The true cost of producing beef cattle and sheep on English farms was revealed today (Friday) in new costings data published by the English Beef and Lamb Executive (EBLEX).
With the support of the industry, the 2005/2006 farm costings data contained in the latest edition of EBLEX Business Pointers does not include the Single Farm Payment, and also incorporates a number of non-cash costs. Taking these elements into consideration, the statistics show that average beef producers are making a loss of between £74.37 and £425.39 per head and average sheep producers are losing between £2.45 and £49.25 per head.
EBLEX Chief Executive Richard Ali said: “These figures make for
uncomfortable reading, but are the first to treat the farm business on the same
financial footing as any other business.
“EBLEX firmly believes these figures provide a sound starting point for
everyone involved in the industry to understand what needs to happen to achieve
a more sustainable future for the beef and lamb sector.”
Mr Ali stressed that although a sustainable future was not just about price,
retailers could play their part in building a profitable supply chain:
“Consumers have sent clear signals that they want to buy quality, home
– produced assured beef and lamb.
“Ensuring that product is clearly differentiated on retail shelves is
vital both to help shoppers to make informed choices and ensure the much
talked-about reconnection of the beef and lamb chain really does happen -
because the reality is that imported meat does not help maintain the English
countryside.”
The wide performance gap between the top third and average producers in Business Pointers clearly shows there is scope for the critical mass of farmers to look at their costings and work out where positive changes could be made. “That is where the EBLEX Better Returns Programmes for Beef and Sheep can help producers. These programmes highlight simple, practical advice in a number of areas where farmers can make a real difference to their returns,” added Mr Ali.
AUTUMN rains and wet fields are the perfect recipe for mud - and for some extremely dirty sheep. Unfortunately, if those sheep belong to you they will lose you money as the clean-up will have to be provided - and charged for - by the processor at full economic rates.
Phil Hadley, EBLEX Regional Development Manager, said: "The need to
present clean sheep at this time of year cannot be overstated.
"Whether the animals are sold through a livestock market or direct to a
processor any cleaning will cost money for the producer.
"There is also the problem that if excessive shearing is necessary it
could adversely affect the value of the skin."
Friday, 27 October 2006
| |
|
NUMBER 06/10 3 July 2006 |
Breakeven budgets produced by the English Beef and Lamb Executive (EBLEX) suggest early lamb production could generate profitable returns over the coming season. However, given the challenging nature of the spring market and the extent to which profitability depends upon fixed as well as variable cost control, it strongly advises producers to base early lambing decisions on their own breakeven budgets before putting ewes to the tup this summer.
Based on the average EBLEX costed flock performance in 2004/5 with lambing in January/February and finishing on a grass/concentrate diet from April to June, the budgets suggest realistic total costs of just under £55/lamb or £3.00/kg deadweight for 2007 (Table).
This compares with four year average deadweight prices of £3.28/kg in April, £3.18/kg in May and falling to £2.89 in June, suggesting there could be reasonable margins available for many of those selling the majority of their lambs in April and May.
At the same time, though, the budgets underline that total costs would only have to be around £5.50/lamb or 30p/kg deadweight higher to make production unprofitable even if all the lambs were to be sold at historically higher April prices.
With sheepmeat volumes forecast to decline in 2007, English producers could certainly be seeing better prospects for early lamb profitability this season providing they maintain good control over costs; always supposing increased competition does not materialise from chilled lamb imports or there is no extra carryover of old season lamb.
Under these circumstances, good breakeven budgeting using the EBLEX model with realistic assumptions on feed and labour costs, in particular, will help individual units assess the level of risk they run from early lamb production and plan accordingly ahead of tupping.
EBLEX 2007 Breakeven Budgets for Early Lambing *
| Variable Costs | £/ewe | Fixed Costs | £/ewe | |
| Ewe replacement cost | 8.00 | |||
| Ewe concentrates (50 kg/ewe) | 6.75 | Paid labour¹ | 12.00 | |
| Lamb concentrates (80 kg/ewe) | 11.60 | Power & machinery | 7.00 | |
| Forage | 4.00 | Admin | 4.00 | |
| Other feeds | 2.00 | Property charges | 3.00 | |
| Bedding | 1.00 | Land resource costs | 7.00 | |
| Vet & med | 5.00 | Machinery & fixtures | 5.00 | |
| Other | 3.00 | Finance costs | 3.00 | |
| TD> Total cost per ewe | 41.35 | Total cost per ewe | 41.00 | |
| Cost per lamb (1.5 lambs/ewe) | 27.57 | Cost per lamb (1.5 lambs/ewe) | 27.33 | |
| Cost per kg deadweight (18 kg/lamb) | 1.51 | Cost per kg deadweight (18 kg/lamb) | 1.49 | |
| Breakeven price per lamb to cover total variable and fixed costs | 54.90 | |||
| Breakeven lamb price per kg to cover total variable and fixed costs | 3.00 | |||
| * Based on average 2004/5 costed flock performance on grass/concentrates adjusted for 2007 costs | ||||
| ¹ Costed from flocks using a mix of employed and unpaid family labour. | ||||
These comments are quotes from MLC Policy Adviser, Mark Topliff who can be contacted on 01908 844268. Alternatively, ring your EBLEX Regional Manager or the Press Office on 01908 844166. Information is also available at www.eblex.org.uk
| |
|
NUMBER 06/09 16 June 2006 |
Lowland flocks could gain £15/ewe or more in the coming year by replacing ewes every four years instead of every five, according to the latest English Beef & Lamb Executive costings.
More frequent ewe replacement means retaining only the more productive ewes, together with more rapid improvement in both ewe quality and health status through better breeding or buying. EBLEX calculates this can lead to an extra 0.2 lambs per ewe per year plus extra carcase weights of 1 kg/lamb on average, boosting the annual weight of carcase sold per ewe by some 20%. This is worth over £14/ewe at the average 265p/kg deadweight realised by costed English lowland flocks in 2005/6 - more at higher 2006 season prices.
At the same time, the costings reveal that selling younger ewes in better condition can add a further £1 per ewe per year to the advantage by reducing the annual replacement cost, giving a net benefit of £15.31per ewe per year.
Replacement Regime Costings (EBLEX)
| Standard Replacement Regime (every 5 years) |
Target Replacement Regime (every 4 years) |
Benefit | |
| Lambs sold (number/ewe/year) | 1.5 | 1.7 | 0.2 |
| Average lamb carcase weight (kg) | 18.5 | 19.5 | 1.0 |
| Carcase weight per ewe (kg/year) | 27.75 | 33.15 | 5.4 |
| Carcase value @ 265p/kg dw (£/ewe/year) | 73.54 | 87.85 | 14.31 |
| Average ewe cost (£) | 80.00 | 80.00 | - |
| Average cull value (£) | 25.00 | 40.00 | 15.00 |
| Ewe replacement cost (£) | 55.00 | 40.00 | 15.00 |
| Average flock life (years) | 5.00 | 4.00 | 1.00 |
| Ewe replacement cost (£/ewe/year) | 11.00 | 10.00 | 1.00 |
| Total benefit (£/ewe/year) | 15.31 |
To take advantage of this opportunity, the latest EBLEX Action for Profit Factsheet on planned weaning (available at www.eblex.org.uk) advises flocks to:
| · | Appreciate that cutting replacement rates by keeping older ewes can be a false economy; | ||
| · | Ensure replacement ewes are of the right type and quality for the system; | ||
| · | Review flock records regularly to establish output per ewe and identify unproductive ewes; | ||
| · | Set key replacement selection goals and keep to them; | ||
| · | Cull all unproductive ewes regardless of the effect on replacement rates; | ||
| · | Take advantage of any pricing seasonality in the market to maximise cull ewe returns; | ||
| · | Use EBVs to assess the productive potential of home-bred and purchased stock; | ||
| · | Concentrate replacement breeding on improving lambing ease, mothering ability and lamb growth to eight weeks; | ||
| · | Buy replacements at least six weeks before tupping to a strict biosecurity protocol; and, | ||
| · | Assess bought-in ewes carefully on arrival, following a clear health plan to ensure they are in optimum condition for tupping |
These comments are direct quotes from EBLEX Project Manager, Chris Lloyd,
who can be contacted on 01480 482986.
Alternatively, ring your EBLEX Regional Manager or the Press Office on 01908
844166. Information is also available at www.eblex.org.uk
 |
 |
NUMBER 06/04 17 February 2006 |
Cutting lamb losses from birth to sale by just two percentage points in the coming season offers English flocks the opportunity to boost returns by about £1/ewe or more than £7 million nationally, according to the latest English Beef and Lamb Executive (EBLEX) calculations.
The calculations highlight that reducing lowland flock losses from a current average of 10% to an achievable target of 8% and hill and upland flock losses by a similar proportion will allow two extra lambs to be reared for every 100 ewes, increasing returns by almost exactly £1/ewe at 2005 prices.
The fact that most flocks should be able to do this at little or no extra cost, means the increased returns will feed straight through to margins, making a very positive contribution to improving overall profitability.
To make the most of this opportunity, EBLEX recommends:
Further information and guidance on improving flock returns by reducing lamb losses is available to levy payers through the EBLEX Lamb Action for Profit resource at http://www.eblex.org.uk.
These comments are direct quotes from EBLEX Project Manager, Chris Lloyd, who can be contacted on 01480 482986. Alternatively, ring your EBLEX Regional Manager or the Press Office on 01908 844166. Information is also available at www.eblex.org.uk.
| |
|
NUMBER 07/07 18 May 2007 |
Many English producers are making serious efforts to reduce the incidence of ewe and lamb lameness through preventive foot rot treatment, according to the initial findings of a two-year University of Warwick study for the English Beef and Lamb Executive (EBLEX).
However, the 2006 study of producers interested in lameness research - involving more than 160 flocks with an average of 400 ewes - also reveals fairly high current levels of lameness together with considerable apparent barriers to management change in some cases.
At 7%, the overall level of ewe lameness reported by the producers involved was lower than the national average. Even so, relatively few flocks had lameness levels of under 5% and a substantial number had an incidence of 9% or more.
With lameness reducing lamb weight gains by up to 500g/week as well as hitting both ewe fertility and milk yields, it is encouraging to see that more than 50% of flock managers reporting high levels of lameness were definitely willing to review their current management strategies. Perhaps more challenging will be the 40% who said they were only 'possibly willing to change'.
Also encouraging is the fact that over 50% of those involved in the study check sheep for lameness each day, with around half checking the feet of the whole flock at least twice a year.
The study revealed that in addition to trimming diseased feet, the main management practices used to prevent foot rot are flock foot bathing, topical antibiotics, injectable antibiotics and flock foot trimming.
Identification of the lameness condition(s) affecting a flock is key to any effective control and EBLEX is working actively with Warwick University to develop a manual to help producers with this and the process of considering appropriate management strategies.
Practical EBLEX advice on reducing flock lameness is available free to English levy payers in a summer initiative from Sheep Better Returns Programme (details of which can be obtained from www.eblexbetterreturns.org.uk or 01953 601655) and an interactive EBLEX Lamb Action for Profit fact sheet available at www.eblex.org.uk.
These comments are direct quotes from MLC Senior Geneticist, Gert Nieuwhof who can be contacted on 01908 844126. Alternatively, ring your EBLEX Regional Manager or the Press Office on 01908 844166. Information is also available at www.eblex.org.uk
Site map
Health page
Home page
| |
|
NUMBER 04/14 12 November 2004 |
The widespread incidence of anthelmintic resistance across the country makes it increasingly important for English lamb producers to place greater priority on building genetic resistance to worms through their breeding, advises the English Beef and Lamb Executive (EBLEX). All the more so under the growing economic pressures of CAP Reform.
Latest testing reveals resistance to benzimidazole white drenches now affecting 80% of lowland flocks, with some farms seeing resistance to all three main classes of wormer. At the same time, financial estimates identify direct veterinary cost savings of more than £2/ewe/year from using rams showing high inherent levels of resistance to intestinal worms.
Add to this increased growth rates from resistant lambs as well as decreased levels of worm eggs shed on pasture to affect susceptible animals grazing alongside them, and the value of breeding for worm resistance becomes even more apparent.
Following a pilot study in 2001 and the added impetus of EBLEX subsidies through breed Sire Reference Schemes, growing numbers of Texel, Suffolk and Charollais breeders are now using faecal egg count (FEC) technology to produce and market rams with Estimated Breeding Values for worm resistance alongside other key terminal sire EBVs.
As with all Estimated Breeding Values, ram FEC EBVs are presented relative to an average. Based on the number of worm eggs recorded per gram of faeces, these typically range from -1.0 to +1.0, with a negative value indicating worm levels lower than the average (0) under equivalent management conditions.
Assuming rams with higher levels of worm resistance are used on groups of ewes of a similar breeding potential under similar conditions, their progeny will have a lower requirement for anthelmintic treatment as well as showing improved performance.
FEC EBV Implications (Signet Sheepbreeder Service)
| Ram FEC EBV |
Level of Worm Resistance | Lamb Anthelmintic Need (under similar conditions) |
Lamb Performance (Ram Index points) |
| -1.0 | High | 40% lower | +10 |
| 0 | Average | Average | 0 |
| +1.0 | Low | 65% higher | -17 |
FEC EBV evaluations are available to all Sheepbreeder members from MLC's Signet Breeding Services. They are currently not incorporated into the overall Ram Index.
For more information on the breeding component of the EBLEX Better Returns Programme ring 0870 241 8829 or visit www.eblexbetterreturns.org.uk. For further information on the sustainable Control of Parasites in Sheep (SCOPS) visit the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/control/parasite_control.htm
These comments are direct quotes from MLC's Signet Breeding Services Manager, Sam Boon who can be contacted on 01908 844207. Alternatively, do ring your EBLEX Regional Manager or the Press Office on 01908 844166. Further information, including latest pricing, is available at www.eblex.org.uk or through a dedicated helpline on 0870 243 0441.
West Midlands Livestock Forum is a new group of beef and lamb farmers who are holding two workshops and a continuing programme. Information from Peter Reynolds, Tel. 01823 283161; e-mail: peterr@eblex.org.uk