Beef Plan Movement (READ OP BEFORE POSTING)

Genghis Cant · 09-02-2019 01:08AM

Beef Plan Movement. It's in the thread title.

Please back on topic. Thanks!

memorystick · 09-02-2019 10:14PM

Genghis Cant wrote: »

Beef Plan Movement. It's in the thread title.

Please back on topic. Thanks!

Not too many beef lads able to pay into a pension scheme or have off farm investment. Sums everything up really.

Siamsa Sessions · 09-02-2019 10:46PM

memorystick wrote: »

Genghis Cant wrote: »

Beef Plan Movement. It's in the thread title.

Please back on topic. Thanks!

Not too many beef lads able to pay into a pension scheme or have off farm investment. Sums everything up really.

As with the animal, the farmer must survive first before he/she can think about thriving.

Re BPM: any word on how the meeting with the Dept went?

wrangler · 10-02-2019 07:47AM

Siamsa Sessions wrote: »

As with the animal, the farmer must survive first before he/she can think about thriving.

Re BPM: any word on how the meeting with the Dept went?

Badmouthing the Department for the last two months wouldn't have been a help for a start.
I could imagine them trying to represent a farmer with a BPS problem at the mo,

gerryirl · 10-02-2019 02:46PM

wrangler wrote: »

Badmouthing the Department for the last two months wouldn't have been a help for a start.
I could imagine them trying to represent a farmer with a BPS problem at the mo,

Well kissing the Dept's arse wouldn't have helped much either

wrangler · 10-02-2019 03:34PM

gerryirl wrote: »

Well kissing the Dept's arse wouldn't have helped much either

Always found them the best of the Public Service, You wouldn't believe the cockups farmers make.
Bettter to have them as an allie

wrangler · 11-02-2019 10:14AM

gerryirl wrote: »

Well kissing the Dept's arse wouldn't have helped much either

No one's going to do anything for them when they're at what they're at, never saw factories put up the price while we were at the gates, be funny if that was what was stalling the price rise the the moment, processors won't be bullied

gerryirl · 11-02-2019 08:28PM

wrangler wrote: »

No one's going to do anything for them when they're at what they're at, never saw factories put up the price while we were at the gates, be funny if that was what was stalling the price rise the the moment, processors won't be bullied

What you recommend they do ?. Start spit shining there shoes for them is it

wrangler · 11-02-2019 09:21PM

gerryirl wrote: »

What you recommend they do ?. Start spit shining there shoes for them is it

Like the nurses they need to a lot more aggressive, even if they start killing a couple thousand cattle/week they're not going to make much impact on beef price.They'd be too much like the new boy at the ring in the mart and you know what happens them.

tractorporn · 18-02-2019 11:06AM

Check this out on Agriland - 4 movement rule ‘a private arrangement’ between MII and IFA https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/4-movement-rule-a-private-arrangement-between-mii-and-ifa/

I am really interested in how they are going to defend this one?

wrangler · 18-02-2019 11:11AM

tractorporn wrote: »

Check this out on Agriland - 4 movement rule ‘a private arrangement’ between MII and IFA https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/4-movement-rule-a-private-arrangement-between-mii-and-ifa/

I am really interested in how they are going to defend this one?

simple, factories wanted it restricted to three movements, would you suggest IFA stayed out of it
There's times they'd be better to stay out of it.
What's wrong with BPM now, why aren't they withdrawing supplies now to get their way

tractorporn · 18-02-2019 11:16AM

wrangler wrote: »

simple, factories wanted it restricted to three movements, would you suggest they stayed out of it

In a word yes!

Because now it looks like they are complicit. If they factories wanted it restricted on their own we at least know that they are the ones setting an anti competitive agenda.

If you can't see the optics of this to the average farmer your out of touch.

Bass Reeves · 18-02-2019 11:24AM

TBH I do not have an issue with the 4 movement rule. In a way it prevents some messing around the ring. It only effects cattle that qualify for QA so 0= or better. it is immaterial to bulls and cows. I am not sure what the hang up some lads have over it. I think getting O- cattle into the bonus is more important

wrangler · 18-02-2019 11:25AM

tractorporn wrote: »

In a word yes!

Because now it looks like they are complicit. If they factories wanted it restricted on their own we at least know that they are the ones setting an anti competitive agenda.

If you can't see the optics of this to the average farmer your out of touch.

So you want farmers unrepresented, all rules and regulations brought in unchallenged, we were QA on our lambs long before bord bia etc took it on.
Why don't farmers stop paying subs and stop this incessant whinge, I've long since said fiuckem, and I don't mean the organisation

wrangler · 18-02-2019 11:35AM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

TBH I do not have an issue with the 4 movement rule. In a way it prevents some messing around the ring. It only effects cattle that qualify for QA so 0= or better. it is immaterial to bulls and cows. I am not sure what the hang up some lads have over it. I think getting O- cattle into the bonus is more important

I never found QA onerous, always flew it and I would always take part in any promotion ICM or Bord bia wanted,

tractorporn · 18-02-2019 12:35PM

wrangler wrote: »

So you want farmers unrepresented, all rules and regulations brought in unchallenged, we were QA on our lambs long before bord bia etc took it on.
Why don't farmers stop paying subs and stop this incessant whinge, I've long since said fiuckem, and I don't mean the organisation

No I want real representation that works for us. That when unfair rules and regulations which are not part of any DAFM/EU regulations are brought in and they are backed into a corner, go publish the details and name and shame the parties, not lie over and make a deal.

To my mind the 30 month rule, 4 movements, 70 day residence and travel restrictions for offal are all anti competitive and should not have been allowed in or in the case of the 30 month rule scrapped once bse had been eliminated from the country.

Willfarman · 18-02-2019 12:41PM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

TBH I do not have an issue with the 4 movement rule. In a way it prevents some messing around the ring. It only effects cattle that qualify for QA so 0= or better. it is immaterial to bulls and cows. I am not sure what the hang up some lads have over it. I think getting O- cattle into the bonus is more important

There no great bother with the movements here either I have always been in agreement with it. but I completely agree with bass I am running into bother at times with o- on well finished square cattle. 4+ Fats is the other trapdoor. Prime top shelf British supermarket beef at canner cow price.

wrangler · 18-02-2019 12:46PM

tractorporn wrote: »

No I want real representation that works for us. That when unfair rules and regulations which are not part of any DAFM/EU regulations are brought in and they are backed into a corner, go publish the details and name and shame the parties, not lie over and make a deal.

To my mind the 30 month rule, 4 movements, 70 day residence and travel restrictions for offal are all anti competitive and should not have been allowed in or in the case of the 30 month rule scrapped once bse had been eliminated from the country.

Are you going to withdraw supplies until you achieve that
That's what BPM promised and reneged on, Factories can set the standards until suppliers develop backbone
Standards of four movements and 70 days residence are voluntary, quality assurance should be available to farmers who want to stand over their produce. ICSA asked farmers to withdraw from QA but they couldn't be bothered, sitting in a cold mart two or three nights a week isn't going to achieve a lot
Factories are probably entitled to set the 30 month age limit too, if I was buying something I'd be setting the specification too

Willfarman · 18-02-2019 12:58PM

Representation can’t be all things to all people. The ifa is opposing the new proposal around tb. But it’s in store buyers interests that the rules come in. Who pays most membership and levies?
No one fits all cap but while organization finances and coffers remain the number one priority there’s always going to be some members getting shouted contrary to the greater good. And bpm is no going to be no different!

_Brian · 18-02-2019 12:59PM

wrangler wrote: »

Are you going to withdraw supplies until you achieve that
That's what BPM promised and reneged on, Factories can set the standards until suppliers develop backbone
Standards of four movements and 70 days residence are voluntary, quality assurance should be available to farmers who want to stand over their produce. ICSA asked farmers to withdraw from QA but they couldn't be bothered, sitting in a cold mart two or three nights a week isn't going to achieve a lot
Factories are probably entitled to set the 30 month age limit too, if I was buying something I'd be setting the specification too

The absolute irony of a staunch IFA supporter, an organisation who not only presided over but likely actively suppressed the beef industry while taking back payments from factories to shush, the irony to talk down a competitive representation group who seek to represent those forgotten by the IFA, it’s laughable if there weren’t so many farms suffering because of the IFA one sided approach.
It’s
Like a quasi dictatorship plundering a countries wealth while the clueless footsoldiers on the ground go on spewing the rhetoric and trying to quash anyone who would threaten their supreme organisation. Frankly it’s disgusting!

I’ve supported the BPM for many reasons not the least that they might put down the IFA hold on farming lobbying which has done as much damage as good.

wrangler · 18-02-2019 01:08PM

Willfarman wrote: »

Representation can’t be all things to all people. The ifa is opposing the new proposal around tb. But it’s in store buyers interests that the rules come in. Who pays most membership and levies?
No one fits all cap but while organization finances and coffers remain the number one priority there’s always going to be some members getting shouted contrary to the greater good. And bpm is no going to be no different!

The organisation has to go with the policy of the commitees, be no point in farmers going to dublin to meetings if decisions was based on a revenue league,
Common sense would tell you that there has to be a premovement test, but you'd be shot for accepting it

wrangler · 18-02-2019 01:44PM

_Brian wrote: »

The absolute irony of a staunch IFA supporter, an organisation who not only presided over but likely actively surprised the beef industry while taking back payments from factories to shush, the irony to talk down a competitive representation group who seek to represent those forgotten by the IFA, it’s laughable if there weren’t so many farms suffering because of the IFA one sided approach.
It’s
Like a quasi dictatorship plundering a countries wealth while the clueless footsoldiers on the ground go on spewing the rhetoric and trying to quash anyone who would threaten their supreme organisation. Frankly it’s disgusting!

I’ve supported the BPM for many reasons not the least that they might put down the IFA hold on farming lobbying which has done as much damage as good.

I'm just telling you the way it is in the real world, customer is always right,
I was quite happy to leave BPM alone until THEY started spewing sh...
It's ironic that corley has a massive entitlement being defended by IFA at the moment while he's leading the charge against them....now that's irony
Until BPM take a stand they'll achieve nothing, It's only an ego trip for a few so far

_Brian · 18-02-2019 02:33PM

wrangler wrote: »

I'm just telling you the way it is in the real world, customer is always right,
I was quite happy to leave BPM alone until THEY started spewing sh...
It's ironic that corley has a massive entitlement being defended by IFA at the moment while he's leading the charge against them....now that's irony
Until BPM take a stand they'll achieve nothing, It's only an ego trip for a few so far

Can be funny sometimes who recognises am ego trip !

wrangler · 18-02-2019 02:37PM

_Brian wrote: »

Can be funny sometimes who recognises am ego trip !

It's not hard to in BPM, FULL OF IT

patsy_mccabe · 18-02-2019 02:51PM

wrangler wrote: »

I'm just telling you the way it is in the real world, customer is always right,
I was quite happy to leave BPM alone until THEY started spewing sh...
It's ironic that corley has a massive entitlement being defended by IFA at the moment while he's leading the charge against them....now that's irony
Until BPM take a stand they'll achieve nothing, It's only an ego trip for a few so far

The fact that Corley has a single payment (like every other farmer in the country) is entirely his own business and to mention it on a public forum like this is a cheap shot, to say the least.

wrangler · 18-02-2019 04:40PM

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

The fact that Corley has a single payment (like every other farmer in the country) is entirely his own business and to mention it on a public forum like this is a cheap shot, to say the least.

Taxpayers money, seemingly it's everyones business, there you go eaten bread etc etc multiply it from 2012 -2020

Bass Reeves · 18-02-2019 04:53PM

TBH wrangler you have been on about this for the last months. It is interesting that he is willing to see the bigger picture. Maybe his payment is not as high as you thing. One thing we do know is that the IFA only want to represent fulltime farmers. Joe Healy was harping on about it again last week in Kerry. They also see no issue with lobbying for small minority of farmers with payments over 60K. Most of there lobbying is of no use to a lot of ordinary smaller farmers.

In the last reorganisation of CAP we had the General secretary threatening western farmers about regionalisation. We have Joe now arguing against front loading and for payments over 60K. We all know exactly who they represent. Just like the lobbyed against producer groups. just like the lobbied for a suckler payment that would have distorted beef production. Just like the lobbied for REPS AEOS and GLAs schemes that are of no benefit to farmers on poorer quality land but are very hand to retired full time farmers.

wrangler · 18-02-2019 05:43PM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

TBH wrangler you have been on about this for the last months. It is interesting that he is willing to see the bigger picture. Maybe his payment is not as high as you thing. One thing we do know is that the IFA only want to represent fulltime farmers. Joe Healy was harping on about it again last week in Kerry. They also see no issue with lobbying for small minority of farmers with payments over 60K. Most of there lobbying is of no use to a lot of ordinary smaller farmers.

In the last reorganisation of CAP we had the General secretary threatening western farmers about regionalisation. We have Joe now arguing against front loading and for payments over 60K. We all know exactly who they represent. Just like the lobbyed against producer groups. just like the lobbied for a suckler payment that would have distorted beef production. Just like the lobbied for REPS AEOS and GLAs schemes that are of no benefit to farmers on poorer quality land but are very hand to retired full time farmers.

That's all bulls..t.

_Brian · 18-02-2019 05:49PM

wrangler wrote: »

That's all bulls..t.

I really don’t think your viewpoint is impartial on this.
I’d say if anyone who has lined their pockets from the hardship of other farmers was asked their viewpoint would be the same, the IFA is a representative group for select farms, not all farmers. They’ve had the platform to themselves for far too long and don’t little to help anyone but themselves.

wrangler · 18-02-2019 06:04PM

_Brian wrote: »

I really don’t think your viewpoint is impartial on this.
I’d say if anyone who has lined their pockets from the hardship of other farmers was asked their viewpoint would be the same, the IFA is a representative group for select farms, not all farmers. They’ve had the platform to themselves for far too long and don’t little to help anyone but themselves.

That too is bull**** and even slanderous,
Select farmers maybe if by select you mean farmers that aren't too lazy to attend meetings , lobby politicians, attend protests.
God help your innocence if you think I lined my pockets out of farmers hardship.
Feck the difference it makes to me now whether IFA survives or not, I've enough, BPM hasn't a hope against the beef processors, farmers will let them down,

Bass himself knows his post was BS, as far as I'm concerned it was a windup

Beef Plan Movement (READ OP BEFORE POSTING)

Comments