From a farmer’s perspective, the easy option is to simply produce a product and expect someone else to market it. This was how our beef market functioned in the ’80s and ’90s, during which period the main outlet for our beef was intervention and third-country exports, subsidised by the EU.

There has been a radical change in the customer base over the last 10 to 15 years. An undiscerning intervention market has been replaced by a retail-focused fresh market where there is intense competition, higher consumer demands and evolving consumption habits.

A policy of merely producing a product for someone else to market is clearly at odds in keeping pace with the demands of this consumer base.

Despite the market shift taking place for well over a decade, the legacy issues of producing for an intervention market are still evident in our industry today.

Carcase weight is still the main driver of carcase value and we are still focused on producing a carcase where the joint profile reflects a consumer sitting down to a Sunday roast.

Few can logically argue that the move away from a flat payment model towards a quality payment system (QPS) in 2010 was not a positive step in reflecting carcase value. However, it clearly hasn’t gone far enough. While an undoubtedly painful wound for some to reopen, it is clear that a review is required.

The focus should be simply to ensure the differential in carcase value is reflected in the price paid to the farmer. There must be a financial incentive for farmers to produce for the market in order to drive change.

Such a review should also consider how accurately the EUROP conformation scale reflects the value of the carcase in today’s market. This system was largely influenced by the size of the animal’s hind quarter – in particular the round. Is this still an accurate assessment of carcase value in a market where the demand for round cuts is continuously declining?

In a technology-lead industry, we should be exploring the potential to exploit the technology available to determine carcase meat yield.

On page 48, Phelim O’Neill explores the whole issue of carcase specification. By far the biggest issue for farmers is carcase weight limits.

It is not as clearcut as a 399kg carcase being in spec and a 401kg carcase being out of spec. However, we would be foolish to ignore the trend towards lighter carcase weights and the impact that the shift from in-store butchers to central packing units has had on the demand for uniformity.

At farm level, as the focus now starts to move from calving to breeding, farmers need to be aware of the shifts that are taking place.

Whether we like it or not, carcase specs are a fact of the market. We can either ignore them and hope for the best when selling or start to move breeding policies and finishing systems in the direction of market demand.

While there will always be niche outlets, the trend is clearly towards animals that will be finishing younger at lighter weights. Like the grading system, there is a need to readjust our view on quality.

Again, is breeding for a big round hind quarter in a market where the customer is no longer eating a Sunday roast still a logical way to assess quality?

There is a need for joined-up thinking across the beef sector if necessary changes are to be achieved in a way that sees farmers and processors working together. We cannot afford a repeat of last year when stringent specs and penalties were imposed overnight.

As part of the Agri Food Strategy, ICBF, Teagasc and Bord Bia should be tasked with producing a blueprint for our suckler beef industry that delivers a viable return to efficient farmers and provides a profit that meets the needs of the market.

The recommendations should clearly outline necessary changes to breeding polices, production models and pricing schedules.