need for suckler supports? Doesn't sound like it.
* New information in the public domain on the unfairness in the supply chain? Hardly, if the factories were only laughing at poor oul Jim's request for their private business details
* What then???

I didn't want to put our county chair on the spot as he had only received the report that day, so I asked him if there was any talk among the hierarchy about what the report would do for those who paid for it. I'm almost afraid to type out his response: he said our new President claimed he'd use it to force retailers to pay a better price...

As someone on the floor said, "I'd say Tesco are bricking it!"

wrangler

Siamsa Sessions wrote: »

I asked at our county meeting last week, what would this report be used for? The county chair was at a national council meeting that day, when the report was published.

Farmers have paid for it, through the IFA, and I'm sure Jim Power doesn't work for free. So how much did it cost and what will we get for it?

It's been 13 months in the making apparently. That's the bones of 56 weeks. Say Jim Power worked on it for the equivalent of one full day per week. A bog-standard consultant will look for 700 euro/day, but I'm sure Jim Power charges more and the IFA top-brass would hardly drive a hard bargain when faced with a man in an expensive suit and a nice accent.

Say they gave him "only" 800/day, so for 56 days that's 44,800 euro. Add in some travel expenses for Jim Power, editing and graphic design, printing, and whatever time the staffers at the Farm Centre spent on it. All ballpark figures, but you're talking about a minimum of 50k.

So, what are we going to get for our 50k?

* Strong evidence to back up the need for suckler supports? Doesn't sound like it.
* New information in the public domain on the unfairness in the supply chain? Hardly, if the factories were only laughing at poor oul Jim's request for their private business details
* What then???

I didn't want to put our county chair on the spot as he had only received the report that day, so I asked him if there was any talk among the hierarchy about what the report would do for those who paid for it. I'm almost afraid to type out his response: he said our new President claimed he'd use it to force retailers to pay a better price...

As someone on the floor said, "I'd say Tesco are bricking it!"

We have Kevin at our County exec tomorrow night I must make an effort to go

Siamsa Sessions

wrangler wrote: »

We have Kevin at our County exec tomorrow night I must make an effort to go

I'm sure he'll be delighted to see you there!

Whatever about the cost of the report, I'd be very interested in what it's going to do for the people who paid for it.

Or who is the target audience?

kk.man

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Not only is the retail beef price looking low but they chose an r grade steer at 3.97/kg. At present an R grade steer is making 3.85/kg, the average over the last 13 months is about 3.6/kg or lower. But the vast majority of beef slaughtered is at O grade and lower. Did O= QA steers average 3.55 in the last 12 months. Average in cow and over 30months beef prices as well as bull beef prices and even if the 8.9/kg is right you get a way different result. If Bord Bia told me the sun was shining I look out the window to make sure

But what I cannot understand is that they managed to link suckler cows to this sh!the report. No mention of calf export or calf slaughtering and the effects this may have on the beef industry, no mention of continued dairy expansion in it and there effects. No it critical for a beef industry that we bring in supports for the suckler cow. It so funny you would laugh at it if it was not serious.

Wrangler I see again you cannot post in any thread with out bringing in BP and blaming it for something or other. Mac I do not believe that afforrestation is the answer to rural Ireland issue I do think on farms that we need to start including it as part of the solution I have seen returns from lads that have planted 15-20% of there poorer land and it can bring in a lump sum to educate children or provide a supplement to a pension. However nether do I consider an extra 50-100euro on a Suckler cow as an answer and I definitely can see that we need to downsize our beef production output.

If Jim has mentioned suckler's with the intention of bringing in a grass fed beef brand I would have understood that. It's my opinion that smaller producers need is a grass fed beef brand to distinguish there beef from what is becoming a commodity product finished out of feedlots. Across the industry (in both beef and dairying) there is a head in sand attitude that everything will be all right on the day. But what many fail to see is the present cycle cannot continue as there are too many dogs tied in places that will be left loose or start barking at some stage.

I think those figures represent what was paid for cattle across the board not to the Joe Soaps. This had right to be clarified before using them in a report.

Cattlepen

Lads, all this shire talk is getting tedious. Beef, what ever way you look at it, is a high value low margin business. Whinging is not going to fix it. I tried to contribute to beef plan for the first week but the lunatic fringe were taking over even at that early stage. It’s a commodity and if your farming it you just have to take whatever is left at the end of the food gain. That’s the reality of it. Youse are lucky to have Larry good man to market it for ye. Who else would take the guff for small beer. Get a job or retrain or plant. The moaning is getting to be a pain in the hole. Suckler beef is dead

Siamsa Sessions

Cattlepen wrote: »

Lads, all this shire talk is getting tedious. Beef, what ever way you look at it, is a high value low margin business. Whinging is not going to fix it. I tried to contribute to beef plan for the first week but the lunatic fringe were taking over even at that early stage. It’s a commodity and if your farming it you just have to take whatever is left at the end of the food gain. That’s the reality of it. Youse are lucky to have Larry good man to market it for ye. Who else would take the guff for small beer. Get a job or retrain or plant. The moaning is getting to be a pain in the hole. Suckler beef is dead

I don't know if suckler beef is dead, but I'm hearing similar to what you're saying at our monthly IFA meetings: If things are that bad, get out. If not, get on with it.

That's not from the top-table or anything - it's suckler men from the floor saying it to others in the room.

_Brian

Beef farming is about the direct payment and retaining as much of that as possible at the end of the year, in itself it’s not a remotely profitable business plan from the perspective of providing a living income.

Maybe there are more recent figures but last i saw only 30% of beef farms managed not to spend at least some of the direct payment to supplement their beef operation.

Most lads I talk to keeping up suckler numbers are only doing so on the hopes there yet another bailout payment coming or perhaps a rehash of cap that somehow takes stocking density into account. Or because they can’t imagine doing anything different and love breeding cows.

If you showed any normal business person the accounts of a suckler farm with 30 cows they would laugh and tell you to sell everything and stop wasting your time being a busy fool.

wrangler

Siamsa Sessions wrote: »

I don't know if suckler beef is dead, but I'm hearing similar to what you're saying at our monthly IFA meetings: If things are that bad, get out. If not, get on with it.

That's not from the top-table or anything - it's suckler men from the floor saying it to others in the room.

I didn't get to the meeting after, I had to visit the chiropractor, I'd unreal pain in leg after a sheep upending me.
Some of those guys are gifted, ''six weeks physio in six minutes'' I call it

Bass Reeves

_Brian wrote: »

Beef farming is about the direct payment and retaining as much of that as possible at the end of the year, in itself it’s not a remotely profitable business plan from the perspective of providing a living income.

Maybe there are more recent figures but last i saw only 30% of beef farms managed not to spend at least some of the direct payment to supplement their beef operation.

Most lads I talk to keeping up suckler numbers are only doing so on the hopes there yet another bailout payment coming or perhaps a rehash of cap that somehow takes stocking density into account. Or because they can’t imagine doing anything different and love breeding cows.

If you showed any normal business person the accounts of a suckler farm with 30 cows they would laugh and tell you to sell everything and stop wasting your time being a busy fool.

To a certain extent accounts presented to revenue are dependent on a farmer circumstances. Anybody employed will not want to show a profit that you have to pay Tax, USC and PRSI at nearly 55% if on the high rate of tax. Therefore lads make lifestyle choices and write off as much to tax as possible if farming part time.

Having said all that there is still poor profitability in the sector. Costs are becoming horrendus. But some lads are not helping themselves. Suckler themselves struggle with profitability unless you are at the top of you game. You cannot be any way inefficient and neither do they allow for inefficiency in cost.The get out of jail of finishing as bulls is gone. Finishing the calves in general is a struggle as you have not got the economy of scale.

On the other hand running 20ish cows or 40-60 bullocks and complaining about profitability driving around in a land cruiser and 50-80K in tractor and machinery around the place is hard to figure as well.You have to run a tight ship and make sure you are focused on profitability and understand what is a cost and what is a lifestyle choice.

Too many lads producing at a loss or low margin are unwilling to change there system. Giving them an extra subsidity to stay at what they are at is costing the rest of us. Larry loves extra beef to sell the more there is the less he will pay us.

That is why I cannot understand how a report on the beef industry proposed extra suckler payments as about the only solution, and it was not a solution. So I cannot figure where it came from.

kk.man

Bass Reeves wrote: »

To a certain extent accounts presented to revenue are dependent on a farmer circumstances. Anybody employed will not want to show a profit that you have to pay Tax, USC and PRSI at nearly 55% if on the high rate of tax. Therefore lads make lifestyle choices and write off as much to tax as possible if farming part time.

Having said all that there is still poor profitability in the sector. Costs are becoming horrendus. But some lads are not helping themselves. Suckler themselves struggle with profitability unless you are at the top of you game. You cannot be any way inefficient and neither do they allow for inefficiency in cost.The get out of jail of finishing as bulls is gone. Finishing the calves in general is a struggle as you have not got the economy of scale.

On the other hand running 20ish cows or 40-60 bullocks and complaining about profitability driving around in a land cruiser and 50-80K in tractor and machinery around the place is hard to figure as well.You have to run a tight ship and make sure you are focused on profitability and understand what is a cost and what is a lifestyle choice.

Too many lads producing at a loss or low margin are unwilling to change there system. Giving them an extra subsidity to stay at what they are at is costing the rest of us. Larry loves extra beef to sell the more there is the less he will pay us.

That is why I cannot understand how a report on the beef industry proposed extra suckler payments as about the only solution, and it was not a solution. So I cannot figure where it came from.

IMO he was given a brief/or has an image that a typical beef farm is a suckler farm.

With regard to no collusion on beef prices, why didn't the IFA give him a years free subscription of the Journal for a year and when he would open the back pages he would see the quotes from the plants nationwide are all the same. These are the prices been paid to the small and average beef finisher.

His remarks “If beef processing is so god damn profitable why don’t farmers do it…?” are a sure sign of his lack knowledge of the beef industry.
If research this topic properly he would have found the 5th quarter is almost solely controlled. In order to qualify a report on beef the 5th quarter is a vital part of whole processing industry.

wrangler

kk.man wrote: »

IMO he was given a brief/or has an image that a typical beef farm is a suckler farm.

With regard to no collusion on beef prices, why didn't the IFA give him a years free subscription of the Journal for a year and when he would open the back pages he would see the quotes from the plants nationwide are all the same. These are the prices been paid to the small and average beef finisher.

His remarks “If beef processing is so god damn profitable why don’t farmers do it…?” are a sure sign of his lack knowledge of the beef industry.
If research this topic properly he would have found the 5th quarter is almost solely controlled. In order to qualify a report on beef the 5th quarter is a vital part of whole processing industry.

That's just a handy excuse, Begrudgery in Ireland against those that do well is pathetic, it's a joke that 50000 farmers can't finance and manage a processing industry and yet persist in complaining the way they do.
Again authors of their own demise.
Jim is right, he probably got sick of the whinge when he made his remark, time to put up now or shut up
Our local abbatoir owner had nothing starting and is well off now, even though he built it up through the same times that farmer management broke IMP

kk.man

wrangler wrote: »

That's just a handy excuse, Begrudgery in Ireland against those that do well is pathetic, it's a joke that farmers can't finance and manage a processing industry and yet persist in complaining the way they do.
Again authors of their own demise.
Jim is right, he probably got sick of the whinge when he made his remark, time to put up or shut up
Our local abbatoir owner had nothing starting and is well off now, even though he built it up through the same times that farmer management broke IMP

Wrangler I am not begrudging anyone, in fact I take my hat off to anyone who does well in business. I am merely outlining the gaps in the report and thus by these gapping holes how could one come to these conclusions.

I know of a few who started off with nothing in the business as like your friend and likewise are comfortable now but how many today could do the same?

The only part of the report dealing with retailers I am in agreement with. They do the least work and extract the biggest margin. I also agree with the statement that the processing side is low margin however when translated to mass production it goes from crumbs to gold and that gold goes almost untaxed in corporation tax and different state tax havens. Which again I don't begrudge because if I was in the same situation I would avail of same.

wrangler

kk.man wrote: »

Wrangler I am not begrudging anyone, in fact I take my hat off to anyone who does well in business. I am merely outlining the gaps in the report and thus by these gapping holes how could one come to these conclusions.

I know of a few who started off with nothing in the business as like your friend and likewise are comfortable now but how many today could do the same?

The only part of the report dealing with retailers I am in agreement with. They do the least work and extract the biggest margin. I also agree with the statement that the processing side is low margin however when translated to mass production it goes from crumbs to gold and that gold goes almost untaxed in corporation tax and different state tax havens. Which again I don't begrudge because if I was in the same situation I would avail of same.

The general opinion is farmers don't pay tax either, the year of the pat smith saga, the Irish Times claimed we threw Pat Smith out over a 250000 overpayment after he delivering 40m in tax concessions to irish farmers
Joe healy claimed that farmers got 600m in the last five years from the government as well as 9bn from EU.
Isn't it shameful we've not developed a processing industry after all of that