FYI Teagasc Hill Sheep Conference 2014 STAP qualifying event

Conmaicne Mara

http://www.teagasc.ie/events/2014/20140122.asp

Don't know whether I'll make the trek down or not, fair distance.

Not to be confused with the Hill Farming Forum.

Username John

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

http://www.teagasc.ie/events/2014/20140122.asp

Don't know whether I'll make the trek down or not, fair distance.

Not to be confused with the Hill Farming Forum.

Sure call in if you're passing. :P

Conmaicne Mara

Username John wrote: »

Sure call in if you're passing. :P

I'll borrow Kovu's line, can I kip in your shed? :pac:

Username John

Are you going to this Con?

Conmaicne Mara

Username John wrote: »

Are you going to this Con?

No, I won't be able to make it, too much going on that I need to be around for. Herself is away at college so we have to plan stuff like this and the timing isn't right. I bet I will have heard most if it in Athenry or at a Better Farm walk anyway

solerina

If anyone does go can they report back to the rest of us..a bit from me on a week night, pity it wasn't a Friday night.

rancher

solerina wrote: »

If anyone does go can they report back to the rest of us..a bit from me on a week night, pity it wasn't a Friday night.

You should be able to get a copy of the presentations on the day from teagasc

solerina

rancher wrote: »

You should be able to get a copy of the presentations on the day from teagasc

I would love to know about any audience questions/feedback etc...I know its probably not going to come up but the general feeling around here is that hill sheep farmers were badly forgotten about in the recent announcements about 2015-2020.....especially the younger generation.
Esp with the notion that the grassland payment will be part of the SFP in future which could push payments up towards looking like they are closer to the national average than they actually are, obviously some will benefit but these seem in general to be older lads rather than young guys starting out.

HillFarmer

Did anyone get s soft copy of the presentations by any chance?

I emailed the teageasc link on the flyer but she never got back tom me

HillFarmer

Found it, to be fair to Teagasc they popped it up on their website, here's the link, enjoy

http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2014/3097/Teagasc%20Hill%20Sheep%20Conference%20%20proceedings.pdf

Conmaicne Mara

HillFarmer wrote: »

Found it, to be fair to Teagasc they popped it up on their website, here's the link, enjoy

http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2014/3097/Teagasc%20Hill%20Sheep%20Conference%20%20proceedings.pdf

Why do they persist with silage talk when talking of hill lambs, why, why, why :rolleyes:

Wahey I see grass mentioned.

Conmaicne Mara

Some very interesting stuff from the department in there.

GAEC on commonages will not be fun. Would like to know more about how they intend to tackle it in practical given the grazing habits of hefted sheep on unfenced commonages. I would not think they understand that problem fully yet, will await to be pleasantly surprised though.

Collective management/collective responsibility doesn't sit easy with me. I am not responsible for a reckless neighbour. I have no control over any other farmer. The task of enforcing the guidelines of these schemes lays solely with the Department IMO. I have no powers to sanction my neighbour, nor do I want them.

There are lots of untagged ewes knocking about which need to be removed or accounted for. Those sheep will negatively skew any future monitoring of vegetation or agri/env results based scheme. Part of the way to tackle that is fully computerised lamb sales tallied with ewes owned with an emphasis on breeds and average/projected rearing %'s.

There is a large problem with people grazing commonages they have no title to, this also negatively affects responsible farmers and needs to be tackled.

I am glad to see the number of ewe equivalents a farmer will be allowed is to be based on the number of shares and claimants on the commonage. I think that is fair, if the excess is proportionally rationed based on demand.

Not 100% sure on max/min numbers yet, if some will be "forced" to carry more than they are able to due to various reasons like age, health, or inadequate time due to other work commitments. Not convinced that is reasonable.

I am glad to see private land will not be subject to the commonage numbers. Though I believe GLAS is an all farm scheme, may complicate that matter.

I am also happy there will be a lead in time to build up numbers in such cases, one hopes it will be a reasonable time frame and not the 2 years said previously.

I continue to be disappointed that the polluter got paid and the responsible farmer got shafted. A quality payment of some sort might address this.

Two more things:

A lot of hill farmers are afraid to voice their opinions on these matters for fear of falling out with neighbours. That is a real and understandable problem in small isolated hill farming communities.

I want to see AEOS and GLAS to be changed to become (in a reasonable way) amendable schemes. This would be to give farmers in those schemes the ability to meet potentially higher stocking rates, should they wish or be able to. I know the Dept don't want to do this, but there must be a simple time effective way around it when just adjusting numbers.

ganmo

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Some very interesting stuff from the department in there.


Collective management/collective responsibility doesn't sit easy with me. I am not responsible for a reckless neighbour. I have no control over any other farmer. The task of enforcing the guidelines of these schemes lays solely with the Department IMO. I have no powers to sanction my neighbour, nor do I want them.

There are lots of untagged ewes knocking about which need to be removed or accounted for. Those sheep will negatively skew any future monitoring of vegetation or agri/env results based scheme. Part of the way to tackle that is fully computerised lamb sales tallied with ewes owned with an emphasis on breeds and average/projected rearing %'s.

There is a large problem with people grazing commonages they have no title to, this also negatively affects responsible farmers and needs to be tackled.

I am glad to see the number of ewe equivalents a farmer will be allowed is to be based on the number of shares and claimants on the commonage. I think that is fair, if the excess is proportionally rationed based on demand.

Not 100% sure on max/min numbers yet, if some will be "forced" to carry more than they are able to due to various reasons like age, health, or inadequate time due to other work commitments. Not convinced that is reasonable.

There is a HUGE problem with commonages between people not knowing what they are entitled to, or what is acceptable. The enforcement agencies have no hunger to chase any claims of breach of rules as they have no idea of the rules.

I am glad to see private land will not be subject to the commonage numbers. Though I believe GLAS is an all farm scheme, may complicate that matter.

The Glas scheme has just been allocated a budget and a framework, theres a lot of cracks left to fill up.

Conmaicne Mara

ganmo wrote: »

There is a HUGE problem with commonages between people not knowing what they are entitled to, or what is acceptable. The enforcement agencies have no hunger to chase any claims of breach of rules as they have no idea of the rules.

There is a problem there alright. I reject the notion of "collective responsibility". I have no issues with doing my share - based on the fractional share of the commonage I am rightfully and legally allowed to graze. Turn that into ewe numbers and we have a start. The overall min/max numbers does throw a spanner into the works though.

The enforcement agencies should do their job or f**k off. They shouldn't be let have their cake and eat it.

ganmo wrote: »

The Glas scheme has just been allocated a budget and a framework, theres a lot of cracks left to fill up.

I am attempting to go against my nature by being somewhat positive, least rancher say I'm being negative again

I agree there is very little detail yet. I can only comment on what was brought off the Teagasc site.