CAP Reform

rangler1

cathal irwin wrote: »

I am from mayo and travelled to Kildare today via athlone tullamore and come back via naas clane Longford, round about way I know. Overall I had the opinion there is very little cattle on the land versus its potential. I know there is no money etc. The majority of fields are empty ( bar the odd dairy man or woman)and that does have cattle might have 10 cattle grazing 20 acres. It always puzzles me

Yea I travelled the N 5 westport to roscommon and then to Athlone andto Gorey last week and I'd noticed it too.
But unfortunately drystock farming is no long worth the bother and it'll get worse as farmers like myself who farmed on properly with subsidies are going to get screwed in the next CAP reform and those on unviable land get subsidised to do nothing

Cattlepen

rangler1 wrote: »

Yea I travelled the N 5 westport to roscommon and then to Athlone andto Gorey last week and I'd noticed it too.
But unfortunately drystock farming is no long worth the bother and it'll get worse as farmers like myself who farmed on properly with subsidies are going to get screwed in the next CAP reform and those on unviable land get subsidised to do nothing

On the point of the next CAP reform, what's your opinion on how it's going to pan out? Just curious

rangler1

Cattlepen wrote: »

On the point of the next CAP reform, what's your opinion on how it's going to pan out? Just curious

I imagine it's still going to be heading for a flat rate but it'll be nearer to 150/ha than 250 because there's unlikely to be as much money coming into the country

Cattlepen

rangler1 wrote: »

I imagine it's still going to be heading for a flat rate but it'll be nearer to 150/ha than 250 because there's unlikely to be as much money coming into the country

That will be a bit of a kick in the pants

Username John

rangler1 wrote: »

I imagine it's still going to be heading for a flat rate but it'll be nearer to 150/ha than 250 because there's unlikely to be as much money coming into the country

You don't think they'll have a sliding scale?

E.g. First 10ha pay 250, next 10ha 200, after that 150... or something like that?

freedominacup

Username John wrote: »

You don't think they'll have a sliding scale?

E.g. First 10ha pay 250, next 10ha 200, after that 150... or something like that?

Completely flat payment is the only way to go. Divide the total payment by the number of total acres applied for. No historical references, no glas, no disadvantaged area, no suckler payment, no pillar one or two, just a flat payment per acre with the usual terms and conditions.

TPF2012

250 a hectare for everyone, max payment capped at 25000. Fairest and simplest, works out about the same money as given for Pillar 1 last year. Environmental scheme's carried on as usual through the likes of glas.

adam14

I hope it gets a complete revamp. There are a lot of lads sitting on big payments for work they did 16 years ago which is not fair now.

Hard Knocks

adam14 wrote: »

I hope it gets a complete revamp. There are a lot of lads sitting on big payments for work they did 16 years ago which is not fair now.

There's also some working hard with the entitlements they bought themselves.

Cavanjack

TPF2012 wrote: »

250 a hectare for everyone, max payment capped at 25000. Fairest and simplest, works out about the same money as given for Pillar 1 last year. Environmental scheme's carried on as usual through the likes of glas.

Simple alright but why should a lad with 50ha of rushes running 20 suckler cows or whatever get the same payment as the man with 50ha of good land and 80 cows. There is no real fair way of dividing it up that will keep everyone happy. I agree that the current system is a joke. Lads on big payments for what they done 16 years ago.

J.O. Farmer

Hard Knocks wrote: »

There's also some working hard with the entitlements they bought themselves.

There's going to be winners and losers but probably more losers.

The eu want to phase out subsidies which will be done gradually.

The next cap will probably be based on who drew down payments in this cap but possibly not giving anything to people who didn't own the entitlements thereby eliminating landlords and entitlements drawn down on their behalf.

The payment per hectare will be based on average payments in this cap as a starting point so say someone owns 50 hectares and leases 50 more now the next cap will give them 100 entitlements which cannot be stacked onto the 50 hectares. Therefore if they don't lease in 50 hectares they'll lose half their entitlements.

I think they'll also set a maximum number of entitlements which can be drawn down also.

They'll flatten payments and reduce the rates over the next 15-20 years until they're gone. There'll be a few "sweetners" like glas but they'll become less and less attractive or alternatively they'll become the bigger part of direct payments and when the scheme finishes there'll be nothing to replace it as a way to phase out subsidies.

Bass Reeves

freedominacup wrote: »

Completely flat payment is the only way to go. Divide the total payment by the number of total acres applied for. No historical references, no glas, no disadvantaged area, no suckler payment, no pillar one or two, just a flat payment per acre with the usual terms and conditions.

Pillar1 and Pillar 2 payments will continue to exists however biggest issue will be what way pillar 2 is spend. Present schemes are really turning out to be a subsidity to vets, tegasc, consultants ICBF etc. Pillar 2 will really have to start again rewarding farmers for there input

TPF2012 wrote: »

250 a hectare for everyone, max payment capped at 25000. Fairest and simplest, works out about the same money as given for Pillar 1 last year. Environmental scheme's carried on as usual through the likes of glas.

everyone will have there opinion of a system that benefits them the most

Username John wrote: »

You don't think they'll have a sliding scale?

E.g. First 10ha pay 250, next 10ha 200, after that 150... or something like that?

There is shift in thinking at EU level to start a front loaded system. This would be of benefit to Ireland as we have lower than average EU holding's. However if it fails to happen in 2019 review it will be immaterial

adam14 wrote: »

I hope it gets a complete revamp. There are a lot of lads sitting on big payments for work they did 16 years ago which is not fair now.

There will be a revamp of some sort. For example it is highly that greening will be a flat payment in next round and not a percentage of your SFP as happen in 2015.

Hard Knocks wrote: »

There's also some working hard with the entitlements they bought themselves.

Yes there is but in general most entitlements are what were orginally attached to land in 2003

Cavanjack wrote: »

Simple alright but why should a lad with 50ha of rushes running 20 suckler cows or whatever get the same payment as the man with 50ha of good land and 80 cows. There is no real fair way of dividing it up that will keep everyone happy. I agree that the current system is a joke. Lads on big payments for what they done 16 years ago.

The fact is that BPS is not supposed to be a production subsidity. Therefore it is immaterial what you produce. However a huge imbalance in the system now exists. You now have large tillage and drystock operations that have or are converting to dairying. Traditionally dairying was the lowest subsidized production system. You also have imbalances that happened back in 2002 where along the west of the Shannon that farmers there found that livestock dropped in value due to the ending of premia that they feel they were not compensated for. As well these farmers now find it harder to access decent payments in GLAS and AEOS compared to REPS which have turned into hidden subsidies for larger farmers.



The biggest difference this time in Ireland to previous revamps is that the IFA will no longer hold the sway it previous had. It is highly likely that the INHFA will have a large input into the revamp. As well the ICSA and ICMSA input may well be listened to more. Bias towards productive land may well disappear as at EU level it is seen that this bias actually has a negative environmental input as it encourages habitat destruction.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Username John wrote: »

You don't think they'll have a sliding scale?

E.g. First 10ha pay 250, next 10ha 200, after that 150... or something like that?

It wouldn't work, John. Farmers would just split their holdings into smaller tranches to claim the maximum they can, like 20 ha for me, 20ha for the wife, 10ha for the lad in college.

I know that's what I would be doing anyway.

pedigree 6

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

It wouldn't work, John. Farmers would just split their holdings into smaller tranches to claim the maximum they can, like 20 ha for me, 20ha for the wife, 10ha for the lad in college.

I know that's what I would be doing anyway.

I'd like to see them try though.

It would only lead to family squabbles though and potential problems with social welfare.
Let them do it I say and see what happens.:)

Grueller

If you are tied into pillar 2 payments like glas, bdgp you need to submit enough maps to cover these payments so splitting parcels is not really an option.

Bass Reeves

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

It wouldn't work, John. Farmers would just split their holdings into smaller tranches to claim the maximum they can, like 20 ha for me, 20ha for the wife, 10ha for the lad in college.

I know that's what I would be doing anyway.

It would hardly be worth the effort. A sliding scale or front loaded payment might make a difference of 1-3K on payments 100 euro on first 10 HA would be 1K and 50 on next 20 another 1K. Remember owner would have to transfer entitlement into another name and lease or rent land to them set up seperate Herd No's. A 10HA payment maight yield 3K in total to a college student but he might have to make tax returns etct that would cost 500 euro.

Cattlepen

TPF2012 wrote: »

250 a hectare for everyone, max payment capped at 25000. Fairest and simplest, works out about the same money as given for Pillar 1 last year. Environmental scheme's carried on as usual through the likes of glas.

Why a cap at 25000

TPF2012

Cattlepen wrote: »

Why a cap at 25000

Why not? What are direct payments for, what is their purpose, to make millionaires out of landowners, off the backs of taxpayers. 25 grand is a nice penny to be handed each year, well from my perspective anyway, maybe not for some? Do you think it should be capped?

_Brian

TBH it's hard to know what the EU wants from its farmers.

There was a time when the direct payments were about food security but I think this is less the case now, as the collective memory of war is lost, so too is the associated fear and memory of food shortages lost.
Isn't meat consumption falling over Europe too.
Add to that the aparrent desire to jump into agreements with non European meat sources and EU farmers are becoming obsolete as bulk food suppliers and more towards the greening custodians of the land.

Maybe a front loaded flat rate system as mentioned before would work, I think like it or not capped payments are likely, probably a double edged sword but that's the way.

Cattlepen

TPF2012 wrote: »

Why not? What are direct payments for, what is their purpose, to make millionaires out of landowners, off the backs of taxpayers. 25 grand is a nice penny to be handed each year, well from my perspective anyway, maybe not for some? Do you think it should be capped?

Personally I can't see why they should be capped. It doesn't really matter whether EU payments are for security or for keeping the place nice and employing good standards of practice, if a man is doing these things on a larger scale, should the payment not be pro rats to the area he is farming? If he's bigger he needs help. How would 25000 pay a helper and himself? We all know the payment is really the only money that's out of this job, be it small medium or large scale.
And I agree 25000 is not to be sneezed at but it's all relative to scale. I

TPF2012

Cattlepen wrote:

if a man is doing these things on a larger scale, should the payment not be pro rats to the area he is farming? If he's bigger he needs help. How would 25000 pay a helper and himself? We all know the payment is really the only money that's out of this job, be it small medium or large scale.

.

In my opinion the subsidy is a carrot used by the eu to encourage farmers to keep land in agricultural standard and to maintain certain environmental standards. I understand what your saying about the larger farm needing more money to maintain but if one man can't manage this, should he not rent or sell a portion to some other person, opening up farming to new people. Why should taxpayers pay someone a fortune just to maintain land. I know future food supply is a part of it. You also can decide not to apply in May if the conditions are too onerous for you and you can do what you want with the land. Very simplistic I know, it will take a lot of tangling to get right.

rangler1

It was done before when there was a maximum Numbers for beef premium....everyone got extra herd Nos to get over it, I know a nurse that,s collecting subsidies since she was training and still has entitlements because of the 90 limit on beef premium.....don't think I ever saw her near a beast.
Setting maximums is a waste of time, same with front loading.....in any case small farmers are usually parttime and have another income, don't need increased subsidies.
Farmers whose enterprises take all a persons time should be properly subbed,
no matter what the size.

Cattlepen

TPF2012 wrote: »

Cattlepen wrote:

if a man is doing these things on a larger scale, should the payment not be pro rats to the area he is farming? If he's bigger he needs help. How would 25000 pay a helper and himself? We all know the payment is really the only money that's out of this job, be it small medium or large scale.

In my opinion the subsidy is a carrot used by the eu to encourage farmers to keep land in agricultural standard and to maintain certain environmental standards. I understand what your saying about the larger farm needing more money to maintain but if one man can't manage this, should he not rent or sell a portion to some other person, opening up farming to new people. Why should taxpayers pay someone a fortune just to maintain land. I know future food supply is a part of it. You also can decide not to apply in May if the conditions are too onerous for you and you can do what you want with the land. Very simplistic I know, it will take a lot of tangling to get right.

It is exactly as you describe it, a carrot to keep the land there ticking over in case of emergency. Also keeping environment healthy. But if your forced to sell or rent because of capping payments, then the payment is just going to someone else. What are the benefits to that? It would seem like some form of obscure socialism

J.O. Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

Farmers whose enterprises take all a persons time should be properly subbed,
no matter what the size.

That's true but there is an argument if you go big enough to say 1,000 hectares where you're probably talking about a limited company getting 250,000 a year that it should be capped even just from the aesthetics of a single business getting that level of susidy regardless of the industry.

However I don't know how many people are at that kind of scale and if you were at that scale it'd be easy got round by splitting the company and having different divisions.

The part time boy

Why are people saying this is going to happen or that will happen ..nobody knows not even the eu I say.

Now people can say maybe this will happen or this should happen.

I torn tbh on what I what to see happen. Former full time with good entilments. Now part time small scale with same entilments .

If I been honest i should not be getting high entilments but I miss the money if there gone !

MIKEKC

adam14 wrote: »

I hope it gets a complete revamp. There are a lot of lads sitting on big payments for work they did 16 years ago which is not fair now.

Glad you acknowledged they worked for their money

MIKEKC

rangler1 wrote: »

It was done before when there was a maximum Numbers for beef premium....everyone got extra herd Nos to get over it, I know a nurse that,s collecting subsidies since she was training and still has entitlements because of the 90 limit on beef premium.....don't think I ever saw her near a beast.
Setting maximums is a waste of time, same with front loading.....in any case small farmers are usually parttime and have another income, don't need increased subsidies.
Farmers whose enterprises take all a persons time should be properly subbed,
no matter what the size.

Must have land to claim them, this leads to accountant fees, tax bill unless they are leased out

MIKEKC

Lots of young farmers got e22,500 worth of entitlements in 2016. A lot of money for a young person starting off and mostly with a job

rangler1

MIKEKC wrote: »

Must have land to claim them, this leads to accountant fees, tax bill unless they are leased out

She's tillage 'share farming' !!!! with a family member now.;)

MayoAreMagic

rangler1 wrote: »

It was done before when there was a maximum Numbers for beef premium....everyone got extra herd Nos to get over it, I know a nurse that,s collecting subsidies since she was training and still has entitlements because of the 90 limit on beef premium.....don't think I ever saw her near a beast.
Setting maximums is a waste of time, same with front loading.....in any case small farmers are usually parttime and have another income, don't need increased subsidies.
Farmers whose enterprises take all a persons time should be properly subbed,
no matter what the size.

Surely the resolution there is to crack down on extra herd numbers etc. instead of dumping the whole idea? All those things you listed could be implemented if there was a bit of effort put into following up on them and punishing people who knowingly try to get around them.

As for part time farmers having a different income, in fairness they earn that income. Full time guys can put that same effort in all week long which obviously should mean they are operating on a larger scale anyway. If they cant do that then really, they need to ask themselves what they are doing farming full time.
I dont know of any other job where they pay you at a lower rate than another guy, just because you have a second stream of income. Surely that sort of thing is sorted out via taxation?

There are vast swarths of the country where part time farming is the only future for farming in that area. Personally, I think what you have suggested here is completely wrong. In another walk of life it would be described as elitist.

For me, a flat rate of pay is the way to go, with a front loaded ANC coming in to balance things up for guys with higher costs/lower output potential due to poor land etc. I would have a cap, that could be negotiated provided you could show that you were doing the job properly, and not just sitting on land and cashing a cheque. As above, anyone caught trying to get around these rules should be punished. That would be a simple system that would work I believe.

Username John

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Surely the resolution there is to crack down on extra herd numbers etc. instead of dumping the whole idea? All those things you listed could be implemented if there was a bit of effort put into following up on them and punishing people who knowingly try to get around them.

As for part time farmers having a different income, in fairness they earn that income. Full time guys can put that same effort in all week long which obviously should mean they are operating on a larger scale anyway. If they cant do that then really, they need to ask themselves what they are doing farming full time.
I dont know of any other job where they pay you at a lower rate than another guy, just because you have a second stream of income. Surely that sort of thing is sorted out via taxation?

There are vast swarths of the country where part time farming is the only future for farming in that area. Personally, I think what you have suggested here is completely wrong. In another walk of life it would be described as elitist.

For me, a flat rate of pay is the way to go, with a front loaded ANC coming in to balance things up for guys with higher costs/lower output potential due to poor land etc. I would have a cap, that could be negotiated provided you could show that you were doing the job properly, and not just sitting on land and cashing a cheque. As above, anyone caught trying to get around these rules should be punished. That would be a simple system that would work I believe.

I dont disagree with you on the part time farming being the only option in some areas...

As regards elitist - it depends on what you view the SFP as... Is it a subsidy (thats where its origins are)
Or is it an income support - as that's what it is now effectively...

If it is an income support, then you could make the argument, why should you support someone, who already has another good income?

I wonder, are you kinda saying this in a different way, when you suggest a higher payment for people on bad land - as you are really saying because the earning potential is less on this land, these people should get higher support...

I can see Ranglers perspective. Its more a question for the overall industry -
should people who want to be full time farmers be supported more than part time farmers?

But, if you were to go down this road - it would need a lot of thinking, and cause its own set of problems...

I dont know which is right, or what way it'll play out... Part of me thinks farming is a bit fcuked, regardless of the SFP, all tis doing is keeping us all on the merry go round, keeping all the related agri industries going...

Bass Reeves

The part time boy wrote: »

Why are people saying this is going to happen or that will happen ..nobody knows not even the eu I say.

Now people can say maybe this will happen or this should happen.

I torn tbh on what I what to see happen. Former full time with good entilments. Now part time small scale with same entilments .

If I been honest i should not be getting high entilments but I miss the money if there gone !

You are right nobody knows what way the penny will drop in the the next round. However in Ireland we do know that there will be more than just the IFA's voice heard this tme. However most of the rules will be made at EU level. Last time Agri Ministers virtually overruled the Commissioner's plans. However we can see the way change is evolving.

Payment are converging come 2019 the minimum any payment will be worth is 150 euro and the maximum is 750/HA. We can expect that to converge more and I expect that at the very least that greening which is 30% of the payment will be flat rated fairly fast. This would turn greening into a rate of about 80/ha and would bring the minimum rate/HA to above 180 euro and the maximun to 600 in one fell swoop.

From the vibes coming from Brussels some form of front loading for smaller farmers is on the cards however this will only amount to 30-50/ha on 10-20 HA. It will be interesting to watch the change to ANC payments this will show a lot about the way the wind is blowing here in Ireland.

Finally you have the max payment. I am not sure if this will happen, However if it happens it will more than likely be at 100K or above rather than at any rate in the 25-50k range. For those that think farmers will reorganise there holdings remember that the payment have to handed to another individual and control of enough land to draw the payment and maybe stock to draw it. So if it was set at 25K a farmers wanting a son or nephew to draw 15K that was rated at 400/HA would nearly have to hand control of 35-40HA to the recipent. That is all right if it rented land maybe but herd no's etc have to be arranged.

Finally I always like this idea of the full time drystock farmer. Most are either virtually retired or else are dealers, agents or contractors. Is there any difference between a farmers that works as a truck driver ( maybe for Glanbia or Kerrygroup) and a lad that goes to the mart 3-4 days a weeks hauling cattle for you or me to the mart or factory. Or a lad working in the Department of agriculture and the lad that bales you silage or spreads your slurry.

MayoAreMagic

Username John wrote: »

I dont disagree with you on the part time farming being the only option in some areas...

As regards elitist - it depends on what you view the SFP as... Is it a subsidy (thats where its origins are)
Or is it an income support - as that's what it is now effectively...

If it is an income support, then you could make the argument, why should you support someone, who already has another good income?

Well some people are viewing it as an income support, but that doesnt mean that this is what it is. Im sure there could be some upper level of income that could be applied in extreme circumstances. But then the same should probably apply to a full time farmer on a high earning, should it not? The thing is, as long as the guy is farming to the level required and not just farming payments, then he should be as entitled as the next guy to what comes with it. His higher earnings would be addressed through his taxes. Also, from an animal standpoint, things like easy lambing/calfing animals, and low input animals in general would be developed more readily, which is a good thing I believe.

Username John wrote: »

I wonder, are you kinda saying this in a different way, when you suggest a higher payment for people on bad land - as you are really saying because the earning potential is less on this land, these people should get higher support...

Well as regards ANC, isnt that exactly what ANC is already? With guys on islands getting more income and a guy with high quality land not getting anything etc. This for me should be the only balancing payment farmers should receive.

Username John wrote: »

I can see Ranglers perspective. Its more a question for the overall industry -
should people who want to be full time farmers be supported more than part time farmers?

But if guys are choosing to be full time, surely it needs to be a viable full time farm, no more than the guy going starting any business needs to have an viable business to run? Like surely you couldnt just declare yourself full time and get higher payments. If your farm is viable for full time, then it is going to be of big enough a scale to sustain full time employment and you are therefore going to be getting more subs anyway. And if it isnt, you either need to expand or go part time. Looking for subs to pick up the slack isnt healthy for the industry, particularly when you are looking to get said subs by taking them from those who are working part time. I think that is just full time farmers looking out for full time farmers, and really and truely that is the underlying problem with the system - nobody is looking past their own doorstep. The end result is these convoluted, overly complex systems that are not properly balanced.

rangler1

I had reason to travel a lot of the country in the last week and the sort of farming that i have seen is abysmal, if that's the sort of farmers that you want subsidies targeted at there won't be much of an industry attached to it. I also drove through Carlow and Wexford where there's mainly proper farming carried on that provides a decent amount of raw material for industry/employment, Farmers obviously work hard there, they even manage their ditches/hedges, am I expecting too much to expect a tidy farm. I was on one of the waterways also for a day and quite frankly the countryside is a dump/let go wild.
It's also evident that a lot of the farm ''partnerships'' aren't partnerships at all, At least the extra herd No's of the past had to be genuine seperate farms. Temple Bar or whatever hang out students have will get the benefit of the YFS ...perish the thought of going back to farm at the weekend. AS someone said at least we worked for our entitlements, now farmers are going to get them without proving themselves at all.

Sheep breeder

rangler1 wrote: »

I had reason to travel a lot of the country in the last week and the sort of farming that i have seen is abysmal, if that's the sort of farmers that you want subsidies targeted at there won't be much of an industry attached to it. I also drove through Carlow and Wexford where there's mainly proper farming carried on that provides a decent amount of raw material for industry/employment, Farmers obviously work hard there, they even manage their ditches/hedges, am I expecting too much to expect a tidy farm. I was on one of the waterways also for a day and quite frankly the countryside is a dump/let go wild.
It's also evident that a lot of the farm ''partnerships'' aren't partnerships at all, At least the extra herd No's of the past had to be genuine seperate farms. Temple Bar or whatever hang out students have will get the benefit of the YFS ...perish the thought of going back to farm at the weekend. AS someone said at least we worked for our entitlements, now farmers are going to get them without proving themselves at all.

Have to agree totally with you about you worked for the entitlements and damn hard and fair play reward the worker as in all business,
Too many people think they are entitled to get the cream and not milk the cow in the morning, the YFS is a joke and should have brought back the retirement scheme for a genuine young fella to get farming and help older people to slow down.

tractorporn

rangler1 wrote:

It's also evident that a lot of the farm ''partnerships'' aren't partnerships at all, At least the extra herd No's of the past had to be genuine seperate farms. Temple Bar or whatever hang out students have will get the benefit of the YFS ...perish the thought of going back to farm at the weekend. AS someone said at least we worked for our entitlements, now farmers are going to get them without proving themselves at all.

Where is the evidence of this? I can only speak for ourselves but before the YFS talk of transfer or succession was unheard of in our house. At least with the scheme available it opened a discussion and from that the partnership was formed. I think it's a more useful scheme than an early retirement scheme as I know my father would flat out refuse to join a retirement scheme.

MayoAreMagic

rangler1 wrote: »

I had reason to travel a lot of the country in the last week and the sort of farming that i have seen is abysmal, if that's the sort of farmers that you want subsidies targeted at there won't be much of an industry attached to it. I also drove through Carlow and Wexford where there's mainly proper farming carried on that provides a decent amount of raw material for industry/employment, Farmers obviously work hard there, they even manage their ditches/hedges, am I expecting too much to expect a tidy farm. I was on one of the waterways also for a day and quite frankly the countryside is a dump/let go wild.
It's also evident that a lot of the farm ''partnerships'' aren't partnerships at all, At least the extra herd No's of the past had to be genuine seperate farms. Temple Bar or whatever hang out students have will get the benefit of the YFS ...perish the thought of going back to farm at the weekend. AS someone said at least we worked for our entitlements, now farmers are going to get them without proving themselves at all.

I never said that is the type of farming I wanted, but would you not think that if those lads had the same level of payments that others get, they might have a better maintained farm? Similarly, how many of those lads in Wexford and Carlow would have the same level of farm, if the system employed had decided for example that they didn't need subs as their land was much more profitable anyway, and awarded the whole lot to the lads up on hills and blanket bogs etc? Id imagine the countryside would look a fair bit different. So is what you seen down to good farmers or the end result of a the current payment system? In that situation, would the good farmers then be the same guys who aren't spending a penny on it now?

Your idea seem to be to penalise the guys whose only crime seems to be that they were unlucky in previous systems, and give that to the guys who were lucky in previous systems, with the justification being their current standing, while ignoring the fact that their current standing was influenced by previous systems. That is what I don't agree with. Id argue, that the proper way to do it is to let past decisions have nothing to do with it and simply evaluate on the current climate.

I find your view on the YFS interesting. It is worth considering that a guy down in the backend of Connemara could view subs to guys in Wexford and Carlow in the exact same way - and that is before they see these lads sell their lambs for 100 euro, while he is taking 30 for his as stores... Something tells me he would be in no mood to prune his hedges :P

MayoAreMagic

Sheep breeder wrote: »

Have to agree totally with you about you worked for the entitlements and damn hard and fair play reward the worker as in all business,
Too many people think they are entitled to get the cream and not milk the cow in the morning, the YFS is a joke and should have brought back the retirement scheme for a genuine young fella to get farming and help older people to slow down.

I fully appreciate people worked for entitlements. The real issue is, once you have them people just hold onto them and nothing can really be done. So there in no real reason to maintain those standards and the whole thing stagnates. You talk about wanting the cream and I agree. But you shouldn't be able to get it on the back of something that you done in the distant past either, should you? It is like saying, well we will keep Jack Charlton on as irish manager because he was good 30 years ago.
Im sure there are plenty guys who weren't in a position at the time to get these entitlements, that would now crawl over hot coals for the chance to put in the work to get them. There should be a mechanism for these people to replace guys who are at this stage just farming the payments. It would make the sector much healthier.

bogman_bass

MIKEKC wrote: »

Lots of young farmers got e22,500 worth of entitlements in 2016. A lot of money for a young person starting off and mostly with a job

Where did you get that figure from?

rangler1

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Your idea seem to be to penalise the guys whose only crime seems to be that they were unlucky in previous systems, and give that to the guys who were lucky in previous systems, with the justification being their current standing, while ignoring the fact that their current standing was influenced by previous systems. That is what I don't agree with. Id argue, that the proper way to do it is to let past decisions have nothing to do with it and simply evaluate on the current climate.

I find your view on the YFS interesting. It is worth considering that a guy down in the backend of Connemara could view subs to guys in Wexford and Carlow in the exact same way - and that is before they see these lads sell their lambs for 100 euro, while he is taking 30 for his as stores... Something tells me he would be in no mood to prune his hedges :P

The farms I saw had trees down, and down a while, so the saying they wouldn't even work to warm themselves is very evident. I'd always cut them for firewood.
The attitude of penalising my income because i was lucky seems very evident here too, If a nurse is worth 50000/yr with maybe 6weeks holidays plus bankholidays, sickies, etc, the am i not too, not my fault that lambs are only €100. Truth is neither of us is probably worth it.........
Agriculture in most countries is well subsidised, if we have to compete, then we have to be subsidised too
I wouldn't like to see counties wexford and Carlow degenerating to what I saw elsewhere.
I doubt if there's such a thing as a viable full time farm apart from dairying and they're even getting extra entitlements extracted from the likes of me

Parishlad

rangler1 wrote: »

I had reason to travel a lot of the country in the last week and the sort of farming that i have seen is abysmal, if that's the sort of farmers that you want subsidies targeted at there won't be much of an industry attached to it. I also drove through Carlow and Wexford where there's mainly proper farming carried on that provides a decent amount of raw material for industry/employment, Farmers obviously work hard there, they even manage their ditches/hedges, am I expecting too much to expect a tidy farm. I was on one of the waterways also for a day and quite frankly the countryside is a dump/let go wild.
It's also evident that a lot of the farm ''partnerships'' aren't partnerships at all, At least the extra herd No's of the past had to be genuine seperate farms. Temple Bar or whatever hang out students have will get the benefit of the YFS ...perish the thought of going back to farm at the weekend. AS someone said at least we worked for our entitlements, now farmers are going to get them without proving themselves at all.

I can understand some of where you might be coming from in your above post but I have to say that I find some of your points quite irksome.
What do you term 'proper farming'? I 'inherited' a farm that wasn't in the best state and by the sounds of it if you were to look in over the wall at my place you would be disgusted at the bad farming practices and conclude that I'm a lazy sod that doesn't work hard. Yes, my ditches aren't great, hedges need to be taken care of in places, soil indices need improving etc. However, I am putting every possible hour in to make the necessary improvements that will sort out the important issues. Do I want/need the place to look like a stud farm - No! My point is that I do work hard, I farm part time but to be honest that just means that I work late at night (on the farm) and at weekends when really should be spending time with my family.
This discussion on where CAP is going seems to have turned in to another full-time vs part time argument. At the end of the day, we are all farming the land. Yes, there are good farmers and bad farmers, lazy ones and real hard workers.......that applies to all walks of life! I would always agree that the lad that puts in his best effort should get the best reward. However, I don't make the assumption that the lad with the big pretty farm works any harder than the lad with the small farm.

Limestone Cowboy

rangler1 wrote: »

I had reason to travel a lot of the country in the last week and the sort of farming that i have seen is abysmal, if that's the sort of farmers that you want subsidies targeted at there won't be much of an industry attached to it. I also drove through Carlow and Wexford where there's mainly proper farming carried on that provides a decent amount of raw material for industry/employment, Farmers obviously work hard there, they even manage their ditches/hedges, am I expecting too much to expect a tidy farm. I was on one of the waterways also for a day and quite frankly the countryside is a dump/let go wild.
It's also evident that a lot of the farm ''partnerships'' aren't partnerships at all, At least the extra herd No's of the past had to be genuine seperate farms. Temple Bar or whatever hang out students have will get the benefit of the YFS ...perish the thought of going back to farm at the weekend. AS someone said at least we worked for our entitlements, now farmers are going to get them without proving themselves at all.

Any proper farmer in Wexford or Carlow want my entitlements? Ffs (why is there no facepalm emoji?)

MayoAreMagic

rangler1 wrote: »

The farms I saw had trees down, and down a while, so the saying they wouldn't even work to warm themselves is very evident. I'd always cut them for firewood.
The attitude of penalising my income because i was lucky seems very evident here too, If a nurse is worth 50000/yr with maybe 6weeks holidays plus bankholidays, sickies, etc, the am i not too, not my fault that lambs are only €100. Truth is neither of us is probably worth it.........
Agriculture in most countries is well subsidised, if we have to compete, then we have to be subsidised too
I wouldn't like to see counties wexford and Carlow degenerating to what I saw elsewhere.
I doubt if there's such a thing as a viable full time farm apart from dairying and they're even getting extra entitlements extracted from the likes of me

Here is the thing though. You say 'your income', but what you are actually referring to is future subsidies. That isn't your income nor my income, that is a subsidy that up to now has been awarded to you, and dont get me wrong, I don't have an issue with that. But the thing is, they can decide to award that same sub to someone else down the line if they feel have reason, and the guy getting it then would be no more taking it from you than you are taking it from him now. In reality future subs are neither mine nor yours, until we actually get them.

Maybe the next raft of subs will be focused more on forestry, or wind farms, or the under-grazing in mountainous areas in light of all these fires etc. That is just a reality of being dependant on subs, we don't get to dictate the terms.

Now obviously the guy you seen should tidy the place up, of course he should. But the bigger picture from what you have described here would suggest that it is in fact farmers outside Wexford and Carlow etc that need these subs, or at least a more fair share of them.

rangler1

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Here is the thing though. You say 'your income', but what you are actually referring to is future subsidies. That isn't your income nor my income, that is a subsidy that up to now has been awarded to you, and dont get me wrong, I don't have an issue with that. But the thing is, they can decide to award that same sub to someone else down the line if they feel have reason, and the guy getting it then would be no more taking it from you than you are taking it from him now. In reality future subs are neither mine nor yours, until we actually get them.

Maybe the next raft of subs will be focused more on forestry, or wind farms, or the under-grazing in mountainous areas in light of all these fires etc. That is just a reality of being dependant on subs, we don't get to dictate the terms.

Now obviously the guy you seen should tidy the place up, of course he should. But the bigger picture from what you have described here would suggest that it is in fact farmers outside Wexford and Carlow etc that need these subs, or at least a more fair share of them.

You can spin what I said any way you like but the fact is that a lot of farmers Have earned the right to subsidies and a lot haven't in that the farm will still look the same whether they get them or not.
I wouldn't read too much into referring to wexford and Carlow, just happened to be in it a few times the last few days and you couldn't help but admire the standard of farming that's carried on.

MayoAreMagic

rangler1 wrote: »

You can spin what I said any way you like but the fact is that a lot of farmers Have earned the right to subsidies and a lot haven't in that the farm will still look the same whether they get them or not.
I wouldn't read too much into referring to wexford and Carlow, just happened to be in it a few times the last few days and you couldn't help but admire the standard of farming that's carried on.

I don't see what part of pointing out future subsidies are not owned by anyone is spin to be honest with you...
I never said anyone hadn't earned their subsidy, Im merely pointing out that a change of focus at a European or national level, which is fairness is a clear possibility, would see other people earn the subsidy.

If you see that as someone taking your money, then surely you are in fact taking someone elses money now? That works both ways.

Username John

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Well some people are viewing it as an income support, but that doesnt mean that this is what it is. Im sure there could be some upper level of income that could be applied in extreme circumstances. But then the same should probably apply to a full time farmer on a high earning, should it not? The thing is, as long as the guy is farming to the level required and not just farming payments, then he should be as entitled as the next guy to what comes with it. His higher earnings would be addressed through his taxes. Also, from an animal standpoint, things like easy lambing/calfing animals, and low input animals in general would be developed more readily, which is a good thing I believe.



Well as regards ANC, isnt that exactly what ANC is already? With guys on islands getting more income and a guy with high quality land not getting anything etc. This for me should be the only balancing payment farmers should receive.




But if guys are choosing to be full time, surely it needs to be a viable full time farm, no more than the guy going starting any business needs to have an viable business to run? Like surely you couldnt just declare yourself full time and get higher payments. If your farm is viable for full time, then it is going to be of big enough a scale to sustain full time employment and you are therefore going to be getting more subs anyway. And if it isnt, you either need to expand or go part time. Looking for subs to pick up the slack isnt healthy for the industry, particularly when you are looking to get said subs by taking them from those who are working part time. I think that is just full time farmers looking out for full time farmers, and really and truely that is the underlying problem with the system - nobody is looking past their own doorstep. The end result is these convoluted, overly complex systems that are not properly balanced.

Just to pint out, I am not a full time farmer, nor do I have any interest in being so.
Nor do I have a big SFP, so whatever they do in the future, whilst it will impact me, it wont make that much odds either way...


But I do agree with you in that this will always come down to the 'haves', and the 'have nots'...
The 'haves' will always want to keep what they have
They 'have nots', will always want to get some

Human nature...

Its hard to know what to do with the system that's already so broken...

The reality is that the SFP is the only profit on a lot of farms...
It affects full time farmers more, as they dont have an off-farm income to go against any losses in farm income (which would include SFP)
The non-dairy ones anyways...

There is still a part of me that thinks full time farmers should be supported, as I don't like the idea of a future of every farmer in Ireland either having to go milking cows, or get a part-time job. I know there are loads of arguments against this, and issues whether it would or could be enforced.

But I cant help but think that the SFP should be helping full time farmers more. I know part time people will read this and get angry, and say they work as hard - I am not disputing this...
But full time farmers are the lads and lasses who have made the choice to gamble their future, and often their family's on a career that, at best will return a minimum wage, and often not even that...

I know people will come back and say that's their choice, and it totally is. As it is my choice to part-time farm. But if there was a proper, structured, well-implemented way to get higher payments, by going full time, then this choice could be open to part-time people, to allow them to go full time, if they so wished...

I know all of this is pie in the sky talk. No one really knows what will happen. And maybe I am being a little bit innocent or romantic in my view...

rangler1

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I don't see what part of pointing out future subsidies are not owned by anyone is spin to be honest with you...
I never said anyone hadn't earned their subsidy, Im merely pointing out that a change of focus at a European or national level, which is fairness is a clear possibility, would see other people earn the subsidy.

If you see that as someone taking your money, then surely you are in fact taking someone elses money now? That works both ways.

Like the last time it'll have to be decided by the strongest lobby group
Flat rate was more than a clear possibility last time according to Commisioner Ciolos, Do you gamble on giving subsidies to those that have proved themselves in the past or those that haven't when you're hoping to encourage industry/ employment out of agri produce.

'Study the past, if you would divine the future. - Confucius

Cattlepen

One article I read on the subject on cap reform was of the opinion that the majority of interested parties in Europe were "reform sick" and that it could probably just go on as is for the term after the next reform. That was before brexit though

MayoAreMagic

rangler1 wrote: »

Like the last time it'll have to be decided by the strongest lobby group
Flat rate was more than a clear possibility last time according to Commisioner Ciolos, Do you gamble on giving subsidies to those that have proved themselves in the past or those that haven't when you're hoping to encourage industry/ employment out of agri produce.

'Study the past, if you would divine the future. - Confucius

Now that is what I would consider spin...
However, subs are not connected to production, so 'proving themselves' isn't really an issue.

I could give you another quote.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result - Albert Einstein

The lesson is ignore the lobby groups and come up with a fair system.

_Brian

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Now that is what I would consider spin...
However, subs are not connected to production, so 'proving themselves' isn't really an issue.

I could give you another quote.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result - Albert Einstein

The lesson is ignore the lobby groups and come up with a fair system.

I think it would be foolish to think the lobby groups won't have an input... However thankfully the lobby scene has changed and the IFA are in a much weaker position with more than large long established farms being represented at the table.

Many of the "proven old guard" who have larger payments are sitting back and doing nicely on them while not working any harder, or better, than many other farms.. We don't expect to be a winner in the reshuffle, but I won't shed a tear to see the system get a shake up and see a better distribution of whatever reduced pot of money is available..

J.O. Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

I wouldn't read too much into referring to wexford and Carlow, just happened to be in it a few times the last few days and you couldn't help but admire the standard of farming that's carried on.

I notice the areas with the standard of farming you admire tend to have the better land in the country and would I be right in thinking more full time farmers with less fragmented farms.

The better land could mean they have more time to farm better because they spend less time at winter feeding or topping rushes or some other jobs lads on poorer ground have to do.

Less fragmentation means less time travelling between blocks and also makes it easier to handle stock etc. saving more time.

Then if you are full time farming they could have 40 hours more in the week than the part time lad to work on the farm. They will have more work to do obviously but economies of scale will come into it. A lot of time is lost getting set up to do the job.

Let's say dosing lambs. You will dose 200 nearly as quick as 20 once you get everything together and the sheep in. Getting them in and getting the dose and equipment ready will be similar for both.

Also how many full time lads here contract out things like spreading fertiliser and how many part time lads do their own.

Then there's the knock on effect of things not getting done over a number of years.

However to say a lad should be prioritising cutting up a tree that fell unless he's lazy is wrong. You farmed full time so maybe had more time during the year.
Maybe when the fella with the tree down had gotten all the other things that had to be done first done like herding stock he decided to spend time with his wife or girlfriend or family or something. That doesn't mean he's a bad farmer but maybe it does mean he's a good man.