Albert Johnson wrote: » This would be a marketing strength but not any more than grass fed, GM free, hormone free and so on. There doesn't seem to be much appetite to capitalise on any of the above so why the fixation with movements. The cynic in me believes that movements are just another bargaining chip for the processor and another stick to beat us with. Take for example farmer A with a bunch of organic traditional bred bullocks that spend the vast majority of there lifetime outdoors in as natural an environment as possible. They have received little concentrates, no hormone's or antibiotics and are the epitome of what Irish grass fed beef should be. However because there over 30 months and have passed through a few too many marts there now ineligible for premium prices. Farmer B has a bunch of under 16 months continental bulls who've spent most of there life looking out through a barrier at the outside world. They've consumed almost 2 tonnes of concentrates each and could have been produced in any feedlot in the world at almost certainly a more competitive rate. However as they've been on farm since birth and don't know what a mart is there eligible for the going market rate. Both farmers are indeed entitled to a return on there investment but which image is more in keeping with our so called "green advantage". Lads need to take stock of where beef production is going in this country. I believe that a sustainable and premium product is our only chance of success long-term. Those who want to operate a feedlot and compete at producing the cheapest commodity beef would be better suited to buying a cowboy hat and boarding the next plane to the American wild west imo.
Anto_Meath wrote: » Yes that would be a good idea, reward the farmer that brings the animal from birth to hook, its a long road and I would agree with giving a bit extra for that, but 1 movement or 6 movements shouldn't make any difference.
Danzy wrote: » I've a cousin in Oz, 12000 acres in Queensland and 4k head of cattle. He isn't big there, he would be known by first name here to nearly every farmer in Ire land.
Albert Johnson wrote: » I guarantee that if a premium of let's say 10 cent a kg was offered to first movement stock that a penalty of the same would be placed on all other that failed to meet this criteria. It's happening at the moment with concepts such as QA, movements and the like have nothing to do with beef quality or saleability despite what we're told. These are all processer lead demands and are used solely for price manipulation, it's only another step towards total processer monopoly.
Muckit wrote: » This is the crux of it. 20 cattle on 60acres. No fuss. No hassle. It's the way rhings need to go.
riemann wrote: » I'd think very carefully before you decide to leave the QA scheme. There is no guarantee you will get the Base Price when producing out of spec cattle, can easily be cut >10c. That's all assuming you can get them killed in the first place as when numbers are high, out of spec cattle are at the back of the queue. When numbers are low you wouldn't have any bother. It's easy for the usual lads to give you a clap on the back for sticking it to the man, that won't translate to cash in your pocket. QA is possible one of the easiest box ticking exercises there is, most of it is common sense and good practice. The factories use the 30month limit to control demand which is obviously market manipulation, however you deciding to leave the scheme won't solve that particular problem.
wrangler wrote: » Agreed, Farmers haven't enough power to put anything up for negotiation, Renegotiating QA, the grid, price, will only lead to losing ground.
Albert Johnson wrote: » I agree to a point wrangler and farmer's are on the back foot regards negotiation. However despite what we are led to believe feedlots control little of the annual kill, farmers in there many forms supply the bulk of the raw product. Temporarily withdrawing supplies isn't a viable option for a myriad of reasons as you are well aware but a long term reduction in supply is within our grasp. I believe that there is at least twice to much cattle and subsequent beef available in this country at the present time. Yes suckler numbers have decreased significantly and live exports have increased but the ever expanding dairy herd has left overall cattle numbers largely unchanged. Until the supply of raw product is greatly reduced we are fighting a losing battle imo. The suckler sector has been repeatedly shown to be unviable in the majority of cases and should therefore be largely wound down. This could take the form of a suckler reduction subsidy or similar. Such a view is no doubt unpalatable to many but is I believe necessary for the good of the entire beef sector. A drastic reduction in finished cattle numbers would have numerous spin off benefits to the country as a whole. Less cattle would mean less chemical fertilizers and feed stuff being imported as well as a reduction in methane emissions from a smaller national herd. This would be a step in the right direction regarding ongoing environmental concerns. Less stock would also mean a reduction in the workload of farmers and would no doubt be positively received by the majority. Any financial savings as an economy could be targeted at worthwhile environmental schemes that would have a positive impact upon our environment rather than lining the pockets of main processor's. I understand that if we cut the weekly kill to 10 carcasses that the processor's would only have contract's to sell 8 but this is only one factor in making such a decision. We've tried mass production and cutting costs to the bone in recent years with little success. Despite calls for increased productivity at all costs we've done little but create a race to the bottom. It's ludicrous imo to expect a similar mindset to fix the same problems it's created. If beef is a mere commodity product and premium markets such a niche then a reduction in supplies nationally will make not one iota of a difference globally. It's time for farmers to put farmers first and not all those further up the production line. If beef is not truly capable of adequate returns then we have little to lose by reducing production. Conversely if an adequate margin can be returned then a shortage will only help to remind the processor's of our importance as primary producer's. The opportunity is always there for processor's to become primary producer's and perhaps a stint at rearing sucks or calving cows would do more to focus there outlook than any protests or BPM.
gerryirl wrote: » sold a few heavy stores yesterday. got over 900 with the weight. One lad 715kg got 1630. He was no where near killing . What was the point filling him with nuts to get him in spec and then get cut cause he would be way over the dead weight cut off point. I'll let someone else take the hit. One time we would have the place full of cattle like him . We used to kill when they would be 850kg , No point now. Continental cattle are finished with while they keep the magic weight limit
Bass Reeves wrote: » If I bough that type of bullock I be hoping to have him on a hook by 10th June. I expect him to do 110-135kgs LW in that time. He be on good grass until then and would also eat 200kgs of maize/Barley/Hulls costing 47 euro. I expect him to kill 450DW. The problem would be the price. usually processors do not cut for overweight cattle in late May and early June. Also the price is at it zenith. Last year he have made a base of 4.10/kg if he graded R+ his net price would be 4.33/kg he gross 1950 euro last year leaving a gross margin of 320 euro. Take costs he leave a net margin of 165 euro. At present this year it is not looking likely we will hit the same price height as last June so the buyer may be a bit ambitious. However every days a school day
Robson99 wrote: » Cut in place for next week. B*stards
memorystick wrote: » Sold cattle a week and a half ago and still no money. Why are they so slow this year?
KAMG wrote: » Took 2 weeks for my cheque to come after my last few cattle went last November.
Danzy wrote: » I was going to type something but fu"k it.
whelan2 wrote: » Sent cows on Sunday evening got cheque yesterday
Say my name wrote: » Any verdict on Glanbia own brand quality beef?https://www.glanbiaconnect.com/news/glanbia-keepak-twenty20-beef-club Methane reducing feed additives being used as well. It's a bit late in the year announcing unless you were 'in the know'. Most of the spring calved herd have finished and aax and hex sold.
