Proposed suckler cow subsidy

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

A bigger enemy of the farmer in this fight are the dept and affiliated advisors who are pulling a bigger piece of the pie , Goodman will always get his pound of flesh as the system favours him . Maximise subsidy minimise input.

But keep subsidy's away from being linked to peoduction. Totally agree about dept, teagasc , vets and advisors but an subsidy that encourages loss making production cists farmers

Bass Reeves wrote: »

But keep subsidy's away from being linked to peoduction. Totally agree about dept, teagasc , vets and advisors but an subsidy that encourages loss making production cists farmers

John Heney gives a good perspective on this in Farming Independent this week ,My system is simple maximise and retain all subsidy ,break even on production ,take profit as a bonus .

Amusing to read the spiel of **** from Darragh McCullough and then an intelligent well rounded article by John.

Willfarman wrote: »

Amusing to read the spiel of **** from Darragh McCullough and then an intelligent well rounded article by John.

Processors will play farmers any way they like, subsidy or no subsidy.
As coolshannagh says, maximum subsidy, minimum inputs.
Processors can sell anything, I don't think the loss of a supply of suckler beef will affect them a lot, they have markets for everything

wrangler wrote: »

Processors will play farmers any way they like, subsidy or no subsidy.
As coolshannagh says, maximum subsidy, minimum inputs.
Processors can sell anything, I don't think the loss of a supply of suckler beef will affect them a lot, they have markets for everything

Our processors are using the old Ben Dunne strategy " stack it high , sell it cheap" much to the detriment of Irish farmers.

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

Our processors are using the old Ben Dunne strategy " stack it high , sell it cheap" much to the detriment of Irish farmers.

They don't care about price just margin/kg and numbers

wrangler wrote: »

They don't care about price just margin/kg and numbers

And directly subsidizing production for them plays straight into their hand.

Willfarman wrote: »

And directly subsidizing production for them plays straight into their hand.

The sheep welfare scheme hasn't exactly caused an explosion in ewe numbers
You can see conspiracies in everything if you're like that I suppose.

Luckily a dramatic exodus had taken place before its inception. But would any sheep farmer argued against a payment to reduce his or her flock? It wasn’t up for discussion. Industry government and a corrupt quango purporting to be a union representing farmers all colluded and drew it up..

grassroot1

Might as well support the suckler cow because every suckler that goes will be replaced by a dairy cow and her byproduct calf.

The problem with the suckler cow is that her quality product is stacked high and sold cheap in the UK multiples in our processors low margin model , subsidy will give a stay of execution, to refuse more subsidy in a subsidised model is illogical.

Willfarman wrote: »

Luckily a dramatic exodus had taken place before its inception. But would any sheep farmer argued against a payment to reduce his or her flock? It wasn’t up for discussion. Industry government and a corrupt quango purporting to be a union representing farmers all colluded and drew it up..

As I say you can twist anything if you're like that....if you think everyone's out to get you.
Getting a scheme in place to pay you for what should be done anyway is a win win and If I still had 500 ewes her I'd certainly welcome it. The scheme you're giving out about is the least onerous scheme we've had
Farmers have persisted in staying out of deciding policy and whingeing about those who did try to influence it and will now suffer the consequences, they can't even steer milk price and they own the coops.
Nice to be away from it all really, the farming and especially representation.

kk.man

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

The problem with the suckler cow is that her quality product is stacked high and sold cheap in the UK multiples in our processors low margin model , subsidy will give a stay of execution, to refuse more subsidy in a subsidised model is illogical.

That was a little tongue in cheek to be honest. But if the ewe can’t carry her costs and leave a little twist from the marketplace I don’t want to keep her for a subsidy.

Willfarman wrote: »

That was a little tongue in cheek to be honest. But if the ewe can’t carry her costs and leave a little twist from the marketplace I don’t want to keep her for a subsidy.

I won't refuse a subsidy, that and filling out the SBP is the easiest money you'll make farming.......leasing entitlements is probably easier without farming :rolleyes:

That’s the point and that’s the way to keep it. No bloody point having to go out in muck and scuttle to look after a suckler cow for the few bob. Keep the money linked to the farm family and environment and only keep what stock the marketplace gives a twist on.

Base price

grassroot1 wrote: »

Might as well support the suckler cow because every suckler that goes will be replaced by a dairy cow and her byproduct calf.

A few years ago (3 or 4) when I went to the Bord Bia stand at the Ploughing Championships I was surprised that they were championing FR beef as been the most suitable for our export markets. Apparently the steaks fit into the plastic trays better (less trimming) than other breeds.

grassroot1 wrote: »

Might as well support the suckler cow because every suckler that goes will be replaced by a dairy cow and her byproduct calf.

Most land used for suckler cows is unsuitable for dairy. As the dairy herd is maturing a higher percentage of calves are from beef breeds as well Friesians are no byproduct. Jerseys crosses yes but lads still buy them. Most suckler carcasses go too heavy for the UK market if over 360kgs. A suckler carcass less than 400kgs is loss making animal after cow costs are taken into account

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

The problem with the suckler cow is that her quality product is stacked high and sold cheap in the UK multiples in our processors low margin model , subsidy will give a stay of execution, to refuse more subsidy in a subsidised model is illogical.

Biggest issue in Irish farming is cattle badly done. Recently at a mart I say 3 suckler bullocks average weight 355kgs, April 16 born. From the look of them there was 100kgs between the heaviest and lightest. The problem with a suckler subsidy linked to production is it encourages lads like this to expand and or stay in the system.

Willfarman wrote: »

That’s the point and that’s the way to keep it. No bloody point having to go out in muck and scuttle to look after a suckler cow for the few bob. Keep the money linked to the farm family and environment and only keep what stock the marketplace gives a twist on.

This is the whole point take away the link from the cow and calf and I have no issue. You wonder why the vested interest are pushing this. It would be much more benifical to suckler farmers if they pushed for costs to be taken away from Glas, cow welfare and discussion groups and put more money in these schemes and target them at suckler farmers rather than giving Larry a subsidy o f cheaper beef.

This summer showed us how the processors take advantage of extra beef being produced. IMO we got hit for 20c/kg this summer on a 400kg suckler carcass that is 80 euro. that eats into a lot of an subsidy.

Base price wrote: »

A few years ago (3 or 4) when I went to the Bord Bia stand at the Ploughing Championships I was surprised that they were championing FR beef as been the most suitable for our export markets. Apparently the steaks fit into the plastic trays better (less trimming) than other breeds.

Not only that FR/HO beef has won taste competitions when compared to other breeds,

bogman_bass

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Not only that FR/HO beef has won taste competitions when compared to other breeds,

Every breed has won one of those at some stage. I thanks no Head any more

Mac Taylor

The icsma had a great idea, 200 euro for each cow you took out of the system from your baseline.
Ifj and others poo pooed the idea

Mac Taylor wrote: »

The icsma had a great idea, 200 euro for each cow you took out of the system from your baseline.
Ifj and others poo pooed the idea

It was the ICA and yes it was a much better idea. but it would not sell Farmer Journals longterm or help IFA membership and teagasc fees might take a hit as well

Mac Taylor

Would make lads think, 200 euro for nothing and a better price you would hope for those that would want to stay at it.

How many are making 200 per cow?

A bit more common sense to today’s journal from what i seen of it.. viable market price needed or forget it.

Very good article on the myths about the suckler cow by Darragh McCullough in todays indo. Gives the opposing view to the IFA/IFJ line on the suckler cow.

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/it-simply-isnt-there-creed-pours-cold-water-on-calls-for-suckler-payments/

The best course of action now is to take from the sfp and hand it straight to the Goodman’s.

Willfarman wrote: »

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/it-simply-isnt-there-creed-pours-cold-water-on-calls-for-suckler-payments/

The best course of action now is to take from the sfp and hand it straight to the Goodman’s.

Decoupled payments essentially mean payments being dispersed away from farmers to advisors ,vets and the dept .

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

Decoupled payments essentially mean payments being dispersed away from farmers to advisors ,vets and the dept . and Larry

Corrected that

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Very good article on the myths about the suckler cow by Darragh McCullough in todays indo. Gives the opposing view to the IFA/IFJ line on the suckler cow.

Begob he didn’t hold back! A good article is right.

Willfarman wrote: »

Begob he didn’t hold back! A good article is right.

Indo is no friend of the journal