Knowledge Transfer.....Money for the Boys

Bass Reeves

I was reading an article i the FJ regarding the KT discussion groups. In 2017 12.5 million was paid to farmers and in 2018 11.5 million was paid. However the real winners were not farmers.

So far Teagasc and Agri consultants have so far got 15.4 million from the scheme. In last years accounts Teagasc showed 3.7 million from KT scheme. Vets are winners as well. Accordining to the FJ they charged 150-250 for the initial health plan.

If we take it that vets charge 150 year one and 100 year 2&3 to update plan then in Year one they have shared 2.5 million and over 1.5 million year 2&3.

Further analysis would indicate that for attending the meeting farmers 16K+ farmers shared 10 million /year but facilitators and vets shared 10.5 million year one and 9 million year two. It would seems that 50% of funding is going to run the scheme. In general the last Glas scheme was top heavy with costs as well. Average plan is worth about 3.5K I think and about 12-1500 went on Glas and Nutrient plan.

Mooooo

Our group didn't bother with it, a lot of time wasted would be the opinion

Muckit

It's a really sad trend that's permeated into every area of agriculture.

Plenty have cottoned on that there's money to be made in farming. So long as you're not the farmer.

KatyMac

And our group (at least) still haven't been paid. I saw on Agriland that the money was ready for payment, but still no sign of the cheque coming our way. Why do farmers always have to be the ones waiting for their couple of euro? It looks like begging then when you phone up see if there is any sign.

coolshannagh28

No wonder farmers are at their wits end ; subsidy destined for farmers is being diverted into the public trough .

Capercaillie

IFJ slates the Vets in practice (again). No surprise!

Siamsa Sessions

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It would seems that 50% of funding is going to run the scheme.

That's insane.

I had some dealings with an EU scheme called INTERREG in the off-farm job and the admin staff costs there were less than 10%. Can't recall the exact numbers but I think there was close to €100m for participants (SMEs, local authorities, community groups, universities, etc.) who would do the actual project work and €4-5m to pay the Government staff who would administer the funding.

The idea behind most EC funding, especially anything to do with rural or agri schemes, is to redistribute capital and spread money into several sectors. But I'd be fairly sure a figure of 50% going to the non-core targets is not in line with the spirit of the KT scheme.

Would be interesting to see what way comparable programmes in other EU member states split the money.

toleratethis

I left KT last year, would have left the year previous but facilitator codded me that year would be different (more like STAP where we actually visited farms and learned things). Que a second KT year spent in the same room as the first filling in forms (or as I did, not bothering to fill them in or putting very, very blunt responses), and getting in the same speakers as we had in STAP. I was well fed up, and am well rid of it. Totting it up I was losing money.

Fully agree it's a "make work scheme" for advisors and others, not just vets but whomever benefits from €'s spent.

Just my opinion but farmers should leave KT and either have that money come back into our accounts or send it back to EU/Dublin. The more who take up these schemes then the more political cover they get and the moe of them we'll have. Which will mean less €€€ going direct to farmers.

It was appropriately named, farmers maybe thought the knowledge was to flow our way, I'd beg to differ there.

alps

And we have teagasc CEO, at a recent conference, suggesting that portion of your new CAP funding should be given to those in KT groups..

Its and obscene money grab, and need to be loudly resisted by farmers..

coolshannagh28

A cousin runs a KT group and he cant believe his luck , handy money and their is a clamour from him and other advisors for more of the same while it suits the dept making farmers jump through hoops to justify their peanuts.

Bass Reeves

Capercaillie wrote: »

IFJ slates the Vets in practice (again). No surprise!

No they did not. I worked out the figures myself .IFJ just gave a lot of the raw data. However it seems a way of finding Teagasc by the back door. In the one I was in we only did about 2 farm visits/year. This is a big issue as well lots of farmers involved will not accept a farm visit. I think it should be mandatory that every farmer should have to a copy a farm visit over the 3 years. In the first KT scheme one I volunteer ed for the second was when the Teagasc advisor did a grass measuring for me and asked if I do a visit based on it as well.
However I did not do one during the last scheme as there was lads that have been in the scheme 5-6 years and will not let a visit happen on there farm

jfh

Now that the KT is over, we have been advised by our teagasc advisor that the cost going forward will be 100 euros. Its probably worth it as we can dictate the discussions ourselves, no need for herd health plan & meeting a mandatory quota of events.

Lano Lynn

another example of licence to print money or money to print licence.
Leo's worried about a 5% cut in cap funding because he understands everyone gets more of the cap payments than the farmers.
That this is not comprehended by the twats that whinge about 'subsidies for farmers' is a major failing in communication by farm organisations and the EU.

Bleating Lamb

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No they did not. I worked out the figures myself .IFJ just gave a lot of the raw data. However it seems a way of finding Teagasc by the back door. In the one I was in we only did about 2 farm visits/year. This is a big issue as well lots of farmers involved will not accept a farm visit. I think it should be mandatory that every farmer should have to a copy a farm visit over the 3 years. In the first KT scheme one I volunteer ed for the second was when the Teagasc advisor did a grass measuring for me and asked if I do a visit based on it as well.
However I did not do one during the last scheme as there was lads that have been in the scheme 5-6 years and will not let a visit happen on there farm

From what I can see the quality of experiences that farmers taking part varies an awful lot between different KT groups.
Have to say I am happy with our KT experience,around 10 farmers in the group since its inception,we have visited all participants farms,at start of each new KT year the facilitator put up a blank calendar and organised our various meetings for the year and people say which months would suit them to have a farm visit.

We have all picked up little tips from these farm visits....you will learn something new from seeing how others do things.I appreciate though that some facilitators aren’t putting enough effort Int their groups from what people are saying here.

Mooooo

Bleating Lamb wrote: »

From what I can see the quality of experiences that farmers taking part varies an awful lot between different KT groups.
Have to say I am happy with our KT experience,around 10 farmers in the group since its inception,we have visited all participants farms,at start of each new KT year the facilitator put up a blank calendar and organised our various meetings for the year and people say which months would suit them to have a farm visit.

We have all picked up little tips from these farm visits....you will learn something new from seeing how others do things.I appreciate though that some facilitators aren’t putting enough effort Int their groups from what people are saying here.

Is that not what a normal discussion group would be doing anyway?

greysides

The view from the other side:


Am I being naive in not thinking that a scheme entitled 'Knowledge Transfer' was purely an instrument to pass on money to participants and that the 'transfer of knowledge' bit was just clever disguise?
It's a radical concept but, what if its whole raison d'etre was to facilitate discussion and the passage of information?

Personally I'm glad it's finished. For the time and effort I put into it the financial returns are nominal. The only real reward was in the absolute minority of people who acted on advice given.
Were it to be done again I would be tempted to severely filter the clients I would take on to those who would engage. In fact, it would be better that farmers got no money for the Animal Health Plan. Then I would only have to deal with those that were genuinely interested rather than use up my precious 'decompression' time after a busy Spring.

Once it became only about the money, it was doomed to failure.

Bleating Lamb

Mooooo wrote: »

Is that not what a normal discussion group would be doing anyway?

Well from what other posters are saying here that did not happen in their groups......facilitators failed to run groups effectively,farmers refused to host farm visits etc.