Is your SFP under €400 h/a ?

Conmaicne Mara

And I'm sorry for going on about it but I must again highlight the letter signed by over 800 farmers, with herd numbers, last year and how it was dealt with by IFA. John Bryan described it as a "silly" letter.

That is no way to treat card carrying, fee & levy paying members.

rancher

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

The devil is in the detail.

Not campaigning for income reductions, or how ever you put it earlier is quite a constructed way of putting it.

The other way of saying it with the same meaning is actively supporting the status quo.

Now if you benefit from the status quo, then you won't have a problem with that.

But if like a lot of small farmers you're being screwed by the status quo, there's the devil right there, and tbh I doubt may who are in that position believe IFA is working for them, member (like me) or not.



By the way, and just for the purpose of information, O'Cuiv asked farmers at the meeting I was at to join IFA. He also praised a lot of IFA work, not just locally. The meeting was there to highlight the inequalities of the system more than to bash IFA. IFA put themselves in the headlights just by making comments like "representing all farmers".

You said your self that we hadn't a hope on 47% co funding on pillar 2. we got it, you make little of Pillar 2, but it was going grand until O'Cuiv broke it, But we're back on track now hopefully. we worked hard to ensure vet certs are in place for live exports to Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Lebanon all of which benefit small farmers, and there's other live exports going too
If you were at the sheep conference you would have heard me getting Coveney to commit publicly to making it easier for sheep farmers to get GLAS, some thing which his department are not happy about.
We got the suckler subsidy, we're working with the Dept.on the new GLAS, We won't get all we want but it'll be better than if we weren't there.
Farmers with problems with council, DVO,Dept and many other issues are helped,
How many small farmers got fodder through IFA this year, it would have been a lot dearer but for the imports.
All this for 10c/lamb and a membership which you can get back anyway.

Conmaicne Mara

rancher wrote: »

You said your self that we hadn't a hope on 47% co funding on pillar 2. we got it, you make little of Pillar 2, but it was going grand until O'Cuiv broke it, But we're back on track now hopefully. we worked hard to ensure vet certs are in place for live exports to Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Lebanon all of which benefit small farmers, and there's other live exports going too
If you were at the sheep conference you would have heard me getting Coveney to commit publicly to making it easier for sheep farmers to get GLAS, some thing which his department are not happy about.
We got the suckler subsidy, we're working with the Dept.on the new GLAS, We won't get all we want but it'll be better than if we weren't there.
Farmers with problems with council, DVO,Dept and many other issues are helped,
How many small farmers got fodder through IFA this year, it would have been a lot dearer but for the imports.
All this for 10c/lamb and a membership which you can get back anyway.

Ok a few points.

As explained about the levy, it is a method of leverage for those who believe they aren't being listened to. Talk isn't listened to, letters weren't listened to, so people are forced into this. I have heard plenty of calls for a protest outside IFA HQ by the way, not something I agree with but the sentiment is there. Ask Tom Turley if you think I jest.

Fodder, if it wasn't for our branch chairman at the time NO farmer in Connemara would have got any fodder as we have no co-ops here and Athenry weren't all too willing to send fodder back here. If it wasn't for a North Connemara truck driver organising with our then chairman we would have went without. That was local effort, not National, if we relied on National we'd have got 0.

Farmers with dept and other problems are helped, I agree to a point. I looked for help on my stocking issue and heard 0 back despite following up. Next stop my TD on that issue as someone here suggested.

I wasn't in Athlone, without offense that was for lowland farmers in regards to being a STAP event. The Hill conference was in Bantry, Coveney didn't attend. Nor did he attend the Hill farming forum in Tuam last year. Nor did he attend the Pillar 2 event in Mullingar, do we see a pattern there concerning hill farmers and the Minister for Ag? Thanks to info I got the Galway & Mayo Hill sheep reps managed to meet him very, very briefly while he was in this area inspecting storm damage.

I see slightly more info on Glas on Agriland, a very, very long way to go on that before it's anything like worthwhile. Hill farmers are being discriminated against with the 80% agreement, I have no control over another farmer, I won't be held responsible for other farmers actions, would you? The Dept don't even know how many sheep are on the hills presently.

Pillar 2, again, the safe money is in Pillar 1. DAS is still being held at it's "cutback" level, REPS gone. I am not worried about O'Cuiv, I am interested in the idea, not playing the man instead of the ball. It's the system I have issue with. Like I said earlier, if people want to vote for him based on talk, that's their problem, I will reserve judgement until I see action. I believe the idea he is putting forward has merit for the majority of Irish farmers.

Least you think you are on your own working for farmers, we do a large amount of networking here ourselves, locally, nationally and on a European level.

foyle

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Hill farmers are being discriminated against with the 80% agreement, I have no control over another farmer, I won't be held responsible for other farmers actions, would you? The Dept don't even know how many sheep are on the hills presently

Totally agree, Coveney seems to wish that hill sheep farmed didn't exist, and my Teagasc rep said that I should pay off the other shareholders in my commonage so that we could all claim Glas....these other shareholder havn't put a sheep on the commonage in over 10 years, despite claiming subsidies on it...why should I have to pay them ??? the commonage would be totally over grown by now if it wasn't for my sheep(and one other shareholder) grazing it !!! They really don't have a clue

paddysdream

rancher wrote: »

You said your self that we hadn't a hope on 47% co funding on pillar 2. we got it, you make little of Pillar 2, but it was going grand until O'Cuiv broke it, But we're back on track now hopefully. we worked hard to ensure vet certs are in place for live exports to Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Lebanon all of which benefit small farmers, and there's other live exports going too
If you were at the sheep conference you would have heard me getting Coveney to commit publicly to making it easier for sheep farmers to get GLAS, some thing which his department are not happy about.
We got the suckler subsidy, we're working with the Dept.on the new GLAS, We won't get all we want but it'll be better than if we weren't there.
Farmers with problems with council, DVO,Dept and many other issues are helped,
How many small farmers got fodder through IFA this year, it would have been a lot dearer but for the imports.
All this for 10c/lamb and a membership which you can get back anyway.

As regards the fodder,did they get it from the IFA for free?

All the IFA did was,after putting it on the long finger for a while,was to source fodder in the UK (mostly done by the co ops by the way) and get their picture in the paper when ,after a dept. subsidy was given for the haulage,it was given out at co ops and marts.

Sounds like a "kick the ifa" post but not really.Find that they manage to take credit for many things that were done without any major input from them whilst running away from other things.

rancher

paddysdream wrote: »

As regards the fodder,did they get it from the IFA for free?

All the IFA did was,after putting it on the long finger for a while,was to source fodder in the UK (mostly done by the co ops by the way) and get their picture in the paper when ,after a dept. subsidy was given for the haulage,it was given out at co ops and marts.

Sounds like a "kick the ifa" post but not really.Find that they manage to take credit for many things that were done without any major input from them whilst running away from other things.

We had three reps in England sourcing fodder, we lobbied coveney to put up a subsidy which he did for the coops, we then put up 500000 of members money and got 750000 from FBD, Farmers Journal, IFFPG to pay the merchants that were not coops and there was a good few of those.
You obviously had little to do with the work if you think the county reps weren't involved, I would have sourced and delivered 500 bales as well and IFA paid the transport, also organising French loads for the local merchant.
We did the same as the government..we paid the transport and the €1.25m was spent. The only limit was the ferries
As for the long finger, there was a lot of fodder moving before any subs were announced

Username John

Well, there goes another thread into an "IFA is good / bad" debate...

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Conmaicne Mara

Username John wrote: »

Well, there goes another thread into an "IFA is good / bad" debate...

:mad: :mad: :mad:

That's politics for you, fudge the issue, dismiss the proposal and focus on O'Cuiv, the past, etc.

On examination those should be positive signs for farmers under €400 ha.

The levy letter is dismissed as a publicity stunt when it's a clever idea. The issue with it is that it needs signatures and support.

With that, change may happen, without support it'll wither and die.

Time for farmers to make up their minds what they want.

paddysdream

Username John wrote: »

Well, there goes another thread into an "IFA is good / bad" debate...

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Sorry, prob. was my comments after reading the headline linked to in the connacht tribune about witholding the levy(always seems to be a sore point for the bluebell boys!)

All that re fodder etc was beside the point.
So on to the meat of the debate.

Is O Cuiv pushing his proposals as what should have been done or is he telling people that there is a realistic hope of them even being considered by Coveney?.

Is he using the "people on poorer /marginal land were screwed over" line?
Or the"the whole CAP deal is unfair" line?
In other words why does he think it was the wrong deal and why?

To be honest I am unlikely to get to one of his meetings but genuinely would like to hear what the ideas are.Read the linked-to on line bit but its hard to get a feeling from it.

Also still waiting for all the proposals from people for a "fairer CAP" either now or in the future.

rancher

paddysdream wrote: »

Sorry, prob. was my comments after reading the headline linked to in the connacht tribune about witholding the levy(always seems to be a sore point for the bluebell boys!)

All that re fodder etc was beside the point.
So on to the meat of the debate.

Is O Cuiv pushing his proposals as what should have been done or is he telling people that there is a realistic hope of them even being considered by Coveney?.

Is he using the "people on poorer /marginal land were screwed over" line?
Or the"the whole CAP deal is unfair" line?
In other words why does he think it was the wrong deal and why?

To be honest I am unlikely to get to one of his meetings but genuinely would like to hear what the ideas are.Read the linked-to on line bit but its hard to get a feeling from it.

Also still waiting for all the proposals from people for a "fairer CAP" either now or in the future.

I regard my sheep as a way of keeping the farm right to collect my SFP, that is the only way I can justify the effort I put into them, I don't think I'd bother if the proposed €10000 cut comes on my SFP, already having lost €10000 REPs........ I'd promote myself to 'armchair farmer'
Despite what's being said on boards there's a substantial no. of farmers who were intensive in 2001 and are still intensive. If they think like me, it might be very easy to buy ewes/weanlings around the ring in the next few years

rancher

foyle wrote: »

Totally agree, Coveney seems to wish that hill sheep farmed didn't exist, and my Teagasc rep said that I should pay off the other shareholders in my commonage so that we could all claim Glas....these other shareholder havn't put a sheep on the commonage in over 10 years, despite claiming subsidies on it...why should I have to pay them ??? the commonage would be totally over grown by now if it wasn't for my sheep(and one other shareholder) grazing it !!! They really don't have a clue

They'll be getting 150 euros/ha now and O'Cuiv wants more for them, I know farmers with 300/ha of what you're referring to and they're only rubbing their hands in glee at the moment, wait till the press gets hold of this information and who'll defend the scenario ???.... O'Cuiv

coolshannagh28

why shouldn't the lads with 300 ha of bad land get a go on the gravytrain they surely deserve it particularly in light of the fact that EU policy ie greening is targeted at this type of land because of its diversity

Username John

paddysdream wrote: »

Also still waiting for all the proposals from people for a "fairer CAP" either now or in the future.

There is prob no such thing... Fair is subjective...

Those who have a SFP don't want to lose any, those who don't have any SFP want some...

I don't agree with either of the folowing statements though
"I earned it in 2001, so I should keep it forever"
and
"I didn't get it in 2001, so I should get it now"

Paddysdream - I think you stated before that SFP / CAP farming is where the future is, and everyone should look to maximise that. So I don't blame anyone for trying to increase their payments.

paddysdream

Username John wrote: »

There is prob no such thing... Fair is subjective...

Those who have a SFP don't want to lose any, those who don't have any SFP want some...

I don't agree with either of the folowing statements though
"I earned it in 2001, so I should keep it forever"
and
"I didn't get it in 2001, so I should get it now"

Paddysdream - I think you stated before that SFP / CAP farming is where the future is, and everyone should look to maximise that. So I don't blame anyone for trying to increase their payments.

Agree(sad as it may be)that CAP/SFP is where the future is.Being honest and realistic,there is no how,no way that drystock farming(or tillage ,unless on massive 1000 plus acre system) will ever give enough of a return from the market alone to survive as a viable standalone enterprise in Ireland.

If the payment is meant to be a support to us to produce food and raw materials at below the economic cost of production ,then I say that those who are (or have the ability to) producing more should receive more.But,but, but, a return to direct market supports ie headage,premia, coupling, is out for now and it's had to see it returning.

If on the other hand,its a social engineering distribution of funds to ensure Europe's countryside is kept alive and preserved while giving people a reason(excuse?) to live,work and farm there,then fine.No problem with that.
Its the fallacy of people telling us that a small redistribution of payments will make everyone viable that annoys me.Has O Cuiv promised a chicken in every pot yet?

The sad fact is that I see Irish farming (excluding dairying,but post 2015?)as having no chance in the future of supporting a family without some form of support.Market returns will not leave a viable income.Without spouse's working,off farm income,motorway money,(pylons?maybe for me!!) or the old"did ya hear about the hoor down the road,didn't the uncle in Australia only die and leave yer man 5 million" etc etc its hard to see how you could live from an average(or above average )farm and invest in your buisness.

I am willing to go along with either concept as long as it's made clear which one is the long term aim.At least then we would know what the future holds and be able to plan accordingly.

I believe that full time farming will become rarer and rarer.Not the Farmers Journal concept of the future though where one enterprising young buck will lease all the land from the auld fella's and set the world to rights.Think it will be more along the lines of lads mullocking along,spending less,keeping less stock and relying on the income from actual farming less and less.The Irish attraction to,and hold on,land will take many generations to loosen,if it ever does.

Very depressing I am tonight!!!

TITANIUM.

paddysdream wrote: »

Agree(sad as it may be)that CAP/SFP is where the future is.Being honest and realistic,there is no how,no way that drystock farming(or tillage ,unless on massive 1000 plus acre system) will ever give enough of a return from the market alone to survive as a viable standalone enterprise in Ireland.

If the payment is meant to be a support to us to produce food and raw materials at below the economic cost of production ,then I say that those who are (or have the ability to) producing more should receive more.But,but, but, a return to direct market supports ie headage,premia, coupling, is out for now and it's had to see it returning.

If on the other hand,its a social engineering distribution of funds to ensure Europe's countryside is kept alive and preserved while giving people a reason(excuse?) to live,work and farm there,then fine.No problem with that.
Its the fallacy of people telling us that a small redistribution of payments will make everyone viable that annoys me.Has O Cuiv promised a chicken in every pot yet?

The sad fact is that I see Irish farming (excluding dairying,but post 2015?)as having no chance in the future of supporting a family without some form of support.Market returns will not leave a viable income.Without spouse's working,off farm income,motorway money,(pylons?maybe for me!!) or the old"did ya hear about the hoor down the road,didn't the uncle in Australia only die and leave yer man 5 million" etc etc its hard to see how you could live from an average(or above average )farm and invest in your buisness.

I am willing to go along with either concept as long as it's made clear which one is the long term aim.At least then we would know what the future holds and be able to plan accordingly.

I believe that full time farming will become rarer and rarer.Not the Farmers Journal concept of the future though where one enterprising young buck will lease all the land from the auld fella's and set the world to rights.Think it will be more along the lines of lads mullocking along,spending less,keeping less stock and relying on the income from actual farming less and less.The Irish attraction to,and hold on,land will take many generations to loosen,if it ever does.

Very depressing I am tonight!!!

Time for you to sell up paddy boy.

How much do u want for the place?

Bodacious

rancher wrote: »

I regard my sheep as a way of keeping the farm right to collect my SFP, that is the only way I can justify the effort I put into them, I don't think I'd bother if the proposed €10000 cut comes on my SFP, already having lost €10000 REPs........ I'd promote myself to 'armchair farmer'
Despite what's being said on boards there's a substantial no. of farmers who were intensive in 2001 and are still intensive. If they think like me, it might be very easy to buy ewes/weanlings around the ring in the next few years

Hi Rancher,

I always enjoy your posts and please don't take this personal as it merely my own opinion but that statement there "I was intensive in 2001..." Is where we are all going wrong ... That's 13 years ago that you were producing a substantial amount of food from your land ... As a young farmer, got no entitlements etc bought everything .. I just feel that payments should be reviewed on stock numbers every 2-3 years minimum .. Again only my opinion but if any non farmer was lookin in from outside at the system of entitlements .. Fellas getting paid 13 years later still for stock numbers that weren't maintained

paddysdream

Bodacious wrote: »

Hi Rancher,

I always enjoy your posts and please don't take this personal as it merely my own opinion but that statement there "I was intensive in 2001..." Is where we are all going wrong ... That's 13 years ago that you were producing a substantial amount of food from your land ... As a young farmer, got no entitlements etc bought everything .. I just feel that payments should be reviewed on stock numbers every 2-3 years minimum .. Again only my opinion but if any non farmer was lookin in from outside at the system of entitlements .. Fellas getting paid 13 years later still for stock numbers that weren't maintained

Two things wrong with that!!

Firstly(don't agree with it but however) there was no obligation to maintain stock numbers or even to keep any at all under the SFP scheme.All you had to do was maintain the land in good agricultural condition and obey the rules.

As regards reviewing it every 2-3 years ;this is not gonna happen.Firstly the budget is set for the entire lenght of the scheme and secondly breaking any link to production was the idea last time and it has been strenghtened this time.
No minister(or the EU) will consider a scheme which is open to review every year or 2 and imagine if you were getting say 100 euro suckler cow sub in 2014 and due to increased tillage area it was cut to 10 the following year or vica versa.

rancher

Bodacious wrote: »

Hi Rancher,

I always enjoy your posts and please don't take this personal as it merely my own opinion but that statement there "I was intensive in 2001..." Is where we are all going wrong ... That's 13 years ago that you were producing a substantial amount of food from your land ... As a young farmer, got no entitlements etc bought everything .. I just feel that payments should be reviewed on stock numbers every 2-3 years minimum .. Again only my opinion but if any non farmer was lookin in from outside at the system of entitlements .. Fellas getting paid 13 years later still for stock numbers that weren't maintained

Yea I would agree with highlighted bit and probably most of your post.
Don't know where you got your quote but I would still be stocking at around 2lu/ha which would be in the top third of sheep farmers for stocking rate and production/ha which I would consider intensive for sheep

Damo810

paddysdream wrote: »

Two things wrong with that!!

Firstly(don't agree with it but however) there was no obligation to maintain stock numbers or even to keep any at all under the SFP scheme.All you had to do was maintain the land in good agricultural condition and obey the rules.

As regards reviewing it every 2-3 years ;this is not gonna happen.Firstly the budget is set for the entire lenght of the scheme and secondly breaking any link to production was the idea last time and it has been strenghtened this time.
No minister(or the EU) will consider a scheme which is open to review every year or 2 and imagine if you were getting say 100 euro suckler cow sub in 2014 and due to increased tillage area it was cut to 10 the following year or vica versa.

You can have the same budget, but divide it differently between farmers after the review. Link the pie to production (SR, number of hectares tilled etc) and divide it out accordingly. It's not that hard to fathom..

Conmaicne Mara

paddysdream wrote: »

Sorry, prob. was my comments after reading the headline linked to in the connacht tribune about witholding the levy(always seems to be a sore point for the bluebell boys!)

All that re fodder etc was beside the point.
So on to the meat of the debate.

Is O Cuiv pushing his proposals as what should have been done or is he telling people that there is a realistic hope of them even being considered by Coveney?.

Is he using the "people on poorer /marginal land were screwed over" line?
Or the"the whole CAP deal is unfair" line?
In other words why does he think it was the wrong deal and why?

To be honest I am unlikely to get to one of his meetings but genuinely would like to hear what the ideas are.Read the linked-to on line bit but its hard to get a feeling from it.

Also still waiting for all the proposals from people for a "fairer CAP" either now or in the future.

Don't know exactly where you are, think the South East somewhere? He has a meeting on in Dungarvan, date in the first post.

You should hear it first rather than second and third hand. You have been asking for proposals, when one came up, then you say you won't go to hear it

As I said I went there very sceptical, then I heard the proposals for myself and left with a different attitude.

But, if one is well over €400 ha it won't matter what he says.

rancher wrote: »

I regard my sheep as a way of keeping the farm right to collect my SFP, that is the only way I can justify the effort I put into them, I don't think I'd bother if the proposed €10000 cut comes on my SFP, already having lost €10000 REPs........ I'd promote myself to 'armchair farmer'
Despite what's being said on boards there's a substantial no. of farmers who were intensive in 2001 and are still intensive. If they think like me, it might be very easy to buy ewes/weanlings around the ring in the next few years

You can keep your land in GAEC mechanically, it's your choice to keep 2lu/ha. Hill farmers are the only sector "required" to keep a stocking level to draw down SFP as it is not possible to keep hill/commonage in GAEC mechanically - burning could do it, but we are not given permission under SFP to do so.

Again, the Farming Independent had an article not so long ago which I believe linked to a study throwing the link between production today and sfp today into serious doubt. That is a criticism of the system, not of yourself.

A man put it up to me elsewhere, that he had changed to producing & selling silage and hay, and how could the Dept "define" his production, if SFP was to be based on production, since they didn't know what it was. I suggested that he could get the Revenue to tell the Department of Agriculture what his income out of his hay & silage business was and they could work it out that way. Strangely, he vanished from the discussion after my suggestion

paddysdream

Damo810 wrote: »

You can have the same budget, but divide it differently between farmers after the review. Link the pie to production (SR, number of hectares tilled etc) and divide it out accordingly. It's not that hard to fathom..

Its like banging my head off a brick wall sometimes!!!

The link to production was supposedly broken with the last scheme and its away from production linked entitlements and supports that the whole push from the EU is.

Ciolis wanted a national flat rate to be the outcome of the new scheme leading to a European wide flat rate by 2028.Thats what they want and all indications are that we will move closer to it with every new CAP deal.This is an easy way for them to budget ie the vast vast majority of European farmers would receive a fixed amount over the 5 years.Accordingly budgets could be fixed,less paperwork and hassle(for the buerecrats not the farmers) etc.

Could be wrong(and tend to be a lot of the time) to you will never see a return to stocking rate?production based payments for the next 20 years unless something drastic occurs.

What you will be told is;
Here are your supports.Farm under our rules,draw the money and if you want to produce then take your chances but don't come running to us if it all goes wrong.

paddysdream

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Don't know exactly where you are, think the South East somewhere? He has a meeting on in Dungarvan, date in the first post.

You should hear it first rather than second and third hand. You have been asking for proposals, when one came up, then you say you won't go to hear it

As I said I went there very sceptical, then I heard the proposals for myself and left with a different attitude.

But, if one is well over €400 ha it won't matter what he says.



You can keep your land in GAEC mechanically, it's your choice to keep 2lu/ha. Hill farmers are the only sector "required" to keep a stocking level to draw down SFP as it is not possible to keep hill/commonage in GAEC mechanically - burning could do it, but we are not given permission under SFP to do so.

Again, the Farming Independent had an article not so long ago which I believe linked to a study throwing the link between production today and sfp today into serious doubt. That is a criticism of the system, not of yourself.

A man put it up to me elsewhere, that he had changed to producing & selling silage and hay, and how could the Dept "define" his production, if SFP was to be based on production, since they didn't know what it was. I suggested that he could get the Revenue to tell the Department of Agriculture what his income out of his hay & silage business was and they could work it out that way. Strangely, he vanished from the discussion after my suggestion

The guy selling the hay/silage is quiet entitled to do so.Why should he be penalised for "production".He is producing(more than many if he has any no. of acres)

The revenue bit? Don't we all have our little secrets!Can assure you that the revenue couldn't care less what you do or don't do as long as they get their piece of the pie.

Revenue and Dept. of Agriculture have nothing to do with each other.

Conmaicne Mara

paddysdream wrote: »

The guy selling the hay/silage is quiet entitled to do so.Why should he be penalised for "production".He is producing(more than many if he has any no. of acres)

The revenue bit? Don't we all have our little secrets!Can assure you that the revenue couldn't care less what you do or don't do as long as they get their piece of the pie.

Revenue and Dept. of Agriculture have nothing to do with each other.

Where did I say he should be penalised for production? Quote me and point it out.

His contention was that the Department of Agriculture couldn't quantify his level of production because he was selling hay & silage.

My suggestion was to have a system where the sales he declared to Revenue under the law of the land could be assessed by the Department of Agriculture, there by enabling Agriculture to quantify his production.

I can only guess the reason he didn't reply to my suggestion is that he was not declaring his sales of hay and silage to the Revenue.

I found it softened his cough considerably.

And yes, They know 100% of everything I buy & sell, I sleep better at night knowing I have nothing to fear from a Revenue audit should it happen.

paddysdream

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Where did I say he should be penalised for production? Quote me and point it out.

His contention was that the Department of Agriculture couldn't quantify his level of production because he was selling hay & silage.

My suggestion was to have a system where the sales he declared to Revenue under the law of the land could be assessed by the Department of Agriculture, there by enabling Agriculture to quantify his production.

I can only guess the reason he didn't reply to my suggestion is that he was not declaring his sales of hay and silage to the Revenue.

I found it softened his cough considerably.

And yes, They know 100% of everything I buy & sell, I sleep better at night knowing I have nothing to fear from a Revenue audit should it happen.

But all that bit about "the revenue" and softening his cough" is completely beside the point.What has any of that to do with CAP reform?

Value of fodder etc. sold have no relevance to production.Anyways all this production talk is a little late.The years to have been producing(according to the EU) were from 2000 to 2002(?).
How many times do I have to point out that its AWAY from production based schemes the whole thing is going,for better or worse.

Username John

To bring the discussion back on topic - who is planning on going to listen to O'Cuiv's proposal?

I am not sure I will, for two reasons
1) I am not sure what can be done now. I am unsure of O'Cuivs movitation in doing this. Is it vote gathering for the next election?

2) The FF proposal seems to suggest reducing the max payment per Ha from 700 (which it currently is under Covneys rules) to 400/ha
I should state my SFP is NOWHERE near this per Ha, so I am not protecting my own nest egg.
But as has been stated - I feel that the SFP is the future of a lot of farms... And farming will have to done, to maximise this. So part of me thinks the higher the payment per Ha, the better... (as the possibility is there to invest in high value entitlements)

However - I think I read somewhere, that in the future, you may not need to have the physical Ha, to claim SFP. So maybe my last point is mooted by this (and you can buy as many SFP hectare payments as you want)
Maybe someone can confirm this?

Conmaicne Mara

paddysdream wrote: »

But all that bit about "the revenue" and softening his cough" is completely beside the point.What has any of that to do with CAP reform?

Value of fodder etc. sold have no relevance to production.Anyways all this production talk is a little late.The years to have been producing(according to the EU) were from 2000 to 2002(?).
How many times do I have to point out that its AWAY from production based schemes the whole thing is going,for better or worse.

It was brought up in conversation rather than having a SFP based on what was produced when dinosaurs roamed the earth that there would be an ongoing assessment of production and an SFP based on that. Quite a simple system which could be automated.

This guys problem was neither Department of Ag nor the Revenue knew what he was producing so he was saying he'd lose out on SFP in that instance.

I brought revenue into it as he was being a smartarse.

The value of fodder sold was a tool to provide Agriculture to assess his level of production so as to be included in such a system and not lose out.

It was a conversation exploring different SFP scenarios like many that have gone on through out the country for the past couple of years.

As for SFP moving away from production, I have no issue with that. It seems the people who say they're producing most, on the other hand, do.

I am producing to the extent the Irish Government will allow me to. If I produce more, they will fine me, so everyone has their problems.

paddysdream

Username John wrote: »

To bring the discussion back on topic - who is planning on going to listen to O'Cuiv's proposal?
I am not sure I will, for two reasons
1) I am not sure what can be done now. I am unsure of O'Cuivs movitation in doing this. Is it vote gathering for the next election?

2) The FF proposal seems to suggest reducing the max payment per Ha from 700 (which it currently is under Covneys rules) to 400/ha
I should state my SFP is NOWHERE near this per Ha, so I am not protecting my own nest egg.
But as has been stated - I feel that the SFP is the future of a lot of farms... And farming will have to done, to maximise this. So part of me thinks the higher the payment per Ha, the better... (as the possibility is there to invest in high value entitlements)

Will I go and listen to O Cuiv?Prob. not for the following reasons;

Busy lambing.
Dungarvan is the nearest meeting to me and thats almost 2 hours away.
Don't believe its anything but a nationwide tour to canvass for the next election.
Even(a big one)if FF are in power next time ,he won't be agriculture minister.
Feel discriminated against as he seems to be afraid to hold meetings in the east.
Believe his proposals are about as likely to be implemented as something I would come up with!

Can see some people come back and tell me that if I really wanted to hear then would make the effort but??? life's too short for more meetings esp. ones that will not affect the outcome of anything.

paddysdream

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

It was brought up in conversation rather than having a SFP based on what was produced when dinosaurs roamed the earth that there would be an ongoing assessment of production and an SFP based on that. Quite a simple system which could be automated.

This guys problem was neither Department of Ag nor the Revenue knew what he was producing so he was saying he'd lose out on SFP in that instance.

I brought revenue into it as he was being a smartarse.

The value of fodder sold was a tool to provide Agriculture to assess his level of production so as to be included in such a system and not lose out.

It was a conversation exploring different SFP scenarios like many that have gone on through out the country for the past couple of years.

As for SFP moving away from production, I have no issue with that. It seems the people who say they're producing most, on the other hand, do.

I am producing to the extent the Irish Government will allow me to. If I produce more, they will fine me, so everyone has their problems.

Of course many would like to move away from a production based and towards an area based system if they have in excess of the national average farm size of 35 hectares.But isn't that a system just to suit the big boys?

As regards what you can or cannot produce;are you limited to sheep?.

delaval

My SFP is 270 per ha, can I expect this to increase?

darragh_haven

delaval wrote: »

My SFP is 270 per ha, can I expect this to increase?

As far as I can tell, it will drop slightly over the next 6 years. By about 5 to 10 euro per hectare. Almost no change