CAP Reform

paddysdream

Well whats the opinion on here re. what Coveney has dealt us for the next 7 years?

Satisfied? Unhappy?Couldnt care less?

In specific terms how (considering we only have a vague idea still) will it affect people?

Conmaicne Mara

I don't know yet. In my case it will depend on certain details yet to be thrashed out. This is just a European political agreement, internal work will be done in various countries yet, as far as I understand it.

Capercaille

Ireland's much threatened farmland wildlife going to be crushed even further:
http://www.birdwatchireland.ie/News/CAPdealJune2013/tabid/1334/Default.aspx

merryberry

You might be interested in this link.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-621_en.htm

Legal text not due until Autumn.

ellewood

merryberry wrote: »

You might be interested in this link.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-621_en.htm

Legal text not due until Autumn.

Does that memo put 2013 as reference year??

merryberry

ellewood wrote: »

Does that memo put 2013 as reference year??

Eligible hectares – The rules foresee setting 2014 as a new reference year for land area, but there will be a link to beneficiaries of the direct payments system in 2013 in order to avoid speculation.

Your guess is as good as mine...the above extract makes reference to 'link' to SPS'13. Wonder what this means. What was declared on SPS'13 has some significance and probably there to minimise inflation of the land rental market

Upstream

ellewood wrote: »

Does that memo put 2013 as reference year??

Just from reading through it now it looks like there is a move away from historical reference periods.

In order to move towards a fairer distribution of support, the CAP system for Direct Payments will move away from one where allocations per Member State - and per farmer within the Member State - are based on historical references.

The convergence of payments, greening and move towards local and national averages are likely to take away some of the significance of the reference period anyway

RaggyDays

Based on the Hectares in 2014, but how much per Hectare? Is the amount you get paid per Hectare in 2014 based on the original historic payment system of 2009/10 ?
So in reality were still based on them years too if that is the case

grazeaway

just wondering what the deal with those of us in reps. we have to put all the land in for the sps but not all of it woul dbe farming (habitats, nature corridors, unculitvates areas around headlands, etc).

From what i figures out anyway was that each ountry would get a fixed amount but how that was divided up was up the country its self. TBH any reform would be good for me. My place was a dairy farm in the old reference years with a samll bit of tillage so my SPF in quite small comapred to lads with similar sized farms that werent in dairy at the time. I was repeatly told i wasnt eligible for extra entitlements even though i was a "young farmer" starting off.

kevthegaff

did i hear a base figure of around 170 a hectare, and top ups if ur a young farmer and greening. pretty vague any information at the moment

bob charles

its a dangerously low figure, will the dept of Ag be able to keep use under their thumb paying peanuts, doubt it

kevthegaff

firstly if the main ref year is 2014, this is gona skyrocket rent even further:(, ya alot of farmers making peanuts as it is, this aint gona help

reilig

It's starting again.

Letter in today's IFJ from a Laois Farmer:

- Leased land during reference years.
- land was sold since.
- Now farming only 27ha and stacked entitlements to the value of €540.
- Going to lose approx €8k in the new system
- Has loans and a family

Is this guy being treated unfairly?

For feck sake, this is the type of billsh1t that our country has been swimming in for the last 20 years. This guy thinks he's entitled to keep getting €540 per ha for 2 reasons:

1. He was farming more land in 2002 than he is now.
2. He has a family.

What entitles him to keep getting this level of payment for doing nothing?

What about the guy who bought the land that this guy had leased and has no SFP on it?

What about the vast majority of people who are still farming the same amount of land now that they were farming in 2002? Should they be cut just to ensure that this chancer keeps getting the same amount of money.

It clearly shows how inadequate the old system was - rewarding people for sitting on their ass.

Why didn't this guy go out and rent more land when he lost the other land? The answer is that he was too well rewarded for not renting land by just claiming his SFP. He made more money by making his farm smaller and just claiming the grants instead of farming.

The guy in his letter mentions how productive farmers should be rewarded - how the hell does he consider himself to be a productive farmer?????

I sincerely hope that the new CAP deal does not have provision in it to reward people like this!!!

kevthegaff

reilig wrote: »

It's starting again.

Letter in today's IFJ from a Laois Farmer:



Is this guy being treated unfairly?

For feck sake, this is the type of billsh1t that our country has been swimming in for the last 20 years. This guy thinks he's entitled to keep getting €540 per ha for 2 reasons:

1. He was farming more land in 2002 than he is now.
2. He has a family.

What entitles him to keep getting this level of payment for doing nothing?

What about the guy who bought the land that this guy had leased and has no SFP on it?

What about the vast majority of people who are still farming the same amount of land now that they were farming in 2002? Should they be cut just to ensure that this chancer keeps getting the same amount of money.

It clearly shows how inadequate the old system was - rewarding people for sitting on their ass.

Why didn't this guy go out and rent more land when he lost the other land? The answer is that he was too well rewarded for not renting land by just claiming his SFP. He made more money by making his farm smaller and just claiming the grants instead of farming.

The guy in his letter mentions how productive farmers should be rewarded - how the hell does he consider himself to be a productive farmer?????

I sincerely hope that the new CAP deal does not have provision in it to reward people like this!!!

your dead right! what did he do with the windfall from the sale, probably invested it in property. What does he expect?? did it say anything on IFJ about what will the payment be?

reilig

kevthegaff wrote: »

your dead right! what did he do with the windfall from the sale, probably invested it in property. What does he expect?? did it say anything on IFJ about what will the payment be?

he didn't get a winfall. He was renting the land from the owner, then the owner sold it.

leg wax

reilig wrote: »

It's starting again.

Letter in today's IFJ from a Laois Farmer:



Is this guy being treated unfairly?

For feck sake, this is the type of billsh1t that our country has been swimming in for the last 20 years. This guy thinks he's entitled to keep getting €540 per ha for 2 reasons:

1. He was farming more land in 2002 than he is now.
2. He has a family.

What entitles him to keep getting this level of payment for doing nothing?

What about the guy who bought the land that this guy had leased and has no SFP on it?

What about the vast majority of people who are still farming the same amount of land now that they were farming in 2002? Should they be cut just to ensure that this chancer keeps getting the same amount of money.

It clearly shows how inadequate the old system was - rewarding people for sitting on their ass.

Why didn't this guy go out and rent more land when he lost the other land? The answer is that he was too well rewarded for not renting land by just claiming his SFP. He made more money by making his farm smaller and just claiming the grants instead of farming.

The guy in his letter mentions how productive farmers should be rewarded - how the hell does he consider himself to be a productive farmer?????

I sincerely hope that the new CAP deal does not have provision in it to reward people like this!!!

you shold be replying to him in the ifj not here, and we will all agree to stand ,knell, duck,hide behind you. legs

towzer2010

I saw an article in either the journal or the independent about a dairy farmer who buys weanlings for finishing on the side. He was saying that if his CAP payment was cut he wouldn't be able to buy weanlings anymore and that would have a knock on affect.

It's amazing the cheek of some people in my opinion. Did he think he was being charitable? Was he making nothing on the deal? He seemed to think the whole country would collapse if he couldn't finish his few weanlings for the good of humanity.

RobertKK

I'm sick of most of the farm organisations, in particular the IFA, they continued the mantra of those on higher payments need them to stay productive...and these are our most productive farmers.
Lets call a spade a spade, they have been our most privileged farmers who have had the luxury of having the biggest farm organisation in the ear of the minister.

John Bryan had a cheek at some of the stuff he said during the CAP discussions.

I also think it disgusting that there has been stuff written in the IFJ (in past few weeks) about talks that people who farm on lowland should receive higher payments than those of us who farm on land over 200 metres above sea level.
It is hard enough farming on higher ground with the shorter growing season/higher rainfall without wanting to further penalise the disadvantage.
I just hope this is not part of the deal, it would deserve a court case.

razor8

and to think that some of these most productive farmers he rants about could buy a farm a land each year with the sfp they were getting

they were at some advantage and ones that put the rental market mad

Dampintheattic

Bit of drizzle this morning. Sun just come out. Makings of a right good second half to the day.

Marooned75

towzer2010 wrote: »

I saw an article in either the journal or the independent about a dairy farmer who buys weanlings for finishing on the side. He was saying that if his CAP payment was cut he wouldn't be able to buy weanlings anymore and that would have a knock on affect.

It's amazing the cheek of some people in my opinion. Did he think he was being charitable? Was he making nothing on the deal? He seemed to think the whole country would collapse if he couldn't finish his few weanlings for the good of humanity.

Front page of journal last week buys in 80 weanlings to finish every year with his payment was the jist of story.

reilig

towzer2010 wrote: »

I saw an article in either the journal or the independent about a dairy farmer who buys weanlings for finishing on the side. He was saying that if his CAP payment was cut he wouldn't be able to buy weanlings anymore and that would have a knock on affect.

It's amazing the cheek of some people in my opinion. Did he think he was being charitable? Was he making nothing on the deal? He seemed to think the whole country would collapse if he couldn't finish his few weanlings for the good of humanity.

We can take it to the simplest level. Ann and Barry from Baby Infants.

Ann and Barry sell apples outside their school for 50c each. They buy the apples from the local orchard @ 30c each and they get 20c pocket money from their Mammy and Daddy for every apple that they sell. They can have profit of 40c per apple.

Daddy loses his job and can only afford to pay them 10c per apple that they sell as pocket money.

What are their options?

- They can accept a reduced profit of 30c per apple?
- They can negotiate with the orchard for to pay the orchard 10c less per apple - but this will be highly dependent on supply and demand.

- They can charge 10c more per apple to the buyers - how?
They can restrict supply by holding back stock. They can restrict supply by finding another outlet for apples outside another school or by juicing apples and selling juice.

They can buy a pig, fatten it on apples. Only have half the amount of apples available for sale in the stall, ensuring that demand outstrips supply and that they can increase the sale price of the apples by 50c thus increasing the original profit by 40c per apple. On top of this, they can sell the pig at the end of the apple season for a profit too.

My point is that there's more than 1 way to sell an apple, fatten a pig, skin a cat etc.

If the CAP payment is reduced to a level that won't allow this dairy guy to buy weinlings, those producing weinlings will lose out short term, but will be either forced to find alternative markets for their weinlings (export) or forced out of the weinling producer game and into an alternative type of farming (the very profitable dairy game, forestry, beef finishing or contract rearing). Virtually the same amount of money will come in as CAP payments for the next 7 years (per year) as came in for the last 10 years. It will just be spread around differently. Hopefully it will be done so in a way that will allow young farmers to get into farming, those with no SFP to get some, and those with inflated SFP's not related to their current level of farming activity to be brought back down to earth and receive payments related to the actual amount of land that they are farming and the level of produce from their land instead of rewarding armchair farmers!

This Scare Mongering by the current high SFP receivers is just a ploy to try to maintain their high payments!

kevthegaff

i believe it should be capped anyway, 50k is a huge amount as it is. Think ur on the money rellig

reilig

kevthegaff wrote: »

i believe it should be capped anyway, 50k is a huge amount as it is. Think ur on the money rellig

€50k isn't very big if you're farming 500 acres.
I'm more in favour of rewarding equally based on land units and output!
The problem was that in the old system, you could have €200k in SFP and only be farming 50 acres!

Conmaicne Mara

RobertKK wrote: »

I also think it disgusting that there has been stuff written in the IFJ (in past few weeks) about talks that people who farm on lowland should receive higher payments than those of us who farm on land over 200 metres above sea level.
It is hard enough farming on higher ground with the shorter growing season/higher rainfall without wanting to further penalise the disadvantage.
I just hope this is not part of the deal, it would deserve a court case.

That'll be the coefficient, just another word for regionalisation/marginalisation or 2nd class farmers because of their circumstance (land type/restrictions - basically things outside their control which they'll be punished for) not to put too fine a point on it.

It's in this "tool box", whether it'll be implemented or not I don't know. I'm not optimistic about it.

Also interesting to read about Pillar 2, comes across from some writers that certain farmers should be down on bended knee grateful to receive it from their betters - while they lap up the lions share of the SFP.

nashmach

To put some balance on this, farming 50% more ground since the reference years, tillage area up by 50% and stock numbers up near 100%, yet we are still looking at a large cut......

I wonder what the definition of active farmer will be.

May not be as prelevant in non tillage areas but lots of lads renting out the farm and claiming SFP on it - so all return and no risk - not what SFP was for IMV :mad:

My read on the average per hectare was graduating towards €270/ha over the next 7 years.

Tipp Man

So to summarise

The losers aren't happy

The winners aren't happy

yellow50HX

we all spend a lot of time looking the ditches complaining about the lad next door cheque.

my own 2 cent is that yes fellas running a good productive farm are entilted to get their payments. what is annoying is that soemone can make a mad burst over say 2-3 years and have have a huge turnover/production level but after the reference time there is no onus on them to maintain the level of production. any looses made in getting to that level could be carried during the reference time and then as the production level dropped back so too would the costs but the direct payments stayed the same

as for the lowland/upland debate the level of production is directly related to the quality of land as opposed to the quanity. The other schemes such as the disadvanged area and reps should be used to encourge farmers in these area to make the most of what they have or to maintan the land in land in enviormentlly friendly manner.

100acres of mountain side in west cork will not have the same production levels of 100ac of prime tillage land in east cork.

kevthegaff

will there be modulation?

Dampintheattic

nashmach wrote: »

To put some balance on this, farming 50% more ground since the reference years, tillage area up by 50% and stock numbers up near 100%, yet we are still looking at a large cut......

I wonder what the definition of active farmer will be.

May not be as prelevant in non tillage areas but lots of lads renting out the farm and claiming SFP on it - so all return and no risk - not what SFP was for IMV :mad:

My read on the average per hectare was graduating towards €270/ha over the next 7 years.

And to put even more balance.
Farmer, in the west of Ireland, producing weanlings, on marginal land.
He is lucky, most years to get reasonable quality silage harvested, given land quality and western seaboard rainfall levels.
This farmer has to back up his fodder situation, with expensive purchased concentrates.
Bale of bedding straw costs this guy, €20 and more.

Other side of the coin, you have tillage and cattle farmers. Big and bigger in scale than the typical west of Ireland farmer. These guys, also have the benefit of, lowest cost concentrate inputs, for their cattle, produced inside their own gates.
Bale of bedding straw costs this guy a couple of euros.

When Cromwell declared "to hell or to Connaught", he knew exactly the benefits of ownership of land in Leinster and the Golden Vale of munster.

The SFP of today, squeezes the successors of the guys banished to Connaught, as much as it benefits, the successors of the guys who remained in Leinster and the GV.

Time to cut out the ****, and balance up this situation, once and for all.

Username John

Was there any actual info in the journal? Or was it more speculation as to what could happen?

Has anything really been decided? I saw the headline re the CAP, and thought "oh, its all sorted"

But from what I can see, its still all up in the air...

What am I missing? Can someone tell me what has actually been agreed?

Tipp Man

Dampintheattic wrote: »

And to put even more balance.
Farmer, in the west of Ireland, producing weanlings, on marginal land.
He is lucky, most years to get reasonable quality silage harvested, given land quality and western seaboard rainfall levels.
This farmer has to back up his fodder situation, with expensive purchased concentrates.
Bale of bedding straw costs this guy, €20 and more.

Other side of the coin, you have tillage and cattle farmers. Big and bigger in scale than the typical west of Ireland farmer. These guys, also have the benefit of, lowest cost concentrate inputs, for their cattle, produced inside their own gates.
Bale of bedding straw costs this guy a couple of euros.

When Cromwell declared "to hell or to Connaught", he knew exactly the benefits of ownership of land in Leinster and the Golden Vale of munster.

The SFP of today, squeezes the successors of the guys banished to Connaught, as much as it benefits, the successors of the guys who remained in Leinster and the GV.

Time to cut out the ****, and balance up this situation, once and for all.

That's because the farmer that you talk about above from the west (he could be from parts of any county really) is farming land that shouldn't be farmed or is trying to farm the land in a manner that is not suitable to that particular land type - thats being blunt about it

Planting would be more suitable for that type of land - and there is plenty of money to be made from forestry

yellow50HX

Dampintheattic wrote: »

And to put even more balance.
Farmer, in the west of Ireland, producing weanlings, on marginal land.
He is lucky, most years to get reasonable quality silage harvested, given land quality and western seaboard rainfall levels.
This farmer has to back up his fodder situation, with expensive purchased concentrates.
Bale of bedding straw costs this guy, €20 and more.

Other side of the coin, you have tillage and cattle farmers. Big and bigger in scale than the typical west of Ireland farmer. These guys, also have the benefit of, lowest cost concentrate inputs, for their cattle, produced inside their own gates.
Bale of bedding straw costs this guy a couple of euros.

When Cromwell declared "to hell or to Connaught", he knew exactly the benefits of ownership of land in Leinster and the Golden Vale of munster.

The SFP of today, squeezes the successors of the guys banished to Connaught, as much as it benefits, the successors of the guys who remained in Leinster and the GV.

Time to cut out the ****, and balance up this situation, once and for all.

yes and no. the value of land (purchasing and renting) is reflected on the land quality. renting 100ac of tillage land in north county dublin is not going to be the same as renting a bog full or rushes in lietrim (no offence rellig).

your assuming everyone east of the shannon is working on a 250 acre estate. the avergae farm size is as relevant in cork or wexford as it is on roscommon or clare.

there are lads in west who own half a mounation which they are claiming spf on, how is that fair. if they are producing the same amount on 4 times the amount of land why should they get 4 times the spf?

I think that the SPF should be based on production not land size, while addtiaonl funding should be put in place for lads that cant cant produce to same level on marginal land. That way there is a fair system. not sure is the disadvanged land scheme is still in place but this shold be used to balance the farm land value

RobertKK

yellow50HX wrote: »

as for the lowland/upland debate the level of production is directly related to the quality of land as opposed to the quanity. The other schemes such as the disadvanged area and reps should be used to encourge farmers in these area to make the most of what they have or to maintan the land in land in enviormentlly friendly manner.

100acres of mountain side in west cork will not have the same production levels of 100ac of prime tillage land in east cork.

I am classified as farming in an mountainous area (under the disadvantaged area scheme) in Kilkenny because I farm land over 200 metres. The land is good enough to grow cereals and has done so in the past. Very good soils, free draining, in summer could do with rain every 4 to 5 days.
On the IFJ it was claimed this land is less productive so should receive less money, than lowland, which lets face it, could be under water if in a floodplain...

The thing is according to the IFJ article, my land being over 200M would be classified as being the same as that mountain side in west Cork, when your man or woman in East Cork might be suffering from severe weather affecting his/her production, should he/she get less money due to circumstances outside his or her control?

Conmaicne Mara

Tipp Man wrote: »

Planting would be more suitable for that type of land - and there is plenty of money to be made from forestry

Can you plant SAC and NHA.

Planting is no solution. There have been plantations felled not far from me where the timber, if you could call it that, was just left to rot.

stanflt

I feel that there should be a cap in all payments with 50000 being the cap- area aid should stay with the land so if big joe sope decides he doesn't want land anymore it goes back to the owner who can activate it with a young qualified farmer and thus ensure that this country has a farming future


As one with a fairly large entitlement of 440/ ha I stand to lose 62/ha big swing I don't rely on this money and Sfp is restricting my progress because land can't be got beside me without maps

I would be in favour of abolishing Sfp and letting farmers survive on how they as individuals farm their plot

Helpmefarm

Can any of ye read between the lines and tell me what I'll get! Just started farming 27 acres this year and have no green cert or entitlements and I'm 31

mf240

stanflt wrote: »

I would be in favour of abolishing Sfp and letting farmers survive on how they as individuals farm their plot

I agree with this. If someone is struggling on a small farm give them income support and call it that.

Payments are holding back a lot of guys as lads are taking ground and bidding for cattle with money from sfp not from profit.

They then can slaughter these animals at a loss as they are getting the cheque in post so the factories are the winners.

The job for life, coffee drinking, pen twidelers involved in the inforcement of sfp could be deployed to rebuild stone walls and sweep roads.

mf240

Helpmefarm wrote: »

Can any of ye read between the lines and tell me what I'll get! Just started farming 27 acres this year and have no green cert or entitlements and I'm 31

one million euros.

leg wax

just did a rough calculation for myself i am going to be down 4000 yoyos or so even though i have 3x cows and land,get rid of this stupid cheque i the post a bloody farse of a system.

Figerty

yellow50HX wrote: »

yes and no. the value of land (purchasing and renting) is reflected on the land quality. renting 100ac of tillage land in north county dublin is not going to be the same as renting a bog full or rushes in lietrim (no offence rellig).

your assuming everyone east of the shannon is working on a 250 acre estate. the avergae farm size is as relevant in cork or wexford as it is on roscommon or clare.

there are lads in west who own half a mounation which they are claiming spf on, how is that fair. if they are producing the same amount on 4 times the amount of land why should they get 4 times the spf?

I think that the SPF should be based on production not land size, while addtiaonl funding should be put in place for lads that cant cant produce to same level on marginal land. That way there is a fair system. not sure is the disadvanged land scheme is still in place but this shold be used to balance the farm land value

Circular change... we go back to production head count based and we wind back where we were with poor cattle and over stocked land, with all the negatives that go with it. TB will be rampant again with weak cattle,poor breeding etc.

That will suit those on good land,, hence the motivation to go back to the old ways. If I have 4 times the land up a mountain than a good farm then for me to produce the equivalent product, I will need 4 times the amount of land.

There is an issue with those working land on minimum stocking rates getting the same funding. This is not the same a productivity.

I know of one farmer in Offaly that makes no silage, buys in all fodder and finishes weanlings, bulls etc. He, on paper, has a stocking rate of perhaps 4 animals to the acre. Very productive? No. as he buys in fodder from under-stocked farmers he looks good, in reality he is indirectly farming 4 times his acreage, but under the old system has a very high stocking rate.

Is he an effective farmers? Yes. but he was also rewarded under the old system giving him the financial ability to purchase this fodder... except last year. Last year crippled him.

There is no easy answer. Productivity based, acreage based. LSU/Hectare.. all have their flaws. Circular argument and circular change.

Poor Farmer in the hills

My reading of the agreement is:
All farmers braught up to 142 Euro per Ha by 2020
Farmers on payments below 90 % of the national average (138 Euro) to be braught up by 33% of the difference between the 138 Euro and their current payment.
This is all that seems to be agreed
No regionalisation or co-efficient to be used at this stage (But it will be used as a threat no doubt if anybody looks for coupling or front loading)
Coveney has the option of using:
Coupled payments
Front loading
A maximum payment per Ha.
Flat rate greening (although IFA,IFJ and Co are not mentioning this)

paddysdream

Why oh why is everybody on here looking to recouple?At 7% it will give 60 approx per cow and 10 per ewe.Dont forget everyone loses that 7%first.
What with retention periods and either national or individual quotas we would be only making more red tape.This year will see the suckler herd reach its highest for many years (1 million plus ). After all the fodder probs. last year(seems like another country now!) do we want to tie ourselves into a system where cow numbers have to be kept at this level?
Once a suckler premium is mentioned then watch everyone chasing that few extra bob whilst forgetting that they are unable to carry that much stock in 2 years out of 5.


Plus those looking to abolish it altogether.What exactly are ye going to live on then?
By that I mean live not pretend farming.
Profits from sucklers or drystock?
According to teagasc average net margin on cattle farms is -10 euro per hectare tillage -50 euro and 55 euro on sheep (think I read that right)
So where exactly are those non dairy farmers to go?
Maybe 1000 hectares of sheep (only 11000 or so ewes) would be a runner to give an income of 50k.
Cattle?Hmmm.How about going into negative production and not farming say 5000 hectares(its easier than it looks)

Timmaay

paddysdream wrote: »

Plus those looking to abolish it altogether.What exactly are ye going to live on then?
By that I mean live not pretend farming.
Profits from sucklers or drystock?
According to teagasc average net margin on cattle farms is -10 euro per hectare tillage -50 euro and 55 euro on sheep (think I read that right)
So where exactly are those non dairy farmers to go?
Maybe 1000 hectares of sheep (only 11000 or so ewes) would be a runner to give an income of 50k.
Cattle?Hmmm.How about going into negative production and not farming say 5000 hectares(its easier than it looks)

Rent it to us dairy farmers, and if you really still want to farm, rear our replacement heifers please! (Ok tongue in cheek, but a valid solution I think!)

mf240

paddysdream wrote: »

Plus those looking to abolish it altogether.What exactly are ye going to live on then?
By that I mean live not pretend farming.
Profits from sucklers or drystock?
ks)

Live on income support , rent it out, or get a job and continue it as a hobby. Same as now really.

BENDYBINN

reilig wrote: »

€50k isn't very big if you're farming 500 acres.
I'm more in favour of rewarding equally based on land units and output!
The problem was that in the old system, you could have €200k in SFP and only be farming 50 acres!

Please tell me relig why a guy with 500 acres needs a thousand euro a week income before he even gets out of bed in the morning?

newholland mad

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Please tell me relig why a guy with 500 acres needs a thousand euro a week income before he even gets out of bed in the morning?

Because he most likely is employing a man full time and probally some part time help, and most likely has repayments on machinery he has bought in the local garage that is also employing a few, and on buildings that he employed the local builder to build. My point is this money is all put back into the "system" don't think I ever met a farmer that has the sense to hold onto money

BENDYBINN

So your sayin he can't make alivin out of his500 acres

---

needs a thousand a week subsidy!

Damo810

We need something that suits the whole country and profession, not certain areas or people. There will undoubtedly be losers, but if we are to keep going with the subsidy schemes you can't have one person getting over 50,0000 and one less than 5,000 unless he is doing things 10X bigger/better/more productively.

I'm not quite sure why we don't get paid for the previous years production. Say Area X production = SFP. Your hectares (area) multiplied by the amount your producing. That way while you'll still have big farmers able to tick over and collect, they'll be getting quite a small amount per hectare, whereas the man busting his gut keeping as many cattle as he can gets the rewards...

This would also give you the opportunity to bring in other mitigating factors, such as area (as you in the south east on lovely soil or the hilly boggy west?)

Reading this you would this nothing can be produced from the west of Ireland, the suggestion to plant all of the west and give up farming...Are you serious? Onto the dairy, tongue in cheek it may be, if you think it's a valid solution, you really need to reassess the situation. Too many farms are fragmented for Dairy, or don't have the scale to set up a profitable and sustainable dairy farm. Also what do you think would happen if everyone started milking cows? What would happen the milk price? What would we do with all that milk? You think it would be viable for every farmer in the country to start milking cows on his 50 acre farm?

Theres no reason we can't successfully produce beef or any other farming product in Ireland. We have the ability to grow some of the finest grass in the world, cheaply. We'd be just as well off to start forcing factories to share some of the profit further down the line to the farmers. There's some of them making north of 10M..

Conmaicne Mara

Poor Farmer in the hills wrote: »

My reading of the agreement is:
All farmers braught up to 142 Euro per Ha by 2020
Farmers on payments below 90 % of the national average (138 Euro) to be braught up by 33% of the difference between the 138 Euro and their current payment.
This is all that seems to be agreed
No regionalisation or co-efficient to be used at this stage (But it will be used as a threat no doubt if anybody looks for coupling or front loading)
Coveney has the option of using:
Coupled payments
Front loading
A maximum payment per Ha.
Flat rate greening (although IFA,IFJ and Co are not mentioning this)

Don't think that will happen. It will be variable, meaning 30% of individual farmers money, not 30% of all farmers money (flattening) into a pot. Basically you'll get 30% taken off you, then give straight back to you once you qualify to get it back.

newholland mad

BENDYBINN wrote: »

So your sayin he can't make alivin out of his500 acres

---

needs a thousand a week subsidy!

Had to reread my post I didn't say that at all, its all the others who are making their living off him.