Beef Plan Movement (READ OP BEFORE POSTING)

_Brian · 18-02-2019 06:11PM

wrangler wrote: »

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

To be clear, I did not say above you lined your pockets, interesting though it would be you conclusion.

Anyway, to be clear, I never said you did anything or took anything.

wrangler · 18-02-2019 06:21PM

_Brian wrote: »

To be clear, I did not say above you lined your pockets, interesting though it would be you conclusion.

Anyway, to be clear, I never said you did anything or took anything.

I wouldn't be bothered, why would I,
In house consultants, economists, and environmentalist at the end of a phone.
Isn't that enough of a bonus

Bass Reeves · 18-02-2019 06:54PM

wrangler wrote: »

That's all bulls..t.

wrangler wrote: »

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

So nobody can have a different view point to the great retired farmer Wrangler. For the last 20-30 years IFA has been and is more and more a representive organisation for only a select group of farmers. It no longer even represents the the majority of farmers. It rules exclude the vast majority of farmers from now being on County, regional or national committee and executives. For years too many were paying membership thinking it was costing them nothing because they received a vouchers with a few euro off this and that. What is happening now is it is no longer the radical organisation it was 40-60 years ago.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 18-02-2019 06:59PM

Lads, if you front load the BPS for the first 10ha, all that's going to happen is family farms and larger farms will be split up to maximise the number of 10ha plots that can be drawn on.

I was advised to set up my land to do that a good number of years ago. We can even draw down 4 front loaded BPS sections if it's delayed for another two years. Tbh, it achieves nothing and Joe Healy explained it as such last week.

There's been numerous debates about convergence and how to achieve it as fairly as possible and the IFA aren't the only ones against convergence across the EU but convergence will happen, there's no other way forward. Faster than some IFA stalwarts would like but slower than the EU would like.

Each Ha gets the same payment and the better the land is farmed, the better the income for the farmer.

wrangler · 18-02-2019 07:20PM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Lads, if you front load the BPS for the first 10ha, all that's going to happen is family farms and larger farms will be split up to maximise the number of 10ha plots that can be drawn on.

I was advised to set up my land to do that a good number of years ago. We can even draw down 4 front loaded BPS sections if it's delayed for another two years. Tbh, it achieves nothing and Joe Healy explained it as such last week.

There's been numerous debates about convergence and how to achieve it as fairly as possible and the IFA aren't the only ones against convergence across the EU but convergence will happen, there's no other way forward. Faster than some IFA stalwarts would like but slower than the EU would like.

Each Ha gets the same payment and the better the land is farmed, the better the income for the farmer.

Same with the 90 limit for the beef premium I know one family with four herd numbers, one of the herd owners wouldn't know where to find the cattle shed.
60000 limit will be the same

_Brian · 18-02-2019 07:26PM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Lads, if you front load the BPS for the first 10ha, all that's going to happen is family farms and larger farms will be split up to maximise the number of 10ha plots that can be drawn on.

I was advised to set up my land to do that a good number of years ago. We can even draw down 4 front loaded BPS sections if it's delayed for another two years. Tbh, it achieves nothing and Joe Healy explained it as such last week.

There's been numerous debates about convergence and how to achieve it as fairly as possible and the IFA aren't the only ones against convergence across the EU but convergence will happen, there's no other way forward. Faster than some IFA stalwarts would like but slower than the EU would like.

Each Ha gets the same payment and the better the land is farmed, the better the income for the farmer.

Nothing to stop a reference year being taken to avoid guys making changes to benefit themselves.

wrangler · 18-02-2019 07:27PM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Lads, if you front load the BPS for the first 10ha, all that's going to happen is family farms and larger farms will be split up to maximise the number of 10ha plots that can be drawn on.

I was advised to set up my land to do that a good number of years ago. We can even draw down 4 front loaded BPS sections if it's delayed for another two years. Tbh, it achieves nothing and Joe Healy explained it as such last week.

There's been numerous debates about convergence and how to achieve it as fairly as possible and the IFA aren't the only ones against convergence across the EU but convergence will happen, there's no other way forward. Faster than some IFA stalwarts would like but slower than the EU would like.

Each Ha gets the same payment and the better the land is farmed, the better the income for the farmer.

convergence would be tough, low income farmers would use it to live, high income farmers would have it for the dry period skiing trip

wrangler · 18-02-2019 07:37PM

_Brian wrote: »

Nothing to stop a reference year being taken to avoid guys making changes to benefit themselves.

Be interesting to test the constitutionality of confiscating entitlements, even the last time they let landlords sell them, some tax free rather than confiscate them. and sure mulder clients in the eighties got a fortune for not getting quota

wrangler · 18-02-2019 07:43PM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

So nobody can have a different view point to the great retired farmer Wrangler. For the last 20-30 years IFA has been and is more and more a representive organisation for only a select group of farmers. It no longer even represents the the majority of farmers. It rules exclude the vast majority of farmers from now being on County, regional or national committee and executives. For years too many were paying membership thinking it was costing them nothing because they received a vouchers with a few euro off this and that. What is happening now is it is no longer the radical organisation it was 40-60 years ago.

Neither is it's farmers I can tell you
I know nothing about your supposed rules, but you do have to make yourself available for meetings etc or get out and rightly so ......wasn't Corley cited on the journal for not attending an important meeting. Sending a sub is a poor substitute

Willfarman · 18-02-2019 07:50PM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

wrangler wrote: »

That's all bulls..t.

wrangler wrote: »

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

So nobody can have a different view point to the great retired farmer Wrangler. For the last 20-30 years IFA has been and is more and more a representive organisation for only a select group of farmers. It no longer even represents the the majority of farmers. It rules exclude the vast majority of farmers from now being on County, regional or national committee and executives. For years too many were paying membership thinking it was costing them nothing because they received a vouchers with a few euro off this and that. What is happening now is it is no longer the radical organisation it was 40-60 years ago.

All valid points bass however bpm will be more of the same. It’s predominantly a flogger of a nonsensical intensive suckler farming from my understanding.

Willfarman · 18-02-2019 07:50PM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

wrangler wrote: »

That's all bulls..t.

wrangler wrote: »

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

So nobody can have a different view point to the great retired farmer Wrangler. For the last 20-30 years IFA has been and is more and more a representive organisation for only a select group of farmers. It no longer even represents the the majority of farmers. It rules exclude the vast majority of farmers from now being on County, regional or national committee and executives. For years too many were paying membership thinking it was costing them nothing because they received a vouchers with a few euro off this and that. What is happening now is it is no longer the radical organisation it was 40-60 years ago.

All valid points bass however bpm will be more of the same. It’s predominantly a flogger of a nonsensical intensive suckler farming from my understanding.

Bass Reeves · 18-02-2019 07:52PM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Lads, if you front load the BPS for the first 10ha, all that's going to happen is family farms and larger farms will be split up to maximise the number of 10ha plots that can be drawn on.

I was advised to set up my land to do that a good number of years ago. We can even draw down 4 front loaded BPS sections if it's delayed for another two years. Tbh, it achieves nothing and Joe Healy explained it as such last week.

There's been numerous debates about convergence and how to achieve it as fairly as possible and the IFA aren't the only ones against convergence across the EU but convergence will happen, there's no other way forward. Faster than some IFA stalwarts would like but slower than the EU would like.

Each Ha gets the same payment and the better the land is farmed, the better the income for the farmer.

This issue of lads splitting farms into 10HA plots is a red herring just as the idea of farms being split draw down larger than 60k in payments. Actually the main reason koe gave was the old hobby farmer story. Front loading could just as easy be given over the first 20-25HA which would reduce the sum/HA but be meaningful payment to smaller farmers. Not even sure I am totally in favour of it but it show where IFA is in representing farmers and who it represents. I agree that convergence will continue and we may see considerable support for it by the other Irish farm organisations.

Say my name · 18-02-2019 08:41PM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

This issue of lads splitting farms into 10HA plots is a red herring just as the idea of farms being split draw down larger than 60k in payments. Actually the main reason koe gave was the old hobby farmer story. Front loading could just as easy be given over the first 20-25HA which would reduce the sum/HA but be meaningful payment to smaller farmers. Not even sure I am totally in favour of it but it show where IFA is in representing farmers and who it represents. I agree that convergence will continue and we may see considerable support for it by the other Irish farm organisations.

CAP payments are currently front loaded by nine countries in the EU to smaller farmers.

http://www.arc2020.eu/cap-poland-options-small-organic-producers/

wrangler · 18-02-2019 08:44PM

Say my name wrote: »

CAP payments are currently front loaded by nine countries in the EU to smaller farmers.

http://www.arc2020.eu/cap-poland-options-small-organic-producers/

I can't believe I'd be benefiting from a frontloaded payment :cool:

Robson99 · 19-02-2019 12:21AM

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.

At least them rules dont change. What really pisses me off is the weight restrictions whet it suits them. No problem in summer but bring it in when they like in winter. Knobs

wrangler · 19-02-2019 07:55AM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

So nobody can have a different view point to the great retired farmer Wrangler. For the last 20-30 years IFA has been and is more and more a representive organisation for only a select group of farmers. It no longer even represents the the majority of farmers. It rules exclude the vast majority of farmers from now being on County, regional or national committee and executives. For years too many were paying membership thinking it was costing them nothing because they received a vouchers with a few euro off this and that. What is happening now is it is no longer the radical organisation it was 40-60 years ago.

I can't believe that processors aren't dropping the price 10c/kg/ a week while this harassment goes on, oh I forgot, they're doing it to the sheep

Bass Reeves · 19-02-2019 08:27AM

Robson99 wrote: »

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.

At least them rules dont change. What really pisses me off is the weight restrictions whet it suits them. No problem in summer but bring it in when they like in winter. Knobs

I can understand the case for the 70day , 30 month, and 4 movement rules. The 30 month rules serves two purposes it keeps cattle weights down and stars cattle moving in early August rather than mid/late September. Removing it would cause a bigger glut than already there. Most dosing has less than 70 days withdrawal it put the onus of the withdrawal period on the final farmer. Changing the 4 movement rule will only put more money in the pockets of marts and cattle hauliers.

Cormac Healy spoke again a few weeks ago about cattle weight . Again he spoke about maximum carcass weights of 360-380kgs. I know this causes huge issues with suckler bred stock as it virtually makes them and bull beef unviable but that is a market reality. It's a market reality as well that O- beef is as suitable as R+ and maybe more suitable for the supermarket trade yet is not getting the QA.

The other three will not put a whole pile of extra money in farmers pockets . Getting QA for O- cattle would stop the temptation of processors to manipulate the grid as it would leave less room below the QA qualifining grades to shove cattle into. This might put more money into the farming pot. At the end of the day as a finisher it is immaterial to me as I just take my margin and pass the rest back down the chain

Bass Reeves · 19-02-2019 08:35AM

wrangler wrote: »

I can't believe that processors aren't dropping the price 10c/kg/ a week while this harassment goes on, oh I forgot, they're doing it to the sheep

It's the economics of not leaving the door open. At present we are only about 20c/ kg ahead of the Netherlands and Poland on cattle prices. A lower base might encourage the an outside processors to look at buying either a few unused processing plants or some of the still independent processors. Another issue if we hit the same price as Poland and the Netherlands it might encourage the EU to send in there Competition Authority to investigate. You also have the issue that the big three are buying up the independent one by one if they are more profitable it costs more to buy them. Finally the more they drop the winter price the more farmers that exit winter finishing. As with sucklers it takes little to start a snowball effect

wrangler · 19-02-2019 09:42AM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It's the economics of not leaving the door open. At present we are only about 20c/ kg ahead of the Netherlands and Poland on cattle prices. A lower base might encourage the an outside processors to look at buying either a few unused processing plants or some of the still independent processors. Another issue if we hit the same price as Poland and the Netherlands it might encourage the EU to send in there Competition Authority to investigate. You also have the issue that the big three are buying up the independent one by one if they are more profitable it costs more to buy them. Finally the more they drop the winter price the more farmers that exit winter finishing. As with sucklers it takes little to start a snowball effect

I'll have to sit down and have a chat with myself......I'm after agreeing with your last two posts.
Farmers can't seem to get their heads around the fact that the market is what it is and we have to go by their specs, Processors can sell the few overweights that come in early summer but as you say once August comes they have to draw a line to stop farmers letting them go Overweight

Buford T. Justice XIX · 19-02-2019 09:47AM

wrangler wrote: »

Be interesting to test the constitutionality of confiscating entitlements, even the last time they let landlords sell them, some tax free rather than confiscate them. and sure mulder clients in the eighties got a fortune for not getting quota

Not quite right there, wrangler.

SLOM I farmers signed a cessation of milk scheme when depopulated with Brucellosis in the early 80s and had to remain female free for those 5 years. There was a clause in the contract signed by both parties that, in the event of quotas being established, they would be entitled to a quota equivalent to the 12 month period prior to depopulation.

Despite seeking the quotas they were entitled to, their rights to a quota were denied both by the Irish Government and EEC quota section.

After 3 years in court, their case was accepted in full by the EEC Courts. And compensation was paid because of the denial of their rights to return to milk production as specified in the original contract.

Hard Knocks · 19-02-2019 10:58AM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Changing the 4 movement rule will only put more money in the pockets of marts and cattle hauliers.

While I do agree with your point
The issue I have with the 4 movement rule is that it destroys the store trade, when the farmer is not bringing to beef. It also affects if you put cattle to rented sheds (old B&B).
Does the number of times the animal goes to a Mart count too?

charolais0153 · 19-02-2019 12:14PM

Hard Knocks wrote: »

While I do agree with your point
The issue I have with the 4 movement rule is that it destroys the store trade, when the farmer is not bringing to beef. It also affects if you put cattle to rented sheds (old B&B).
Does the number of times the animal goes to a Mart count too?

Only movement from one herd to another counts in the mart. If u dont sell there is no movement

Bass Reeves · 19-02-2019 04:44PM

Hard Knocks wrote: »

While I do agree with your point
The issue I have with the 4 movement rule is that it destroys the store trade, when the farmer is not bringing to beef. It also affects if you put cattle to rented sheds (old B&B).
Does the number of times the animal goes to a Mart count too?

Yes B&Bing cattle is an issue but the 4 owner( it actually 3 movements) rule has advantages as well. It limits the number of times dealers can trade an animal. If you either take a dairy suck or a weanling 4 owners is fair limit to both side. IMO if it is changed any value gained will be lost in Mart fees and dealers margin so across the system there is no gain.
It allows a suck calf to be traded as a calf, a weanling and a store. It allows a suckler bred animal to be traded as a weanling, yearling/store or store/finish. I cannot see the advantage of adding in 1-2 more movements. If most lads concentrated on actually getting animals to the right selling weight they be amazed how much more profitable they are. It is unfortunate there is not a margin for 3-4 owner in an animal. Making it a potential 5-6 will not improve that. A lad traipising around the country with truck loads of cattle si adding no money into the system

wrangler · 19-02-2019 06:21PM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Yes B&Bing cattle is an issue but the 4 owner( it actually 3 movements) rule has advantages as well. It limits the number of times dealers can trade an animal. If you either take a dairy suck or a weanling 4 owners is fair limit to both side. IMO if it is changed any value gained will be lost in Mart fees and dealers margin so across the system there is no gain.
It allows a suck calf to be traded as a calf, a weanling and a store. It allows a suckler bred animal to be traded as a weanling, yearling/store or store/finish. I cannot see the advantage of adding in 1-2 more movements. If most lads concentrated on actually getting animals to the right selling weight they be amazed how much more profitable they are. It is unfortunate there is not a margin for 3-4 owner in an animal. Making it a potential 5-6 will not improve that. A lad traipising around the country with truck loads of cattle si adding no money into the system

I think if the processors said that black was black, the BPM would challenge them, four movements could be €100 + out of the animal.... amargin in itself
They're even telling everyone that shows are a movement just to wind it up

Robson99 · 19-02-2019 07:03PM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Cormac Healy spoke again a few weeks ago about cattle weight . Again he spoke about maximum carcass weights of 360-380kgs. I know this causes huge issues with suckler bred stock as it virtually makes them and bull beef unviable but that is a market reality. It's a market reality as well that O- beef is as suitable as R+ and maybe more suitable for the supermarket trade yet is not getting the QA.

But why bother having an extra 30 cent on the grid for an E grade animal if the market doesn't want it. What is the deference in taste quality marketability etc between a 420kg animal and a 421kg animal ?? Or more to the point what difference is there in the same carcasses between Feb 2nd or Feb 3rd. They bring in weight limits /restrictions when it suits them. Nothing to do with quality.
Impossible for some of the suckler cattle to make money with sub 420kg carcasses

wrangler · 19-02-2019 07:24PM

Robson99 wrote: »

But why bother having an extra 30 cent on the grid for an E grade animal if the market doesn't want it. What is the deference in taste quality marketability etc between a 420kg animal and a 421kg animal ?? Or more to the point what difference is there in the same carcasses between Feb 2nd or Feb 3rd. They bring in weight limits /restrictions when it suits them. Nothing to do with quality.
Impossible for some of the suckler cattle to make money with sub 420kg carcasses

They have to draw the line somewhere, they don't want big joints of meat, at least you get away with heavier carcases some parts of the year , sheep are restricted all year.
It was when we got a tour of ICM that we got the reason for the smaller carcases, rows and rows of packers putting chops in a tray,thousands every hour, they hadn't time to cut the end of a chop to fit on a tray, those trays had to be at a price, if they left maximum weight open ended it'd all be mince and burgers'
If you order a beast for the freezer and a butcher drops a big slob of a heifer into your freezer you wouldn't like it, that's what farmers are trying to do to the processors by overruling their specs, dumping in stuff that's difficult to sell

patsy_mccabe · 19-02-2019 07:57PM

Cattle Movements in Ireland - 2016

Robson99 · 19-02-2019 10:54PM

wrangler wrote: »

They have to draw the line somewhere, they don't want big joints of meat, at least you get away with heavier carcases some parts of the year , sheep are restricted all year.
It was when we got a tour of ICM that we got the reason for the smaller carcases, rows and rows of packers putting chops in a tray,thousands every hour, they hadn't time to cut the end of a chop to fit on a tray, those trays had to be at a price, if they left maximum weight open ended it'd all be mince and burgers'
If you order a beast for the freezer and a butcher drops a big slob of a heifer into your freezer you wouldn't like it, that's what farmers are trying to do to the processors by overruling their specs, dumping in stuff that's difficult to sell

Its the stop start of it thats my main gripe. Killed a couple of heifers 500kgs + carcass last spring no problem... happy to get them... have you any more of them... now they cut me over 420 kgs
Imagine you killed lambs and no weight limit. Then you have 10 to kill 26 kg carcass and when you bring them down you are told sorry 21.5 kg limit... would you think fair enough they just drawing the line.. I doubt it

Bass Reeves · 19-02-2019 11:02PM

Robson99 wrote: »

But why bother having an extra 30 cent on the grid for an E grade animal if the market doesn't want it. What is the deference in taste quality marketability etc between a 420kg animal and a 421kg animal ?? Or more to the point what difference is there in the same carcasses between Feb 2nd or Feb 3rd. They bring in weight limits /restrictions when it suits them. Nothing to do with quality.
Impossible for some of the suckler cattle to make money with sub 420kg carcasses

There is a perception out there that the processors want E&U grade cattle. IMO it is only that a perception. They want them to fill a gap in the winter finishing system at 360 kgs DW and even at that it is not the E and U grade they want. When cattle get scarce they will flat price P and O- cattle before they will improve the upper end price. It is interesting at present they seem to be mad looking for light AA cattle and will if lads have a lot of cattle to be killed they will take these AA cattle first.

Just a few posts ago Wrangler was on why the processors were not dropping the base price. Look at the market at present yes processors are holding the steer and heifer base prices. But U16 months bulls are hard to get slaughtered but seem to be going onto the grid, however 16-24 month U grade bulls are are moving at 3.5-3.6/kg with R grade back at 3.4 and O grade back at 3.2/kg. In 5-6 years we have gone from O grade bulls getting the base price to U grade failing to get the base price. Like I replied to Wrangler the processors do not want to let the door open to competition but they must not be afraid of a processors starting to take these heavy bulls at another 10-20c/kg as there seems to be a lack of a market for them.

manjou · 19-02-2019 11:14PM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Robson99 wrote: »

But why bother having an extra 30 cent on the grid for an E grade animal if the market doesn't want it. What is the deference in taste quality marketability etc between a 420kg animal and a 421kg animal ?? Or more to the point what difference is there in the same carcasses between Feb 2nd or Feb 3rd. They bring in weight limits /restrictions when it suits them. Nothing to do with quality.
Impossible for some of the suckler cattle to make money with sub 420kg carcasses

There is a perception out there that the processors want E&U grade cattle. IMO it is only that a perception. They want them to fill a gap in the winter finishing system at 360 kgs DW and even at that it is not the E and U grade they want. When cattle get scarce they will flat price P and O- cattle before they will improve the upper end price. It is interesting at present they seem to be mad looking for light AA cattle and will if lads have a lot of cattle to be killed they will take these AA cattle first.

Just a few posts ago Wrangler was on why the processors were not dropping the base price. Look at the market at present yes processors are holding the steer and heifer base prices. But U16 months bulls are hard to get slaughtered but seem to be going onto the grid, however 16-24 month U grade bulls are are moving at 3.5-3.6/kg with R grade back at 3.4 and O grade back at 3.2/kg. In 5-6 years we have gone from O grade bulls getting the base price to U grade failing to get the base price. Like I replied to Wrangler the processors do not want to let the door open to competition but they must not be afraid of a processors starting to take these heavy bulls at another 10-20c/kg as there seems to be a lack of a market for them.

the angus is a brand w which is perceived worldwide as better tasting beef rightly or wrongly is another debate so they have a market for it. e.g. got picture of nieces up a mountain in Bulgaria in background sign advertising black angus burgers.

Beef Plan Movement (READ OP BEFORE POSTING)

Comments