Beef brand plans raise questions
The first caller is a beef finisher delighted that someone has at last recognised the value and superiority of grass-fed beef.
He voices the opinion — and it’s an argument that I neglected to include — “Cattle reared or fattened on traditional Irish grass-based farms are in effect 99% organic.”
This was his contention, and I can see the rationale behind it, and when I reviewed the logic behind ABP’s marketing decision, I think it’s safe to say they see the rationale also.
Later on Thursday I received another call; again it’s a grass finisher, but this time the praise is more reserved. He has questions, not about the quality or the processors’ ability to market the product, but the more practical aspects, namely the price and the dangers of moving back to a majority of all grass-produced steer beef.
I note down his reservations and arguments. He says he has no problem with me using his arguments in any discussion, but would prefer if I didn’t name him. So, for my purposes here, I’ll call him “Farmer X.”
Farmer X tells me he rears some of his own stock, but buys in as stores the majority of the 300 animals he fattens each year. He fully accepts that branding beef produced in Ireland as unique due to our grass-based system is a very positive step.
However, he also notes that the factories are beginning to encourage farmers away from bull beef production, and back to steer beef. He points out that the traditional problem with a mainly grass-based production system has been the big back-end kill. “A big back-end kill nearly always pushes down the price, and the factories cash in big time. What’s more, if you have anything other than Hereford or Angus, you’ll probably end up running some of your later maturing breeds over 30 months, in an attempt to get a better finish and more weight gain. Once you do that you’re into penalties on the QPS.”
He tells me he stopped feeding bullocks and moved to all bulls during the winter because the economics and efficiencies of feed conversion, coupled with the QPS penalty system, made bullocks non-viable.
“For years, we were told by the factories and experts that what supermarkets wanted was continuity of supply. If you move to majority grass finishing, that goes out the window.”
Farmer X suggests that what men like him are being asked to do is to reverse the progress made, and return to a situation where we over-supply at one end, and cause shortages at the other.
“I’m not saying it can’t be done, but unless the 30-month quality payment limit is lifted to at least 36 months, it won’t work. Plus, the economics of feeding bullocks would have to be addressed by a guaranteed pricing structure or a contract buying system to help level out supply.”
As myself and Farmer X discussed the possibilities, a nasty thought entered my head. If two farmers over the phone could spot potential pitfalls in a plan to change back to more steer beef, what plans had Larry and Co come up with to avoid those same pitfalls, and make their plan work?
The answer, I think, is that they may be viewing the increase in numbers of calves all ready in the pipeline, mainly from the dairy sector, as their new primary source of future raw material.
Consider for a minute the following. Holstein calves don’t really make viable bull beef, but move the QPS cut-off to 36 months, and you end up making Holstein bullocks look attractive, not a great product, but with some potential if left older and on grass.
The wheel turns!
