My €100m BEAM scheme

Hurling Hereford

wrangler wrote: »

It's scandalous that , after IFA getting €50m from Europe, some desk driver fecks it up like that for farmers.

The I.F.A. ???

MikeSoys

i sent 24 cattle to factory. its my understanding they want you to reduce the no of CATTLE during 07/20 -06/21 on agfood they have me down as having 1908kgs (livestock manure nitrogen); 5% of this 96kgs(which is 2 cattle i need to have less in 01/07/20-30/07/21..)

but the problem is im struggling to work out where they got 1908kgs from i have a mix of 1-2 yr old cattle and >2yr olds.

I had 32 cattle in 2018 & 36 in 2019(within the ref. period) and as some cattle became >24 months during the ref period so im not understanding this
anyone else having this issue?

also next yr if i have more cattle ...the only penalty is i just give the aid money back? no penalties etc this right? tks

wrangler

Hurling Hereford wrote: »

The I.F.A. ???

Yea Joe healy even said on the news since I put up that post, had it been left to the Public Disservice it'd never have been got

High bike

MikeSoys wrote: »

i sent 24 cattle to factory. its my understanding they want you to reduce the no of CATTLE during 07/20 -06/21 on agfood they have me down as having 1908kgs (livestock manure nitrogen); 5% of this 96kgs(which is 2 cattle i need to have less in 01/07/20-30/07/21..)

but the problem is im struggling to work out where they got 1908kgs from i have a mix of 1-2 yr old cattle and >2yr olds.

I had 32 cattle in 2018 & 36 in 2019(within the ref. period) and as some cattle became >24 months during the ref period so im not understanding this
anyone else having this issue?

also next yr if i have more cattle ...the only penalty is i just give the aid money back? no penalties etc this right? tks

the 1908 kgs is worked out on a daily basis depending on the cattle’s ages, don’t know what the story is on the penalty if ur over

gerryirl

if you apply for this folks do you only have reduce the 4 or 5% till 2021 can you go back up again without risking a penalty.

coolshannagh28

I cant understand why Farm Organisations didn't insist on other means of reducing carbon than stock reduction , ie less concentrates , earlier turnout etc!

gerryirl

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

I cant understand why Farm Organisations didn't insist on other means of reducing carbon than stock reduction , ie less concentrates , earlier turnout etc!

have to agree and plus if they are that worried about things there has been no grant etc to change lights to led in farm yard sheds etc. Come winter time we all know the amount of energy used. its only a small thing but can have a huge impact

kk.man

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

I cant understand why Farm Organisations didn't insist on other means of reducing carbon than stock reduction , ie less concentrates , earlier turnout etc!

I think the EU insisted on it.

Robson99

gerryirl wrote: »

if you apply for this folks do you only have reduce the 4 or 5% till 2021 can you go back up again without risking a penalty.

Ya one year only. Too good to leave behind. Think I will carry extra for summer and then cut back what I put into te shed for winter

MikeSoys

High bike wrote: »

the 1908 kgs is worked out on a daily basis depending on the cattle’s ages, don’t know what the story is on the penalty if ur over

okay thanks so if it done on daily basis.. the only way to match it is to go through every month and work out the age of each animal, and take the average?

Say my name

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

I cant understand why Farm Organisations didn't insist on other means of reducing carbon than stock reduction , ie less concentrates , earlier turnout etc!

It'd be too hard for the Dept to police and weather dependent.
Stocking rates is easily done by algorithms on the dept cmms system to show any offenders.

They'll be a few different things brought in though I'd say.
From feed additives to covers on open slurry tanks to the already slurry injection systems in place to the seai grant on solar and biomass system purely mostly for farm use.

wrangler

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

I cant understand why Farm Organisations didn't insist on other means of reducing carbon than stock reduction , ie less concentrates , earlier turnout etc!

Impossible to monitor or police, livestock database will be surer

High bike

MikeSoys wrote: »

okay thanks so if it done on daily basis.. the only way to match it is to go through every month and work out the age of each animal, and take the average?

yeah all u need is their ages and the number of days in ur herd no

Lime Tree Farm

Login to ICBF website and select from their MENU
VIEW PROFILES
2nd last option STOCK NUMBERS
Select NITRATES REPORT
Select year 2018 SUBMIT
When the report appears
On the right hand side top of report select EXCEL
This will drop a copy of the nitrates 2018 report into Excel
Select year 2019 SUBMIT
When the report appears
On the right hand side top of report select EXCEL
This will drop a copy of the Nitrates 2019 report into Excel
Open the 2018 Excel file and copy July to Dec cells into a new book
Open the 2019 Excel file and copy Jan to Jun Cells to the right of Dec 2018 cells
Average each age group from July 2018 to end June 2019
Paste in the known kg nitrogen for each category of animal in Cell beyond Avg Cell
Animal Type Dairy Cows = 85, Suckler Cows = 65, Total Cattle 0 - 12 mths = 24, Total Cattle 12 - 24 mth = 57, Total Cattle 24 mths = 65, for N kg/hd

Multiply the average for each animal category by the relevant N kg/hd figure.
Total each category up and you have your total nitrogen from July 2018 to Jun 2019.
This is based on a monthly average, a daily basis would be more accurate as calculated by Dept

Hurling Hereford

tanko wrote: »

I sold four cows in the mart which were killed shortly after.
Am I right in saying i get nothing and the lads that got them killed get €400?

It all depends who bought your animals

red bull

I'm a dairy farmer with montbeliarde x fleckieh xcows and it appears I can claim €40 on there beef breed calves, accordingly 33x40 =1320. Not sure if I will claim

coolshannagh28

wrangler wrote: »

Impossible to monitor or police, livestock database will be surer

I completed a carbon navigator in BDGP as did all participants and a stipulation of the payment is participation in a scheme , it was indicated that the dept has carbon information on all participants in these programmes.

wrangler

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

I completed a carbon navigator in BDGP as did all participants and a stipulation of the payment is participation in a scheme , it was indicated that the dept has carbon information on all participants in these programmes.

If farmers tell the truth.:rolleyes:
They don't need to do inspections in the present system, computer will flag any problems.

coolshannagh28

wrangler wrote: »

If farmers tell the truth.:rolleyes:
They don't need to do inspections in the present system, computer will flag any problems.

Im addressing the main farmer issue with the scheme; the number reduction , there are other ways of reducing carbon . This is a concession to the anti farmer vegan PS climate lobby which sets a precedent unfavourable to farmers.

High bike

Any word on what the uptake on this scheme has been, well under subscribed I'd imagine

Keep Sluicing

High bike wrote: »

Any word on what the uptake on this scheme has been, well under subscribed I'd imagine

Its under subscribed. The department of agriculture restricted the eligible dates so much in the hope to spend less than 20 million of the 50 million that the government had to put up. They'll spend the 50 million from Europe alright.

wrangler

Keep Sluicing wrote: »

Its under subscribed. The department of agriculture restricted the eligible dates so much in the hope to spend less than 20 million of the 50 million that the government had to put up. They'll spend the 50 million from Europe alright.

70m would be a great cash injection all the same,

High bike

Keep Sluicing wrote: »

Its under subscribed. The department of agriculture restricted the eligible dates so much in the hope to spend less than 20 million of the 50 million that the government had to put up. They'll spend the 50 million from Europe alright.

so no increase in payments so eventhough payments were to be reduced if it was over subscribed??

Keep Sluicing

High bike wrote: »

so no increase in payments so eventhough payments were to be reduced if it was over subscribed??

Yeah, thats the look of it.

wrangler

High bike wrote: »

so no increase in payments so eventhough payments were to be reduced if it was over subscribed??

All schemes are that way now, maximum budget and tough if not enough applied.
We'd always be advising to apply for schemes, if it's fully used it means it was needed and helps to get more money the next time

Cavanjack

Keep Sluicing wrote: »

Its under subscribed. The department of agriculture restricted the eligible dates so much in the hope to spend less than 20 million of the 50 million that the government had to put up. They'll spend the 50 million from Europe alright.

Where did you see that it was under subscribed? Farmers are notorious for leaving things till the last minute so it’ll probably fill up closer to the cut off date.

High bike

Cavanjack wrote: »

Where did you see that it was under subscribed? Farmers are notorious for leaving things till the last minute so it’ll probably fill up closer to the cut off date.

if it does it’s because lads are so fed up with sucklers they’r either cutting way back or getting out and getting a few bob for it

High bike

wrangler wrote: »

All schemes are that way now, maximum budget and tough if not enough applied.
We'd always be advising to apply for schemes, if it's fully used it means it was needed and helps to get more money the next time

surely if there’s 100 m budget it should be spent and split between all applicants

wrangler

High bike wrote: »

surely if there’s 100 m budget it should be spent and split between all applicants

Doesn't do farmers any good either if we claim that farmers have lost 100m and then they only look for 50m.
There might be time yet, when's the closing date

High bike

wrangler wrote: »

Doesn't do farmers any good either if we claim that farmers have lost 100m and then they only look for 50m.
There might be time yet, when's the closing date

8th or 9th Sept not sure which