It’s past time I commented on the phenomenon that is the Beef Plan Movement. Until now, I’ve been conscious of the importance of not being unduly critical of what is a fledgling movement. Rather, let farmers attend these meetings and have their own say. And boy, have they been attending. The group certainly has energy.

Collecting €10 at the door of recent meetings, rather than depending on members to volunteer donations or subscriptions, has been accepted with little dissent. There might be an outcry if any of the mainstream organisations charged into meetings for non-members.

It could be argued that the group’s 86-point plan is more a comprehensive list of the ills of the sector. That is not meant as a criticism; it has proven to be an effective starting point for an important conversation. The use of WhatsApp to create a ground-up dialogue is an innovation farmers have latched on to.

The group is showing signs of street smarts, claiming it originally drove the issue of beef trim. Hugh Doyle, speaking in Claremorris, claimed he raised it with “the head senior veterinary [department] officer” at a meeting. What Hugh Doyle omitted to say is this interaction took place at an IFA livestock committee meeting, where the inspector had been invited in for dialogue. Doyle did indeed raise the issue of trim, but was not the only one to do so.

It’s an issue that has been bubbling along for a long time, with the IFA raising it as far back as 2014. He was at this meeting representing IFA members from Meath as a proxy for the then Meath beef committee representative, his fellow beef plan founder Eamon Corley. Corley decided not to attend despite the fact that the committee was that day considering the beef plan.

This raises the central question. Notwithstanding the group’s plan to set up purchasing and producer groups, in terms of representation and advocacy for suckler and cattle farmers, does there need to be a new organisation? That is the course the group is inevitably hurtling towards.