IFA and Factory Bitching thread.

Reggie. wrote: »

Not really I know many dairy farmers around you who teasgac are telling to expand as they have too much silage it SR is too low. They are refusing as they say it makes no sense but the issue is constantly pushed. Alot of lads levelling off at 100 cows

MeTheMan wrote: »

Would someone please think of the sheep farmers!!

Bass Reeves wrote: »

People wonder why beef farmers have a disdain for the IFA and are angry with them. Mind you it is not just beef farmers but most drystock farmers Over the last twenty years and especially over the last 10 in area's of better land beef farming is gone part time. Instead of working with these farmers IFA has resisted this change. They failed to see that for most full time drystock farming achieving a realistic scale was impossible. They abandoned all these farmers and you had the debacle during the last CAP reforms with the General Secretary threatening those that wanted reform and rebalancing of payments. He threatened them with regionalization so as to protect payments to farmers on better land. As well you had the inequity that any farmer with a PAYE job was not entitled to serve as an IFA officier. It seemed a kind of attitude of we will take your money but keep you mouth shut, go into the corner and take what crumbs we give you off the table.

When the debacle of IFA pay came along these farmers felt even more let down. It was particular galling for those in the lower margin area of beef where the IFA could collect leavies 2-3 times on the same animal while only collecting once on more profitable systems such as Milk, white meat and grain. So some of these farmers voted with there pockets and stopped paying leavies. However IFA has still not responded to there anger it has just shoved it head deeper in the sand and ignored it. IFA has as good as lobbied against producer groups, and has allowed over the last 10 years schemes like REPS into unviable schemes for smaller farmers while this money has funneled it way into larger farmers pockets. It has got to the stage where those in designated area's such SAC's, Natura and Hen harrier land have to jump through hoops to collect a few hundred euro while those with larger land banks can collect 4-5K with minimum effort. As well those with lower payments see the department allowed to cut these payments by more though rigid enforcement of rules. On top of all that over the last 2-3 years we see micky mouse schemes set up and the main benificiry is Teagasc and consultants. There answer to all this was a Save the Sucker's campaign to throw more money into Larry pocket.

I see the Beefplan group as having problems they seem to have no clear direction. As other say 82 point of action is about 70 too many. While I applaud there integrity and willingness to put there head above the parapet I fear they fail to understand the economics of the beef game. All they can really do for the beef sector is change policy and regulation. I think too many do not under what producer groups as advocated by the EU about 3 years ago now was supposed to achieve. Mainly forward pricing and access for all farmers to the same prices across the sector. This over time would lift all beef prices as the lowest priced beef dictates the price of all beef and for that matter lamb and white meat prices. This and forcing government to get the NASI to certify grading machines along with monitor and trim would start to stop the sharp practices and cute hoorism with in the sector. The idea that you can change price by stopping cattle going into factories is childish the same as chaining trolley's and blocking supermarket ailes in Ireland which accounts for 5-7% of out total market.

However as well farmers have to understand if you are not farming at a profit already nothing any organisation can do will change that. All you can do is reduce scale to reduce losses, farm the payments and or change your system. For the last ten years Teagasc and the Rag were on about the top 10% of these drystock farmers and how we all need to achieve this. But we have seen two drystock project farms failing at the first hurdle of running a high cost system. The Tullamore one lost money before land rental and labour payments were paid for so much for efficiency.

So where to from here I am not really sure. All I know is that the IFA will lobby against my interest's so I will not support them. It is too intertwined with the Department, Teagasc and with the present system. It will again lobby against any radical changes in the BPS next year. It will lobby for actions that will mainly help retired farmers more than active farmers. It will act more in the interest of larger feedlot operation rather than the smaller operators. So sorry if it loses power and influence I for one will not worry too much.

wrangler wrote: »

have to say that offering farmers €40/cow sets the level of respect that PS have for farmer.
Two golfers were out playing golf once, At the end of the round the cute hoor says, I've to go to the car will you tip the caddys.
In the bar afterwards the cute hoor says, did you tip the caddies, other guy says '' I did, I gave mine €20 and I gave yours 50c''
Cute hoor says ''what did you do that for'', other guy says ''If I gave him nothing, he'd say you forgot, but by giving 50c he'd know you were a mean bastard''

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

You hit the nail on the head , €40 is an insult as are the other schemes , we have social engineering at work here and until we radicalise like the French we are wasting our time , they have maintained and increased their subsidy for suckler farmers .
Our last two ministers and PS are aligned with the industry not farmers and as has been pointed out ad infinitum , the IFA represents too many interests ; the beef plan movement may be able to give a voice to farmers in the beef sector.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

People wonder why beef farmers have a disdain for the IFA and are angry with them. Mind you it is not just beef farmers but most drystock farmers Over the last twenty years and especially over the last 10 in area's of better land beef farming is gone part time. Instead of working with these farmers IFA has resisted this change. They failed to see that for most full time drystock farming achieving a realistic scale was impossible. They abandoned all these farmers and you had the debacle during the last CAP reforms with the General Secretary threatening those that wanted reform and rebalancing of payments. He threatened them with regionalization so as to protect payments to farmers on better land. As well you had the inequity that any farmer with a PAYE job was not entitled to serve as an IFA officier. It seemed a kind of attitude of we will take your money but keep you mouth shut, go into the corner and take what crumbs we give you off the table.

When the debacle of IFA pay came along these farmers felt even more let down. It was particular galling for those in the lower margin area of beef where the IFA could collect leavies 2-3 times on the same animal while only collecting once on more profitable systems such as Milk, white meat and grain. So some of these farmers voted with there pockets and stopped paying leavies. However IFA has still not responded to there anger it has just shoved it head deeper in the sand and ignored it. IFA has as good as lobbied against producer groups, and has allowed over the last 10 years schemes like REPS into unviable schemes for smaller farmers while this money has funneled it way into larger farmers pockets. It has got to the stage where those in designated area's such SAC's, Natura and Hen harrier land have to jump through hoops to collect a few hundred euro while those with larger land banks can collect 4-5K with minimum effort. As well those with lower payments see the department allowed to cut these payments by more though rigid enforcement of rules. On top of all that over the last 2-3 years we see micky mouse schemes set up and the main benificiry is Teagasc and consultants. There answer to all this was a Save the Sucker's campaign to throw more money into Larry pocket.

I see the Beefplan group as having problems they seem to have no clear direction. As other say 82 point of action is about 70 too many. While I applaud there integrity and willingness to put there head above the parapet I fear they fail to understand the economics of the beef game. All they can really do for the beef sector is change policy and regulation. I think too many do not under what producer groups as advocated by the EU about 3 years ago now was supposed to achieve. Mainly forward pricing and access for all farmers to the same prices across the sector. This over time would lift all beef prices as the lowest priced beef dictates the price of all beef and for that matter lamb and white meat prices. This and forcing government to get the NASI to certify grading machines along with monitor and trim would start to stop the sharp practices and cute hoorism with in the sector. The idea that you can change price by stopping cattle going into factories is childish the same as chaining trolley's and blocking supermarket ailes in Ireland which accounts for 5-7% of out total market.

However as well farmers have to understand if you are not farming at a profit already nothing any organisation can do will change that. All you can do is reduce scale to reduce losses, farm the payments and or change your system. For the last ten years Teagasc and the Rag were on about the top 10% of these drystock farmers and how we all need to achieve this. But we have seen two drystock project farms failing at the first hurdle of running a high cost system. The Tullamore one lost money before land rental and labour payments were paid for so much for efficiency.

So where to from here I am not really sure. All I know is that the IFA will lobby against my interest's so I will not support them. It is too intertwined with the Department, Teagasc and with the present system. It will again lobby against any radical changes in the BPS next year. It will lobby for actions that will mainly help retired farmers more than active farmers. It will act more in the interest of larger feedlot operation rather than the smaller operators. So sorry if it loses power and influence I for one will not worry too much.

wrangler wrote: »

I won't be checking out your facts but twenty years ago our county sec was a teacher and National livestock commitee had a postman. Time constraints would probably stop them from taking the chair
The make up of commitees will determine what IFA lobby for and rightly so as they cover a broad no of enterprises. Who ever works for farmers will have to be available to all agri related departments. they always look for input and advice from the farm organisation.
No doubt if the money keeps coming, IFA will keep going, members are entitled to representation and while farmers aren't prepared to strike, a lobby group is all they can be, as I said before the publics service only moving on the grading and trim now after five plus years lobbying is an example, it took three years to get the sheep welfare scheme.
Whatever organisation is the flavour of the day, You're better off in the tent than pissing in, as you'd only be pissing on your foot

wrangler wrote: »

We've got huge support from FBD and Farmers Journal for our lamb group, IFA will help anyone with starting a group if farmers just bother.
Supermarket protests seemed to work for dairy farmers, It's all you can do, Like Cough casey says ''where's your proposals''

Bass Reeves wrote: »

About 3 years ago a postman I think from from Roscommon was stopped from contesting the county chair. On one hand Wrangler you complain that farmers will not support the organisation and will not get involved within IFA structures and on the other hand you are using excuses here as to disenfranchise about what is now over 50% of farmers.

The present structures do not just disenfranchise those working it also prevents a substandical number other drystock getting involved. Any drystock farmers that is in the store to finish market again is virtually excluded as he needs to be in the mart 2-3 days a weeks to carry on his enterprise. A fulltime suckler or sheep farmers may not have the same time pressures. All this adds to the disconnect between the organisation and a large section of the drystock sector.

This gives too much influence to feedlot operators and those within sectors that may be able to schedule there work around present involvement rules.

wrangler wrote: »

What's this with former presidents, people move on, even when I was in IFA I didn't agree with all their Policies but when you went into meetings you had to fly the flag, Former livestock Chairmen are now milking cows, At this stage they've done their best both inside and outside the farm gate to get a viable income out of drystock and are now moving on
If I was asked I'd say my farm has no problem with factories and never had.

early_riser wrote: »

Your in a group with large selling power, icm have the lowest quotes every week for the ordinary farmer since larry took over. Beef needs producer groups that can do the same as your lamb group with selling power

Willfarman wrote: »

On the ball as always Bass.