BES shambles!

Anyone trying to make a margin from bought-in store lambs or grazing ewes will have blown their socks off to date.

There is just a hint that prices may be improving in the last week, but they are still a long way off what is needed at this time of year to allow any kind of profit from either job.

Fortunately, with the open winter we are down to around 50 BF wedders left to kill and the rest have done really well with nothing killed under 18kg and the average for the season nearer 20kg, but these were all home bred.

For those buying in big numbers of lambs to finish, if they don’t make any margin that will inevitably impact on the fragile store lamb market this summer. So now until April needs to see prices improve dramatically.

Speaking to lamb finishers over the last few months, it is worrying to hear their comments on buying BF lambs to finish.

The recent unwelcome fad for wee tup lambs with handle bar in-growing horns appears to be really starting to hurt this trade.

Wedder lambs away on keep with horns growing into their head or eyes is not only an animal welfare issue, it is a financial one.

Having to have a pair of foot shears or cheese wire to hand every time you go through BF wedders is not something likely to improve the saleability of store lambs and frankly is unnecessary.

Call me old fashioned, but a sheep of any breed needs a few basic traits. A leg in each corner to support a well-shaped, well grown carcase with a tight skin should be a must for every breed.

And, in the case of the BF breed, a good open head (and horns) with a black face (the clue is in the name of the breed isn’t it?) should just about cover it for most commercial breeders.

Fads and fashions amongst a handful of tup breeders come and go, and I’ve seen many iterations of this in my lifetime, and that’s great.

But if this starts undermining the whole breed, which appears to be the case when speaking to finishers right now, that is a really serious problem that needs to be addressed and quickly.

Our Blackies have scanned really well, averaging well over 170% for just over a thousand scanned so far. The only group that let the side down a bit was a group of gimmers that had over 10% barren.

We reckon they were just too fit in August/September and probably going backwards as they went to the tup – we won’t make that mistake again.

The Mules have scanned above 200% which is phenomenal, although with the number of triplets and even quads in them means the powdered milk machines look like they will be busy again!

The Blackie is a great hill sheep and she provides a fabulous in-bye ewe in the Mule, so please let’s not waste the breed for the sake of a look.

The cows are just about started calving as well so the next few months will certainly be busy. One thing that won’t require any of our time, however, is complying with the rules of the Beef Efficiency Scheme. After discussions with Stuart and Michael and consulting a contracts lawyer, we have decided not to sign up for it.

Our support for the principle of a scheme to add value and develop the Scottish suckler herd is beyond question. We are totally committed to beef production and being as efficient as we can be.

The capital investment that we have put into our suckler herds and the infrastructure that supports them, has been significant over the last few years so we know where we want to get to.

Unfortunately, the Beef Efficiency Scheme does not. From a great idea supported by both Alec Salmond and John Swinney, it has turned into a bureaucratic disaster.

It has no leadership, no direction and apart from some fine words about the objectives of the scheme, no defined actions or targets.

We are being told that by joining we will make our herds more efficient (and I quote): “Increasing efficiency will reduce the emissions from beef production and also improve overall herd profitability making your herd more sustainable both economically and environmentally” and: “The full impact of the scheme will not be realised for several years. We would expect the principal impacts to be improved genetic selection in respect of growth rates, feed conversion, maternal behaviour, nutrition practice and disease resistance. Importantly, these improvements will be cumulative”.

These claims are as confused and misguided as the contracts that were sent out for us to sign to join. I sign contracts in my life away from farming every week. I have never seen a contract quite like the one for BES – mind you neither has my contracts lawyer who I asked to give us advice on this!

I offer The Scottish Farmer readers the following observations for two reasons. Firstly, to outline the potential pitfalls of signing up to such a contract. And, secondly, to show how poorly drafted this so called contract is and how the scheme itself is simply not fit for purpose.

Although the document attached to the letter sent by ScotGov is described in the letter as a ‘contract’ it is described in the document itself as an ‘offer’:

1. The purpose of the contract/offer is to set out the terms upon which the 'Scottish Ministers' agree to make available a sum of money set out in the Schedule of Payments at Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the offer.

2. It would appear, however, from clause 2.3 of the Offer that the amount of the payments ('the Grant') can be recalculated and varied at any time at the sole discretion of the Scottish Ministers.

3. In Clause 3 of the Offer it is stated that the Grant will be used “towards the cost of carrying out, and (if applicable) maintaining the Approved Activities”.

4. The “Approved Activities” are defined as the “BES Actions”.

5. The BES Actions are defined as “the activities and actions that you have to undertake as specified in paragraph 2 Part 2 of the Schedule”.

6. These “activities and actions” require you (a) to record certain information, (b) to update the 'BES Database' (undefined), (c) to collect and submit tissue samples as set out in 2.3 of Part 2 of the Schedule, (d) to “undertake a carbon audit of your farm”, (e) to complete “the advisory service programme” and (f) to identify and commence implementation of at least three “management improvements”.

7. The scope, nature and timing of all of these so-called actions and activities are not defined, and it is thus unclear what is meant under each of these sub-paragraphs.

To take just one example – clause 2.4 – it is not stated what is meant by 'Carbon audit', who is to carry it out, how, when, what you are supposed to do with the audit results, and what standards the audit is designed to check, and what the consequence may be if the non-identified standards are not met.

Confused – so you should be!

My lawyer goes on: “I cannot advise you to sign up to such open ended, ill-defined commitments in such a poorly executed contract/offer. It is obviously a matter for the Scottish Government and their advisers, but I would have thought it should be a relatively simple matter to make these key terms clear, and that this could be done without a series of convoluted definitions and reference to terms which are not to be found in the body of the contract at all”.

So what does all this mean for us? Well, because we have nearly doubled our eligible animals and significantly grown our business since the reference year for the scheme we are likely to incur the costs associated with complying with the BES for a much bigger business than the number of animals we are paid for.

In such circumstances, we are not prepared to risk this scheme costing us money in the first three years with low payments based on this daft historic number.

And that’s before we get to years four and five where we still carry the costs but getting nothing in return. Neither can it be right, or remotely sensible, to pay people to reduce numbers but disallow new entrants or expanding beef businesses from applying.

I have lobbied NFUS who aren’t interested. Maybe that will change with a new more abrasive president.

I have lobbied ScotGov until I’m fed up talking to them, but both currently seem content to waste tax payers’ money on a scheme that will achieve absolutely nothing in its present form, and no changes are proposed.

The real frustration of this is that the idea was, and is, absolutely right but the implementation has been appalling.

We would love to be part of it but I will not sign up to a bunch of open ended ill-defined contractual commitments that end up costing the business money and adding no value.

So we are determined to make our suckler enterprise best in class but it won’t be with any help, or maybe I should say interference, from all the clever people who think the BES is the answer – it is not!