Alternative CAP proposals needed

Poor Farmer in the hills

It is now abundantly clear the IFA proposals on CAP are designed to suit a small number of farmers who have very large payments from the last round of CAP negotiations
They want NO change
There needs to be drastic changes to give a fair and equitable system to reward farmers for what they are doing today and not 12 years ago.
Having attended a large number of IFA meetings in the recent past they respond to critics by saying a flat rate system is no good and that is the end of it.
Surely there is a lot of room for movement in between the two proposals to come up with a fair solution.
There is a lot of disquiet among farmers which needs to be harnessed and directed towards Fianna Gael councillors,TD's and MEPs to let them know that they will lose a lot of votes in rural Ireland if they and Simon Coveney do not get a fair deal which reflects what is actually happening on the ground today

Any suggestions on a way forward ?

lalababa

We should get a few thousand farmers with low SFP/Ha around Cork and Kerry and march up and down Carrigaline declaring Cilios as the new Massiah:)

Poor Farmer in the hills

Read my post again .I did not say Cilios had the best solution, but all the IFA have is no change and no solution.
Any body with a brain can see there must be change to account for what is happening on farms today
What about young farmers?
What about farmers who have increased production?
What about farmers claiming big single farm payments not farming at all now?

newholland mad

What about the ICSA or the ICMSA what are their views

Vandy West

Three main reasons for cap are according to farm journal last week are
Food production
Food safety/greening
Rural life (keeping smaller farmers in business)

So take the pillar 1 and 2 money per year ireland get and divide this into three equal parts as above.

Payment a - food production - payment divided on basis of farmers production as % of national production in the farmers production type.
Payment b - food safety/greening - payment shared out per ha if relevant rules are followed

Payment c - small farmer protection - payment for the first x amount of ha

No reason the existing dept staff couldn't reassess every year if we buy them a couple of those new computing machines.

Farmer Pudsey

We definatly need a realistic cap on the SFP there is no need for some farmers to be getting over 50k in SFP in my opinon it could be even lower. This alone would leave nearly 40 million to be redistributed. At 40K it would leave about 100 million and at 30K it would leave well I would imagine 150 million or more to be redistributed.

freedominacup

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

We definatly need a realistic cap on the SFP there is no need for some farmers to be getting over 50k in SFP in my opinon it could be even lower. This alone would leave nearly 40 million to be redistributed. At 40K it would leave about 100 million and at 30K it would leave well I would imagine 150 million or more to be redistributed.

freedominacup wrote: »

Yes there are 2300 of them getting around 60k each on average. If you took all of their SFP away and distibuted it amongst the 52,000 under €3k that 52,000 would get another €2.5k each bringing them to around €5k. That leaves the other 75,000 with an average payment of €15k. How much do you want to take from the average guy in this bracket?

There are plenty of figures being bandied around. One I saw was that there are approx 80,000 farmers with a payment of less than €10k. If we decided that everybody who has been in receipt of a payment larger than that for the past 15 years has had their go and were now totally excluded from the SFP system we would have a pot of €1.3 billion to share amongst 80,000 farmers. This would give each of these guys an SFP of €16,250 this is after removing all those deemed unworthy of receiving a payment by virtue of the diligence they displayed in the past.

I've said it before the only alternative is a flat payment of €760/acre on the first 15 acres end of to give every farmer a payment of €11,500 approx. This would massively increase the SFP of the vast majority of farmers. 80,000 getting less than €10,000 would see their income rise by a minimum of €1,500 and many of them (more than 50,000) would see their SFP income increase go up by a multiple of 4 times. This must surely be a good thing in the eyes of those who want a "fairer" redistibution of the SFP. Or for "fairer" should we read whatever puts a few grand more in my pocket?

There is no magical pot where more money is going to come from. If one farmer is getting a €30k payment, 4 others are getting less than €4k it's that simple.

mcko

Here is my alternative
If you can't make money from farming... Sell your farm and get a job or go on the dole.
With so many places closing down how in the name of God do we justify subsidising sole traders who can't make money.
If my local shop can't make money should the EU give him money.

Incredible the neck of the farming community.
Again, if your business is not successful, move on, it's not my job to keep giving you handouts.

rancher

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

We definatly need a realistic cap on the SFP there is no need for some farmers to be getting over 50k in SFP in my opinon it could be even lower. This alone would leave nearly 40 million to be redistributed. At 40K it would leave about 100 million and at 30K it would leave well I would imagine 150 million or more to be redistributed.

The main financial contributors, ie France, Germany, and England will not agree to a cap, so he who pays the piper calls the tune.
The large Italian feedlots have massive single farm payments....much bigger than here, what price would weanlings be if they were capped at 40k

reilig

mcko wrote: »

Here is my alternative
If you can't make money from farming... Sell your farm and get a job or go on the dole.
With so many places closing down how in the name of God do we justify subsidising sole traders who can't make money.
If my local shop can't make money should the EU give him money.

Incredible the neck of the farming community.
Again, if your business is not successful, move on, it's not my job to keep giving you handouts.

I agree.

Along with this I propose that any company who receives IDA funding should shut down.

Also, all of those multinational companies who receive tax breaks and development funding should be shut down too. It's all tax payer's money you know.

No more EU money to road building, airport development or rail development. Sure if they can't pay for themselves we shouldn't have them.

Wait a minute, sure the whole country is on an EU grant at the moment because it's not able to support itself. Can we sell the country and go on the world dole??

Feck the grants for farmers - people like you and me Mcko will be well able to afford a 30% rise in food prices because the grants compensate farmers for selling this much below cost. Oh wait a minute, I won't need to pay for food, I'm a farmer and can grow my own food. Can't you?

As you propose, Ireland would be a much better country if only 40% of its population were employed and we had no exports with the outside world!!

mcko

We have to many farmers that we cannot afford, all people who are employed in those IDA backed companies pay PAYE that keeps the system going, I know farmers pay their fair share to. They didn't even pay tax at all till 1978 and if the farmers spouse was employed off the farm she paid no income tax either.
To many farmers,
The old joke the farmers son got a colllege grant but the labourers son could not as he earned to much,

mcko

We have to many farmers that we cannot afford, all people who are employed in those IDA backed companies pay PAYE that keeps the system going, I know farmers pay their fair share to. They didn't even pay tax at all till 1978 and if the farmers spouse was employed off the farm she paid no income tax either.
To many farmers,
The old joke the farmers son got a colllege grant but the labourers son could not as he earned to much,

20silkcut

mcko wrote: »

We have to many farmers that we cannot afford, all people who are employed in those IDA backed companies pay PAYE that keeps the system going, I know farmers pay their fair share to. They didn't even pay tax at all till 1978 and if the farmers spouse was employed off the farm she paid no income tax either.
To many farmers,
The old joke the farmers son got a colllege grant but the labourers son could not as he earned to much,

What do you mean farmers paid no tax until 1978?

Agricultural rates were abolished c1978.
Not my responsibility to give you a history lesson but they were a heavy tax on farms for donkeys years prior to 1978.

As I said before on this forum big food companies are the biggest factor in making farms un viable in this country. By eradicating home production of milk, eggs, cheese, butter etc they closed off many extra income streams for farms and now have absolute control on food prices leaving farmers with zero control over the pricing of their product.

royalmeath

mcko wrote: »

Here is my alternative
If you can't make money from farming... Sell your farm and get a job or go on the dole.
With so many places closing down how in the name of God do we justify subsidising sole traders who can't make money.
If my local shop can't make money should the EU give him money.

Incredible the neck of the farming community.
Again, if your business is not successful, move on, it's not my job to keep giving you handouts.

Dear simpleton
If all the small farmers in rural parts of Ireland go out of business that would mean alot of rural shops and pubs closing because the agri community and the sfp keep alot of rural Ireland alive. I

reilig

royalmeath wrote: »

Dear simpleton
If all the small farmers in rural parts of Ireland go out of business that would mean alot of rural shops and pubs closing because the agri community and the sfp keep alot of rural Ireland alive. I

Not to mention the closing down of all of the food processing factories, vets, co-op stores, also a lot of hardwares, accountants, labs, machinery dealers, animal health care manufacturers, etc. etc.

You forget that the grant paid to farmers normally does not go into the farmer's pockets - instead it keeps hundreds of thousands of people off the dole as it keeps a lot of the rural economy in employment and a huge proportion of the urban economy in employment.

In fact it's the farmers who are unable to make money most who reinvest the SFP that they receive back into the economy. For the last 5 years, Farming related exports are the only thing that kept this country afloat.

The FF vision of building houses to sustain the economy for the next 100 years fell flat on its face back in 2008 - you might remember. Without agriculture related industry (food exports, food processing and other farmng related activities) this country hasn't got much else!!

The return on SFP paid to farmers is hundreds of multiples of that of Dole paid to unemployed people.

lalababa

Poor farmer from the hills- I agree with both your posts. I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick ,RE my post.

I am seriously suggesting a march around Carrigaline. And for farmers with small SFP/Ha but many Ha's ,Cilios's proposals would indeed be very welcome.

The points you raised about production and new young farmers are very valid.
Like you I would welcome a compromised system of payments linked to both production ( each or every 2nd year) and land area with maximum set limits. So that everybody gets a fair bite of the cherry.

Will this happen? Probally not. What is Coveny saying exactly? He seems to be saying he is trying to keep things as they are? (to keep the high SFPs happy) while also saying we might have to change a little (to keep the low SFPs happy).
Has he said he has a definite policy RE SFPs?

paddysdream

My solution (this conclusion I came to after perusing all relevant posts on this forum!)
Addendum
It is our wish to cherish equally all members of the farming community but there are some right bas***ds so we had better make some rules


1; Only "productive farmers" to get SFP.
Production defined in new SFP guidelines as; having lots of livestock ,but (and this is very important; not having too many!No finishers need apply.

2;No farmer to get more than his neighbours.This will of course apply to those who are seen to be "milking the system" only

3;Anyone who inherits a farm should have their SFP reduced by a percentage to be decided by multiplying the farm size in "hectacres" by the reg. on their new 4x4 and dividing by the amount of bad suckler cows their auld lad carried in the reference years.

4;All those who got off their ar*e and played a role in any of the 3 farm bodies ie IFA ICMSA or ICSA will have a disproportionate cut to their SFP due to the fact that they were "in the know" the last time and have grossly enlarged payments.In the unusual event of this not being the case then this cut will still apply as obiviously they were (are) too stupid and therefore dont deserve it anyway.

5;The concept of marginal land will henceforth be a banned subject and all "hectacres" in Ireland will have parity of esteem(thank you Ian and Gerry)

6;The SUCKLER COW shall be granted a special mention in the new European directives and worship will be compulsary on Saturdays and bank holiday Mondays (allowances to be made for the part time boys who have to catch up on the work on these days;maybe Friday night services?)
As all Gods needs an anti God (think the baby with the one eyebrow) this position shall be filled by HE who cannot be named (ie L**ry Go**man; cursed shall be his name)

7;Any person (male ,female or freemartin)who does not possess one of the following shall be ineligable to claim SFP.
a;De auld red neck.
b;Farmers Journal hi-vis vest.
c;a pike(look lads all we civilised people call it a sprong)
d;a grudge(choices of this option are eligible for 1 year only due to the constantly changing nature of Irish life)

8;Part time farmers are the future and in recognition of this fact the EU can , at any future date to be decided upon by whom so ever is in the office on that particular date(to be decided upon at the discretion of the relevant minister)
a;tell us all to get jobs
b;ask us why we are bleeding the taxpayer
c;deduct money(a percentage to be not greater than the amount of days we spend on expensive foreign holidays times the amount(in metric tonnes)of muck we drag out on the road,less the diesel(in litres) we use to burn bushes on the above specified public holidays) from the SFP of full time farmers.

9;In recognition of the fact that armchair farming is a "BAD THING" no farmer shall ,at any time,be in possession of the aforementioned article (vis- an armchair) and the fine ,on summary conviction shall be
a;a total exclusion from the scheme
or
b;forced leasing of any and all his lands to the productive chappy mentioned in article 1 (should this aforementioned chappy be over 35 or a large tillage farmer(max size to be determined at the time taking into account what the neighbours deem relevant) then they will have to pay at least 3 times what the sucking man would deem a fair figure.

10;The definition of a part time farmer shall be open to interpitation but shall in all instances exclude those with any or all of the following;
a; a business
b;a taxi plate on their chauffer driven merc
c;involvement in any meat related industry(including both processing and finishing)
d;any other trade or profession deemed not to be suitable by public opinion(this will be ascertained by a quick chat in the local mart and or creamery and the minister shall take into account how many of the said people are likely to vote for him next time out.

11;No farmer in the state shall receive more than anyone else(unless he really really deserves it)

12;No farmer in the state shall receive less than anyone else(unless we dont really really like him)

13;Land grabbing shall be defined as
buying land if yours is bigger than mine
or
renting land if your daddy got off his ar*e from 2000 onwards

14;any farmer(da ones with the white wooly rabbits only) with too much time on their hands on any wet Saturday evening in March shall deserve a 100% increase,(this measure will only apply to those who look on farming as a business not a hobby )

In conclusion,and in the spirit of going forward whilst not forgetting our shared past (some of us of course got a bigger share than others but this time its gonna be better )we ,the EU would like to take this oppurtunity to tell ye all that this time lads, look around and realise that in 2021 all the complaints ye have now will be directed at ye by the young productive part timer on marginal land with an ever increasing herd of suckies but not enough SFP to compete with the big boys(yes thats you in 8 years time)

ps sorry for the bad spelling

freedominacup

paddysdream wrote: »

In conclusion,and in the spirit of going forward whilst not forgetting our shared past (some of us of course got a bigger share than others but this time its gonna be better )we ,the EU would like to take this oppurtunity to tell ye all that this time lads, look around and realise that in 2021 all the complaints ye have now will be directed at ye by the young productive part timer on marginal land with an ever increasing herd of suckies but not enough SFP to compete with the big boys(yes thats you in 8 years time)

One of lifes little certainties.

[We Shall Overcome is] A song which, in various languages, is always sung by the same people, viz., the people who, when they grow up, will be the people who the next generation sing “We Shall Overcome’ at.”

Poor Farmer in the hills

Paddysdream we look forward to you. with your infinate wisdom ,replacing Dacien Ciolos in the very near future

Poor Farmer in the hills

Sorry Lalababa i obviously did take you up wrong

paddysdream

Due to intense lobbying and marching(from the usual fat cats dont ya know!) we(thats the royal we) have been forced to revise some of our edicts(oops that should read proposals) and put forward some alternative ideas.

1;Greening will only apply to certain parts of Wicklow and Mayo (areas and supports to be decided at a future date when we have no distractions in the office).These measures may include compulsary painting of all lands within 2 metres of a hedgerow

2;Due to an oversight on our part ,the SUCKLER COW will be replaced as a diety by the BLACK AND WHITE(up to 25% channel islander is acceptable if the farmer can prove a total lack of interest in the beef industry.

Furthermore we anoint Jack K*****y as our represpentive on earth with special powers to turn wind and water into grass and milk.As a condition of entry in to the new and clearly fairer SFP scheme a picture of Jack(blessed be his name),replete with green border and a frame made of recycled sawdust from a department approved stand off pad shall be placed in a prominent position(to be decided by the minister)in the kitchen of all farmers,dairy or otherwise.This picture may (with the express permission and prior approval(cost to be decided on an ongoing basis depending on how f***ed the dept. budget is at any particular time) of the relevant minister )be used to replace that of his namesake from the USA

3;Any farmer who complains that putting all our eggs in the one basket (that auld building boom worked out well despite all the naysayers and doom merchants) will be forced to listen to a recorded message produced by an approved body (F***ers J****al) telling of the ancient parable of the (un)fat(tanable) calf of vaugely Dutch origin (Holly Stein)

4;Any and all complaints about this scheme are to be sent by registered post (quoting herd number,name ,address,daytime contact number,yer auld lads pension number,a list of all your black market dealings,3 references from non farming neighbours,and a sincere and contrite apology for being a parasite on the honest taxpaying citizens of Europe) to an internet forum of your choice.

Poor Farmer in the hills

newholland mad wrote: »

What about the ICSA or the ICMSA what are their views

They dont seem to have any different policies and want to retain the status quo.

Poor Farmer in the hills

How can variable greening be justified?
Surely it is just a means of keeping high value entitlements high and preventing any redistribution.

newholland mad

Poor Farmer in the hills wrote: »

They dont seem to have any different policies and want to retain the status quo.

Exactly so why is the IFA getting all the flack. The 3 farming organisations for once are broadly in agreement, so that is the road the minister is likely to take.

Farmer Pudsey

As far as I know the ICMSA is in favour of a cap on payments levels.

minktrapper

Vandy West wrote: »

Three main reasons for cap are according to farm journal last week are
Food production
Food safety/greening
Rural life (keeping smaller farmers in business)

So take the pillar 1 and 2 money per year ireland get and divide this into three equal parts as above.

Payment a - food production - payment divided on basis of farmers production as % of national production in the farmers production type.
Payment b - food safety/greening - payment shared out per ha if relevant rules are followed

Payment c - small farmer protection - payment for the first x amount of ha

No reason the existing dept staff couldn't reassess every year if we buy them a couple of those new computing machines.

Why is there 100,000 milk producers gone out of business since we joined the E.E.C./E.U. so?:eek:

Vandy West

minktrapper wrote: »

Why is there 100,000 milk producers gone out of business since we joined the E.E.C./E.U. so?:eek:

Probably thought money wasn't good enough to be a semi slave.

Markcheese

Could all farm payments go into 1fixed pot ( including disadvantaged land payments ect.. ) ,then have 2 systems, 1 environmental (with different payment levels for different amounts of work ) and a productivity based system to benefit, well more productive land....
So if you've poor land with low stocking rate you could do a lot of environmental work and still farm full time,
If you've middling land you get paid for more stocking and a few environmental schemes ,
Too busy with 1000's of acres of cereal to be bothered with bird boxs,? take your production based subsidy and run ....

What I'm saying is don't pay an ol fella for sitting on a large farm with 6 cows 20 sheep and a load of old scrap and no work done but a big jeep in the yard and nothing produced.....

royalmeath

Personally I cannot see how farming has benefited from the introduction of the sfp. Farmers walk around now talking about their entitlements, it is the worst word to describe food subsidisation. What exactly was wrong with headage premia, sure the big men got more but that was they produced more. As a minimum the notion of reference years should be scrapped with each year you operate established as your new reference year by levels of production, and the year you cease farming should mean you are entitled to nothing beyond that in terms of subsidisation. The very idea that you can buy and sell entitlements is a total joke.

Markcheese

royalmeath wrote: »

Personally I cannot see how farming has benefited from the introduction of the sfp. Farmers walk around now talking about their entitlements, it is the worst word to describe food subsidisation. What exactly was wrong with headage premia, sure the big men got more but that was they produced more. As a minimum the notion of reference years should be scrapped with each year you operate established as your new reference year by levels of production, and the year you cease farming should mean you are entitled to nothing beyond that in terms of subsidisation. The very idea that you can buy and sell entitlements is a total joke.

+ 1 , except payments should go down progressively , after 50acres/ livestock units, (or 80 or whatever) the payment should go down slightly with each extra unit...

reilig

reilig wrote: »

In fact it's the farmers who are unable to make money most who reinvest the SFP that they receive back into the economy. For the last 5 years, Farming related exports are the only thing that kept this country afloat.

The FF vision of building houses to sustain the economy for the next 100 years fell flat on its face back in 2008 - you might remember. Without agriculture related industry (food exports, food processing and other farmng related activities) this country hasn't got much else!!

The return on SFP paid to farmers is hundreds of multiples of that of Dole paid to unemployed people.

Care to quantify any of that?

I recognise that agriculture and food production employs a lot of people and generates exports but product sales and employment statistics show that there is a lot more to this country than just agriculture and food production.

http://www.teagasc.ie/agrifood/

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) currently reports the agri-food sector in Ireland contributes a value of €24 billion to the national economy, generates 6.3% of gross value added, almost 10% of Ireland’s exports and provides 7.7% of national employment. When employment in inputs, processing and marketing is included, the agri-food sector accounts for almost 10% of employment.

I looked up all the below bits before I found the handy summary above.
http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/industry/totalvalueofproductsmanufacturedinirelandandsold-2010prodcomproductsales000s/
http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/principalstatistics/
http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=AEA01.asp&TableName=Value+of+Output&StatisticalProduct=DB_AA
http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=ANA13.asp&TableName=Distribution+and+Services+Enterprises+by+NACE+Rev+2+Sector+,+Year+and+Statistic&StatisticalProduct=DB_AN

reilig

Deleted User wrote: »

Care to quantify any of that?

I recognise that agriculture and food production employs a lot of people and generates exports but product sales and employment statistics show that there is a lot more to this country than just agriculture and food production.

You forgot to quote this part However, when the low import content of agriculture and the low repatriation of profits are taken into account, the agri-food sector still accounts for around 25% of net foreign earnings.

http://www.teagasc.ie/agrifood/




ie. 25% of the income brought into this country through exports + Multinationals etc is brought by Agriculture, yet only 10% of the population is employed in an agriculture related industry.

440,000 people benefit from CAP payments of €313 million per year. ie Farmers and those directly and indirectly employed in agriculture. Direct income Tax paid by these is over €2.5 Billion

Unemployment rate in ireland is approx 440,000 and "dole" for these people comes to greater than €4 billion euro. Direct income tax paid by these people is €0.

CAP paid to farmers who are productive is banked and income tax is paid on it.

CAP paid to farmers who are unable to make a profit is spent on the farm, in co-ops, mills, manufacturers and goes back into supporting the rural economy.

As I said, The return on SFP paid to farmers is hundreds of multiples of that of Dole paid to unemployed people.

Conmaicne Mara

Seeing as how Production is God and poor land the Devil himself, I would like to see specific targeted grant aid introduced to improve poorer land with the intention of making it more productive.

Works such as drainage and liming would benefit in a lot of areas which are possibly financially out of reach of some at this point in time. In time, with proper planning and evaluation of current farming systems on individual farm basis (possibly with STAP, Teagasc or similar involvement) the potential of the land to become more productive could be realised, from that point forward it could be possible to change to more financially rewarding breeds of animals, and systems, which in turn would feed more profit into the individual farms themselves, therefore making them more sustainable.

It would not be possible, or at least very easy, to simply pocket such grant money.

It would also not suit all farms, depending on local conditions and *deep breath* airy fairy designations imposed on such lands.

So I don't offer the above as a solution to all the worlds problems.

moy83

Drainage should be looked at all over the country , it would benefit town and country
Good suggestion con

Tipp Man

I think the CAP from 2014-2020 would be better spent if no farmer in the country got a penny but the entire amount was put towards a retracable roof - similar to that in the millenium stadium - to cover the entire country - or at the very least the entire country side

This would create massive employment in construction, make agriculture much more successful and productive, and would have a huge impact on tourism

And if we continue to get springs like this 1 maybe we should look at some kind of country wide heating system as well - although if the roof is designed right we should be able to keep a lot of heat in - hmm

Tipp Man

moy83 wrote: »

Drainage should be looked at all over the country , it would benefit town and country
Good suggestion con

some clearance, maintainence and management of the rivers would be a bloody start

I'll tell you 1 thing councils etc don't give a s##t about farmers and how councils effect the agri environment

There has been a pure fortune spent in Clonmel on "flood defences" as a result of granting planning practically in the bloody river suir. Now these "defences" have served to turn the river into a funnel - and what happens in a funnel when you try to put excess water down it - that's right it backs up. And that's exactly what is happening with the suir now. There are inches flooding that used to flood about once a decade before i.e. a massive flood. Now they are flooding at the first sign of rain - some of the best land in the country being ruined by idiot planners and idiot engineers

It's an absolute bloody disgrace - it would have been cheaper and better for all if they just rehoused those that needed moving - there no shortage of empty houses around - and let the river flow properly. But oh no, it wasn't bad enough to f##k up so badly by building there in the first place, they then had to go and f##k up the "fixing" of the problem

Where the f##k were waterways Ireland when this travesty was being dreamt up?? you can bet if i had the digger in the river tomorrow taking out gravel they'd have me stopped before i'd have the first trailer full but they can fundamentally alter the flood pattern of the 2nd biggest river in the country when they want to. It's a bloody shambles

Feel better for that rant though!!

Birdnuts

Tipp Man wrote: »

some clearance, maintainence and management of the rivers would be a bloody start

I'll tell you 1 thing councils etc don't give a s##t about farmers and how councils effect the agri environment

There has been a pure fortune spent in Clonmel on "flood defences" as a result of granting planning practically in the bloody river suir. Now these "defences" have served to turn the river into a funnel - and what happens in a funnel when you try to put excess water down it - that's right it backs up. And that's exactly what is happening with the suir now. There are inches flooding that used to flood about once a decade before i.e. a massive flood. Now they are flooding at the first sign of rain - some of the best land in the country being ruined by idiot planners and idiot engineers

It's an absolute bloody disgrace - it would have been cheaper and better for all if they just rehoused those that needed moving - there no shortage of empty houses around - and let the river flow properly. But oh no, it wasn't bad enough to f##k up so badly by building there in the first place, they then had to go and f##k up the "fixing" of the problem

Where the f##k were waterways Ireland when this travesty was being dreamt up?? you can bet if i had the digger in the river tomorrow taking out gravel they'd have me stopped before i'd have the first trailer full but they can fundamentally alter the flood pattern of the 2nd biggest river in the country when they want to. It's a bloody shambles

Feel better for that rant though!!

An obvious solution to the flooding problem in many places would be to allow the many Bord na Mona and private worked out/exhausted bogs to reflood. This would keep excess floodwater out of agri land and urban areas. Would also created fantastic new amenities in exhausted bogs in terms of fisheries, wildlife etc. In areas where there are no suiteable bogs the local CC's should buy some floodplane land and allow it to flood during periods of high rainfall thereby giveing the same effect. A good example of this is the artificial lakes created in Corkagh park near Clondalkin along the main river. They have worked very well in preventing what was once a serious flooding problem for urban areas downstream. This approach is increasingly use to prevent coastal flooding over many parts of the UK in recent years too as traditional defences have become rather ineffective and very costly to maintain.

freedominacup

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Seeing as how Production is God and poor land the Devil himself, I would like to see specific targeted grant aid introduced to improve poorer land with the intention of making it more productive.

This of course was never tried before:rolleyes:

http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/2262/6897/1/jssisiVolXXIPartVI_5171.pdf

See page 3(53). Has the intervening 50 years made much difference?

Conmaicne Mara

freedominacup wrote: »

This of course was never tried before:rolleyes:

http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/2262/6897/1/jssisiVolXXIPartVI_5171.pdf

See page 3(53). Has the intervening 50 years made much difference?

Sure why not go the whole hog and go back 100 or 150 years? :rolleyes:

Science, technology, and genetics of farming have moved a long way on since 50 years ago.

Fragmentation is a fact of life for a lot of farmers, we get on with it, how many not in the West travel tens of miles to rented land? Plenty.

That small farms can't be profitable is a nonsense.

Inadequate production and poor soils just support my point.

Drainage and correcting the deficiencies of the soil gives any farm a more productive base to work from.

freedominacup

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Sure why not go the whole hog and go back 100 or 150 years? :rolleyes:

Science, technology, and genetics of farming have moved a long way on since 50 years ago.

Fragmentation is a fact of life for a lot of farmers, we get on with it, how many not in the West travel tens of miles to rented land? Plenty.

That small farms can't be profitable is a nonsense.

Inadequate production and poor soils just support my point.

Drainage and correcting the deficiencies of the soil gives any farm a more productive base to work from.

Who said anything about 100 or 150 years. Land reclamation tech hasn't moved that far in the past 50 years. Machine outputs are higher but the basics are the same. There hasn't been any quantam leap forward in Ag tech in the past 50 years other than GM all the rest are developments of existing technology.

Fragmentation is a problem almost every where so what.

You raised the suggestion

I would like to see specific targeted grant aid introduced to improve poorer land with the intention of making it more productive.

Works such as drainage and liming would benefit in a lot of areas which are possibly financially out of reach of some at this point in time. In time, with proper planning and evaluation of current farming systems on individual farm basis (possibly with STAP, Teagasc or similar involvement) the potential of the land to become more productive could be realised, from that point forward it could be possible to change to more financially rewarding breeds of animals, and systems, which in turn would feed more profit into the individual farms themselves, therefore making them more sustainable.

I linked to a document that showed it was all available as you suggested 50 years ago. I simply asked how much difference it made in your area. It had a dramatic effect in this one.

Conmaicne Mara

freedominacup wrote: »

Who said anything about 100 or 150 years. Land reclamation tech hasn't moved that far in the past 50 years. Machine outputs are higher but the basics are the same. There hasn't been any quantam leap forward in Ag tech in the past 50 years other than GM all the rest are developments of existing technology.

Fragmentation is a problem almost every where so what.

You raised the suggestion



I linked to a document that showed it was all available as you suggested 50 years ago. I simply asked how much difference it made in your area. It had a dramatic effect in this one.

I did as you went back 50 years ago, so why not 100 or 150? Why not go back to lime kiln and have the peasants dig it out of the ground. Today is where we're at, not 50 years ago.

I will not be linked to generations from the past. It's nothing got to do with me or a lot of people farming now, what went on in the past. I wasn't even alive 50 years ago, so your point is pretty irrelevant from my perspective. I prefer to work in the here and now and look forward.

There is much better understanding of animals today than 50 years ago, better performance recording, better development of grassland and utilization of fertiliser and general soil fertility. There is also newer machinery available, even for difficult ground in the form of ATV's and UTV's.

Your document referred to fragmentation, you didn't make it specific in your post what exactly what you were referring to, rather than put in sarcastic smiley faces maybe you could be a bit clearer in the first place.

I'm well aware of what I suggested, I wrote it.

What have you to fear from the small farmer improving his lot?

freedominacup

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

I'm well aware of what I suggested, I wrote it.

What have you to fear from the small farmer improving his lot?

So did those guys 50 years ago. I posted that what I was refering to was on page 3 of 21 or (53). The footnote at the bottom of the page? The increased grants were already availabale in the west of Ireland they were suggesting they be increased further to the Gaeltacht level. I can't find an average ind wage stat for the mid sixties but I estimate £50 would be at least a months wages at that time or €2,000/acre in todays figures. I'd suggest that if land requires much more than €3,000 per acre spent to reclaim it it might be better left as it is. I simply asked how much difference those grants made and why would it be different now?

I have nothing to fear from the small farmer improving his lot I just wish he'd get on with it.

Conmaicne Mara

freedominacup wrote: »

I simply asked how much difference those grants made and why would it be different now?

I have nothing to fear from the small farmer improving his lot I just wish he'd get on with it.

50 years have passed for a start. That's a lot of new faces farming with newer ideas than those who came before them. As well as my other points.

I'm sure he will, a fairer redistribution of the CAP would be a welcome start. Seems there are people who shout about producers needs for CAP funds, then shout when people who want to produce want a fairer slice of the pie, can't have it both ways or it tends to smell like something Gordon Gecko advocated.

freedominacup

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

50 years have passed for a start. That's a lot of new faces farming with newer ideas than those who came before them. As well as my other points.

I'm sure he will, a fairer redistribution of the CAP would be a welcome start. Seems there are people who shout about producers needs for CAP funds, then shout when people who want to produce want a fairer slice of the pie, can't have it both ways or it tends to smell like something Gordon Gecko advocated.

With almost 30% of farmers over 65 and the average guy almost 55 there hasn't been anything like enough new faces. All those guys over 60 were in their prime when those types of grants were available and seemingly did very little with them.


BTW define small farmer. Is it a height and weight thing or what?

periodictable

Total rethink on farming is needed.
Land in set aside to be returned to production. Land marginal for cattle rearing, ie wet mineral soils to have all farming grants reduced to a minimum whilst doubling or even tripling the forestry premium for farmers.
I suppose I'm suggesting making the best use of the potential of the land.

freedominacup

periodictable wrote: »

Total rethink on farming is needed.
Land in set aside to be returned to production. Land marginal for cattle rearing, ie wet mineral soils to have all farming grants reduced to a minimum whilst doubling or even tripling the forestry premium for farmers.
I suppose I'm suggesting making the best use of the potential of the land.

RUN. It doesn't matter where to from is what's important just go quickly!

Conmaicne Mara

freedominacup wrote: »

With almost 30% of farmers over 65 and the average guy almost 55 there hasn't been anything like enough new faces. All those guys over 60 were in their prime when those types of grants were available and seemingly did very little with them.


BTW define small farmer. Is it a height and weight thing or what?

I agree there aren't enough new people coming into farming, is it any wonder when it's such a closed shop. As for harking back, yet again, to 50 years ago, should the sons bear the sins of the fathers (or whomever had the land whenever), seems a terribly regressive and blinkered way of looking at the situation.

I think it's something along those lines alright, could have something to do with sedentary lifestyle and compression of the spine from sitting all day in his armchair, think I read that definition on the IFA site somewhere (Rancher, I'm joking before you lose the plot ).

freedominacup

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

I agree there aren't enough new people coming into farming, is it any wonder when it's such a closed shop. As for harking back, yet again, to 50 years ago, should the sons bear the sins of the fathers (or whomever had the land whenever), seems a terribly regressive and blinkered way of looking at the situation.

I think it's something along those lines alright, could have something to do with sedentary lifestyle and compression of the spine from sitting all day in his armchair, think I read that definition on the IFA site somewhere (Rancher, I'm joking before you lose the plot ).

Still too many fathers and not enough sons when there are that many over 65. To extend your thought on sons and fathers why should a son not benefit from the labours of his father?

Poor Farmer in the hills

Is there really that many older farmers.
I know a lot of people who operate a farm under their parents name for tax purposes .
The parent is not actually working on or running the farm but their name is on the herd number.

moy83

I sold two heifers to a lad last year , when I was getting his herd number for the permit he said" put the fathers name on that because its still in his name lord have mercy on him "
He was in his early fifties and the father in late eighties when he keeled over and still no transfer done WTF :eek:

Conmaicne Mara

freedominacup wrote: »

Still too many fathers and not enough sons when there are that many over 65. To extend your thought on sons and fathers why should a son not benefit from the labours of his father?

When the rewards for the fathers labours are unfair, for example the current CAP. The land being in good shape should be reward enough. The more I think about this reference year craic, the less I think it's a good idea, and I started out from a pretty low base on liking it in the first place.