Visibly angry farmers questioned Minister for Agriculture Michael Creed and Bord Bia boss Tara McCarthy on the targets they must meet with their animals to satisfy market demands.
Multiple speakers at the Irish Farmers Journal Beef Summit on Thursday night questioned the necessity for carcase specifications, genetic targets and quality assurance (QA) rules.
Robust answers
They were met with robust answers from the industry speakers.
Beef Plan Movement chair Eamonn Corley claimed there was no evidence that retailers required some of the specifications placed on cattle.
Minister Creed strongly refuted this, saying he had sat in front of Tesco, “who buy shed loads of Irish beef” and heard first-hand what it required.
He said sellers of Irish beef could either decide to meet those specifications and retain a foothold or they could lose the market.
Later, when pressed for answers on retailer specifications by Hugh Doyle, the Minister added: “Hugh Doyle raised a number of issues [that are] not the property of the Department of Agriculture to fix.
“I can’t tell the retailer in their engagement with the processor if they are insisting on four-movement rule or 70 days.”
“If you want me to tell those buyers we won’t meet those regulations, I won’t do that,” he insisted.
Residency rules
Padraig O’Connor, a farmer and Beef Plan Movement member from Roscommon, focused on the residency rules and age limits applied on beef cattle.
“I want to go back to the efficiency of grass-fed animals. If we are on about reducing carbon, isn’t the best place about …. why don’t we get rid of the 16-month rule, the 30-month rule, the four-movement rule?
“Finishing on high-concentrate foods is not the way to do it. Suckler animals are grass-fed. Market our animals as grass-fed, put the feedlot cattle in a different category.”
Responding, Tara McCarthy of Bord Bia said: “We have done a lot of research on sustainability. [We] talked to 23,000 consumers to see how we can sell our product better. Natural is what consumers are looking for. Grass fed is a short cut to that.
“The animal must have strong welfare credentials as well. What we are now looking to do is put the proof points, we have data we want to talk to the market about. When we collect information from farms we collect that data. We have 5,000 proof points but we are missing 30,000 of them.
“It is not enough to visit a few farms, the market wants proof. When animals fall out of QA, we lose the assurance, we lose the data. When we bring that to Tesco or McDonalds, we don’t have the proof,” she explained.
Deliberate misinformation
Beef Plan Movement vice-chair Hugh Doyle said: “A farmer brings a fit animal into the mart and it is QA. If the buyer is QA, if that animal is going directly to slaughter, the buyer should retain the QA.”
Tara McCarthy reacted firmly, saying: “The animal is quality assured. There seems to be deliberate misinformation on this - in-spec bonus, which is deliberately confused with QA, is a different thing."
Referring to private meetings with the Beef Plan Movement on the subject, she said: “We had a good conversation on that, which I thought I was clear on explaining.
“Bord Bia has no intention to mislead our stakeholders. Putting an animal into the mart does not break the QA cycle.”
Read more
Beef Summit: why import beef below our high standards? - McHale
Creed: beef grid is not for Department to tear up and change
Beef Summit: beef prices, fifth quarter and grading get fiery farmer reaction
Beef Summit: maybe it’s time to review beef grid - factories
Visibly angry farmers questioned Minister for Agriculture Michael Creed and Bord Bia boss Tara McCarthy on the targets they must meet with their animals to satisfy market demands.
Multiple speakers at the Irish Farmers Journal Beef Summit on Thursday night questioned the necessity for carcase specifications, genetic targets and quality assurance (QA) rules.
Robust answers
They were met with robust answers from the industry speakers.
Beef Plan Movement chair Eamonn Corley claimed there was no evidence that retailers required some of the specifications placed on cattle.
Minister Creed strongly refuted this, saying he had sat in front of Tesco, “who buy shed loads of Irish beef” and heard first-hand what it required.
He said sellers of Irish beef could either decide to meet those specifications and retain a foothold or they could lose the market.
Later, when pressed for answers on retailer specifications by Hugh Doyle, the Minister added: “Hugh Doyle raised a number of issues [that are] not the property of the Department of Agriculture to fix.
“I can’t tell the retailer in their engagement with the processor if they are insisting on four-movement rule or 70 days.”
“If you want me to tell those buyers we won’t meet those regulations, I won’t do that,” he insisted.
Residency rules
Padraig O’Connor, a farmer and Beef Plan Movement member from Roscommon, focused on the residency rules and age limits applied on beef cattle.
“I want to go back to the efficiency of grass-fed animals. If we are on about reducing carbon, isn’t the best place about …. why don’t we get rid of the 16-month rule, the 30-month rule, the four-movement rule?
“Finishing on high-concentrate foods is not the way to do it. Suckler animals are grass-fed. Market our animals as grass-fed, put the feedlot cattle in a different category.”
Responding, Tara McCarthy of Bord Bia said: “We have done a lot of research on sustainability. [We] talked to 23,000 consumers to see how we can sell our product better. Natural is what consumers are looking for. Grass fed is a short cut to that.
“The animal must have strong welfare credentials as well. What we are now looking to do is put the proof points, we have data we want to talk to the market about. When we collect information from farms we collect that data. We have 5,000 proof points but we are missing 30,000 of them.
“It is not enough to visit a few farms, the market wants proof. When animals fall out of QA, we lose the assurance, we lose the data. When we bring that to Tesco or McDonalds, we don’t have the proof,” she explained.
Deliberate misinformation
Beef Plan Movement vice-chair Hugh Doyle said: “A farmer brings a fit animal into the mart and it is QA. If the buyer is QA, if that animal is going directly to slaughter, the buyer should retain the QA.”
Tara McCarthy reacted firmly, saying: “The animal is quality assured. There seems to be deliberate misinformation on this - in-spec bonus, which is deliberately confused with QA, is a different thing."
Referring to private meetings with the Beef Plan Movement on the subject, she said: “We had a good conversation on that, which I thought I was clear on explaining.
“Bord Bia has no intention to mislead our stakeholders. Putting an animal into the mart does not break the QA cycle.”
Read more
Beef Summit: why import beef below our high standards? - McHale
Creed: beef grid is not for Department to tear up and change
Beef Summit: beef prices, fifth quarter and grading get fiery farmer reaction
Beef Summit: maybe it’s time to review beef grid - factories
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: