Ear to the ground

zf0wqv9oemuasj

_Brian wrote: »

Because it’s not 50/60/80% or even 100%

Do we need tax payers money going out to farms based on activity from decades ago when it could/should be going to support biodiversity development

I would strong disagree with even 30% going to these schemes, they are a con. Farmers should be farming.

_Brian

Nadia Unsightly Fiddle wrote: »

I would strong disagree with even 30% going to these schemes, they are a con. Farmers should be farming.

Collecting direct payments isn’t really farming though.
The levels of beef and dairy being produced isn’t about food security which was the purpose of CAP. Now it’s about making obscene profit for industry while farms get the crumbs or worse make a loss and expect tax payers money to supplement them.

wrangler

Nadia Unsightly Fiddle wrote: »

I would strong disagree with even 30% going to these schemes, they are a con. Farmers should be farming.

We need only look at the way the Board of works maintains rivers to see the mess the deskdrivers make in minding the environment.

zf0wqv9oemuasj

wrangler wrote: »

We need only look at the way the Board of works maintains rivers to see the mess the deskdrivers make in minding the environment.

I find the implementation of current schemes crazy being honest. They are paying the BPS and a GLAS for letting land go wild in “bird cover” yet I know a number of farmers in our area that have large enough areas of hazel etc or others with natural limestone rock that are proper natural Irish habitats that are excluded from BPS even in these areas. They would have to reclaim to farm land to actually get paid.

These are the types of area that should be paid to keep rather than paying to covert farm land to being unproductive.

Dinzee Conlee

Nadia Unsightly Fiddle wrote: »

I find the implementation of current schemes crazy being honest. They are paying the BPS and a GLAS for letting land go wild in “bird cover” yet I know a number of farmers in our area that have large enough areas of hazel etc or others with natural limestone rock that are proper natural Irish habitats that are excluded from BPS even in these areas. They would have to reclaim to farm land to actually get paid.

These are the types of area that should be paid to keep rather than paying to covert farm land to being unproductive.

Yes, but to pay for these the money has to come from somewhere?
Your earlier post would suggest you don’t want money going to any sort of schemes except farming - which seems kinda contradictory?

Anyways, this CAP discussion has been had a million times over. It all boils down to the ‘haves’ wanting to keep their BPS money, and the ‘have-nots’ wanting something of the money...

Panch18

_Brian wrote: »

Because it’s not 50/60/80% or even 100%

Do we need tax payers money going out to farms based on activity from decades ago when it could/should be going to support biodiversity development

It sounds like you want every farmer in the country to be part time and working off farm

_Brian

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Yes, but to pay for these the money has to come from somewhere?
Your earlier post would suggest you don’t want money going to any sort of schemes except farming - which seems kinda contradictory?

Anyways, this CAP discussion has been had a million times over. It all boils down to the ‘haves’ wanting to keep their BPS money, and the ‘have-nots’ wanting something of the money...

I think that oversimplifies things. There is also a third option in that people who want to see this vast sum of public money spent to get the greatest and most pressing return for society. That is no longer food security. Biodiversity and climate are a much bigger need now.
It’s not that I want anyone else’s payments. ALL payments need to be pulled and the money redirected in a fresh system. Every farmer has the option to get back engaged in activities that attract the money, only now it’s focused on a modern need not a historical one.

_Brian

Panch18 wrote: »

It sounds like you want every farmer in the country to be part time and working off farm

Not at all.
Prices are being suppressed by direct payments. Better prices would replace the direct payment which can be redirected elsewhere.

Plus if the money was available for schemes better fit for purpose couldn’t they apply for the money through these.

It’s a matter of when rather than if this will happen.

zf0wqv9oemuasj

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Yes, but to pay for these the money has to come from somewhere?
Your earlier post would suggest you don’t want money going to any sort of schemes except farming - which seems kinda contradictory?

Anyways, this CAP discussion has been had a million times over. It all boils down to the ‘haves’ wanting to keep their BPS money, and the ‘have-nots’ wanting something of the money...

Sorry I suppose I was a bit contradictory. I meant that of if it is going to anything the top of the list should be the type of areas I mentioned (and other natural ones).

Say my name

Panch18 wrote: »

It sounds like you want every farmer in the country to be part time and working off farm

That's his perspective.
Just as a current full time farmer comes at it from their perspective.

Panch18

_Brian wrote: »

Not at all.
Prices are being suppressed by direct payments. Better prices would replace the direct payment which can be redirected elsewhere.

Plus if the money was available for schemes better fit for purpose couldn’t they apply for the money through these.

It’s a matter of when rather than if this will happen.

Without payments they’re won’t be a full time farmer left in the country

alps

_Brian wrote: »

I think that oversimplifies things. There is also a third option in that people who want to see this vast sum of public money spent to get the greatest and most pressing return for society. That is no longer food security. Biodiversity and climate are a much bigger need now.
It’s not that I want anyone else’s payments. ALL payments need to be pulled and the money redirected in a fresh system. Every farmer has the option to get back engaged in activities that attract the money, only now it’s focused on a modern need not a historical one.

This point has merit, if you can get over the commitments entered into in current enterprises be it living expenses or bank payments.

Farmers are going to have to move here, and the 30% may be a fair ask, as it is likely to be a figure that some will decide to leave behind....

A decision to opt out would be welcome, and be the beginning of the voluntary decision to separate past production with a modern requirement.

You also need to consider the growing population that just hate farmers and despise payments of any kind.

Say my name

_Brian wrote: »

Not at all.
Prices are being suppressed by direct payments. Better prices would replace the direct payment which can be redirected elsewhere.

Plus if the money was available for schemes better fit for purpose couldn’t they apply for the money through these.

It’s a matter of when rather than if this will happen.

I used to think that way ..when I first came on here about 10 years ago.

I've come to the belief that the CAP has little bearing on the price that the farmer receives here.
It's a global market now. Especially for food. The powers that be want to ensure there's no price differences for food globally.
Go into your supermarket and count the nations what stock the shelves. Just because Tommy in leitrim stops cattle farming doesn't mean the price of beef rises.

_Brian

I think while there are many that hate it’s as much a case that they become more and more generationally distant from any farming connections and so are apathetic towards farming.
They see Irish beef, lamb, pork, milk being sold sort cheap in shops and farmers taking a massive chunk of tax payers money to then subsidise their loss making, really lads, it’s an insane situation.
Report after report is showing pesticides like mcpa increasing in waterways like the Shannon basin, being used by a group of mostly loss making individuals who are in receipt of taxpayers money to keep them doing it.

_Brian

Panch18 wrote: »

Without payments they’re won’t be a full time farmer left in the country

There’s no god given right to famr a specific way if you rely on public money to keep you at it.

Surely if you need this payment to keep you on the land then take it for biodiversity measures and not just to do what’s been done for the last 40years. Farms aren’t working history museums, they need to change, particularly if it’s public money that you say is keeping the afloat.

Im Not saying take away the money., I’m saying receiving it needs to be shifted to a different criteria. Real criteria with measurable outcomes, not bird boxes on fence posts.

Say my name

_Brian wrote: »

IBiodiversity and climate are a much bigger need now.
.

This is a part of these wilder groups in this country linking these two together that I have a problem with.
There's nothing I've seen from any of them that would benefit the climate.

This is going to make them uncomfortable but if you really wanted to make a change globally and to bring the carbon dioxide level down. The plan would be to grow a fast growing biomass in Ireland and then lock that into a solid carbon locked away for hundreds or thousands of years.
Realistically the crop that does that here is sitka spruce. Then convert that to biochar.
But they've a real hatred of that tree.

If it's not turned to biochar it's part of the carbon cycle and people are only gasbagging.

Panch18

_Brian wrote: »

There’s no god given right to famr a specific way if you rely on public money to keep you at it.

Surely if you need this payment to keep you on the land then take it for biodiversity measures and not just to do what’s been done for the last 40years. Farms aren’t working history museums, they need to change, particularly if it’s public money that you say is keeping the afloat.

Im Not saying take away the money., I’m saying receiving it needs to be shifted to a different criteria. Real criteria with measurable outcomes, not bird boxes on fence posts.

The problem is that because the farmer is the recipient of the cap payment a lot of people assume he is the beneficiary of it. When in fact there are thousands and thousands of jobs in the department, teagasc, glanbia et al, Larry et al and a whole host of other business who are the real beneficiaries of it.

Secondly we are farming in a specific way because of the public, apparently consumers want all these rules and regulations which we farm by which puts us at a distinct competitive disadvantage. So if you want the rules and regulations then you can pay for them

Thirdly what your plan will do is only further increase what a viable farm becomes and basically make the vast majority of farms in the country unviable, at an even faster rate than is already happening. This only puts more money in the hands of “big business”. Which is why part time beef lads can afford to make feck all from cattle but still keep at them

I would actually say that off farm income has a far bigger impact/distortion on beef profitability than CAP

_Brian

Say my name wrote: »

I used to think that way ..when I first came on here about 10 years ago.

I've come to the belief that the CAP has little bearing on the price that the farmer receives here.
It's a global market now. Especially for food. The powers that be want to ensure there's no price differences for food globally.
Go into your supermarket and count the nations what stock the shelves. Just because Tommy in leitrim stops cattle farming doesn't mean the price of beef rises.

It’s not a global market for Irish beef though.

We’ve always seen, when beef is in tight supply the price lifts.

And as I said, couldn’t farms apply to be involved in the biodiversity based payments that replace the traditional bos

Panch18

_Brian wrote: »

It’s not a global market for Irish beef though.

We’ve always seen, when beef is in tight supply the price lifts.

What????

90% of our beef is exported, it doesn’t get any more global than that

_Brian

Panch18 wrote: »

What????

90% of our beef is exported, it doesn’t get any more global than that

90% of the beef produced on farms where 60-70% male nonprofit at all on the beef. So why is it being produced from a farmers perspective. It’s great for Goodman and contest we produce so much beef because you can be dam sure he’s been getting richer in it. But purely from a farmers perspective what odds that we export it when so many aren’t making any profit - busy fools is the term used in other businesses when your working at something Amd earning nothing by doing it.

Say my name

_Brian wrote: »

It’s not a global market for Irish beef though.

We’ve always seen, when beef is in tight supply the price lifts.

We're getting more Global by the day.
Only for trump your friend throwing a few shapes at it.

With Biden coming in, TTIP will be finalized. And ??

Say my name

_Brian wrote: »

90% of the beef produced on farms where 60-70% male nonprofit at all on the beef. So why is it being produced from a farmers perspective. It’s great for Goodman and contest we produce so much beef because you can be dam sure he’s been getting richer in it. But purely from a farmers perspective what odds that we export it when so many aren’t making any profit - busy fools is the term used in other businesses when your working at something Amd earning nothing by doing it.

From your own experience.
Why do you keep cattle if you don't make a profit?

_Brian

Say my name wrote: »

From your own experience.
Why do you keep cattle if you don't make a profit?

Did I say I wasn’t making a profit ?

We’ve worked our system round over the years, including dropping
Numbers to a stage where were in the black.

Not by enough but we’re there.

When we took over it was a typical loss making small suckler farm on marginal land.

We’ve reduced chemical inputs and increased and diversified biodiversity while doing it.

Donegalforever

gozunda wrote: »

He claims thst he is" creating an area for native wildlife" but at the same time wants to introduce "brown bear, wild boar, eurasian lynx, grey wolf etc and let them roam the land".

There'll by fuk all native wildlife left after that lot get started ...

He may have got the idea from a RTE tv programme fairly recently of a Solicitor in Co. Donegal who started a similar creation.
The difference is that the man in Co. Donegal did not "beg" donations.
Of course this latest one may be a sham and people should be cautious.

Say my name

_Brian wrote: »

Did I say I wasn’t making a profit ?

We’ve worked our system round over the years, including dropping
Numbers to a stage where were in the black.

Not by enough but we’re there.

When we took over it was a typical loss making small suckler farm on marginal land.

How do you know others make a loss?

Birdnuts

Say my name wrote: »

This is a part of these wilder groups in this country linking these two together that I have a problem with.
There's nothing I've seen from any of them that would benefit the climate.

This is going to make them uncomfortable but if you really wanted to make a change globally and to bring the carbon dioxide level down. The plan would be to grow a fast growing biomass in Ireland and then lock that into a solid carbon locked away for hundreds or thousands of years.
Realistically the crop that does that here is sitka spruce. Then convert that to biochar.
But they've a real hatred of that tree.

If it's not turned to biochar it's part of the carbon cycle and people are only gasbagging.

In fairness there is strong support among most people in the know for the restoration of Carbon storing wetlands like bogs, fens etc. Also current forestry policies based on Spruce monocultures have caused alot of damage to these same habitats and water quality in general. If farmers are expected to jump threw hoops to comply with various environmental/societal needs then the forestry sector here needs to suck it up too - especially given the amount of tax payers money they pocket!!

_Brian

Say my name wrote: »

How do you know others make a loss?

It’s widely reported across the industry.

Last figures I’ve seen was maybe two years ago from Teagasc and 70% of beef farms we’re loss making with I think half adding substantial % of bps to keep things on the road.

NcdJd

Had a good conversation with one of the Veg lads today. It's in a very bad place with long established big growers starting to leave the business. He said even when you scale up and are efficient it's not enough anymore. Prices are just going down and down all the time. The way he's talking and he's a very progressive farmer is that there won't be a lot of Irish veg on the shelves in years to come. You'll need to either grow it yourself or get your heads of York cabbage from Spain ( without the green outer leaves unfortunately as they don't travel well )

Sad state of affairs that should be covered by Ear to the Ground except in next week's episode it's about Darragh getting a bloody massage..

Say my name

Birdnuts wrote: »

In fairness there is strong support among most people in the know for the restoration of Carbon storing wetlands like bogs, fens etc. Also current forestry policies based on Spruce monocultures have caused alot of damage to these same habitats and water quality in general. If farmers are expected to jump threw hoops to comply with various environmental/societal needs then the forestry sector here needs to suck it up too - especially given the amount of tax payers money they pocket!!

But if we restore wetlands we increase methane emissions.
Which is never ever mentioned just cos...natural.

On a co2 point for reducing the 410 figure to back down below 300. We need the fastest growing plants this planet can muster in the areas where they grow fastest.
This point is never mentioned either just again. ..natural.
Just somewhere for people to walk on bank holidays is all people really want in this country and tell themselves I'm stopping climate change.

Birdnuts

NcdJd wrote: »

Had a good conversation with one of the Veg lads today. It's in a very bad place with long established big growers starting to leave the business. He said even when you scale up and are efficient it's not enough anymore. Prices are just going down and down all the time. The way he's talking and he's a very progressive farmer is that there won't be a lot of Irish veg on the shelves in years to come. You'll need to either grow it yourself or get your heads of York cabbage from Spain ( without the green outer leaves unfortunately as they don't travel well )

Sad state of affairs that should be covered by Ear to the Ground except in next week's episode it's about Darragh getting a bloody massage..

Its a very sad state of affairs which I blame largely on the old CAP model that undermined sustainable mixed farming and pushed specialization and intensification. DAFM and other state agencies have blood on their hands too as they continue to relentlessly push that model to the extent that any sector outside of Big Dairy has been more or less forgotten about by the likes of Teagasc et al:(