CAP coupling proposals

merryberry

Are you for or against the proposed CAP coupling proposals and why?

freedominacup

merryberry wrote: »

Are you for or against the proposed CAP coupling proposals and why?

Totally against because it will simply lead to farmers farming subs again instead of running their farms to enhance market returns. No upside in it at all.

Conmaicne Mara

100% against them. Was caught up in the destocking when I started farming so never allowed to stock my farm properly due to very dubious rules & regulations. So I will get SFA out of coupling. Most of the people who will benefit from it were likely them who did damage in the first instance, another reward for them!

bogman_bass

it'll send the national beef heard back 10 years with every screw of a heifer being put in calf

freedominacup

bogman_bass wrote: »

it'll send the national beef heard back 10 years with every screw of a heifer being put in calf

Unless you went completely counter intuitive to the dept and many farmers pshcye. Take the fund from the general suckler fund and pay it only on calved heifers who are in the beef equivalent of the top 5% on EBI and who calved down to top ranked A.I. bulls. No need for inspections just use the ICBF data. There might be a point to that. Just confine inspections to a few random DNA tests.

paddysdream

Against it even though it would prob. mean a 2 to 3k increase in my total sub.I remember the last ewe sub. scheme which was a disaster from a couple of points of view.
The retention period ,which ended in early April if memory serves me right,saw a big drop in lamb(hogget) and cast ewe prices overnight.It was a godsend for factories as they had sellers who had to unload in a short few weeks.
Also every half decent ewe(ie one who would live long enough to get a punch and live until end of retention) was kept with little or no regard for whether she would,could rear a lamb.It saw a lot of unsuitable female sheep kept just to draw the 20 euro.
Hands up, I done all the above myself.

merryberry

Voting poll now added to this thread

manjou

Just look at who is calling for return of sub the beef factories.Sfp was based on subs and can remember how got them as large percentage of them was spent getting them. \anyway suckler would need to be around 500 to make it worth keeping any more cows.

Jonblack

We need to produce quality not quantity

yellow50HX

freedominacup wrote: »

Unless you went completely counter intuitive to the dept and many farmers pshcye. Take the fund from the general suckler fund and pay it only on calved heifers who are in the beef equivalent of the top 5% on EBI and who calved down to top ranked A.I. bulls. No need for inspections just use the ICBF data. There might be a point to that. Just confine inspections to a few random DNA tests.

wouldnt be entirly in favour of that TBH. matching of sire and cows pure on ICBF info will only benift the AI comapies. the true value of stock will be brough through from its market price. our bull would not have a massive ICBF score compared to others but i have to say we are very happy with in. were testing a few weeks ago and the vet was commenting on the calves from him. it'll depends on what the ranking is based on (carcas score, ease of calving, felrtility etc). neighbour has bull with a low ICBF score but throws massive calves and no issues with calving. the mothers come from high ranked stock. again its a ballance this.

i agree that an improvement sheme for sucklers would be an advangae. soemthing like reps but with an emphsais on improving breeding, grassland management, farm infratsuce and so on. The current trend is away from sucklers and into other dry stcock and dairy. what may happen is that much of the good beef stock we have will be repalced with holisten and FR bull beef for the expected expansion in dairy.

delaval

Could any one give me the bluffers guide?

Potted version, please

blue5000

AS a suckler farmer I'd need it even though 75% of it will eventually end up in larry's arse pocket.

How could it be made simple? Icbf data recorded on-line? 5 star bulls? BTAP? Weights at 200approx days? I don't want to get involved with gene Ireland, I feel farmers who are involved are losing control over what bulls they can choose from, down the road they could be very short of good maternal heifers. It probably won't make any difference anyway because no one will want a suckler cow, we'll be trying to make beef out of whatever the dairy herd is selling.

If a coupled payment comes in where does the money come from, who will lose out?

Lastin

I am in two minds to be honest but if there is not a coupled suckler cow payment they will disappear. Teagasc are already pushing beef from excess dairy calves something Derrypatrick might get right

bogman_bass

freedominacup wrote: »

Unless you went completely counter intuitive to the dept and many farmers pshcye. Take the fund from the general suckler fund and pay it only on calved heifers who are in the beef equivalent of the top 5% on EBI and who calved down to top ranked A.I. bulls. No need for inspections just use the ICBF data. There might be a point to that. Just confine inspections to a few random DNA tests.

if it could be done honestly then great but the problem would be that every calf out of a scrub bull would be put down as the top AI bull at the time.

The validity of the figures would go out the window overnight.
You would need to do a lot of random DNA tests to keep lads on the straight and narrow

paddysdream

blue5000 wrote: »

AS a suckler farmer I'd need it even though 75% of it will eventually end up in larry's arse pocket.

How could it be made simple? Icbf data recorded on-line? 5 star bulls? BTAP? Weights at 200approx days? I don't want to get involved with gene Ireland, I feel farmers who are involved are losing control over what bulls they can choose from, down the road they could be very short of good maternal heifers. It probably won't make any difference anyway because no one will want a suckler cow, we'll be trying to make beef out of whatever the dairy herd is selling.

If a coupled payment comes in where does the money come from, who will lose out?

The money comes from pillar 1 ie a straight 8% cut off of everyones SFP(even those on below national average payments).Contrary to what some people seem to think,coupling is not extra money.
Its a straight cut from everyones SFP and then this is paid out to those sectors which qualify for it.

There will have to be quotas as the budget is fixed till 2019(?) so therefore there will be a finite amount of money for coupling.

If it comes in, and I dont think it will ,at least not in the form we were used to,then will we have individual quotas ,a la sheep and cows previously, or a national one where the amount could vary from year to year depending on how many cows etc are claimed on.
Lots of more lovely form filling and inspections etc.!

By the way ,why is it that when coupling is mentioned,that people seem to assume that only cows deserve it?

paddysdream

delaval wrote: »

Could any one give me the bluffers guide?

Potted version, please

8% coupling would be a straight 8% cut on EVERYONES SFP.Then this pot of money (100 million approx) is paid back out on sucklers,ewes etc.
With 1.1 million sucklers in the country this would give a payment of 95 or so per cow if limited to sucklers.

To be fair and divide it up amongst sucklers and sheep would leave it at about 60 per cow and 15 per ewe.

Then ,as the IFA were pushing a while ago(not a peep this while!) what about the small dairy man and his sub. free black and whites?

Sounds nice until we get back into quotas and retention periods not to mention inspections and paperwork ie something to keep more dept. staff busy who will have to be paid for out of the entire ag. budget.

freedominacup

bogman_bass wrote: »

if it could be done honestly then great but the problem would be that every calf out of a scrub bull would be put down as the top AI bull at the time.

The validity of the figures would go out the window overnight.
You would need to do a lot of random DNA tests to keep lads on the straight and narrow

Easily done. Vet is given a list of cow and calf numbers to test at round testing time. He just takes the samples and sends to lab with other bloods. It doesn't need to be made complicated.

Dampintheattic

Tying any future coupling scheme strictly to using AI bulls, is an absolute non runner.
Has to allow use of approved stock bulls, bases on the new ICBF criteria.
As for any possible DNA testing, it could easily be done through tissue testing, in the exact same way as the BVD testing. In fact the same sample for the BVD could cover both tests.
No need for vets. No need for any on farm inspections.

delaval

paddysdream wrote: »

8% coupling would be a straight 8% cut on EVERYONES SFP.Then this pot of money (100 million approx) is paid back out on sucklers,ewes etc.
With 1.1 million sucklers in the country this would give a payment of 95 or so per cow if limited to sucklers.

To be fair and divide it up amongst sucklers and sheep would leave it at about 60 per cow and 15 per ewe.

Then ,as the IFA were pushing a while ago(not a peep this while!) what about the small dairy man and his sub. free black and whites?

Sounds nice until we get back into quotas and retention periods not to mention inspections and paperwork ie something to keep more dept. staff busy who will have to be paid for out of the entire ag. budget.

My understanding is we are getting a 4% cut anyway?
This proposal is for a further 4% to be redistributed among sheep and sucklers
Am I right ir not?

J DEERE

I would be in favor of a coupled payment. Its a payment based on production, it would benefit active farmers. Too many lads around us not farming at all, living cushy lives drawing their single farm payment because they happened to farm 10 years ago. Same guys renting their farms without maps to young farmers like me trying to start up and look set to be made up again in the new SFP

Conmaicne Mara

J DEERE wrote: »

I would be in favor of a coupled payment. Its a payment based on production, it would benefit active farmers. Too many lads around us not farming at all, living cushy lives drawing their single farm payment because they happened to farm 10 years ago. Same guys renting their farms without maps to young farmers like me trying to start up and look set to be made up again in the new SFP

Sheep headage was a payment on production too, production of pure shít in a lot of cases.

Birdnuts

J DEERE wrote: »

I would be in favor of a coupled payment. Its a payment based on production, it would benefit active farmers. Too many lads around us not farming at all, living cushy lives drawing their single farm payment because they happened to farm 10 years ago. Same guys renting their farms without maps to young farmers like me trying to start up and look set to be made up again in the new SFP

As a young lad you probably don't remember the 80's and early 90's when most payments were coupled. Led to butter and beef mountains that hit stock prices badly. As it is most dry stock farmers are struggling to get a price that covers the cost of production let alone make any type of profit. Producing even more animals at a loss will simply repeat the mistakes of the past and further enrich the Larry Goodmans's of this world.

rancher

delaval wrote: »

My understanding is we are getting a 4% cut anyway?
This proposal is for a further 4% to be redistributed among sheep and sucklers
Am I right ir not?

Coveney is favouring an 8% cut on SFP to fund coupling, we're trying to limit him to 3% and get the rest from pillar 2 and national funding.....time will tell.
My own opinion is that it's like two skinheads fighting over a comb.....no matter who gets it, its not going to be a lot of use

Conmaicne Mara

If it comes, I'd prefer the cut to SFP. As one lad said in another thread not much noise about non payment of DAS but if it were non payment of SFP . . .

Taking coupling from SFP will stop double rewarding of farmers who have both large SFP already and large numbers.

But, I am against coupling altogether - regardless of whether it's €10 or €25 for one of my own breed.

supersean1999

rancher wrote: »

Coveney is favouring an 8% cut on SFP to fund coupling, we're trying to limit him to 3% and get the rest from pillar 2 and national funding.....time will tell.
My own opinion is that it's like two skinheads fighting over a comb.....no matter who gets it, its not going to be a lot of use

Why should money come from pillar 2 for coupling.

bob charles

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

If it comes, I'd prefer the cut to SFP. As one lad said in another thread not much noise about non payment of DAS but if it were non payment of SFP . . .

Taking coupling from SFP will stop double rewarding of farmers who have both large SFP already and large numbers.

But, I am against coupling altogether - regardless of whether it's €10 or €25 for one of my own breed.

Im all for a coupled payment for any person that calves a quality suckler calf. everyone up along the beef ladder can sink or swim with no SFP, but without calves the industry is gone

moy83

bob charles wrote: »

Im all for a coupled payment for any person that calves a quality suckler calf. everyone up along the beef ladder can sink or swim with no SFP, but without calves the industry is gone

If a big chunk of the countries suckler herd was gone and lads are left with fr calves to finish , what would the factories do with this ? Is the fr meat anyways good enough for filling packages on the shelves that isn't just mince ? Would they just end up importing better cuts frome elsewhere ?

freedominacup

moy83 wrote: »

If a big chunk of the countries suckler herd was gone and lads are left with fr calves to finish , what would the factories do with this ? Is the fr meat anyways good enough for filling packages on the shelves that isn't just mince ? Would they just end up importing better cuts frome elsewhere ?

What's this nonsense about fr meat. There's no difference in eating quality between fr and any of the continental breeds whatever about the more traditional breeds. Do you really believe the meat off some 30 month old elephant of a chx bullock that's had a couple of store periods in his life is the essence of quality beef? Plenty of that stuff ends up in further processing. Most fresh beef in this country comes from younger lighter heifers afaik esp what is sold through butchers.

moy83

freedominacup wrote: »

What's this nonsense about fr meat. There's no difference in eating quality between fr and any of the continental breeds whatever about the more traditional breeds. Do you really believe the meat off some 30 month old elephant of a chx bullock that's had a couple of store periods in his life is the essence of quality beef? Plenty of that stuff ends up in further processing. Most fresh beef in this country comes from younger lighter heifers afaik esp what is sold through butchers.

I don't t know , thats why I'm asking . I would have guessed that fr meat would be much leaner/drier than continental meat .
Would they be processing more fr beasts than continental to get the same amount of meat ?

rancher

supersean1999 wrote: »

Why should money come from pillar 2 for coupling.

To be fair, sheep and suckler farmers would be entitled to it, same s they were entitled to pillar 2 money in REPS all those years ago.
None of it makes any sense, why should tillage farmers ( who are in a break even situation this year if they're lucky) and dairy farmers subsidise drystock farmers anyway.

Dampintheattic

rancher wrote: »

To be fair, sheep and suckler farmers would be entitled to it, same s they were entitled to pillar 2 money in REPS all those years ago.
None of it makes any sense, why should tillage farmers ( who are in a break even situation this year if they're lucky) and dairy farmers subsidise drystock farmers anyway.

It's not a case of dairy / tillage farmers subsidising anybody. The subsidies paid to all farmers, including dairy, tillage and drystock farmers, do not come from the pockets of any one sector.
The money comes from central exchequer coffers (european and or national)

The funds, should be distributed in a manner, to support farming as a whole.
It should be focused and targeted in a manner to support the most vulnerable sectors.

Talking about tillage guys, having a poor year this year, when you consider that suckler farmers for example, have five poor years out of six, is complete nonsence.

Another thing dairy and tillage guys, ............... who buys your dairy calves, straw and grain? Drystock farmers of course.

merryberry

rancher wrote: »

To be fair, sheep and suckler farmers would be entitled to it, same s they were entitled to pillar 2 money in REPS all those years ago.
.

If suckler/ ewe farmers are farming at a loss, then what is the point of farming these enterprises just so to be eligible for a coupled payment? This is an inefficient and wasteful use of financial, human and admin resources, and land capital. In theory, coupled payments should encourage production but in practice this has not been the case. I am against coupled payments that are linked to the cow/ ewe. Where a farmer gets a payment on these animals there is no motivation on the farmer’s part to maintain favorable production standards and targets like health and fertility - this does nothing to advance a struggling beef and sheep sector.

Conmaicne Mara

If it's going to be a quality payment, then I reckon it should be done through programmes like STAP & BTAP and what ever equivalent schemes are in place for other Ag sectors.

Educate people to get the best out of their farm, what ever type of farm it is.

But not a payment on pure animal numbers.

reilig

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

If it's going to be a quality payment, then I reckon it should be done through programmes like STAP & BTAP and what ever equivalent schemes are in place for other Ag sectors.

Educate people to get the best out of their farm, what ever type of farm it is.

+1 Which will in turn improve quality for those that are interested in doing a bit of work, setting their farms up for the future, and improving their lot. There should be no more money paid out for nothing!

merryberry

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

If it's going to be a quality payment, then I reckon it should be done through programmes like STAP & BTAP and what ever equivalent schemes are in place for other Ag sectors.

Educate people to get the best out of their farm, what ever type of farm it is.

But not a payment on pure animal numbers.

I agree completely with you and what you are suggesting should be the case but from what I understand the coupled option is a measure that will specifically deal with effects of the internal convergence model proposed under the new programme, in other words another hand out which does nothing to support vulnerable sectors.

Dampintheattic

reilig wrote: »

+1 Which will in turn improve quality for those that are interested in doing a bit of work, setting their farms up for the future, and improving their lot. There should be no more money paid out for nothing!

Yes agree. BUT, mark my words, Larry and his compatriots, will drive down the price paid to the beef farmer, every bit as quickly as the beef farmer will up his efficiency and unit cost of production improvement.

The way in which the beef processing sector, controls and manipulates prices, is nothing short of you know what!!!:eek:

Conmaicne Mara

merryberry wrote: »

I agree completely with you and what you are suggesting should be the case but from what I understand the coupled option is a measure that will specifically deal with effects of the internal convergence model proposed under the new programme, in other words another hand out which does nothing to support vulnerable sectors.

If they take (most of) it out of Pillar 2 it will likely hurt vulnerable sectors, IMO.

reilig

Dampintheattic wrote: »

Yes agree. BUT, mark my words, Larry and his compatriots, will drive down the price paid to the beef farmer, every bit as quickly as the beef farmer will up his efficiency and unit cost of production improvement.

The way in which the beef processing sector, controls and manipulates prices, is nothing short of you know what!!!:eek:

Exports!!

Look at what is happening this week. Larry and the boys have dropped the price over the last 3 months. Now it's paying UK farmers and processers to come across the border/water to live buy our animals.

Produce quality animals targeted towards specific markets is what we need to do. If the factories don't want to pay us for them, sell them elsewhere.

merryberry

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

If they take (most of) it out of Pillar 2 it will likely hurt vulnerable sectors, IMO.

In the words of REM "Well everybody hurts...sometimes":D

ellewood

Dampintheattic wrote: »

Yes agree. BUT, mark my words, Larry and his compatriots, will drive down the price paid to the beef farmer, every bit as quickly as the beef farmer will up his efficiency and unit cost of production improvement.

The way in which the beef processing sector, controls and manipulates prices, is nothing short of you know what!!!:eek:

While I agree the factories will pay as little as possible, you cant get too hung up on the price they pay which in general is out of our control, all you can do breed as good as you can and try get as much weight as possible on as cheap as possible so that even when prices are low you can still make a margin and when prices are good youll be rolling in it and wont know what to spend it all on:D

ellewood

reilig wrote: »

Exports!!

Look at what is happening this week. Larry and the boys have dropped the price over the last 3 months. Now it's paying UK farmers and processers to come across the border/water to live buy our animals.

Produce quality animals targeted towards specific markets is what we need to do. If the factories don't want to pay us for them, sell them elsewhere.

Yea was in Kilkenny mart last week where prices for good heifers was excellent and what struck me was the bidding the northern lads were throwng bid's as quick as auctioneer could take them and the usual dealers/factory buyers couldnt get a chance to claim or start cattle at very low prices as they usually do, in fact they were well pissed off.

Biggest problem is they mightnt be there next week or stupid red tape could stop it all of a sudden 1 day.

leoch

wat is the red tape involved in selling ur cattle to buyers in northern ireland or selling in marts in the north and does it take long to get them tested for that market i think it would be worth looking into especially if u live in the border counties

Conmaicne Mara

merryberry wrote: »

In the words of REM "Well everybody hurts...sometimes":D

funny how rarely it is the lad with large sfp, good land, and lots of stock, eh.

delaval

If you're a dairy or tillage farmer who has sucklers, how will proposed system work

If say I had a high Scc cow and suckled 3 calved on her, would she qualify?

supersean1999

rancher wrote: »

To be fair, sheep and suckler farmers would be entitled to it, same s they were entitled to pillar 2 money in REPS all those years ago.
None of it makes any sense, why should tillage farmers ( who are in a break even situation this year if they're lucky) and dairy farmers subsidise drystock farmers anyway.

Thats not really answering my question. The way i look at it. The pressure is coming from the bigger boys Who were never destocked to get as much into coupling as possible. Its a way of grabbing a bit back after losing some of there massive sfp . Talking money from pillar 2 is a joke.

moy83

delaval wrote: »

If you're a dairy or tillage farmer who has sucklers, how will proposed system work

If say I had a high Scc cow and suckled 3 calved on her, would she qualify?

Would you be as unfortunate as to have enough of these cows that you would have to keep all your bull calves for a few reference years ?! I know a dairy man that had to do that the last time and ever since he has the trouble of spending 110k SFP . Its a tough station

Dampintheattic

delaval wrote: »

If you're a dairy or tillage farmer who has sucklers, how will proposed system work

If say I had a high Scc cow and suckled 3 calved on her, would she qualify?

As a dairy boy, with even one high SCC cow, you should be immediately, banned from supplying milk for human consumption.
You should automatically be forced into hardship and poverty, by converting all your cows, skeletons to sucklers:eek:
That should wipe the smile off your face:D

bob charles

reilig wrote: »

Exports!!

Look at what is happening this week. Larry and the boys have dropped the price over the last 3 months. Now it's paying UK farmers and processers to come across the border/water to live buy our animals.

Current UK prices don't reflect the market whatsoever. there is a game of chess going on over there and the biggest problem is that we are probably paying for it. Causalties are going to come thick and fast for smaller abattoirs in UK. There are lots of couple hundred a week slaughter houses over there

delaval

moy83 wrote: »

Would you be as unfortunate as to have enough of these cows that you would have to keep all your bull calves for a few reference years ?! I know a dairy man that had to do that the last time and ever since he has the trouble of spending 110k SFP . Its a tough station

My main query is about sucklers on dairy or beef farms

The Scc ones I'll handle

delaval

moy83 wrote: »

Would you be as unfortunate as to have enough of these cows that you would have to keep all your bull calves for a few reference years ?! I know a dairy man that had to do that the last time and ever since he has the trouble of spending 110k SFP . Its a tough station

So now we hand it over to suckler farmers?

There are of course situations where it should be distributed for instance younger farmers and where nothing else bar forestry can be done with land. All the suckler men around here have the best of buildings, equipment and 2 weeks in the sun every year, why do I have to give money to these guys?

I'm off to milk my soon to be sucklers now

moy83

delaval wrote: »

So now we hand it over to suckler farmers?

There are of course situations where it should be distributed for instance younger farmers and where nothing else bar forestry can be done with land. All the suckler men around here have the best of buildings, equipment and 2 weeks in the sun every year, why do I have to give money to these guys?

I'm off to milk my soon to be sucklers now

You dont have to hand your money over to anyone .
Jeepers lads get touchy at the thought of this redistribution , I was only replying to your post about putting calves on one of your milkers , and that a buddy of mine that was milking in the last reference years who kept all his calves did well out of it