IFA accused of attempting to shut down dissenting voices

HillFarmer

http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/ifa-accused-of-attempting-to-shut-down-dissenting-voices-29842726.html

ormer Mayo and national IFA chairperson Michael Holmes said disaffection with the farm body was far more widespread than the association would admit.

The Belmullet farmer also claimed that the organisation was seeking to shut down dissident voices rather than address the concerns raised.

His comments follow an attempt by IFA head office to force a Co Roscommon branch to cast a ballot in the IFA election.

Granlahan branch voted not to cast a ballot in the IFA election, but IFA leaders attempted to re-run the vote in the branch last week. However, the effort failed as a quorum was not reached because only four people registered to vote on the second night.

The response from IFA president John Bryan on Midwest Radio to the protest vote drew a huge reaction in the region, with hundreds of texts and phone calls from farmers into the Tommy Marren show.

"We got more feedback on this interview than anything we've covered over the last five months," said Mr Marren. "He (Mr Bryan) was very dismissive of Granlahan, claiming it was just an isolated incident and everything is fine in the west," said Mr Holmes.

The Mayo county councillor said that the problems within the IFA in the west could not be easily dismissed.

"How else do you explain a registered letter of complaint to John Bryan with 840 signatures from over 12 branches in the region?" said Mr Holmes.

The councillor said that he spends a lot of his time trying to stop local farmers from withdrawing their IFA membership.

"The farmers in the east might be delighted if they did, and we just disappeared, but I believe that we are better off fighting for our voices to be heard from within," he said.

"The west feels badly at the moment. The decision by IFA head office to re-run the vote (in Granlahan) appears very heavy-handed to the people in the west.

"Every organisation has its problems, but if you don't accept that there is a problem and start talking about it, it becomes a bigger one," said Mr Holmes.

Former secretary of the Granlahan IFA branch Gerry Coffey claimed that the IFA were putting members under pressure to get their own way.

"I've really seen a different side to the IFA this week. They were doing all in their power to shut us up," he said.

The Galway-based auctioneer said that the organisation was failing to represent smaller farmers and that the time had come for an alternative organisation.

"They claim they have strength through unity, but unity at what price? We've been sold a pup on the carve up of Pillar I because there's no use in going into a bank looking for a loan and offering a REPS payment as collateral. If its not the SFP (single farm payment), the bank isn't interested," he claimed.

Irish Independent


Fair play to the Granlahan branch

Daniel1122

the ifa have limited interest in farmers. They are more interested in selling phone packages, electricity and insurance for FBD and collecting the EIF levy in meat factory's and marts.They use the IFJ as there mouth peace\\ spin doctors which they own to the best of my knowledge

randomperson12

there should be a insfa irish national small farmers asociation that cares for small farmers a voices from farming people

Farrell

What about icsa?
Are they an alternative?

randomperson12

probaly that could be alternative mabye make a new one and integrate them or afilliations

tomwaterford

I've often wondered that,they never seemed to get up and going at all
is the journal owned by the IFA??,would explain a lot if it was tbh

saying that its suprising there hasn't been another farming paper get up and running if the journals claimed 77 - 80K readership is to be belived.surly there room for another?? espially with the internet it wouldn't take huge work to get it up an running....Though on second taught there may not be enough subject matter to merit too papers,just surprised it was never tried is all

Farrell

tomwaterford wrote: »

I've often wondered that,they never seemed to get up and going at all
is the journal owned by the IFA??,would explain a lot if it was tbh

saying that its suprising there hasn't been another farming paper get up and running if the journals claimed 77 - 80K readership is to be belived.surly there room for another?? espially with the internet it wouldn't take huge work to get it up an running....Though on second taught there may not be enough subject matter to merit too papers,just surprised it was never tried is all

Is the journal possibly too expensive?
Would people believe it to be value for money?

tomwaterford

Its enough for what it is tbh,

sea12

tomwaterford wrote: »

I've often wondered that,they never seemed to get up and going at all
is the journal owned by the IFA??,would explain a lot if it was tbh

saying that its suprising there hasn't been another farming paper get up and running if the journals claimed 77 - 80K readership is to be belived.surly there room for another?? espially with the internet it wouldn't take huge work to get it up an running....Though on second taught there may not be enough subject matter to merit too papers,just surprised it was never tried is all

Well u have the independent supplement on a Tuesday and another in the examiner on a Thursday. They pretty much are decent alternatives. Hard to finance another paper v free supplements.

Joe the Plumber

Farrell wrote: »

What about icsa?
Are they an alternative?

They remain indepentant of the factories which is very honourable

A very good organisation from what I can see and I am currently a member of the IFA

IFA have lost their way, kinda like Fianna Fail did ( which I was also a member of once upon a time )

2014 needs to be a year of change

Farmer

Farrell wrote: »

What about icsa?
Are they an alternative?

Also
Have they many members?
What does it cost?

Their website tells very little - a failure in itself

Organizations need to get with this internet thing - it's the way the world is going. We need to know these things without having to ring someone's mobile number

Edit: Certainly impressive ideals and people behind it. It's just when you're selling something, particularly if you're the underdog, you need to make it as easy as possible for people to buy in to.

Farrell

Was going to join 1 of the organizations, was steering towards ifa, iffy now

rancher

Farmer wrote: »

Also
Have they many members?
What does it cost?

Their website tells very little - a failure in itself

Organizations need to get with this internet thing - it's the way the world is going. We need to know these things without having to ring someone's mobile number

Edit: Certainly impressive ideals and people behind it. It's just when you're selling something, particularly if you're the underdog, you need to make it as easy as possible for people to buy in to.

I'm a member and was very involved in reviving it about twenty years ago, Eddie Punch is very good, they have the advantage of representing only the drystock sector and wouldn't have any conflict of interest.
Unless you're going to put the work in and get involved, no organisation is going to be satisfactory for you

DMAXMAN

I am a member of ifa and have served on a national committee, always really believed in the strength of the organisation. lately though I am getting disillusioned with the whole can of worms. as said above you only hear from them when they want to sell something. organisation and general secretary seem to only want to draw money in. in the last year our president has been minding his ps and qs to try get on an election ticket while the ordinary beef farmers have been rode by the factories. we had the situation last year coming into the harvest where glanbias grain price texts were undermining what was being offered by smaller independent merchants and nothing said or done. my membership is up for renewal next sept and if they don't pull up their socks I wont renew it. on the subject of the general secretary has anyone ever seen him at our protests in Dublin ?

Conmaicne Mara

DMAXMAN wrote: »

I wont renew it.

Well puck it I will not be renewing mine for sure. After reading something now that annoyed me in the Journal.

As far as I can see it's lads who done the damage during headage making big money, got paid big bucks from NPWS in destocking, and still want the big numbers "just because they always had them" that the IFA are interested in around my area.

Zero interest in a fair deal for anyone looking to do the job right and treat the land right.

They should be ashamed.

Sick to the back pucking teeth of it.

Daniel1122

What would ye see as a fair CAP deal for farmers. give details of how ye think the money should be distributed fairly

delaval

From the outset I'd like to say that many great men and women have served this once great organisation. I feel that it has lost it's way in recent times. While canvassing the felling of disconnect and apathy was really strong.

The outgoing president, whom I wouldn't send to the tank for a gallon of milk, has a fair well dinner (launch) at the members expense speaks volumes.

During Nov when soil temps were in the teens I asked a sitting national officer if a opening to spread slurry could be requested, his response was "what are you doing wrong that your tanks are full?" When one considers the response that slurry would have gotten coupled with the saving on fert in spring I thought his answer showed a complete lack of understanding.

His view was that slurry is waste and mine is that its fert. If it was pissing rain they would secure an opening while environmentally it would be the wrong thing to do.

I can't see how these guys can represent us when they don't even understand us?

biddy2013

delaval wrote: »

From the outset I'd like to say that many great men and women have served this once great organisation. I feel that it has lost it's way in recent times. While canvassing the felling of disconnect and apathy was really strong.

The outgoing president, whom I wouldn't send to the tank for a gallon of milk, has a fair well dinner (launch) at the members expense speaks volumes.

During Nov when soil temps were in the teens I asked a sitting national officer if a opening to spread slurry could be requested, his response was "what are you doing wrong that your tanks are full?" When one considers the response that slurry would have gotten coupled with the saving on fert in spring I thought his answer showed a complete lack of understanding.

His view was that slurry is waste and mine is that its fert. If it was pissing rain they would secure an opening while environmentally it would be the wrong thing to do.

I can't see how these guys can represent us when they don't even understand us?

yes i think the main problem is its their way or no way....:mad:

Conmaicne Mara

delaval wrote: »

I can't see how these guys can represent us when they don't even understand us?

You're dead right. Problem here is the restrictions on land, in particular the stocking rates due to over/under grazing. The root of that issue lies back in headage, some cheque in the post farmers massively over stocked to cash cheques, fup the sheep, the worst thing a ewe could have in Spring was a lamb because the lamb was likely to kill her, so she'd be missing for the inspectors count.

I put forward a solution to IFA, not a measure to kick the can down the road another ten years. Solution was responsible farming of commonages, each farmer to take their legal share of grazing and no more - except on the issue of dormant shares which could be divided up between "active farmers". Trespassing flocks could also be dealt with effectively and simply, with a shareholder register showing who is entitled to graze what commonage and their share.

Broad, clumsy prescriptions have been tried since the 90's, and they have failed and failed again to address the underlying issue. They have done nothing except reward the offenders and drive out people who wish to produce an animal worth something.

So I put my solution to IFA, their response, "That's micro managing".

:rolleyes:

So here we'll go, kick the can down the road another 10 years and still be talking and giving out about the same problems in 2024, just with fewer voices.

rancher

delaval wrote: »

From the outset I'd like to say that many great men and women have served this once great organisation. I feel that it has lost it's way in recent times. While canvassing the felling of disconnect and apathy was really strong.

The outgoing president, whom I wouldn't send to the tank for a gallon of milk, has a fair well dinner (launch) at the members expense speaks volumes.

During Nov when soil temps were in the teens I asked a sitting national officer if a opening to spread slurry could be requested, his response was "what are you doing wrong that your tanks are full?" When one considers the response that slurry would have gotten coupled with the saving on fert in spring I thought his answer showed a complete lack of understanding.

His view was that slurry is waste and mine is that its fert. If it was pissing rain they would secure an opening while environmentally it would be the wrong thing to do.

I can't see how these guys can represent us when they don't even understand us?

So now you claim that we shouldn't have looked for a concession to spread slurry in the closed period last year....I think you'll be ploughing a lonely furrow with that spin on the circumstances that led up to the lobbying for that concession.
The nitrates directive is from Brussels and they're not going to tolerate countries relentlessly coming back looking for concessions because the year was too wet/ dry /hot / cold/ or whatever
Who ever you quoted was right, because that would be the very same question that Europe/ politicians would ask us....what happened to the grants. subsidies, etc that we're being paid.
No one is calling slurry waste in IFA, so you can drop that spin too.
As I said over and over the positions are open to everyone every 4/6 years to anyone who thinks they can do better.

Thought for the day
Those who can .....do
Those who can't.....teach
and then there's critics.....who can neither do nor teach

delaval

rancher wrote: »

So now you claim that we shouldn't have looked for a concession to spread slurry in the closed period last year....I think you'll be ploughing a lonely furrow with that spin on the circumstances that led up to the lobbying for that concession.
The nitrates directive is from Brussels and they're not going to tolerate countries relentlessly coming back looking for concessions because the year was too wet/ dry /hot / cold/ or whatever
Who ever you quoted was right, because that would be the very same question that Europe/ politicians would ask us....what happened to the grants. subsidies, etc that we're being paid.
No one is calling slurry waste in IFA, so you can drop that spin too.
As I said over and over the positions are open to everyone every 4/6 years to anyone who thinks they can do better.

Thought for the day
Those who can .....do
Those who can't.....teach
and then there's critics.....who can neither do nor teach

Rancher, I totally understand what your saying re extension for last year and I for one was really grateful. I know that the fear is the can of worms that is slurry storage may be reopened.

My point was the answer I got, this guy hadn't a notion what I meant re fert, he saw it as waste, the scary thing was he wasn't alone.

Would you accept there is a disconnect with the members and that the out going pres didn't do the organisation any good with the love in held in Kilkenny?

I want the IFA to be successful I am steeped in it from a boy and genuinely don't mean to be spinning just using an example.

PS. I didn't post to turn this into an IFA bashing match, just calling it as I met it

randomperson12

they should revive the old organisations like the nfa and other ones also it says on wikepedia the ifa has less than 100,000 members wich means about 3 quaters of irish farmers have nothing to do with the ifa so a new organisation would be better

freedominacup

rancher wrote: »

So now you claim that we shouldn't have looked for a concession to spread slurry in the closed period last year....I think you'll be ploughing a lonely furrow with that spin on the circumstances that led up to the lobbying for that concession.
The nitrates directive is from Brussels and they're not going to tolerate countries relentlessly coming back looking for concessions because the year was too wet/ dry /hot / cold/ or whatever
Who ever you quoted was right, because that would be the very same question that Europe/ politicians would ask us....what happened to the grants. subsidies, etc that we're being paid.
No one is calling slurry waste in IFA, so you can drop that spin too.
As I said over and over the positions are open to everyone every 4/6 years to anyone who thinks they can do better.

Thought for the day
Those who can .....do
Those who can't.....teach
and then there's critics.....who can neither do nor teach

I had a similar reaction to De when I broached the subject with an area rep, paid professional on IFAs books. I asked him why the IFA hadn't organised a test case on the closed period and he looked at me waiting for my head to actually come off. The paid pros in the IFA have no interest whatsoever in any form of confrontation with any govt dept and this needs to change. TBH Eddie Downeys first job on going into IFA headquarters should be to fire at least half the salaried people he meets on his way from the front door to his desk and to replace of the other half over the course of his presidencey esp the general secretary who should be on a 4 year contract max.

randomperson12

they should revive the old organisations like the nfa and other ones also it says on wikepedia the ifa has less than 100,000 members wich means about 3 quaters of irish farmers have nothing to do with the ifa so a new organisation would be better

rancher

delaval wrote: »

Rancher, I totally understand what your saying re extension for last year and I for one was really grateful. I know that the fear is the can of worms that is slurry storage may be reopened.

My point was the answer I got, this guy hadn't a notion what I meant re fert, he saw it as waste, the scary thing was he wasn't alone.

Would you accept there is a disconnect with the members and that the out going pres didn't do the organisation any good with the love in held in Kilkenny?

I want the IFA to be successful I am steeped in it from a boy and genuinely don't mean to be spinning just using an example.

PS. I didn't post to turn this into an IFA bashing match, just calling it as I met it

Do you not think that if a new organisation started that the result would be the same ... ie leaving it to the same few to do the work. I foolishly thought farmers were looking for a new organisation 20 yrs ago.
I put in a lot of hours lobbying and meetings for that nitrates directive and there was very few queueing up to come support me. when I told farmers at meetings, they just weren't bothered,,,,, same the last few years with the bull beef and you see who's being blamed now.
Like you with the calendar farming, if you take it out of context it looks bad. but if the powers that be solve it by increasing storage, it would be far worse. County council say slurry is a pollution risk. The public think it stinks ( and I think it stinks also), so whether we call it a waste or fertiliser won't make any difference if it comes down to the wire.

randomperson12

they should revive the old organisations like the nfa and other ones also it says on wikepedia the ifa has less than 100,000 members wich means about 3 quaters of irish farmers have nothing to do with the ifa so a new organisation would be better

freedominacup

rancher wrote: »

Do you not think that if a new organisation started that the result would be the same ... ie leaving it to the same few to do the work. I foolishly thought farmers were looking for a new organisation 20 yrs ago.
I put in a lot of hours lobbying and meetings for that nitrates directive and there was very few queueing up to come support me. when I told farmers at meetings, they just weren't bothered,,,,, same the last few years with the bull beef and you see who's being blamed now.
Like you with the calendar farming, if you take it out of context it looks bad. but if the powers that be solve it by increasing storage, it would be far worse. County council say slurry is a pollution risk. The public think it stinks ( and I think it stinks also), so whether we call it a waste or fertiliser won't make any difference if it comes down to the wire.

The powers that be will pull whatever trick they like and it's not usually the politicians. The biggest trick pulled with the N regs was the classification of sewage as chemical N. This is the main reason for the restrictions on organic N they want the capacity to get this product used easily without having to refer to the problem they talked into existenece. I did not hear a single word from anyone in IFA about this classification at the time or since and it should be a deal breaker in the new negotiations.

randomperson12

stp talking nonsence whats needed is a new organisation

delaval

rancher wrote: »

Do you not think that if a new organisation started that the result would be the same ... ie leaving it to the same few to do the work. I foolishly thought farmers were looking for a new organisation 20 yrs ago.
I put in a lot of hours lobbying and meetings for that nitrates directive and there was very few queueing up to come support me. when I told farmers at meetings, they just weren't bothered,,,,, same the last few years with the bull beef and you see who's being blamed now.
Like you with the calendar farming, if you take it out of context it looks bad. but if the powers that be solve it by increasing storage, it would be far worse. County council say slurry is a pollution risk. The public think it stinks ( and I think it stinks also), so whether we call it a waste or fertiliser won't make any difference if it comes down to the wire.

I actually don't think a new org is necessary at all. The problem is that politics and spin doctors have taken over the organisation.

I recall one meeting in 08 when milk price was heading for a peak, saying at a meeting that we are about to price ourselves out if the market. I didn't say it needed to fall, well the reaction and ridicule I had to listen to from the top table was unreal. They should have seen what was coming but we were happy so they felt all was ok. Before you say they have no control over price, I agree but a bit of reality is all people ask for.

Again, do you agree or not about my comment about a disconnect?

delaval

randomperson12 wrote: »

stp talking nonsence whats needed is a new organisation

Organise the meeting and book the venue

rancher

delaval wrote: »

I actually don't think a new org is necessary at all. The problem is that politics and spin doctors have taken over the organisation.

I recall one meeting in 08 when milk price was heading for a peak, saying at a meeting that we are about to price ourselves out if the market. I didn't say it needed to fall, well the reaction and ridicule I had to listen to from the top table was unreal. They should have seen what was coming but we were happy so they felt all was ok. Before you say they have no control over price, I agree but a bit of reality is all people ask for.

Again, do you agree or not about my comment about a disconnect?[/QUOTE]

No more so than years ago, same few here going to Meetings,Protests etc as there ever was.
You can't say either that I'm not saying it as it is, you're definitely getting reality from me.

Just a quick question, know nothing about Strathroy, but they're keen for milk......will they require money up front like the rest of the proceesors or will new entrants get in with out hello money