Teagasc farm incomes survey 2013

Oldtree

Just saw this in the news:

The national farm average was €25,639 in 2013
The average dairy farm income was €64,371
The average cattle-rearing farm income was €15,595
The average tillage farm income was €29,907
The average sheep farm income was €11,160

Direct payments averaged at €18,006 on sheep farms in 2013, comprising 161% of farm income.

Irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/agribusiness-and-food/dairy-farm-incomes-surge-by-31-to-64-371-due-to-better-prices-1.1811776

Teagasc Survey
http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2014/3179/NFS_2013_final.pdf

blue5000

As a cattle rearing farmer I'd say there isn't a lot of repayment capacity on beef farms, I wonder when will beef processors' profits be published?

Only thing is average sfp on dairy farms are probably a lot lower than everyone else, so I reckon income after sfp would be a more accurate figure. Is it included I wonder? Just hada look and sfp is included. What I don't understand is how beef farmers increased direct payments in 2013 by 7% according to teagasc survey???

Oldtree

They have included sfp in calculations in the Teagasc document, all under direct payments.

willfarmerman

blue5000 wrote: »

As a cattle rearing farmer I'd say there isn't a lot of repayment capacity on beef farms, I wonder when will beef processors' profits be published?

Only thing is average sfp on dairy farms are probably a lot lower than everyone else, so I reckon income after sfp would be a more accurate figure. Is it included I wonder?

All payments included.

Conmaicne Mara

Disappointed to see no differentiation between hill and lowland sheep farming. On a point of interest.

Oldtree

They keep referring to Family Farm. I wonder does that include ranchers squewing the figures upwards.

whelan2

are the figures taken from profit monitors?

Oldtree

I have no idea but they say this at the start of the Teagasc document:

The authors wish to thank all who contributed to the National Farm Survey 2013 - the farmers who participate voluntarily, the Central Statistics Office who select the sample and provide the population weights. Grateful acknowledgement is due to the Teagasc research staff involved in the collection and validation of the farm data...

Oldtree

this is Teagasc web page about it but not much more there either

http://www.teagasc.ie/news/2014/201405-27.asp

rangler1

Oldtree wrote: »

this is Teagasc web page about it but not much more there either

http://www.teagasc.ie/news/2014/201405-27.asp

Gerry boyle explained it on the news yesterday, he said they used genuine farmers in the survey and that lower income farmers have other incomes and unlikely to be living on €11000

Oldtree

rangler1 wrote: »

Gerry boyle explained it on the news yesterday, he said they used genuine farmers in the survey and that lower income farmers have other incomes and unlikely to be living on €11000

Did he say what is the definition of a genuine farmer is?

Conmaicne Mara

rangler1 wrote: »

that SOME lower income farmers have other incomes and unlikely to be living on €11000

Corrected that for him.

whelan2

Oldtree wrote: »

They keep referring to Family Farm. I wonder does that include ranchers squewing the figures upwards.

yes what is a family farm?

Brown Podzol

Oldtree wrote: »

They keep referring to Family Farm. I wonder does that include ranchers squewing the figures upwards.

I'm presuming the family farm income is payment for the family labour in running the farm. If so it seems to me that some people are working for much less than minimum wage, and no return for capital, land and enterprise even on dairy farms. Is this income before or after tax and are non cash items included like depreciation etc?. Must have a read when I have the silage in and more time to study.

rangler1

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Corrected that for him.

What's a car costing/year to run...... if a farmer owns a car, can they be living on €11000
Isn't farm assist available at that income

Conmaicne Mara

rangler1 wrote: »

What's a car costing/year to run...... if a farmer owns a car, can they be living on €11000
Isn't farm assist available at that income

It is, but who wants to be on FA long term? It's great that FA is there to avail of, don't get me wrong. But there are serious problems need addressing in certain sectors.

Example, Teagasc only this year, and because they came under pressure to do so, are looking into appointing an expert on designated land. If a farmer on those lands wishes to carry out an action needing consent, and is refused, they would have had to engage experts out of their own pocket. Not to mention the scandal of the missing €150 h/a on those lands.

There wouldn't be half the number on FA if they were getting a fair deal in the first instance.

Neddyusa

Brown Podzol wrote: »

I'm presuming the family farm income is payment for the family labour in running the farm. If so it seems to me that some people are working for much less than minimum wage, and no return for capital, land and enterprise even on dairy farms. Is this income before or after tax and are non cash items included like depreciation etc?. Must have a read when I have the silage in and more time to study.

Yes, you're right, most not returning min wage. Income figure given is before tax and after depreciation.

blue5000

We are a nation of peasants, banks are the modern landlords.

rangler1

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

It is, but who wants to be on FA long term? It's great that FA is there to avail of, don't get me wrong. But there are serious problems need addressing in certain sectors.

Example, Teagasc only this year, and because they came under pressure to do so, are looking into appointing an expert on designated land. If a farmer on those lands wishes to carry out an action needing consent, and is refused, they would have had to engage experts out of their own pocket. Not to mention the scandal of the missing €150 h/a on those lands.

There wouldn't be half the number on FA if they were getting a fair deal in the first instance.

Why did you contradict boyles statement when you knew he was right, he said there was other incomes coming into those farms, there's very few farmers depending solely on farming, he wasn't going to say any thing else on the news

Conmaicne Mara

rangler1 wrote: »

Why did you contradict boyles statement when you knew he was right, he said there was other incomes coming into those farms, there's very few farmers depending solely on farming, he wasn't going to say any thing else on the news

Because I thought he was referring to second jobs. Seems to be a lot of people gunning for farmers with second jobs or pensions lately.

Most farmers I know would much prefer to be farming than anything else, but they are not getting a fair share of things. Ming, in leaders questions stuck that into Kenny, Marian Harkin said she had a problem how money drawn down from Europe is divided.

_Brian

She may have a problem but the deal is done..
And for those drawing payments based on daddy's great work over a decade ago it was a great deal...
The lobby groups with the minister's ear made damn sure that the vested interests were looked after... And then the IFA wonder why they can't muster support from small farmers, maybe that's because they were thrown to the wolves to protect those on obscene payments !

larrymiller

I'm surprised I don't hear more about tillage prices.
Spring barley is a sh!te price.
And it's still the 2nd biggest.
I bet a lot is to do with big sfp for the like of furlong/cooney etc.

Conmaicne Mara

_Brian wrote: »

She may have a problem but the deal is done..
And for those drawing payments based on daddy's great work over a decade ago it was a great deal...
The lobby groups with the minister's ear made damn sure that the vested interests were looked after... And then the IFA wonder why they can't muster support from small farmers, maybe that's because they were thrown to the wolves to protect those on obscene payments !

She made a great comment on the Prime Time debate, McGuinness and Higgins were on the same panel, something like we all agree the most money possible should be drawn down from Europe, how it's distributed is where we have differences. Thought that was a statement worth making.

paddysdream

_Brian wrote: »

She may have a problem but the deal is done..
And for those drawing payments based on daddy's great work over a decade ago it was a great deal...
The lobby groups with the minister's ear made damn sure that the vested interests were looked after... And then the IFA wonder why they can't muster support from small farmers, maybe that's because they were thrown to the wolves to protect those on obscene payments !

How many are on obscene payments and at what exact figure does a payment become obscene?

paddysdream

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

She made a great comment on the Prime Time debate, McGuinness and Higgins were on the same panel, something like we all agree the most money possible should be drawn down from Europe, how it's distributed is where we have differences. Thought that was a statement worth making.

Like the O Cuiv model?
Don't hear him saying a lot about how the deal is still open for negotiation till August.Maybe that's because the election is over and no need to drum up support for another year or two(unless Labour get cold feet).Or even maybe because it wasn't exactly the whole,complete and uncomplicated truth?

Conmaicne Mara

paddysdream wrote: »

Like the O Cuiv model?
Don't hear him saying a lot about how the deal is still open for negotiation till August.Maybe that's because the election is over and no need to drum up support for another year or two(unless Labour get cold feet).Or even maybe because it wasn't exactly the whole,complete and uncomplicated truth?

Talk of an election if Joan Burton gets Labour top job.

I think you have a fetish for O'Cuiv

_Brian

I'd say that's just hot air. They'll not risk their handy numbers with an election just yet.
But I doubt Edna would have as much of his own way with Moan compared with Eamon. Once Eamon was flying out to foreign destinations he didn't seem to care what was going on at home. That was his downfall. I reckon he thought he was shielding himself from being associated with the harsh decisions at home - bit it's backfired badly on him.

Conmaicne Mara

_Brian wrote: »

I'd say that's just hot air. They'll not risk their handy numbers with an election just yet.
But I doubt Edna would have as much of his own way with Moan compared with Eamon. Once Eamon was flying out to foreign destinations he didn't seem to care what was going on at home. That was his downfall. I reckon he thought he was shielding himself from being associated with the harsh decisions at home - bit it's backfired badly on him.

I agree, Labour bailing now makes no sense, they'd be wiped out. Ask you a question though, name one Government involving Labour that ran one full term?

_Brian

paddysdream wrote: »

How many are on obscene payments and at what exact figure does a payment become obscene?

I'm on the phone so
My thumbs are too wide to search or link to anything.
But for the crack - who should get a payment above €20k since it's based on very little of recent activity.

If It were based on a 3 or 5 year rolling activity average then I'd see the payment as being relavent, bit in it's current guise it's not a just system.

paddysdream

_Brian wrote: »

I'm on the phone so
My thumbs are too wide to search or link to anything.
But for the crack - who should get a payment above €20k since it's based on very little of recent activity.

If It were based on a 3 or 5 year rolling activity average then I'd see the payment as being relavent, bit in it's current guise it's not a just system.

So you would like it paid on a per farmer basis disregarding how much land he farms etc etc?

For the final,last and what ever else you like to call it time;
There will not be or can not be (under present CAP rules.WTO ,Mercursor etc) a return to production based or linked subs.
Thats why Coveney is unable to bring back a general LU based sheep scheme.Maybe a mountain type one with justification but no,nay never a lowland one or a suckler cow direct number based support or a beef one.
All new schemes etc will have to be in letter if not in spirit, justified on some ground or other and not look like a direct sub. based on current production figures.
Why the above is still lost to many people amazes me.Everyone says "oh shur base it on what we had last year or rolling averages etc etc".

Anyone with any interest in the last 2 or more years of CAP reform can see where we are now and where the idea is to have us(all european farmers)both in 2020 and even as far as 2028 and let me tell you ,that ,at this present time anyways,there is a move to go further and further away from any link to production and towards a purely acerage based system

Rant over.

paddysdream

_Brian wrote: »

I'm on the phone so
My thumbs are too wide to search or link to anything.
But for the crack - who should get a payment above €20k since it's based on very little of recent activity.

If It were based on a 3 or 5 year rolling activity average then I'd see the payment as being relavent, bit in it's current guise it's not a just system.

Average in Ireland is about 10k.
So you are saying that someone farming ,say ,350 hectares is only entitled to twice that of someone with the average holding of 35 or so hectares?

Would lead to a lot of split holdings as people see the direct pillar 1 payments as vital(per the Teagasc report) to their incomes.

Asked on a previous thread on this topic if people would put forward their alternative proposals and was met with a deathly silence

paddysdream

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Talk of an election if Joan Burton gets Labour top job.

I think you have a fetish for O'Cuiv

Will admit to voting FF on many occasions but that man is not cut out for Agriculture anyways.Maybe some junior welfare ministry is his level in my opinion.

Listened to him in the flesh and questioned him on his alt. Cap ideas and was less than impressed

rangler1

_Brian wrote: »

She may have a problem but the deal is done..
And for those drawing payments based on daddy's great work over a decade ago it was a great deal...
The lobby groups with the minister's ear made damn sure that the vested interests were looked after... And then the IFA wonder why they can't muster support from small farmers, maybe that's because they were thrown to the wolves to protect those on obscene payments !

Cop yourself on, that's only spin, the majority of those good payments are either going to the people who did that ''great work over a decade ago'' or their sons/daughters and they have maintained that level of production, if every farm did ''great work'' and maximised their payment like I did, the cake would be a lot bigger....if you think your land is worth 500/ha SFP, why didn't it get it then. We did our best to defend the 20ha farmer at 500/ha the same as the 100/ha farmer at 500/ha and we certainly weren't going to lobby to reduce anyones payment. Have you any proof that those on low payments would increase production if they got 500/ha,......very few might
Coveney knew to look after the people who had produced the goods in the past in order to have the raw materials to provide employment, He would be very foolish to discourage those farmers
As for the harkin/ ocuiv,,,,don't get me going

_Brian

paddysdream wrote: »

So you would like it paid on a per farmer basis disregarding how much land he farms etc etc?

For the final,last and what ever else you like to call it time;
There will not be or can not be (under present CAP rules.WTO ,Mercursor etc) a return to production based or linked subs.
Thats why Coveney is unable to bring back a general LU based sheep scheme.Maybe a mountain type one with justification but no,nay never a lowland one or a suckler cow direct number based support or a beef one.
All new schemes etc will have to be in letter if not in spirit, justified on some ground or other and not look like a direct sub. based on current production figures.
Why the above is still lost to many people amazes me.Everyone says "oh shur base it on what we had last year or rolling averages etc etc".

Anyone with any interest in the last 2 or more years of CAP reform can see where we are now and where the idea is to have us(all european farmers)both in 2020 and even as far as 2028 and let me tell you ,that ,at this present time anyways,there is a move to go further and further away from any link to production and towards a purely acerage based system

Rant over.

So why should someone get paid more for inheriting more land that someone else? It's not like they've proved themselves to be any good at farming. It's a system developed to facilitate the large to get larger and small farms get the crumbs at the edge.
I've spoken to farmers who admit to being able to expand their holdings based solely on the SFP to make payments, a friend of mine has a €60k payment which he admits is a payment based on nothing he ever did, his father died a few years ago but continues to pay him from the grave!
You asked what would I like. I've said it before, I'd like to see payments phased out. 20% cut year on year till their gone. Then there is a level playing field for all and farms could return to being profitable on their core product. I accept it's not going to play like that, the vested interests have been protected.

_Brian

rangler1 wrote: »

Cop yourself on, that's only spin, the majority of those good payments are either going to the people who did that ''great work over a decade ago'' or their sons/daughters and they have maintained that level of production, if every farm did ''great work'' and maximised their payment like I did, the cake would be a lot bigger....if you think your land is worth 500/ha SFP, why didn't it get it then. We did our best to defend the 20ha farmer at 500/ha the same as the 100/ha farmer at 500/ha and we certainly weren't going to lobby to reduce anyones payment. Have you any proof that those on low payments would increase production if they got 500/ha,......very few might
Coveney knew to look after the people who had produced the goods in the past in order to have the raw materials to provide employment, He would be very foolish to discourage those farmers
As for the harkin/ ocuiv,,,,don't get me going

I dislike your tone, get down of your IFA soap box.

rangler1

_Brian wrote: »

I dislike your tone, get down of your IFA soap box.

At least I'm not lobbying to reduce your income, like a lot of people here are trying to do to mine.

sheebadog

I'm losing nearly €80k of SFP with the new system. I've no problem with it.....but a lot of the money is going to very low production small farmers. No extra jobs or productivity.

However the majority of 'my' €80k is going to young farmers so I won't complain too much. I remember being young and milk quota was brought in, a closed shop with a permit to print money.

Brings home that people can be made or destroyed by the stroke of a Brussels pen. Food is politics!!

rangler1

sheebadog wrote: »

I'm losing nearly €80k of SFP with the new system. I've no problem with it.....but a lot of the money is going to very low production small farmers. No extra jobs or productivity.

However the majority of 'my' €80k is going to young farmers so I won't complain too much. I remember being young and milk quota was brought in, a closed shop with a permit to print money.

Brings home that people can be made or destroyed by the stroke of a Brussels pen. Food is politics!!

Introduction of milk quota made it very hard for drystock farmers, impossible to rent/buy land against dairy farmers through the eighties until proper subsidies were in place.
Brought home to me that the big influence to your income is outside the farmgate

I'd say the majority of young farmers starting here and probably everywhere are going on to well set up parents farms, don't see too many trying to do it on their own...can't see them putting in the work

Rovi

[MOD]

Let's keep this civil and polite!

Getting personal and snippy with each other does nothing for your argument.

[/MOD]

paddysdream

_Brian wrote: »

So why should someone get paid more for inheriting more land that someone else? It's not like they've proved themselves to be any good at farming. It's a system developed to facilitate the large to get larger and small farms get the crumbs at the edge.
I've spoken to farmers who admit to being able to expand their holdings based solely on the SFP to make payments, a friend of mine has a €60k payment which he admits is a payment based on nothing he ever did, his father died a few years ago but continues to pay him from the grave!
You asked what would I like. I've said it before, I'd like to see payments phased out. 20% cut year on year till their gone. Then there is a level playing field for all and farms could return to being profitable on their core product. I accept it's not going to play like that, the vested interests have been protected.

Why not bring it down a bit further.?Why not stop people inheriting bigger farms than their neighbours?
Why not stop people getting more from their stock than their neighbours? Not really fair if my cattle make 1700 in the factory and the lad down the road only gets 1550.

Phasing it out will do nothing for drystock farmers.Did you even read the Teagasc report?Cattle or sheep farming are borderline with SFP,There is not a hope in hell that drystock farming in Ireland could,at present prices,be profitable enough to support a family.
Before anyone comes on here to tell me that Paddy down the road is building a new house and rearing 5 kids on 45 marginal acres of drystock and gets no SFP remember these are general figures for the industry.

Username John

_Brian wrote: »

So why should someone get paid more for inheriting more land that someone else? It's not like they've proved themselves to be any good at farming. It's a system developed to facilitate the large to get larger and small farms get the crumbs at the edge.
I've spoken to farmers who admit to being able to expand their holdings based solely on the SFP to make payments, a friend of mine has a €60k payment which he admits is a payment based on nothing he ever did, his father died a few years ago but continues to pay him from the grave!
You asked what would I like. I've said it before, I'd like to see payments phased out. 20% cut year on year till their gone. Then there is a level playing field for all and farms could return to being profitable on their core product. I accept it's not going to play like that, the vested interests have been protected.

I agree with you to a point, it is an unfair system based on what happened a long time ago...

But the reference years were 10+ years ago now. People could have bought entitlements over the interviening years.

The other side of the argument is people with low initial SFP, who did very little in the reference years, and did very little since the referecne years - their payment could now be increasing... Is this fair?

And to make my position clear - I don't have a big SFP, I took over a small farm in 2008, where the SFP was about 1k, I have increased this (by a little) by purchasing entitlements.

rangler1

_Brian wrote: »

So why should someone get paid more for inheriting more land that someone else? It's not like they've proved themselves to be any good at farming. It's a system developed to facilitate the large to get larger and small farms get the crumbs at the edge.
I've spoken to farmers who admit to being able to expand their holdings based solely on the SFP to make payments, a friend of mine has a €60k payment which he admits is a payment based on nothing he ever did, his father died a few years ago but continues to pay him from the grave!
You asked what would I like. I've said it before, I'd like to see payments phased out. 20% cut year on year till their gone. Then there is a level playing field for all and farms could return to being profitable on their core product. I accept it's not going to play like that, the vested interests have been protected.

Don't know what enterprise you're in but beef finishers will be able to give €500 max for weanlings if you get your way. We're bringing 2bn into the country and those that built up that entitlement should be proud of it and not listen to the begrudgers.
There's people on the dole getting more than my SFP and contributing nothing to the economy, people in public service getting t 2-3 times my SFP and I'll leave it to you to decide whether we're getting good service.......bank regulation and planning authorities have a lot to answer for in the last ten years.
Yet you think you can attack my income., I give value for money to this economy.
Rant over

Conmaicne Mara

Username John wrote: »

I agree with you to a point, it is an unfair system based on what happened a long time ago...

But the reference years were 10+ years ago now. People could have bought entitlements over the interviening years.

The other side of the argument is people with low initial SFP, who did very little in the reference years, and did very little since the referecne years - their payment could now be increasing... Is this fair?

And to make my position clear - I don't have a big SFP, I took over a small farm in 2008, where the SFP was about 1k, I have increased this (by a little) by purchasing entitlements.

That's pure unacceptable to me. There are farmers in this country who have been hammered by this and the previous Governments. Not allowed to stock their farms, not allowed to farm due to restrictions, not acknowledged for their production of public goods which contribute to the economy, and denied the fair payment as acknowledged by the EU.

How on earth were those farmers supposed to go out and buy entitlements when they could hardly make ends meet thanks to the clumsy, short sighted and unfair actions of the state?

How were they supposed to build up entitlements prior to the reference years, when like me who had 0 to do with over grazing they were compulsively destocked, and continue to pay the price for others actions by being linked to OLD headage numbers and not their fair commonage share sheep value?

I keep hearing about the farmers who are going to lose money to 2019. I heard sweet **** all noise from those same farmers in support of other farmers who have been hammered since the reference years and before that. There's never a word spoken about how much those farmers have ALREADY lost.

I still hear sweet **** all support and I and others from the 4 corners of this country had to come together to boot our representative association up the hole to get them to even listen.

I will not sit back and accept that me getting €150 H/A is unfair, not to mention the FACT that not ONE RED CENT of that money has made it to my bank account.

sheebadog

With all due respect to all the other posters here.
Milk quotas were never fair and made a good living for many farmers on shyte land. Fair dues to them, they put their heads down and made the most of it.
However nobody complained and carried on doing whatever was their lot.
Then McSharry came along and put tillage farmers on the map. Nobody complained!
Then it was changed to no links to production, so payment was 'unqualified'.
Result--> WAR.
It amazes me that marginal "mountainy" land could ever be equal to grade 1 arable land.
This can never be fair or equal without total communism - everyone with equal amounts of land and equal payment.
I farm a few acres of grade 2 arable (Paris basin is grade 1) and 6 families make a good living from it. Already I've lost two wages in SFP but I know that's life. It's not business or luck or entitlement. It's Politics. Live with it.

Conmaicne Mara

sheebadog wrote: »

With all due respect to all the other posters here.
Milk quotas were never fair and made a good living for many farmers on shyte land. Fair dues to them, they put their heads down and made the most of it.
However nobody complained and carried on doing whatever was their lot.
Then McSharry came along and put tillage farmers on the map. Nobody complained!
Then it was changed to no links to production, so payment was 'unqualified'.
Result--> WAR.
It amazes me that marginal "mountainy" land could ever be equal to grade 1 arable land.
This can never be fair or equal without total communism - everyone with equal amounts of land and equal payment.
I farm a few acres of grade 2 arable (Paris basin is grade 1) and 6 families make a good living from it. Already I've lost two wages in SFP but I know that's life. It's not business or luck or entitlement. It's Politics. Live with it.

In all fairness you're losing 80k? What's your payment now? Like was said on the CC thread about the P.ie thread, it's easy to say things like that when you've a good income. It's always been put up to small farmers to fight their corner, now that we are, we're being told to "live with it".

I don't think so.

And again no recognition of the production of public goods. All based on the litre or kilo production.

sheebadog

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

In all fairness you're losing 80k? What's your payment now? Like was said on the CC thread about the P.ie thread, it's easy to say things like that when you've a good income. It's always been put up to small farmers to fight their corner, now that we are, we're being told to "live with it".

I don't think so.

Con, I bought and payed for my SFP. I will never make that back. I'm not shouting from the rooftops though. What's the point? It's political.
Brussels gives and Brussels takes.
I'm concentrating on being more productive.
Old accounting teacher used to say " He who stands with mouth open waiting for roast duck to fly in will wait long time".

I've neighbours here that tell me what they will do with 'my' SFP, but I know they will do squat. Then in the same breath they ask am I interested in their farm!
I've moved on Con.

Like I said nobody begrudged milk quota as you had to work for it. "Free" money became a different ball game though with young fellas screaming foul.
Lots of young lads on here that don't know recent history (or politics).

Conmaicne Mara

sheebadog wrote: »

Con, I bought and payed for my SFP. I will never make that back. I'm not shouting from the rooftops though. What's the point? It's political.
Brussels gives and Brussels takes.
I'm concentrating on being more productive.
Old accounting teacher used to say " He who stands with mouth open waiting for roast duck to fly in will wait long time".

I've neighbours here that tell me what they will do with 'my' SFP, but I know they will do squat. Then in the same breath they ask am I interested in their farm!
I've moved on Con.

Like I said nobody begrudged milk quota as you had to work for it. "Free" money became a different ball game though with young fellas screaming foul.
Lots of young lads on here that don't know recent history (or politics).

The issue isn't with Brussels in Ireland though. Just like Harkin said, draw down the max money, we'll all agree on that, it's the distribution at home that's the issue.

Example Ciolos initial proposals for flattening didn't come with regionalisation, he acknowledged that it was in Coveneys gift to regionalise but he wasn't looking for it. The threat of regionalisation was an entirely home grown one.

I bought the vast majority of my land, you don't hear me shouting about that. Land that has effectively been taken over by the state thanks to destocking, designations and CFP's that they have constantly made a bollox of.

Politics, more than any other aspect, is one that can be changed. One thing I have been shouting about for quite some time is about the so called "small farmer" getting organised. That is now starting to happen.

rangler1

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

The issue isn't with Brussels in Ireland though. Just like Harkin said, draw down the max money, we'll all agree on that, it's the distribution at home that's the issue.

Example Ciolos initial proposals for flattening didn't come with regionalisation, he acknowledged that it was in Coveneys gift to regionalise but he wasn't looking for it. The threat of regionalisation was an entirely home grown one.

I bought the vast majority of my land, you don't hear me shouting about that. Land that has effectively been taken over by the state thanks to destocking, designations and CFP's that they have constantly made a bollox of.

Politics, more than any other aspect, is one that can be changed. One thing I have been shouting about for quite some time is about the so called "small farmer" getting organised. That is now starting to happen.

Are you sure of that, England has regionalised,( mightn't be called that though) if your type of land was in Scotland, I don't think you'd be looking forward to €150/ha or even €50

keep going

It says alot when the discussion is about the eu payouts and not the profitability of actually farming

Conmaicne Mara

rangler1 wrote: »

Are you sure of that, England has regionalised,( mightn't be called that though) if your type of land was in Scotland, I don't think you'd be looking forward to €150/ha or even €50

I am sure of it. Ciolos proposal was to have a flat rate. He told me regionalisation was in the gift of the minister. He didn't go looking for it, it was used as a threat.

On that matter personally, with my SFP level, any change would have led me to an increase, including regionalisation.

On €150, mark my words, it will not happen.

I think the rate was £12 h/a in the highlands. Some talk of money moving "up the hill", but I haven't been following it.

Conmaicne Mara

keep going wrote: »

It says alot when the discussion is about the eu payouts and not the profitability of actually farming

I'm not allowed to farm in this country.