ineligible area

Lano Lynn

I have a number of small areas that are classified as ineligible area around my farm with varying rates of exclusion,some are ponds some is scrub & trees.
I refuse to remove or drain these areas because they are the most biodiverse area on the land and I suffer the loss financially as a result,
though ironically the emotional reward of seeing the wildlife flurishing in the areas far outweights the few euro available(the intrest on delay payments as the areas are remapped each year costs more:mad:)

there is another reason I retain the scrub areas,based on the belief that livestock should have access to shelter and occasionally shade(particularly rams in hot weather) so as a matter of welfare I always graze the rams in a field where they can get in under bushes or trees.
and countless lambs have been saved by having a mother smart enough to head for cover in a storm.

so today june bank holiday I have taken this picture of shorn hoggets sheltering in one of these areas.

these areas are VITAL to our wildlife and heritage please protect them be proud of them and post pictures of your ineligible areas to show that farmers are not the irresponsible bulldozing burning environmental vandals we are portrayed as(land,pond,scrub only please nothing rude;))
2015,sheep,ineligible area 002.JPG
that this area,the most biodiverse,carbon sump,providing higher welfare standards is ineligible speaks volumes in terms of the concept of GEAC,CAP etc and the mindset of those who think they understand agriculture&farmers.

Connemara Farmer

If there's grass growing underneath, as there would be in many cases such as mature common gorse (the tall stuff), you can declare it eligible. Thought with the result there may be a visual inspection (has it's dangers) and possibly a row over what % of that area under scrub is eligible.

Justjens

Had deductions from a satellite inspection in 2013, because of mature trees around the house I was cut 40% on these areas.

It has taken 18 months but I have sucsessfully clawed back some, but not all, of these deductions. The tree has a footprint only marginal to it's crown and the rest of it is forage area so why is a 40% reduction necessary?

I was happy to get back my bit of land but what an effort and luckily no ground inspection. The cattle continue to shelter under their huge canopies and the wildlife continue to use them as feeding/breeding grounds.

Farmer

Thanks guys, you have written my post also. A lot of the Glas specification is stuff they were penalizing me for, including fencing off €1200 (Glas) worth of river boundary and planting native species in the infill area

serfspup

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

If there's grass growing underneath, as there would be in many cases such as mature common gorse (the tall stuff), you can declare it eligible. Thought with the result there may be a visual inspection (has it's dangers) and possibly a row over what % of that area under scrub is eligible.

when the area is small as it very frequently is,the delay in payment on contesting the deduction can be more costly than the area is worth.

Connemara Farmer

serfspup wrote: »

when the area is small as it very frequently is,the delay in payment on contesting the deduction can be more costly than the area is worth.

Possibly, it depends on how bloody minded one wishes to be, better to know that the option is there than not know.

AnFeirmeoir

yes i've applied for glas, with alot of stone walls.
Anywehere theres any briars against the walls, i now have to cut to leave stonewalls completely bare.

This seems wrong to me. Yes, the walls have to be maintained , but wheres the harm in having a few metres here and ther with some blackberries for the birds /kids

AP2014

AnFeirmeoir wrote: »

yes i've applied for glas, with alot of stone walls.
Anywehere theres any briars against the walls, i now have to cut to leave stonewalls completely bare.

This seems wrong to me. Yes, the walls have to be maintained , but wheres the harm in having a few metres here and ther with some blackberries for the birds /kids

Exactly wildlife thrive on bits of scrub and briars around stone walls. It's like lads cutting hedges to pieces every year, can't understand it. Killing hedges and no shelter for stock.

Connemara Farmer

AnFeirmeoir wrote: »

yes i've applied for glas, with alot of stone walls.
Anywehere theres any briars against the walls, i now have to cut to leave stonewalls completely bare.

This seems wrong to me. Yes, the walls have to be maintained , but wheres the harm in having a few metres here and ther with some blackberries for the birds /kids

When the briars come into flower they're fantastic for bees aslo.

Computer/desktop knows best though :rolleyes:

Lano Lynn

so the bees that will be living in the glas bee bank will have no flowers to feed on ...joined up thinking..:D

more photos please ,

con i'm sure you have ascrubby auld bog hole some where you would like to dump some clipboard pilot in:D

Connemara Farmer

Lano Lynn wrote: »

so the bees that will be living in the glas bee bank will have no flowers to feed on ...joined up thinking..:D

more photos please ,

con i'm sure you have ascrubby auld bog hole some where you would like to dump some clipboard pilot in:D

To be honest, I don't have the worst opinion of the clipboard pilots. They're doing what they're told, with the threat of their inspections being inspected so they're kinda fcuked in terms of "leeway".

Those who create some of the stupid stuff, on the other hand......

serfspup

AnFeirmeoir wrote: »

yes i've applied for glas, with alot of stone walls.
Anywehere theres any briars against the walls, i now have to cut to leave stonewalls completely bare.

This seems wrong to me. Yes, the walls have to be maintained , but wheres the harm in having a few metres here and ther with some blackberries for the birds /kids

that is just soooooooo wrong:mad:

just do it

Justjens wrote: »

Had deductions from a satellite inspection in 2013, because of mature trees around the house I was cut 40% on these areas.

It has taken 18 months but I have sucsessfully clawed back some, but not all, of these deductions. The tree has a footprint only marginal to it's crown and the rest of it is forage area so why is a 40% reduction necessary?

I was happy to get back my bit of land but what an effort and luckily no ground inspection. The cattle continue to shelter under their huge canopies and the wildlife continue to use them as feeding/breeding grounds.

Unfortunately no such trees around here beside the Atlantic. Out of interest, how does grass growth compare under the canopy? I wouldn't think it as good where it's getting sunshine.

rangler1

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

To be honest, I don't have the worst opinion of the clipboard pilots. They're doing what they're told, with the threat of their inspections being inspected so they're kinda fcuked in terms of "leeway".

Those who create some of the stupid stuff, on the other hand......

The problem now is that cross compliance now applies to everything environmental and to get the EU to allow our government to grant any subsidy to do extra is difficult.
Farmers now have to do the stupid stuff to get extra money because everything else (plus some different stupid stuff) has to be done to be cross compliant

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

The problem now is that cross compliance now applies to everything environmental and to get the EU to allow our government to grant any subsidy to do extra is difficult.
Farmers now have to do the stupid stuff to get extra money because everything else (plus some different stupid stuff) has to be done to be cross compliant

Yes it can be hard to find basis to construct schemes now, as you say more and more activities or requirements are becoming common place under CC. One thing your favourite man, O'Cuiv, said previously, and I'm starting to agree with somewhat, "Some farmers think more schemes means more money, they don't always". His basis being increase the budget for the easier to draw down schemes, which does make some sense.

Where I'd disagree is most of that, from what I've been involved in, has originated from "Dublin". Brussels gives member states a menu option to choose from, those choices then are biased by the prevailing attitude in the particular member state. I often put that to lads in the UK who think a Brexit will take regulations with it back to Brussels :pac: The carrot might go, but the stick will remain because there are industries built on it.

However, there were more than enough instances in this member state to make a body feel uncomfortable where options were picked that would have led to poor consequences for some, or other options when examined weren't fully understood and would lead to problems in the future.

I've said before, that in those instances, the kindest I could be was to imagine picking those choices was the result of incompetence.

Justjens

AnFeirmeoir wrote: »

yes i've applied for glas, with alot of stone walls.
Anywehere theres any briars against the walls, i now have to cut to leave stonewalls completely bare.

This seems wrong to me. Yes, the walls have to be maintained , but wheres the harm in having a few metres here and ther with some blackberries for the birds /kids

Get rid of the briars, put a fence out five feet....and plant a hedge. Play them at their own game, and get two payments . You also get habitat for birds and food when they need it, plenty of briars elsewhere on the farm, well here anyway!

just do it wrote: »

Unfortunately no such trees around here beside the Atlantic. Out of interest, how does grass growth compare under the canopy? I wouldn't think it as good where it's getting sunshine.

Grass would not be of the best quality, I don't get paid for 'quality forage', just 'forage area'! Still, the trees are too valuable around the house and it's a pleasure to see the cattle using them for shelter, rain or sunshine.

just do it

I suppose this thread highlights the differing objectives of EU payments. SFP is really about farming as food production. GLAS/ organics is more about environment.

Connemara Farmer

just do it wrote: »

I suppose this thread highlights the differing objectives of EU payments. SFP is really about farming as food production. GLAS/ organics is more about environment.

If SFP BPS were about food production you would be paid on what you produce, but seeing as you don't get paid on what you produce we'll have to differ on that one

Connemara Farmer

Justjens wrote: »

Had deductions from a satellite inspection in 2013, because of mature trees around the house I was cut 40% on these areas.

It has taken 18 months but I have sucsessfully clawed back some, but not all, of these deductions. The tree has a footprint only marginal to it's crown and the rest of it is forage area so why is a 40% reduction necessary?

I was happy to get back my bit of land but what an effort and luckily no ground inspection. The cattle continue to shelter under their huge canopies and the wildlife continue to use them as feeding/breeding grounds.

I wish my land could grow trees like those.

AnFeirmeoir

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

I wish my land could grow trees like those.

What was happening t the wee English said about your spot con " not a tree to hang a man "

Username John

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

If SFP BPS were about food production you would be paid on what you produce, but seeing as you don't get paid on what you produce we'll have to differ on that one

It's a strange one, I think the SFP / BPS is about food production.
The direct link to the quantity produced is gone - but if the SFP was gone in the morning, would the same amount of food (beef / lamb / crops) be produced? I think not, so you could argue there is some link, just not a direct one.
Maybe?

Connemara Farmer

Username John wrote: »

It's a strange one, I think the SFP / BPS is about food production.
The direct link to the quantity produced is gone - but if the SFP was gone in the morning, would the same amount of food (beef / lamb / crops) be produced? I think not, so you could argue there is some link, just not a direct one.
Maybe?

BPS came out of SFP which came out of payment on animals etc. But that's history. If it were about production headage would still be around. WTO rules rule that out. You can also argue it's a payment to keep people on the land, instead of abandoning it and heading for the city.

Connemara Farmer

AnFeirmeoir wrote: »

What was happening t the wee English said about your spot con " not a tree to hang a man "

Was that not about the Burren? Not a tree to hang a man and not enough water to drown him, or something like that?

Limestone Cowboy

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Was that not about the Burren? Not a tree to hang a man and not enough water to drown him, or something like that?

Ya Cromwell the bollox, be easy drown here at the moment with all the rain.