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

Farmer Pudsey

This is a general problems across organisations when they become large and hire professional/full time staff. A good few Trade Unions are gone the same way believe it or not.

You really start to notice it when elections take place and the number voting continually drops. The top table then become populated over time with insiders these usually are so called activist's. It become in the interest of full time officials that there is no radicalism and a core within the organisation control it and wish for no change in policy.

After a while there become's a core that feel rightly or wrongly that they are disenfranchised and top table usually instead of dealing with issue consider them troublemakers and refuse to listen to them.

It is now reaching a critical time for the IFA either they change and listen or a large number will leave the organisation and as importantly will stop paying IFA levy to factory's and milk processors.

Usually it is only when these organisations are hit hard in the pocket that they change,

rancher

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

This is a general problems across organisations when they become large and hire professional/full time staff. A good few Trade Unions are gone the same way believe it or not.

You really start to notice it when elections take place and the number voting continually drops. The top table then become populated over time with insiders these usually are so called activist's. It become in the interest of full time officials that there is no radicalism and a core within the organisation control it and wish for no change in policy.

After a while there become's a core that feel rightly or wrongly that they are disenfranchised and top table usually instead of dealing with issue consider them troublemakers and refuse to listen to them.

It is now reaching a critical time for the IFA either they change and listen or a large number will leave the organisation and as importantly will stop paying IFA levy to factory's and milk processors.

Usually it is only when these organisations are hit hard in the pocket that they change,

And to finish this fairy tale, we'll all pack up and go home and live happily ever after.

Username John

rancher wrote: »

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

Not really sure what the above thought brings...

It makes me want to ask is that the official IFA position on critism - that all critism should be immediately rejected, and the critics themselves portrayed as somewhat useless?

rancher

Username John wrote: »

Not really sure what the above thought brings...

It makes me want to ask is that the official IFA position on critism - that all critism should be immediately rejected, and the critics themselves portrayed as somewhat useless?

That was said to me many years ago, don't where it came from but it has proved to be true over and over again...you'll see it's reasonably true

Conmaicne Mara

rancher wrote: »

That was said to me many years ago, don't where it came from but it has proved to be true over and over again...you'll see it's reasonably true

It's a bad sign to be afraid of dissent or criticism. I will harp on again about Claremorris, a letter signed by 800+ IFA members was described by John Bryan as "silly", and any discussion of it was suppressed.

Problems only fester.

rancher

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

It's a bad sign to be afraid of dissent or criticism. I will harp on again about Claremorris, a letter signed by 800+ IFA members was described by John Bryan as "silly", and any discussion of it was suppressed.

Problems only fester.

Don't worry Con, I sort the problems in my county. If you take on a job, you have to do it.

Conmaicne Mara

rancher wrote: »

Don't worry Con, I sort the problems in my county. If you take on a job, you have to do it.

John Bryan did not seem to know that. Takes a bit of doing I would think to get 800 lads to sign something along with their herd number. That doesn't come from no where.

delaval

rancher wrote: »

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

Strathroy need the NFC logo, some WX suppliers feel the need not to supply Glanbia.

You'll remember the Westmeath "auction" I'm sure. I sure you recall how it ended. A promise of a better price.

The deal is done end of I'd say.

I'd say there'll be no 2c charge on new milk, it'll be based on shareholding I'd say.

coolshannagh28

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

This is a general problems across organisations when they become large and hire professional/full time staff. A good few Trade Unions are gone the same way believe it or not.

You really start to notice it when elections take place and the number voting continually drops. The top table then become populated over time with insiders these usually are so called activist's. It become in the interest of full time officials that there is no radicalism and a core within the organisation control it and wish for no change in policy.

After a while there become's a core that feel rightly or wrongly that they are disenfranchised and top table usually instead of dealing with issue consider them troublemakers and refuse to listen to them.

It is now reaching a critical time for the IFA either they change and listen or a large number will leave the organisation and as importantly will stop paying IFA levy to factory's and milk processors.

Usually it is only when these organisations are hit hard in the pocket that they change,

On top of this as the age profile of the core decision makers increases they tend to make decisions which protect their pensions and in the case of older farmers their SFP thus the bias in the IFA towards the status quo in the CAP reform debate.
Another interesting aspect of this is that this "pension"mindset reduces land mobility as the older farmer wants to hold on to his entitlements at all costs thus denying his offspring a proper shot at farming until he dies.
The age profile of farmers has gone up because of this and will continue to rise if young farmers continue to be disenfranchised

bob charles

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

The age profile of farmers has gone up because of this and will continue to rise if young farmers continue to be disenfranchised

The age profile has gone up because for all the work we putting in, we are receiving peanuts for our efforts. couple this with layers of bureaucracy. If there was a decent few quid in the job there would be plenty of farmers.

coolshannagh28

bob charles wrote: »

The age profile has gone up because for all the work we putting in, we are receiving peanuts for our efforts. couple this with layers of bureaucracy. If there was a decent few quid in the job there would be plenty of farmers.

You have to ask then , who is making sure you are not rewarded?

bob charles

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

You have to ask then , who is making sure you are not rewarded?

Government?

rancher

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

On top of this as the age profile of the core decision makers increases they tend to make decisions which protect their pensions and in the case of older farmers their SFP thus the bias in the IFA towards the status quo in the CAP reform debate.
Another interesting aspect of this is that this "pension"mindset reduces land mobility as the older farmer wants to hold on to his entitlements at all costs thus denying his offspring a proper shot at farming until he dies.
The age profile of farmers has gone up because of this and will continue to rise if young farmers continue to be disenfranchised

Are you in the real world!!!!!!!
In the real world most farms have an income for one family......the owner.
If that's a sixty year old farmer, how can he give it away and live for maybe ten years without an income and even then be only getting €230/ wk.
Farmers aren't public servants that can retire at maybe 55 and get a pension, no, their farm is their income, especially what happened with pensions in the last five years and no Government/IFA is going to change that situation.
The best transfers around here I see is where the farm skips a generation, a young guy gets it from grandparents.
Also father/son/daughter partnerships don't always be great fun either.
In NewZealand, young people have to buy the farm from their parents.

Can't see many farmers wanting to farm into senility, but most can't afford not too

coolshannagh28

rancher wrote: »

Are you in the real world!!!!!!!
In the real world most farms have an income for one family......the owner.
If that's a sixty year old farmer, how can he give it away and live for maybe ten years without an income and even then be only getting €230/ wk.
Farmers aren't public servants that can retire at maybe 55 and get a pension, no, their farm is their income, especially what happened with pensions in the last five years and no Government/IFA is going to change that situation.
The best transfers around here I see is where the farm skips a generation, a young guy gets it from grandparents.
Also father/son/daughter partnerships don't always be great fun either.
In NewZealand, young people have to buy the farm from their parents.

Can't see many farmers wanting to farm into senility, but most can't afford not too

You have unearthed the vicious circle that lies at the heart of farming ,farming does not pay enough money to provide an income never mind a pension ,the SFP becomes the pension leading to the low transferability of the farm .
Why does farming not provide adequate income ,because the price of the product is fixed by the cartel and the cartel is supported by the government and the insiders,

freedominacup

rancher wrote: »

Are you in the real world!!!!!!!
In the real world most farms have an income for one family......the owner.
If that's a sixty year old farmer, how can he give it away and live for maybe ten years without an income and even then be only getting €230/ wk.
Farmers aren't public servants that can retire at maybe 55 and get a pension, no, their farm is their income, especially what happened with pensions in the last five years and no Government/IFA is going to change that situation.
The best transfers around here I see is where the farm skips a generation, a young guy gets it from grandparents.
Also father/son/daughter partnerships don't always be great fun either.
In NewZealand, young people have to buy the farm from their parents.

Can't see many farmers wanting to farm into senility, but most can't afford not too

By planning for his retirement. You seem to be implying that younger farmers who are looking to move on have the problem which only emphasises Pudsys point about organisations as large as the IFA becoming inert, anything that looks like change has to be suppressed.

I took a job as a branch secretary and delegate this year. I'll give it a spin for a year and see what happens. I want to see radical change within the industry and the association if I don't see a willingness to at least discuss changes in the coming year it''ll be the second departure of this member certainly from any sort of active roll in the organisation.

rancher

freedominacup wrote: »

By planning for his retirement. You seem to be implying that younger farmers who are looking to move on have the problem which only emphasises Pudsys point about organisations as large as the IFA becoming inert, anything that looks like change has to be suppressed.

I took a job as a branch secretary and delegate this year. I'll give it a spin for a year and see what happens. I want to see radical change within the industry and the association if I don't see a willingness to at least discuss changes in the coming year it''ll be the second departure of this member certainly from any sort of active roll in the organisation.

No, I'm saying it as a sixty year old farmer who's depending on the farm for my income, present and future and who sees farmers who took farm retirement being left to farm because the 'farmer' has fecked off and got a job.
Theres lots of concessions there for young farmers, I should know, I've had to lobby for them every budget, but they're not worth a damn if the owner hasn't another income so that he can give away his farm.
I invested in the farm and paid into a pension that was decimated because some senior public servants didn't do their jobs, so I won't be giving away my farm anytime soon.
Why would I !!!!!

Conmaicne Mara

freedominacup wrote: »

I want to see radical change within the industry and the association

Good luck with that, have 14 months put in in the same role as you took up.

Farmer Pudsey

rancher wrote: »

Are you in the real world!!!!!!!
In the real world most farms have an income for one family......the owner.
If that's a sixty year old farmer, how can he give it away and live for maybe ten years without an income and even then be only getting €230/ wk.
Farmers aren't public servants that can retire at maybe 55 and get a pension, no, their farm is their income, especially what happened with pensions in the last five years and no Government/IFA is going to change that situation.
The best transfers around here I see is where the farm skips a generation, a young guy gets it from grandparents.
Also father/son/daughter partnerships don't always be great fun either.
In NewZealand, young people have to buy the farm from their parents.

Can't see many farmers wanting to farm into senility, but most can't afford not too

rancher wrote: »

No, I'm saying it as a sixty year old farmer who's depending on the farm for my income, present and future and who sees farmers who took farm retirement being left to farm because the 'farmer' has fecked off and got a job.
Theres lots of concessions there for young farmers, I should know, I've had to lobby for them every budget, but they're not worth a damn if the owner hasn't another income so that he can give away his farm.
I invested in the farm and paid into a pension that was decimated because some senior public servants didn't do their jobs, so I won't be giving away my farm anytime soon.
Why would I !!!!!

This is much the same for many private sector workers, most have had pension decimated over the last 5 years. A good few now find that they too will have to work into late sixty's before the OAP kicks in.

The reality is that the pension industry in Ireland is a sham and unless your employer matches contributions it is crazy investing in one. However there are way around it after fifty the amounts you can invest in same and get tax relief on is substandical. Look at investing in ultra low risk funds such as Government bonds and deposit accounts. Return will be quite small 2-3% however with tax relief actual return will be in in the 10% bracket. However investing in pensions is tax defered you are allowed to take 1.5 time a years salary as a lump sum and must but an annunity then ( check regulations and talk to a good investment advisor).

I was dispointed that Rovi closed the previous investment thread as often in farming it is somthing we fail to look at. Maybe at some stage we can open one and look at different options available to farmers. The only thing to be aware of is that we are not professionals however in a way that is not a bad thing because some of us may bring different outlooks to the table.

This often is what farmers cannot understand about parttimers. With us while it is a buisness we often consider that we would prefer to part fund our retirement through a farming buisness rather than by trusting pension funds completly (I am in a scheme through work that is preforming well). However some managed funds have scandlous feed and investment charges. The other advise is make sure as you get nearer your retirement age that it is derisked. remember you have to notify fund of the same.

Sorry for taking this thread off course

Pudsey

randomperson12

No, I'm saying it as a sixty year old farmer who's depending on the farm for my income, present and future and who sees farmers who took farm retirement being left to farm because the 'farmer' has fecked off and got a job.
Theres lots of concessions there for young farmers, I should know, I've had to lobby for them every budget, but they're not worth a damn if the owner hasn't another income so that he can give away his farm.
I invested in the farm and paid into a pension that was decimated because some senior public servants didn't do their jobs, so I won't be giving away my farm anytime soon.
Why would I !!!!!


stop talking about this ranchers bull

Rovi

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I was dispointed that Rovi closed the previous investment thread as often in farming it is somthing we fail to look at. Maybe at some stage we can open one and look at different options available to farmers.

That thread made no mention of farming or anything related to it, so was pretty Off-Topic for this forum in my opinion.

Please feel free to start another one, but it'll need to approach the subject from a 'farming' point of view.
Not plucking random figures out of the air or 'if you won the Lotto' scenarios, but how funds might be released from the farm to generate an income for a retiring farmer for example, or would a better income be generated by selling part/all of the farm?