My €100m BEAM scheme

Anto_Meath

Ye but sure it would cost the best part of a €100 to fed her for the last ,3 months plus never mind a heifer bought now will keep going on, a weanling heifer will go back for awhile after coming off a cow...

MIKEKC

mr.stonewall wrote: »

True, made a plan to make the cut and no more. Problem all along was that there was no way of tracking progress on a daily basis or weekly basis. Data that is returned from the dept is almost from 2 months ago. Also the format it is given is shocking. For most farmers the data needs to be live. I wish to have the 5% reduction made by June and be done of this crappy scheme.

I see IFA President Tim Cullinan saying that the 5%N reduction in BEAM was a flawed requirement. Why didn't IFA insist on it being removed before farmers took the money. Like all rules they are grand until they affect me. Also his criticism of EU Ag Comisioner when looking to change the rules was hardly a wise move

wrangler

MIKEKC wrote: »

I see IFA President Tim Cullinan saying that the 5%N reduction in BEAM was a flawed requirement. Why didn't IFA insist on it being removed before farmers took the money. Like all rules they are grand until they affect me. Also his criticism of EU Ag Comisioner when looking to change the rules was hardly a wise move

It's not a santa list, there'll be terms and conditions like these on all farm schemes now, you accept them or do without.
I'm not a fan of Tims but he'll be proved right about the Ag commisioner

Good loser

tanko wrote: »

Surely those who have already reduced will be allowed to keep the original reference period if there are changes to the scheme now.

That seems to be the case.
Would be nonsensical if it was otherwise (and vote losing).

MIKEKC

wrangler wrote: »

It's not a santa list, there'll be terms and conditions like these on all farm schemes now, you accept them or do without.
I'm not a fan of Tims but he'll be proved right about the Ag commisioner

That's the problem they don't want to accept them, but don't want to do without either. Voted for Tim , regret it now he doesn't seem to have any way about him with people

wrangler

MIKEKC wrote: »

That's the problem they don't want to accept them, but don't want to do without either. Voted for Tim , regret it now he doesn't seem to have any way about him with people

He was never articulate enough, he can be embarassing in an interview, the President is but a figure head, he needs to be clued into and be able to defend the decisions of the national commitee and answer important questions.
I cringed when I saw him on telly one night, having to turn the page of his speech before he could say the next word. The difference between himself and Adam Woods at public speaking is huge

tanko

So the option to change the reference period for the 5% reduction to Jan -Dec 2021 has been approved.

Say my name

Can anyone give a run down of the scheme and requirements?

Why was there pressure put on to change the dates?
Why some were able to comply and some not?
And then worse why the ones who didn't comply are given extra time to comply?
Was there free calculators included in the scheme?

Seems a strange one from the outside looking in.

mr.stonewall

The dept have landed themselves in a right hole over the beam scheme. The lack of up to date data on nitrates produced has been the crux of issue. If this money had to be returned there would have been up roar and all it would take is one farmer to appeal it if he/she appealled it, having missed out on a very small margin, say 0.1%. The failure then of providing up to date data would have been magnified, thus opening the flood gates. Farmers who signed up, agreed the terms, and being supplied data that is 2 months old, which is changing on a daily basis is farical. If it was a company working on the same type of system data would be available, on a daily if not a weekly basis. The dept have said on numerous times over the past few months that they are producing a tool for farmers to work with this scheme, we are still waiting and being nearly 60% through the original reference period. Secondly the ICBF produced a calculator, and I see the FJ are launching one. Both come with warnings as they used monthly stock numbers. This is putting pressure on the dept to have an up to date system.
I know in my own system nitrates produced will be changing greatly on a daily basis over the next 2-3 months as stock change from 1yr to 2 yr, 2yr+,heifers becoming cows and stock being sold. This would be typical of many systems. They sooner this data comes i can be done of this shambles of a scheme.
The only way I will be happy is if I make a reduction of 5.01% and no more or less by June 30th seeing the back of this shambles

Bass Reeves

mr.stonewall wrote: »

The dept have landed themselves in a right hole over the beam scheme. The lack of up to date data on nitrates produced has been the crux of issue. If this money had to be returned there would have been up roar and all it would take is one farmer to appeal it if he/she appealled it, having missed out on a very small margin, say 0.1%. The failure then of providing up to date data would have been magnified, thus opening the flood gates. Farmers who signed up, agreed the terms, and being supplied data that is 2 months old, which is changing on a daily basis is farical. If it was a company working on the same type of system data would be available, on a daily if not a weekly basis. The dept have said on numerous times over the past few months that they are producing a tool for farmers to work with this scheme, we are still waiting and being nearly 60% through the original reference period. Secondly the ICBF produced a calculator, and I see the FJ are launching one. Both come with warnings as they used monthly stock numbers. This is putting pressure on the dept to have an up to date system.
I know in my own system nitrates produced will be changing greatly on a daily basis over the next 2-3 months as stock change from 1yr to 2 yr, 2yr+,heifers becoming cows and stock being sold. This would be typical of many systems. They sooner this data comes i can be done of this shambles of a scheme.
The only way I will be happy is if I make a reduction of 5.01% and no more or less by June 30th seeing the back of this shambles

What about personnel responsibility

Say my name

It looks like the biggest objection was by some not knowing what was involved or that what's being claimed wasn't known.

5% of 100 animals over a year is 5 animals.
5% of 100 animals left till the 1st of December is 60 animals to be gone off farm for that month.

Anyway ye've a very understanding minister.
However the compliers feel today is a different matter.

mr.stonewall

Bass Reeves wrote: »

What about personnel responsibility

I do not disagree with farmers responsibility on this, as is the case with all schemes. This scheme was rushed with out real thought put into the implementation of it.
My crux is not with the reduction, I am on track to make it but it is vital to have up to date figures to monitor progress. its with access to exact data,
I contacted Dept on 3 occasions, since last spring to see was a planning tool to give up to date figures, being provided. It was confirmed that one would be provided on each occasion within a short timeframe.
Still waiting

Bass Reeves

mr.stonewall wrote: »

I do not disagree with farmers responsibility on this, as is the case with all schemes. This scheme was rushed with out real thought put into the implementation of it.
My crux is not with the reduction, I am on track to make it but it is vital to have up to date figures to monitor progress. its with access to exact data,
I contacted Dept on 3 occasions, since last spring to see was a planning tool to give up to date figures, being provided. It was confirmed that one would be provided on each occasion within a short timeframe.
Still waiting

Every year farmers that are near or just above 170 kgs N/ HA have to run a calculation to see how much they can export, lads in GLAS must decide in October how much they can have imported.
It a lot easier with Suckler herds than with stores or finishing cattle. You need to project what you will have left when they will be sold/ slaughtered. When and how many cattle you can buy.

It is not rocket science. It is fairly easy to calculate. But lads could not be bothered. Did they replace any cull cows, did they consider culling any cows. Did they even try, they they talk with there advisor last July. Did they f@@k.

Most lads whinging have made no attempt

Base price

Say my name wrote: »

It looks like the biggest objection was by some not knowing what was involved or that what's being claimed wasn't known.

5% of 100 animals over a year is 5 animals.
5% of 100 animals left till the 1st of December is 60 animals to be gone off farm for that month.

Anyway ye've a very understanding minister.
However the compliers feel today is a different matter.

It's 5% reduction in kgs of nitrogen not 5% reduction in cattle numbers.

Bass Reeves

Base price wrote: »

It's 5% reduction in kgs of nitrogen not 5% reduction in cattle numbers.

It is but it is still a fairly easy calculation. If you are getting 2-3 K and there is conditions then you need to plan. Even if the department put up a calculator and varied the target period there is still a **** load of farmers that would still be whinging.

I have talked to one or two and it's still mouth open catching flies. All you need to do was look at you stocking level at the reference period, look at how many cows you had, how many calves, when they were born. Any yearling and when they turned into yearlings. Look at sales dates, purchase dates. Then just adjust what you are doing to suit. Most lads would have been ok of they culled two-three cows last August/ September and did not replace them. As well sell calves or yearling 10-20 days earlier last autumn. But most lads just trundled along mouth open catching flies

Cavanjack

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It is but it is still a fairly easy calculation. If you are getting 2-3 K and there is conditions then you need to plan. Even if the department put up a calculator and varied the target period there is still a **** load of farmers that would still be whinging.

I have talked to one or two and it's still mouth open catching flies. All you need to do was look at you stocking level at the reference period, look at how many cows you had, how many calves, when they were born. Any yearling and when they turned into yearlings. Look at sales dates, purchase dates. Then just adjust what you are doing to suit. Most lads would have been ok of they culled two-three cows last August/ September and did not replace them. As well sell calves or yearling 10-20 days earlier last autumn. But most lads just trundled along mouth open catching flies

Was talking to a man before Christmas that would have 200 head of cattle including suckler cows etc. He got the max that could be got from beam. When I told him that I was taking a month or two off from buying to be right for beam I got the same reaction. Mouth open not a clue what I was talking about. Thought he was winding me up but no. Genuinely didn’t know what I was talking about. I wasn’t going to waste my time explaining either. I said maybe I had it wrong Not sure has he anything sorted since.

TCDStudent1

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It is but it is still a fairly easy calculation. If you are getting 2-3 K and there is conditions then you need to plan. Even if the department put up a calculator and varied the target period there is still a **** load of farmers that would still be whinging.

I have talked to one or two and it's still mouth open catching flies. All you need to do was look at you stocking level at the reference period, look at how many cows you had, how many calves, when they were born. Any yearling and when they turned into yearlings. Look at sales dates, purchase dates. Then just adjust what you are doing to suit. Most lads would have been ok of they culled two-three cows last August/ September and did not replace them. As well sell calves or yearling 10-20 days earlier last autumn. But most lads just trundled along mouth open catching flies

Quick question on this. Is it the average over the 12 months? For example, I have worked out what my nitrates level will be over the next few months. I have consistently been below it but will go above it slightly in May (if I keep all current stock). Does that mean I am violating the conditions of the scheme? If I average out the numbers, then I am below the target nitrate level.

Bass Reeves

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

Quick question on this. Is it the average over the 12 months? For example, I have worked out what my nitrates level will be over the next few months. I have consistently been below it but will go above it slightly in May (if I keep all current stock). Does that mean I am violating the conditions of the scheme? If I average out the numbers, then I am below the target nitrate level.

Its a 5% reduction over 12 months. If you exceed it in any month it immaterial, if your totals nitrates in the reference period is 3500kgs of N total then you must reduce to 3325kgs N total. I am not sure if you lost or took rental ground how this will effect it but if your land base remain the same then you need to reduce by 5%

Bass Reeves

Cavanjack wrote: »

Was talking to a man before Christmas that would have 200 head of cattle including suckler cows etc. He got the max that could be got from beam. When I told him that I was taking a month or two off from buying to be right for beam I got the same reaction. Mouth open not a clue what I was talking about. Thought he was winding me up but no. Genuinely didn’t know what I was talking about. I wasn’t going to waste my time explaining either. I said maybe I had it wrong Not sure has he anything sorted since.

Mouth open catching flies and if the ref period changes he just be catching flies longer. Then when the 10k is taken off him he will whinge and cry and blame the Dept, Teagasc and everyone else

DBK1

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Its a 5% reduction over 12 months. If you exceed it in any month it immaterial, if your totals nitrates in the reference period is 3500kgs of N total then you must reduce to 3325kgs N total. I am not sure if you lost or took rental ground how this will effect it but if your land base remain the same then you need to reduce by 5%

Amount of land has nothing to do with it. It’s 5% reduction in kg’s of Nitrogen produced on the reference period. Acerage doesn’t come into it.

charolais0153

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Mouth open catching flies and if the ref period changes he just be catching flies longer. Then when the 10k is taken off him he will whinge and cry and blame the Dept, Teagasc and everyone else

100% .... Getting 780 here I think , ya wouldn't get it a week working yet people won't do it

valtra2

I got 1600 for it. Where else would you get a interest free loan like that.

ruwithme

Can't understand the annoyance of some on this. Initially it seemed the 5% reduction was lobbied on to be reduced or forgotten about altogether.

So now a new reference period with the same 5%to be met.what's the problem lads?if ye are going to meet it,happy days

Let the rest concern for themselves.

Lime Tree Farm

Say my name wrote: »

It looks like the biggest objection was by some not knowing what was involved or that what's being claimed wasn't known.

5% of 100 animals over a year is 5 animals.
5% of 100 animals left till the 1st of December is 60 animals to be gone off farm for that month.

.....

Jaw dropping and all as it seems, you are absolutely correct with your interpretation.

ZETOR_IS_BETTER

Lime Tree Farm wrote: »

Jaw dropping and all as it seems, you are absolutely correct with your interpretation.

It's a percentage of total nitrates not animal numbers.

Bass Reeves

ZETOR_IS_BETTER wrote: »

It's a percentage of total nitrates not animal numbers.

Yes but the point being made is people who made no effort to manage nitrates at the start of the reduction period face an uphill task to reduce now. Even if the reduction reference period is changed now for some to be the 2021 calendar year unless people react now it will be impossible to manage reference period.

ZETOR_IS_BETTER

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Yes but the point being made is people who made no effort to manage nitrates at the start of the reduction period face an uphill task to reduce now. Even if the reduction reference period is changed now for some to be the 2021 calendar year unless people react now it will be impossible to manage reference period.

Ok. But the perception that it's just a case of reducing 5% of cattle numbers is still incorrect...

Lime Tree Farm

ZETOR_IS_BETTER wrote: »

It's a percentage of total nitrates not animal numbers.

and in this instance organic nitrates are produced by cattle.

Lime Tree Farm

nice roundy figures
100 animals 1-2 yrs old each generating 57 kg N annually
5700 kg N reduced by 5% = 5415 kg N target for the 12 months
difference =285 kg N to go off the holding on Day 1 Month 1

285 Kg N divided by 57 Kg per animal = 5 animals to go on Day 1 Month 1

Mac Taylor

I hope they keep it as is.....I wouldn’t be signing up again. I’ve sold stock early etc to ensure I made my number.....we should be given the choice, keep original deadline or move to new one.

Plenty lads happy to take the money and not even bother to read the t&c’s