Article on Latest on CAP Reform

HillFarmer

http://www.leitrimobserver.ie/news/farming-news/leitrim-macra-want-real-cap-reform-1-4820046

What are peoples views on a much lower rate per acre for marginal land?

reilig

HillFarmer wrote: »

http://www.leitrimobserver.ie/news/farming-news/leitrim-macra-want-real-cap-reform-1-4820046

What are peoples views on a much lower rate per acre for marginal land?

As part of this decision on distribution of CAP, I think that the decision makers have to decide what the actual CAP payment is for?

Is it to compensate farmers for producing cheap food?
and
Who should be compensated - those producing food or those capable of producing food? In this, it will have to be decided upon as to who deserves the highest level of compensation - those who have high quality land or those who farm marginal land.
Perhaps they deserve equal compensation?

and

Is CAP paid to try to keep farmers farming and keep rural communities alive?
If it is, the decision makers need to decide if large amounts of money should be paid to a small amount of large farmers on quality land or if some of this money would "perform" better if paid in smaller amounts to a large amount of smaller farmers on marginal land?

Then we have to ask questions about young farmers and new entrants. Do we want them and if so, how can they be convinced that there is a future for them in farming? We were all young farmers or new entrants once!

Min

I loved the article and it was published in today's farming independent, loved the way he had a go at the IFA and the minister for trying to protect the payments of just over 2,000 farmers who get over €50,000 a year. Basically both parties working against the interest of 98.4% of farmers, the French model would be best and we should look to the French who are doing more for Irish family farms than the IFA or the government.

Apparently if capped at 50k, we could have €400 for the first 20 hectares, €250 for the next 20 hectares and then lower again for the rest.
But no this doesn't suit the IFA, as most of the leaders in the IFA get more than the €50k a year...

I thought it was a great article. Nice to see someone having a real go at the IFA and the government for trying to protect the highest paid, as the lad in the article said, there is no problem when it comes to capping the DAS monies, which is down to €3k for most.

HillFarmer

Min wrote: »

I loved the article and it was published in today's farming independent, loved the way he had a go at the IFA and the minister for trying to protect the payments of just over 2,000 farmers who get over €50,000 a year. Basically both parties working against the interest of 98.4% of farmers, the French model would be best and we should look to the French who are doing more for Irish family farms than the IFA or the government.

Apparently if capped at 50k, we could have €400 for the first 20 hectares, €250 for the next 20 hectares and then lower again for the rest.
But no this doesn't suit the IFA, as most of the leaders in the IFA get more than the €50k a year...

I thought it was a great article. Nice to see someone having a real go at the IFA and the government for trying to protect the highest paid, as the lad in the article said, there is no problem when it comes to capping the DAS monies, which is down to €3k for most.

Couldn't agree with you more.

I'm amazed more small and marginal land farmers are not up in arms

Viewtodiefor

HillFarmer wrote: »

Couldn't agree with you more.

I'm amazed more small and marginal land farmers are not up in arms

Wouldn't it be great in this so called democracy if for once the needs of the many outweighed the greed of the few!
In my humble opinion this will never get off the ground, unless the French and Germans say hey Paddy u had ur bit e.g subs for years n your new Debt deal, sit there like a good boy and take your medicine. Is this a possibility???
History shows we have come out of cap negtiotions on the right side more of less
( as in we got what the ifa/gov etc wanted)
Are things going to be different this time?? Unlikely as cap is supposed to support food production and food availability in Europe so technically then this proposal is not falling into this category as it is propping up the least productive land while the most productive gets less. That will be the counter argument from Irish side.

rancher

Min wrote: »

I loved the article and it was published in today's farming independent, loved the way he had a go at the IFA and the minister for trying to protect the payments of just over 2,000 farmers who get over €50,000 a year. Basically both parties working against the interest of 98.4% of farmers, the French model would be best and we should look to the French who are doing more for Irish family farms than the IFA or the government.

Apparently if capped at 50k, we could have €400 for the first 20 hectares, €250 for the next 20 hectares and then lower again for the rest.
But no this doesn't suit the IFA, as most of the leaders in the IFA get more than the €50k a year...

I thought it was a great article. Nice to see someone having a real go at the IFA and the government for trying to protect the highest paid, as the lad in the article said, there is no problem when it comes to capping the DAS monies, which is down to €3k for most.

Why single out IFA, none of the farm organisatios are supporting flat rate payment, How can any organisation support taking one members money and give it to another member.
I said in a post months ago that the only policy open to IFA was that no member should lose too much

Conmaicne Mara

Excellent article. Going to share that with a few people who I know will be interested in reading it.

HillFarmer

rancher wrote: »

Why single out IFA, none of the farm organisatios are supporting flat rate payment, How can any organisation support taking one members money and give it to another member.
I said in a post months ago that the only policy open to IFA was that no member should lose too much

Why not?

Their stance is not to take away too much from farmers with a very big single farm payment.
Also, are they against capping farmers with big single farm payment ie above 60,000?

They don't seem to be worried about the small farmer or fellow farming bad land.
DAS was cut this year, and we see Pillar 2 in the CAP reform going to be cut approx 11%, this is another hit on the west of Ireland farmer.

Poor Farmer in the hills

It cannot make sense to pay people according to what farming they were doing 12 years ago.
In the late nineties small farmers mostly in the west were advised by the advisory service to concentrate on producing quality weanlings and to sel them to farmers on good land (mainly in the east ) who had good quality land to finish them.
This is why we have such a low single farm payment .It is bad enough to have been punished for this for 12 years without making it 20 years.
Capping payments must be a sensible option . Farmers getting a massive payment give farming a bad name and give ammunition for the anti-farmer lobby to attack all farmers. It should be done even if it does not make a big difference to farmers on a low payment.

rancher

Min wrote: »

I loved the article and it was published in today's farming independent, loved the way he had a go at the IFA and the minister for trying to protect the payments of just over 2,000 farmers who get over €50,000 a year. Basically both parties working against the interest of 98.4% of farmers, the French model would be best and we should look to the French who are doing more for Irish family farms than the IFA or the government.

Apparently if capped at 50k, we could have €400 for the first 20 hectares, €250 for the next 20 hectares and then lower again for the rest.
But no this doesn't suit the IFA, as most of the leaders in the IFA get more than the €50k a year...

I thought it was a great article. Nice to see someone having a real go at the IFA and the government for trying to protect the highest paid, as the lad in the article said, there is no problem when it comes to capping the DAS monies, which is down to €3k for most.

And if everyone maximised their subsidies like us....the budget would now be 4 or 5 billion or if we farmed like the 98.4% the budget would be 1/4 Billion.
Credit where credit is due I say.

Macra has members who are on farms with good SFPs... wonder what they think of Leitrim macra

Min

rancher wrote: »

And if everyone maximised their subsidies like us....the budget would now be 4 or 5 billion or if we farmed like the 98.4% the budget would be 1/4 Billion.
Credit where credit is due I say.

Macra has members who are on farms with good SFPs... wonder what they think of Leitrim macra

I bought land that has no SFP attached to it, apparently according to the IFA this makes me a farmer that isn't that productive


Leitrim macra make a lot of sense. I like the system the French are proposing, the IFA are the most vocal and largest farming organisation in the country and they have been a disgrace when it has come to the CAP negotiations. So much so that if they want me to vote at the election next time, I will not be wasting petrol to go vote as I will not forget how they have tried to make sure those with the lower payments are penalised, because the ones with the big payments seemingly need protection or they might not want to get out of the bed in morning and be productive.
While those on lower payments have to be productive and more profitable when it comes to the products they produce, because they don't have a large SFP to fall back on.

It is the IFA who have the big marches to Dublin, I want them to see them care for family farms. They talk about the family farm then work to protect those with higher payments which is not in the interest of most family farms.

I am totally supporting the French on this. It is a great agricultural country and from what I see they are doing far more for Irish family farms than the IFA is. Talk is cheap for the IFA, their actions do not reflect their talk, and to think I contribute money to them...

The only problem with Leitrim Macra is the man has said what a lot think and what a lot are afraid to say in public. The truth hurts sometimes.

rancher

Min wrote: »

I bought land that has no SFP attached to it, apparently according to the IFA this makes me a farmer that isn't that productive


Leitrim macra make a lot of sense. I like the system the French are proposing, the IFA are the most vocal and largest farming organisation in the country and they have been a disgrace when it has come to the CAP negotiations. So much so that if they want me to vote at the election next time, I will not be wasting petrol to go vote as I will not forget how they have tried to make sure those with the lower payments are penalised, because the ones with the big payments seemingly need protection or they might not want to get out of the bed in morning and be productive.
While those on lower payments have to be productive and more profitable when it comes to the products they produce, because they don't have a large SFP to fall back on.

It is the IFA who have the big marches to Dublin, I want them to see them care for family farms. They talk about the family farm then work to protect those with higher payments which is not in the interest of most family farms.

I am totally supporting the French on this. It is a great agricultural country and from what I see they are doing far more for Irish family farms than the IFA is. Talk is cheap for the IFA, their actions do not reflect their talk, and to think I contribute money to them...

The only problem with Leitrim Macra is the man has said what a lot think and what a lot are afraid to say in public. The truth hurts sometimes.

There is only one crowd lobbying to reduce farmers incomes and thats you lot, and not forgetting o'cuivs travelling circus....he wasn't worried about you when he scrapped the REPS ...a scheme that had very little cost to the country. If all the low sfp farmers stay at the level they were at in reference years and the high SFP farmers can't afford to maintain tha level they were at........there won't be much production going on

freedominacup

Poor Farmer in the hills wrote: »

Capping payments must be a sensible option . Farmers getting a massive payment give farming a bad name and give ammunition for the anti-farmer lobby to attack all farmers.

Right so let's go the whole socialist hog and cap the SFP at around €11.5k or the average payment per farm in 2011...... any takers. Forget any links to production or acreage just a nice simple flat cap at the average payment with no facility to ever increase it. Anyone exiting farming would simply lose their payment to the national reserve to be distributed equally amongst all remaining farmers.I imagine everybody would like the cap to be set a couple of '000 above their own level though.

Viewtodiefor

freedominacup wrote: »

Right so let's go the whole socialist hog and cap the SFP at around €11.5k or the average payment per farm in 2011...... any takers. Forget any links to production or acreage just a nice simple flat cap at the average payment with no facility to ever increase it. Anyone exiting farming would simply lose their payment to the national reserve to be distributed equally amongst all remaining farmers.I imagine everybody would like the cap to be set a couple of '000 above their own level though.

Yea 2 or 3k extra you'd get a nice holiday outa that !!

HillFarmer

rancher wrote: »

There is only one crowd lobbying to reduce farmers incomes and thats you lot, and not forgetting o'cuivs travelling circus....he wasn't worried about you when he scrapped the REPS ...a scheme that had very little cost to the country. If all the low sfp farmers stay at the level they were at in reference years and the high SFP farmers can't afford to maintain tha level they were at........there won't be much production going on

Rancher, how are we lobbying to reduce money to farmers incomes?

Irelands SFP will be nearly the same, its just the way the funds are distributed among farmers.

All we are saying is the system should be fairer.

Why is O'Cuivs meeting a travelling circus? I don't have any affiliation to any political party but at least he is getting a balanced view and meeting farmers to get a view of what is best for all irish farmers.

You say if farmers with largeSFP are cut there will be no production.

They will be plenty of production going on.
I doubt the fields in Kilkenny and Tipperary will be empty.

rancher

HillFarmer wrote: »

Rancher, how are we lobbying to reduce money to farmers incomes?

Irelands SFP will be nearly the same, its just the way the funds are distributed among farmers.

All we are saying is the system should be fairer.

Why is O'Cuivs meeting a travelling circus? I don't have any affiliation to any political party but at least he is getting a balanced view and meeting farmers to get a view of what is best for all irish farmers.

You say if farmers with largeSFP are cut there will be no production.

They will be plenty of production going on.
I doubt the fields in Kilkenny and Tipperary will be empty.

You are lobbying to reduce incomes to family farms that are getting over €300/ha and there is more than 2000 of those in the country, IFA are not lobbying to reduce anyones income. Subsidies came in in the 90s to compensate sheep/beef farmers for reduced prices and prices since then have not kept up with inflation and our costs have exceeded inflation.
If we required subsidising then, we definitely need it now.
Ocuiv is trying to take money of productive farmers to undo the damage he did when he closed REPS, but before he closed it he let in ahuge no. of dairy farmers, (the highest money spinner in farming) who are now drawing €10000 reps, maybe plus 3000 disadvantage areas,
The suckler cow herd has reduced by 20% since they started cutting the suckler welfare scheme so I wouldn't be too sure about maintaining production.
Drystock farming is a break even exercise now and most of us have lost REPS, so anthing thats taken off farm families is a direct cut in their income and there is enterprises out there that would handle a cut in their SFP better than the drystock farmers that were claiming that €1.2bn in the 90s

Min

I'm lobbying here to increase incomes of the majority, rather than protecting the minority who make out they get the money because they are the most productive.
The man from Leitrim Macra is lobbying to increase the income of the majority.

I think the problem is greed, rather than anything to do with productivity.

Where I live in Kilkenny, I get the DAS for farming in an area termed 'mountain type grazing land', which is very different to farming on the flatter land in Kilkenny which does have a longer growing season than the higher lands. This means the people on the better, flatter land can be more productive, have higher SFP because the spoon they are born with means they are simply starting off from a far more advantageous position.
It doesn't mean the person on the higher ground isn't working just as hard to produce food and with higher costs - longer winter, more work to maintain land, higher rainfall.
Then the person with the advantage of the better land getting higher payments for living in a more advantageous area.
This paying more to people with better land does nothing to support the family farm, it is a support for better land over those who work and farm land that has natural disadvantages.

The French proposals remove this and supports all, irrespective of land type, advantages and disadvantages.
We need to support rural Ireland, not farmers with higher payments, who give the impression they aren't very efficient if they aren't able to farm on a lower payment so others get a bit more.

The majority get €10,000 and under and the IFA are crying that a cap of €50,000 is too low...
It shows the priority of the IFA, it is not towards those farmers on lower SFP. It is just sheer greed.
There is no problem with the payment system used for the DAS, which should be used for the SFP.
Never heard anyone claim the DAS was socialist in nature for it's sytem which caps the payments.

SFP should be done in a similar manner to the DAS. Equity for all.

Tipp Man

Min wrote: »

I'm lobbying here to increase incomes of the majority, rather than protecting the minority who make out they get the money because they are the most productive.
The man from Leitrim Macra is lobbying to increase the income of the majority.

I think the problem is greed, rather than anything to do with productivity.

Where I live in Kilkenny, I get the DAS for farming in an area termed 'mountain type grazing land', which is very different to farming on the flatter land in Kilkenny which does have a longer growing season than the higher lands. This means the people on the better, flatter land can be more productive, have higher SFP because the spoon they are born with means they are simply starting off from a far more advantageous position.
It doesn't mean the person on the higher ground isn't working just as hard to produce food and with higher costs - longer winter, more work to maintain land, higher rainfall.
Then the person with the advantage of the better land getting higher payments for living in a more advantageous area.
This paying more to people with better land does nothing to support the family farm, it is a support for better land over those who work and farm land that has natural disadvantages.

The French proposals remove this and supports all, irrespective of land type, advantages and disadvantages.
We need to support rural Ireland, not farmers with higher payments, who give the impression they aren't very efficient if they aren't able to farm on a lower payment so others get a bit more.

The majority get €10,000 and under and the IFA are crying that a cap of €50,000 is too low...
It shows the priority of the IFA, it is not towards those farmers on lower SFP. It is just sheer greed.
There is no problem with the payment system used for the DAS, which should be used for the SFP.
Never heard anyone claim the DAS was socialist in nature for it's sytem which caps the payments.

SFP should be done in a similar manner to the DAS. Equity for all.

Ah the equity of DAS - the very same equity which means that I couldn't claim 1 red cent of DAS while our neighbours directly across the river were able to claim 10k - farming exactly the same type of land - they just happened to be on the other side of the river - that's real equitable alright

The amazing thing is that i would say that 95% of the countries farmers would kill to have this "disadvantaged" land

It's also very easy to say that there are so many farmers with small SFP's - but how many of these are full time farmers?? Would you prefer to take SFP from full time farmers and give it to part timers?? I certainly wouldn't

There are 2 very easy solutions to this distribution "problem"

1) get rid of CAP altogether - at a rough guess at least half the farmers in the country would be gone to the wall within 2 years - but at least they would have gone to the wall together in solidarity and fairness

2) introduce a matrix system which incorporates a flat rate payment combined with a rate linked to your stocking rate for example. The flat rate should be low to discourage "arm chair" farming (maybe 50 and acre) and then the rate increases as the level of the stocking rate increases. If they wanted to (in fact it would probably be necessary) they could have a bell curve for stocking - so once stocking rate gets above a certain point then the payment rate could drop off again. This should be easy to implement - there would be no reference year. You would simply fill out your area aid form and they will have your average stock held for the year. so you would be continously paid for your previous years efforts

Dont be daft

Tipp Man wrote: »

introduce a matrix system which incorporates a flat rate payment combined with a rate linked to your stocking rate for example. The flat rate should be low to discourage "arm chair" farming (maybe 50 and acre) and then the rate increases as the level of the stocking rate increases. If they wanted to (in fact it would probably be necessary) they could have a bell curve for stocking - so once stocking rate gets above a certain point then the payment rate could drop off again. This should be easy to implement - there would be no reference year. You would simply fill out your area aid form and they will have your average stock held for the year. so you would be continously paid for your previous years efforts

I've been of the opinion for a while now that this is probably the best option for everyone.
At least then there is some faint link to productivity. The tillage sector would be a problem but then again I'm of the opinion that tillage is a complete waste of good land in this country.
I think the "Labor Unit" would be another way to link it but that would favor dairy systems and the West/part-timers would be disadvantaged.

In fact I'd be interested to hear opinions from people as to why a min stocking rate wouldn't be a fair compromise.

Tipp Man

Dont be daft wrote: »

I've been of the opinion for a while now that this is probably the best option for everyone.
At least then there is some faint link to productivity. The tillage sector would be a problem but then again I'm of the opinion that tillage is a complete waste of good land in this country.
I think the "Labor Unit" would be another way to link it but that would favor dairy systems and the West/part-timers would be disadvantaged.

In fact I'd be interested to hear opinions from people as to why a min stocking rate wouldn't be a fair compromise.

To get over the tillage "problem" you could have a higher flate rate for ploughed land - say 75 or 100 an acre

I would also strongly disagree with your assessment that tillage is a waste of our good land - I don't see how you can say that?? but that's for a different thread

Personally i think the current method is outdated - but a pure flat rate system is going to be an absolute nightmare in this country

Cran

Tipp Man wrote: »

It's also very easy to say that there are so many farmers with small SFP's - but how many of these are full time farmers?? Would you prefer to take SFP from full time farmers and give it to part timers?? I certainly wouldn't

I agree with a lot of your statement but the above is a ridiculous statement. What defines the difference between a full time farmer and a part time farmer with the same land, often a huge gap in SFP.

I see many full time farmers who are lucky enough to be recieving large SFPs based on what was produced by a previous generation, while many part time with same land working so called 'part time' because they have a small SFP for the same reason - That is not fair and needs to be addressed.....(FYI even though I'm 'part time' don't fall into either of these situations)

by the way I have a real issue with somehow so called 'full time' farmers should have more claim to certain things that so called 'part timers'

signinlate

Any recoupling of the sfp to production would be a backward step. All it would achieve is give the factories a guaranteed and price insensitive supply. Farmers should have the freedom to produce, or not, as they see fit.

Tipp Man

signinlate wrote: »

Any recoupling of the sfp to production would be a backward step. All it would achieve is give the factories a guaranteed and price insensitive supply. Farmers should have the freedom to produce, or not, as they see fit.

Then abolish CAP altogether

Min

Tipp Man wrote: »

Ah the equity of DAS - the very same equity which means that I couldn't claim 1 red cent of DAS while our neighbours directly across the river were able to claim 10k - farming exactly the same type of land - they just happened to be on the other side of the river - that's real equitable alright

The amazing thing is that i would say that 95% of the countries farmers would kill to have this "disadvantaged" land

It's also very easy to say that there are so many farmers with small SFP's - but how many of these are full time farmers?? Would you prefer to take SFP from full time farmers and give it to part timers?? I certainly wouldn't

There are 2 very easy solutions to this distribution "problem"

1) get rid of CAP altogether - at a rough guess at least half the farmers in the country would be gone to the wall within 2 years - but at least they would have gone to the wall together in solidarity and fairness

2) introduce a matrix system which incorporates a flat rate payment combined with a rate linked to your stocking rate for example. The flat rate should be low to discourage "arm chair" farming (maybe 50 and acre) and then the rate increases as the level of the stocking rate increases. If they wanted to (in fact it would probably be necessary) they could have a bell curve for stocking - so once stocking rate gets above a certain point then the payment rate could drop off again. This should be easy to implement - there would be no reference year. You would simply fill out your area aid form and they will have your average stock held for the year. so you would be continously paid for your previous years efforts

One could never claim €10k on the DAS, I think the maximum at the height was somewhere about €4.4k, now with sheepthe max is somewhere equal to or under €3.4K or with no sheep it is a bit less.

If your neighbour told you €10k he or she were telling lies.

Tipp Man

Min wrote: »

One could never claim €10k on the DAS, I think the maximum at the height was somewhere about €4.4k, now with sheepthe max is somewhere equal to or under €3.4K or with no sheep it is a bit less.

If your neighbour told you €10k he or she were telling lies.

Apologies, got confused with the reps

Either way my point on the DAS stands

caseman

Min wrote: »

One could never claim €10k on the DAS, I think the maximum at the height was somewhere about €4.4k, now with sheepthe max is somewhere equal to or under €3.4K or with no sheep it is a bit less.

If your neighbour told you €10k he or she were telling lies.

If thier was a few herd numbers in the house hold, which is very common around me

Min

Tipp Man wrote: »

Apologies, got confused with the reps

Either way my point on the DAS stands

Well you could have gotten REPS before the scheme closed.

I qualify for DAS as my lowest land is about 750 asl and the highest is over 1,000ft and I farm it full time.
If someone lives at say 200ft asl on flat land with all the advantages then they should be more productive, but it doesn't mean they deserve to get more money for having natural advantages.

Yes, your proposal on stocking rate would make sense but if someone has natural disadvantages then it is nature that is restricting higher stocking rates. I have a longer winter than someone down around Kilkenny city on lower ground, they get higher temperatures and according to the local council, those of us on the higher ground in the county get 20% more rainfall, and from my own weather station and comparing it to the one in the city, temperatures on the higher ground do normally be over 1.5C colder. So colder and wetter, shorter growing season.
Does the person with natural advantages need more money? If the person is working their land to the max they shouldn't be penalised for living in an area with natural advantages, this is the problem with your proposal.
It awards the person who is fortunate enough to have the best natural advantages. When the person farming the land with the disadvantages has more work and expense because of the disadvantages.
So the French proposal would be best as the DAS would top up those who farm land with natural disadvantages.

Min

caseman wrote: »

If thier was a few herd numbers in the house hold, which is very common around me

Still it is paid per hectare, not a lump sum like the SFP based on the past.

signinlate

Tipp Man wrote: »

Then abolish CAP altogether

Why would I want to do that?
As I see it the CAP has become a payment for farming under a much stricter regulatory regime than our non-european competitors. There is also a political will in Europe to preserve the family farm model that isn't as strong elsewhere.

Farmers are better off to be in a position where they can respond to market forces than producing for subsidy

IrishLad2012

Great article and not before time that somone spoke out.Definetely a French model would suit this country better.People on the prime land of this country think that marginal land farmers aren't as productive because they aren't as active farmers when nothing could be further from the truth,they are very productive on the poor land they hold,something the prime land farmers wouldn't know a thing about.

Two major problems in this country with farming:

1)The Age Factor: 28pc of single farm payment recipients are aged 65 or older, while only 5pc are aged 35 or under.

2)The government and IFA are supporting aCAP that suits only 2,102 out of a total of nearly 130,000 farmers.

nilhg

AFAIK with whatever system comes in it will be open to the Government to regionalise it, rather than have a complete redistribution for example from South East to North West, it will be open to them to set seperate rates applying to different areas.

That'll put the cat among the proverbial political pigeons.

rancher

IrishLad2012 wrote: »

2)The government and IFA are supporting aCAP that suits only 2,102 out of a total of nearly 130,000 farmers.

Where and how did you get that figure

Tipp Man

signinlate wrote: »

Why would I want to do that?
As I see it the CAP has become a payment for farming under a much stricter regulatory regime than our non-european competitors. There is also a political will in Europe to preserve the family farm model that isn't as strong elsewhere.

Farmers are better off to be in a position where they can respond to market forces than producing for subsidy

I don't disagree

However if you have a blended rate of flat payment and stocking rate then you remove the armchair farmer syndrome and make people someway responsible for a level of production

A flat rate will be a disaster

Dont be daft

signinlate wrote: »

Any recoupling of the sfp to production would be a backward step. All it would achieve is give the factories a guaranteed and price insensitive supply. Farmers should have the freedom to produce, or not, as they see fit.

I dont think the freedom to produce benefit would have any effect on the market pricing.
Its not like the decision to produce or not is made in full knowledge of end product pricing. If you finish cattle you probably make the decision to take them to finishing a year or 6 months ahead of actually doing so. So nobody ever knows were the market is really going to be.

The freedom to produce is not being made on accurate predictions of the future market.
Its at best speculation, at worst (from what I see around me) it is pure and simple laziness.

I do accept that thats only my own theory and you may very well be right, but if thats a side effect of having min. stock units to acquire payments then so be it.
The alternative is a continuation of the scenario were the taxpayers subsidize not only loss making farmers but ones sitting on their arses.

I frankly find it an insult have gone out and leased land of a farmer and stocked it while he sat in the house drinkin' tea, and at the end of it all he still got his cheque and I barely had enough to make it worthwhile.

blue5000

rancher wrote: »

Where and how did you get that figure

Did you read the article yet?

French proposal looks good, but are there unseen cons in it?

Tipp Man

Dont be daft wrote: »

I do accept that thats only my own theory and you may very well be right, but if thats a side effect of having min. stock units to acquire payments then so be it.
The alternative is a continuation of the scenario were the taxpayers subsidize not only loss making farmers but ones sitting on their arses.

I frankly find it an insult have gone out and leased land of a farmer and stocked it while he sat in the house drinkin' tea, and at the end of it all he still got his cheque and I barely had enough to make it worthwhile.

Using the numbers quoted earlier in this thread a farmer with 50 acres would get 8,000 for literally doing not

It's an absolute joke

signinlate

Tipp Man wrote: »

I don't disagree



A flat rate will be a disaster

I don't see how it would be a disaster. However I do think the current system is impossible to defend.

Why pay farmers on the basis of what they did over ten years ago?

Why keep giving some farmers a competitive advantage?

For example I can rent a field, put 10 cattle on it and receive €200/hectare sfp. If my neighbour rents the same field and he puts the same cattle on it yet he receives €500/hectare.

Tipp Man

signinlate wrote: »

I don't see how it would be a disaster. However I do think the current system is impossible to defend.

Why pay farmers on the basis of what they did over ten years ago?

Why keep giving some farmers a competitive advantage?

For example I can rent a field, put 10 cattle on it and receive €200/hectare sfp. If my neighbour rents the same field and he puts the same cattle on it yet he receives €500/hectare.

It's pretty simple how a flat rate will be a disaster

It will drive the price of rental land through the roof, it's happening already, and will put a minimum rental price of over 200 euro for any kind of acre of land, any kind of decent land will be 300

It will promote armchair farming even more as there is absolutely no consequence for not producing

rancher

blue5000 wrote: »

Did you read the article yet?

French proposal looks good, but are there unseen cons in it?

I read the article alright, but Irish lad said ....''The government and IFA are supporting aCAP that suits only 2,102 out of a total of nearly 130,000 farmers''

The proposed cap suits me and I'm not one of the 2,102 that he's referring to. how many more has he missed out on.

If I'm producing 800 lambs on 100acres and getting €20,000/yr SFP, surely I'm giving better value to the EU and my country than a farmer producing 200 lambs on 100acres and getting €10,000/yr

signinlate

Tipp Man wrote: »

It's pretty simple how a flat rate will be a disaster

It will drive the price of rental land through the roof, it's happening already, and will put a minimum rental price of over 200 euro for any kind of acre of land, any kind of decent land will be 300

It will promote armchair farming even more as there is absolutely no consequence for not producing

Some of the increase in the price of rental land could be put down to speculation that we were about to enter a new set of reference years.

With a flat rate there would be more customers for good land but they all would have the same sfp/hectare. With the current system you have fewer customers for the best land each with a large sfp/hectare. At the end of the day you have the same amount of money chasing the same amount of land.

IrishLad2012

rancher wrote: »

Where and how did you get that figure

There is only 2000 farmers in this country getting over 50k in SFP.The IFA and Government dont want to cap SFP because of this small majority.Did you not read the OP's original post?

rancher

IrishLad2012 wrote: »

There is only 2000 farmers in this country getting over 50k in SFP.The IFA and Government dont want to cap SFP because of this small majority.Did you not read the OP's original post?

No point in capping SFP, farmers will just split their holdings to suit...ie a farm with a €90,000 euro entitlement would then become two farms (husband/wife or father/son,etc) with €45,000 entitlement

Tipp Man

IrishLad2012 wrote: »

There is only 2000 farmers in this country getting over 50k in SFP.The IFA and Government dont want to cap SFP because of this small majority.Did you not read the OP's original post?

And there are thousands of farmers under 50k who will also lose when it goes per acre

They are wrongly counted in the 98%, which is quite frankly a ridiculous number for the original author to use

Tipp Man

signinlate wrote: »

Some of the increase in the price of rental land could be put down to speculation that we were about to enter a new set of reference years.

With a flat rate there would be more customers for good land but they all would have the same sfp/hectare. With the current system you have fewer customers for the best land each with a large sfp/hectare. At the end of the day you have the same amount of money chasing the same amount of land.

Well if you think rents of 300 an acre are good for farmers then fair enough

I personally think its a disaster

signinlate

Tipp Man wrote: »

Well if you think rents of 300 an acre are good for farmers then fair enough

I personally think its a disaster

Of course high rents are not a good thing but the total paid in rent won't change just because of a change in how the sfp is distributed. It's just that farmers who currently have very high value entitlements will no longer have the field to themselves when it comes to renting the best land.

IrishLad2012

rancher wrote: »

No point in capping SFP, farmers will just split their holdings to suit...ie a farm with a €90,000 euro entitlement would then become two farms (husband/wife or father/son,etc) with €45,000 entitlement

But capping SFP will mean more SFP for farmers on marginal land,I don't mind how the others split theirs,once there is an increase for farmers with small SFP.

merryberry

rancher wrote: »

No point in capping SFP, farmers will just split their holdings to suit...ie a farm with a €90,000 euro entitlement would then become two farms (husband/wife or father/son,etc) with €45,000 entitlement

easy get around that by prohibiting the artificial splitting of holdings so as to max financial gain. This was a feature of area based schemes like reps

freedominacup

Any more takers for my flat rate per farm proposal of €11.5k per farm with no transfer of entitlements etc. Viewtodiefor thinks it's a great plan brings his payment up by €3-4000. He'll get a grand holiday out of it every year. I see a lot of sh**e talk here about armchair farmers and lads underutilising their land but still drawing a payment do ye not get it? That was the one of the points of the current system, freedom to farm and that means that on occasion some farmers are in a position to not farm or farm very extensively if that's what suits them. It's meant to be that way, this is not an unforseen consequence of the current system more a specific intention of it. Everybody posting about flat rate per acre and armchair farmers needs to be careful about what they're wishing for. As soon as you restore the link between these payments and production the cost of the means of production will be effected badly in the interests of active farmers. Somebody is always going to be in the best position at the sales ring or the conacre auction to pay the strongest price if it's not because of a large SFP it will be some other reason be it location or size of home farm etc. However if you drive 10,000 guys out of the armchair and into the sales rings and auctions in an effort to protect/increase their SFP just watch your margins and any increase you might get in SFP disappear. It has happened before and not in the long distant past less than 15 years ago. If you want to change the system find a way that has no relationship to output or acreage or you will regret it.

coolshannagh28

The current system may have been fair when it came out first but the very fact that it is referred to as the historical system reflects the fact that it is outdated and by extension unfair now .
Myself and other farmers who entered farming after the last round are fortunate in that we are being represented by a Romanian ,Calios who is insisting on genuine reform to benefit all disadvantaged farmers.
What is happening in Ireland is a classic example of the action of a powerful lobby representing the few and unfortunately Coveney had been sucked in by it at the cost of votes to FF due to their populist stance on this issue.This is starting to resemble the PS v private scenario on other threads.
Another point I would make is that SFP is a tradeable asset and shrewd farmers could have and still can improve their position by trading up in value.

Figerty

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

The current system may have been fair when it came out first but the very fact that it is referred to as the historical system reflects the fact that it is outdated and by extension unfair now .
Myself and other farmers who entered farming after the last round are fortunate in that we are being represented by a Romanian ,Calios who is insisting on genuine reform to benefit all disadvantaged farmers.
What is happening in Ireland is a classic example of the action of a powerful lobby representing the few and unfortunately Coveney had been sucked in by it at the cost of votes to FF due to their populist stance on this issue.This is starting to resemble the PS v private scenario on other threads.
Another point I would make is that SFP is a tradeable asset and shrewd farmers could have and still can improve their position by trading up in value.

This is a very important point. I have come into the farming and doubled the stocking rate on small farm. However, I don't get rewarded for doing this; instead my payment is based on a stocking rates long before I became active. I can't bring the numbes above 1 cow to 2.5 acres. just not possible on this land.

My neighbour who had a high head count of miserably bred thin hungry cattle who was over stocked to keep the numbers up is still benefitting on that number.

A flat rate, or stocking rate? Perphaps the answer is somewhere in between and factoring in the land quality.

Juniorhurler

This whole attitude of part timers deserve less sickens my hole. I saw my auld lad start with nothing bit three hungry kids. He went to a job milking cows for a fella so that he would get a farm labourers house to provide for his family.
He left this to drive a lorry when he had scratched up a deposit for a house. He then rented land, raising bought in dairy bred calves part time. About 12 years after starting this he sold the house and bought a small farm. 2 years later he sold that again and bought a larger, but still small farm.

He did all of this while being on a lorry from 5 until about 4.30 six days a week and sometimes seven. He retired from the lorry only about two years ago, in his sixties. He educated five kids to third level (2 more appeared in the intervening period) and we now farm 120 acres. I bought some of this, but mainly due to the fact that my parents educated me. We now farm 120 acres. The boss full time now, but me only part time.

Explain to me why my father doing 12 hours a day almost, off farm before coming home to start into his work there should preclude him from anything while other small farmers farmed sites, went on farm assist and spent a lot of time whinging and drinking tea?