A number of farm organisations have come out in strong opposition this week to the four movement rule which has been causing controversy for the last month.
The Beef Plan Movement feels the rule has become an anti-competitive practice, while the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers’ Association (ICSA) points to its ‘destructive nature’ because it is preventing farmers from getting a Quality Assurance (QA) bonus.
The Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers’ Association (ICMSA) said the four movement rule is “arbitrary” and should not be part of in-spec bonus procedures, while the Irish Family-Farm Rights Group (IFRG) says the rule should be abolished altogether.
IFA, meanwhile, pointed to the requirements for the in-specification bonus and highlighted the need to establish whether these were being initiated by buyers or retailers.
Beef Plan Movement
Eamon Corley, co-founder and spokesperson of the Beef Plan Movement, said the four movement rule was an “anti-competitive practice”.
He also pointed out that every time an animal moved it was worth less.
It discourages the farmer from going to the marts where there will be a bit of competition and directs him to the factory where there is none.
Corley continued: “It is effectively a way of manipulating the free market; how any farm body representing farmers could agree to this without consulting with farmers beggars belief.”
The Beef Plan Movement co-founder then pointed out that in a situation where an animal moves a few or more times it is highly probably that at a bad sale – if a dealer is involved – he will take a loss on the animal.
ICSA
Eddie Punch, general secretary of the ICSA said the organisation held a campaign to highlight the difficulties with: the 30-month age limit for steers/heifers and the 16-month age limit for bulls; the four movement rule; and the 70-day residency rule for Quality Assurance.
He insisted that the rules outlined were being used as “reasons for not allowing farmers to get the QA bonus” in the first instance.
IFRG
The IFRG told AgriLand in a statement that the four movement rule should be abolished outright.
The four movement rule should be abolished.
The IFRG added: “Provided the highest standards in human and animal welfare are met we recommend that the four movement rule be abolished.”
IFA
With regard to the four movement rule, IFA said it has retained economist Jim Power to investigate the issue of specifications and whether the requirements for the in-specification bonus are still being demanded by buyers or retailers.
Also Read: IFA responds to Creed’s ‘4 movement rule’ comments“A lot of attention has been focused on the issue of four farm residencies [three farm movements] and an analysis of the slaughter data shows that 93% of steers and 95% of heifers meet this criteria,” IFA stated.
ICMSA
Des Morrison, livestock committee chairperson of ICMSA, said an in-spec bonus should not be based on the number of movements an animal has had in its life.
This measure is predicated on the idea that movements impact animal health negatively.
He added: “This is not the case at all when the appropriate procedures are in place. It seems illogical to us – and has always seemed illogical – to have the four movement rule as part of an in-spec bonus.
“It is arbitrary and is unsupported by data or science.”