Birdnuts wrote: » Regards this proposed sub - is there a limit in the number of suckler cows per herd number/owner it will be paid on?? I hope so cos if its unlimited it will simply end up boosting the bottom line of Larry et al.
Grueller wrote: » K.G. wrote: » Daftest thing ive ever heard.why not just give straight to larry.nevermind from an emissions point of view.looking at journal every week and seeing some of taxpayers money already wasted on buildings for suckers that makes no sense on hobby farms.if any crowd should get a sub its the tillage men considering the battering they ve taken and their importance nationally.lets face it 90 %of suckler farmers could jack it in the morning and it would make little difference to their standard of living as they have jobs. The tillage sector? I have to disagree completely. They are producing a product from land that is of sufficient quality to run any enterprise you like. Dairy or whatever you like. That is not the case for the majority of suckler men. As for tillage men not having off farm jobs. They are busy for about six weeks of the year and have pucks of time to run off farm jobs. Whatever about subsidies and whether they should exist, I can see that argument but to give it to tillage men who are on top quality land. Sorry, not seeing it.
K.G. wrote: » Daftest thing ive ever heard.why not just give straight to larry.nevermind from an emissions point of view.looking at journal every week and seeing some of taxpayers money already wasted on buildings for suckers that makes no sense on hobby farms.if any crowd should get a sub its the tillage men considering the battering they ve taken and their importance nationally.lets face it 90 %of suckler farmers could jack it in the morning and it would make little difference to their standard of living as they have jobs.
K.G. wrote: » So you really not looking for a suckler sub as such but you feel you need support as there is not enough margin in keeping a suckler on difficult land .would it make more sense to give a sub to reduce numbers by 20% thereby reducing costs and lowering risks associated with bad weather and fodder.
Bullocks wrote: » Wonder will you have had to be in the beef data scheme to qualify for a new premium ? I hope not cos we didn't sign up for it !
K.G. wrote: » Or would it be better to give a tax refund instead considering there is so many part timers involved.just thinking if its to support the industry in general shouldnt there be a support to encourage dairy farmers to use contental breeds.
charolais0153 wrote: » Dairy farmers dont need any bloody support. The suckler farmers that need this subsidy arent the ones who pay tax
wrangler wrote: » Fixed costs would still be the same, you'd hope that sucklers would at least break even, only a fool would go to work every day to pay to keep cows.It needs to be attractive now to keep cows, young people are too well educated to accept any less when they do concede to maintain the land in difficult terrain Envronmentally it's better to subsidise farming than farmers walking away, some parts of this country would depress you to drive through
Butcher Boy wrote: » I have been to a lot of weanling sales this past year down here in west cork and Kerry and I can tell you the amount of them making the E1000 was very few.in macroom last Saturday 370 kg ch bulls E810 after along struggle.
Bullocks wrote: » It's rare that I would agree with you on these matters but I think you're right here . I think a better environmental type scheme that can be worked into ANC with farmers is a better option than a blanket subsidy on sucklers .
CloughCasey1 wrote: » I dont get it. Why would a lad keep a 700 kg cow that eats more than a store and rear a middling calf that gets €800 in the mart and then has the hand out for the €200 needed to get to the magic €1000 mark??????? If he bred the right stock and had the clue and cop on of a decent business man and produced shapey export type weanlings he could keep the cap on his head and not looking for it to be filled. Farming is a fecking business not a right. I probably am going to get a pasting for even saying the above but i dont give a toss. Is the definition of insanity not doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?? Or am i misssing the trick here entirely?
Willfarman wrote: » Planting wild bird cover suitable to sustain little more than vermin and at the same time trimming berry laden white and black thorn hedges is indeed silly but the traditional meadows around me are lovely. Definitely an increase in ground nesting birds. (Good farmer that keeps rushes in check) An extensification type payment would benefit the farmers in marginal ground the most. Coupling payment to a cow in ground that has limitations in what it can sustain without bought in feed will do nothing for the pockets of these aging farmers or part time younger guys.
Cavanjack wrote: » What does the journal or whoever is driving the purposed €200 subsidie for suckler suggest take the hit for this? Will they knock a bit off everyone's sfp to pay for it? Can't see them raising the budget for it.
wrangler wrote: » too easy to draw the money and do nothing in environmental schemes, environment is too important to be left in the hands of Department of environment.....I hate to see the wildbird cover and that grassland mixed species one. Much better that farmers maintain a good level of management, I know there's some right messers out there but most farmers can be encouraged to maintain a level of management.... I've seen some lovely crops of ragworth being cut in the mixed species one....it'll be monospecies with that management
Sheep breeder wrote: » The problem for the man with sucklers is are they are so addictive.
CloughCasey1 wrote: » Ah but the likes of that lad is the enemy. He is looked at as no better than the knacker. Waste disposal for the dairy boys and glutting the market for the rest. And please dont give me guff about bad land. I was doing a scheme back the far end of Lettermore and met one guy and got talking. He said come down here and ill show ya what I have. He had a big newly constructed byre and 14 cows chained up with the finest calves I have seen in any field or yard in the country. Ave price 1050 per weanling over last 5 years. If he can do it on rock and rushes then there is no excuse for the rest.
CloughCasey1 wrote: » That makes you as bad as the lads proping up the narrow strip of wall between the bookies and the pub smoking at 11.30am on a Wedneaday morning.
wrangler wrote: » Giving a subsidy won't involve them buying in more feed if it's based what they had in previous years. Also if there's a subsidy on cows these ageing farmers can pay a bit of labour, there isn't a farm in the country that wouldn't welcome five or ten grand
Sheep breeder wrote: » Sorry have to disagree about the wild bird cover which is a good crop when shown properly for birds and lovely to see the flocks of small birds feeding and the pheasants.
Willfarman wrote: » No doubt a few bob would be welcome but direct production payments are not the way to ensure it stays in the farmers pocket. And a payment for a reduced herd needent PRECLUDE the aging farmer from employing some help!!!
Sheep breeder wrote: » How many weanlings are exported each year and if every Cow in the country produced an export weanlings where would they all find homes.
