Cost of Beef

[Walterp]

You're a clever chap if you've perfected you're inputs to a point they cannot be improved.
Surely any industry continually strives to produce more for less. If they don't, the next man will and so undercut them? More efficient systems, better technology, sourcing better or cheaper raw materials or components. ...

That's productivity you're (mostly) talking about there...

 

[a.birt]

No its progress....

 

[Walterp]

Inflation has nothing to do with input costs. Meal is down £50 on last year fertilizer back £100 on two years ago. Thats against the trend of 2.5% inflation per year. The price of inputs on the world market is influicing my costs...
My question for you is-
With cost of production at around £4 per kg of beef produced have i not got a better chance of reducing costs by a few pence here and there rather than influicing world price on the 3 F's

Taken overall, inflation is going up on many inputs by much more than 2.5% pa - put in insurance, fuel, machinery, road tax, rates and nearly all other factors of production into your spreadsheet and it'll show a huge increase over the last few years. Add in rents and it'll jump even higher. Go buy some land and it'll go off the scale.

So if you think you're operating in a low inflation environment then you're kidding yourself.

 

[Walterp]

No its progress....

You can get progressively older without getting more productive. So 'progress' isn't the same thing as 'productivity' at all.

I know this, I've seen my father get older without becoming in the least bit more productive.

 

[a.birt]

I have seen this also with my grass as the swards get progressively older they do not get more prductive. That is why i reseed to get the latest and most up to date varities of grass on my farm so as i can move with the times(progress)...
Out with the old and in with the new.....!
Try that with your father....

 

[d williams]

Well your lad will soon learn.... maybe @Thick Farmer will cut em for you after his own.
But seriously this straw situation is to me untenable for suckler men, therefore it's imperative you produce as much home grown feed as possible

Not only the straw bought in feed is spoiling the cattle job as much as anything
Mixed farms will be the future of farming if or when sfp is stopped

 

[Walterp]

I have seen this also with my grass as the swards get progressively older they do not get more prductive. That is why i reseed to get the latest and most up to date varities of grass on my farm so as i can move with the times(progress)...
Out with the old and in with the new.....!
Try that with your father....

Trouble is, increasing productivity isn't a cost-cutting measure, is it? It generally costs money to become more productive, be it better kit, better leys or getting rid of a drunken old parasite like my father; it all costs money, like all investments.

There is, perhaps,a choice between investing to become more productive OR by cutting back to conserve cash and capital. Either can be prudent choices, but I'm struggling to see that anyone can do both at the same time.

Me? I can't predict the future (I know, it's a terrible drawback, but what can I do?) so I'd limit myself to suggesting that the prospects are better than they have been in the last 20 years, but that they still aren't good enough to justify much in the way of even modest investment in capital works.

 

[gone up the hill]

My son is putting 23 acres back into oats next Spring, along with a field of stubble turnips or swedes next Summer.

I'd like to say that it'll make the job more efficient, but I'd be less than frank - Wales has a new enviro scheme that'll pay £5,300 annually to do this, for the next five years. I think the English have a ELS/HLS scheme, which we don't have in a general format. I'm used to the AAP, where we grew SB at breakeven and received the subsidy as 'profit' - does that mean nothing's really changed?

It'll be interesting to see how useful it'll be; at the moment, my feeling is that the £5,300 will be a lot more useful than the corn and roots, but we'll see.

Forget putting in spring oats... for starters what age stock does he intend feeding the grain to?? much better from a grain/straw view point to put in spring barley!! if its a ley field he will be drilling then as soon as the weather/ground conditions are good enough get the field spread with muck/ ploughed and let it weather down until mid march then drill as soon as possible.. as for the stubble turnips/swedes... what age stock does he intend to feed that to??

 

[Walterp]

Forget putting in spring oats... for starters what age stock does he intend feeding the grain to?? much better from a grain/straw view point to put in spring barley!! if its a ley field he will be drilling then as soon as the weather/ground conditions are good enough get the field spread with muck/ ploughed and let it weather down until mid march then drill as soon as possible.. as for the stubble turnips/swedes... what age stock does he intend to feed that to??

Gonna be oats/vetch mix, muck on when sheep are leaving, ploughed down immediately and wholecropped, probably clamped rather than baled depending on yield. Then fed to youngstock next Winter, 'cos they love it.

Can't be undersown, sadly, due to Glastir rules.

The roots will depend on what the sheepman prefers - we haven't asked him yet, but I'd suppose he'd prefer stubble turnips to swedes.

 

[d williams]

Trouble is, increasing productivity isn't a cost-cutting measure, is it? It generally costs money to become more productive, be it better kit, better leys or getting rid of a drunken old parasite like my father; it all costs money, like all investments.

There is, perhaps,a choice between investing to become more productive OR by cutting back to conserve cash and capital. Either can be prudent choices, but I'm struggling to see that anyone can do both at the same time.

Me? I can't predict the future (I know, it's a terrible drawback, but what can I do?) so I'd limit myself to suggesting that the prospects are better than they have been in the last 20 years, but that they still aren't good enough to justify much in the way of even modest investment in capital works.

Not sure fattening cattle justify any amount of investment at the moment
There's not enough end value in the product
With regard to the comments you had of I presume are from wholesale people are because they can't market the beast to their full potential
We have people selling to Celtic pride everyone seem happy with them and go with them because their supposed to be 14 p / kg in front of the average for the week ( not always the case) but not the point I'm trying to get at they want a 340 kgs dead wt r4 l fed high in vitamin e I think
Which does not realise the full potential of the animals being killed not only that but no profit in the beast
At the cost to get it to that stage
But I think people supplying them can only see the price per kg rather than the animals potential

 

[gone up the hill]

Gonna be oats/vetch mix, muck on when sheep are leaving, ploughed down immediately and wholecropped, probably clamped rather than baled depending on yield. Then fed to youngstock next Winter, 'cos they love it.

Can't be undersown, sadly, due to Glastir rules.

The roots will depend on what the sheepman prefers - we haven't asked him yet, but I'd suppose he'd prefer stubble turnips to swedes.

If its wholecrop forget baling it regardless of yield as the rats will have a field day with bales.....

Personally I would forget wholecropping, put in spring barley and combine, loads of grain and esp straw from 23 acres....

As for the roots, why wont you be feeding them to your own stock??????

 

[Walterp]

If its wholecrop forget baling it regardless of yield as the rats will have a field day with bales.....

Personally I would forget wholecropping, put in spring barley and combine, loads of grain and esp straw from 23 acres....

As for the roots, why wont you be feeding them to your own stock??????

We've baled before, stacking 'em on top of a base layer of grass silage bales in the field away from buildings and had no problems at all, so we'd repeat that if necessary. But we were at an open day in Dale last month where the farmer stacked his bales in the yard but baited thoroughly, and he seemed pretty confident - although I'd be not at all confident about that.

Use very little straw, nearly all cubicles, with only steers and grannies on loose-housing, so we'd not get too hung up on straw. Previous experience suggests that it'd be better to grow more grass and forget trying to save a few quid on bought in straw, when combining alone is £25 an acre - that's nearly our total straw bill for the Winter.

Same with barley, always had losses in storage, can't justify a better shed to store grain when it can be bought in for not far off what it cost to grow it in a wet, diseasey climate on land that is better-suited to grass. We can grow first-class grass almost all year round, why would we want to grow a third class crop of barley?

The roots have to be on the place that is sheep-tacked, at least for the next few years. Unavoidable, sadly.

 

[Walterp]

Not sure fattening cattle justify any amount of investment at the moment
There's not enough end value in the product
With regard to the comments you had of I presume are from wholesale people are because they can't market the beast to their full potential
We have people selling to Celtic pride everyone seem happy with them and go with them because their supposed to be 14 p / kg in front of the average for the week ( not always the case) but not the point I'm trying to get at they want a 340 kgs dead wt r4 l fed high in vitamin e I think
Which does not realise the full potential of the animals being killed not only that but no profit in the beast
At the cost to get it to that stage
But I think people supplying them can only see the price per kg rather than the animals potential

I can see that, although the target weight/spec would suit some cattle. For us, it'd be ideal.

 

[Poorbuthappy]

Trouble is, increasing productivity isn't a cost-cutting measure, is it? It generally costs money to become more productive, be it better kit, better leys or getting rid of a drunken old parasite like my father; it all costs money, like all investments.

There is, perhaps,a choice between investing to become more productive OR by cutting back to conserve cash and capital. Either can be prudent choices, but I'm struggling to see that anyone can do both at the same time.

Me? I can't predict the future (I know, it's a terrible drawback, but what can I do?) so I'd limit myself to suggesting that the prospects are better than they have been in the last 20 years, but that they still aren't good enough to justify much in the way of even modest investment in capital works.

So the answer is get out??

 

[d williams]

I can see that, although the target weight/spec would suit some cattle. For us, it'd be ideal.

Linked to castle Howell all meat sold in brains pubs killing in maesteg suits heifers out of Herefords let me know if you want me to find out contact details need to be fed certain feed through winnastay for a certain time their looking for a stake to be the same taste size in every Pub

 

[nacnud]

Countries don't import our beef because they think it's cheap, but because they think it is of a higher quality. I'm a bit sceptical of that and I'm pretty sure some of the meat we import is better than our own.

I think it is of paramount importance to improve our meat quality, so that sales can increase at home and abroad. It ain't cheap that's for sure, so let's make sure it's worth the money. I'm worried that we are pricing ourselves (inadvertently) out of a lot of export sales and when the push comes to the shove... How does the quality compare to that of our counterparts?

We all know the welfare standards and traceability in the UK are some of the best but to the general public that is a very small consolation when they get presented with a rubbish bit of beef in a restaurant.

 

[nacnud]

Furthermore... Talking from a Scottish perspective with an Angus bias, I'm really disappointed in QMS once again failing to protect the hard work done to establish our brand.

The scotch beef logo is widely renowned as the mark of quality, whether the quality exists is another matter as I mentioned in the previous post, but nevertheless it's a brand which Scottish producer's levies have paid for and have worked hard to earn. The move to allow cattle which aren't Scottish to carry the scotch logo (& earn the premium) if they are slaughtered in Scotland is ludicrous. Surely if there is a shortfall in numbers (we all know why that is) then the increase in demand (&price) should be passed on to remaining Scottish producers who pay the levies to maintain the brand?

I'm also disappointed in the way that Angus sired dairy cattle are being used to fill up the 000s of Angus cattle Tesco demand every week with their native breed scheme. Similar to the above, the Aberdeen Angus brand is well known, but by flooding the market with beef, possibly of a lower quality, certainly much leaner with fewer marbling, surely we are shooting ourselves in the foot long term; by diluting the quality in the brand and disappointing the customer which expects a marbled steak.

Perhaps I have got the wrong end of the stick, but the way I see it, if there is a great demand for a product, it's price should rise, thus encouraging its producers to make more. I don't see how filling the demand with lower quality meat and sticking an Angus sticker on it is going to benefit anyone in the long term apart from dairy farmers.

 

[Poorbuthappy]

That's productivity you're (mostly) talking about there...

Walter if you increase your productivity at a greater rate than increasing your input costs then you have cut your cost of production of a kilo of beef.
This is what I am talking about in cutting costs - not just cutting input costs which may or may not be part of that.

 

[Hilly]

Furthermore... Talking from a Scottish perspective with an Angus bias, I'm really disappointed in QMS once again failing to protect the hard work done to establish our brand.

The scotch beef logo is widely renowned as the mark of quality, whether the quality exists is another matter as I mentioned in the previous post, but nevertheless it's a brand which Scottish producer's levies have paid for and have worked hard to earn. The move to allow cattle which aren't Scottish to carry the scotch logo (& earn the premium) if they are slaughtered in Scotland is ludicrous. Surely if there is a shortfall in numbers (we all know why that is) then the increase in demand (&price) should be passed on to remaining Scottish producers who pay the levies to maintain the brand?

I'm also disappointed in the way that Angus sired dairy cattle are being used to fill up the 000s of Angus cattle Tesco demand every week with their native breed scheme. Similar to the above, the Aberdeen Angus brand is well known, but by flooding the market with beef, possibly of a lower quality, certainly much leaner with fewer marbling, surely we are shooting ourselves in the foot long term; by diluting the quality in the brand and disappointing the customer which expects a marbled steak.

Perhaps I have got the wrong end of the stick, but the way I see it, if there is a great demand for a product, it's price should rise, thus encouraging its producers to make more. I don't see how filling the demand with lower quality meat and sticking an Angus sticker on it is going to benefit anyone in the long term apart from dairy farmers.

I agree, the brands should be better protected so as only the premium products are promoted and marketed under these brands, if this is not happening its a very dangerous situation that needs urgent attention.

 

[chipsngravy]

Furthermore... Talking from a Scottish perspective with an Angus bias, I'm really disappointed in QMS once again failing to protect the hard work done to establish our brand.

The scotch beef logo is widely renowned as the mark of quality, whether the quality exists is another matter as I mentioned in the previous post, but nevertheless it's a brand which Scottish producer's levies have paid for and have worked hard to earn. The move to allow cattle which aren't Scottish to carry the scotch logo (& earn the premium) if they are slaughtered in Scotland is ludicrous. Surely if there is a shortfall in numbers (we all know why that is) then the increase in demand (&price) should be passed on to remaining Scottish producers who pay the levies to maintain the brand?

I'm also disappointed in the way that Angus sired dairy cattle are being used to fill up the 000s of Angus cattle Tesco demand every week with their native breed scheme. Similar to the above, the Aberdeen Angus brand is well known, but by flooding the market with beef, possibly of a lower quality, certainly much leaner with fewer marbling, surely we are shooting ourselves in the foot long term; by diluting the quality in the brand and disappointing the customer which expects a marbled steak.

Perhaps I have got the wrong end of the stick, but the way I see it, if there is a great demand for a product, it's price should rise, thus encouraging its producers to make more. I don't see how filling the demand with lower quality meat and sticking an Angus sticker on it is going to benefit anyone in the long term apart from dairy farmers.

We know by now the likes of tesco are in it for money, not selling us a supposed premium product at far price. The Angus sired stuff is rd £5kg more for the likes of sirloin to normal steak.

Alot of joe public dont know how proper beef should look or taste, I used to kill one angus steer a month and sell direct and I got some funny looks off fair few people when they open there box to dark well marbled meat instead of the bright red anaemic meat they are so used to seeing and supermarket. They thought there was something wrong with it, then you get a call in a week saying its great and they've never had beef like it.