Proposed suckler cow subsidy

Grueller wrote: »

Ok. Our glas training advisor was giving out about not being allowed to use certain chemicals to control these weeds and this leading to them being choked out by weeds. I don't have wild bird cover so am not really up to speed on it. My auld lad has it though.

We didn't spray before sowing this year as the ****e weather didn't give us the opportunity after the cattle had grazed/tramped it down.
Redshank was an issue here and competed with the barely and linseed but I suppose their flowers gave bees/insects sustenance before the linseed flowered.
I was worried in case we got an inspection as the "crop" was not as good as the previous years. I think it was partially down to the unavailability of oat seed (which we normally grow) and the fact the we had not sprayed pre sowing. Personally it annoys me that we have to douse the area with Roundup to fulfill the requirements of a supposed Environmental Scheme

wrangler wrote: »

There's 7 or 8000 signatures now, they might as well try it now. Looks like it was well supported, nothing to lose , all to gain

There were 73K suckler farmers in Ireland in 2016. Figures may not have changed that much since then but if the have the rest of the figure remain much the same. Considering that most online polls have multiple voting as well as people that are not in the farming sector voting. A realistic figure is that about 4-5% of suckler farmers consider it necessary at present.

If you look at suckler farms in general over 50%(38K) have 10 cows or less and another 20% have between 10-20 cows. Any new scheme will be from Pillar two funding as that is where the excess money is at present and more than likley it will be channelled like the welfare scheme. So in reality it would not be another 200/cow but 60-100 extra/cow.

What will this mean for the majority of suckler farmers it will mean a payment in the high hundreds for there with 10-20 cows a payment between 1000-1500 euro. But the terms and conditions will erode the payment. As well as having to take days off maybe to attend training and meetings. The real winner will be Teagasc more than likly they will be a requirement to attend training and maybe join Discussion group's etc. Look at the DG's at present Teagasc are getting 500/head and still want farmers to stump up another couple hundred to facilate the group.

The processors will be happy because they will have a group of farmers trapped to produce cheap beef for them at a loss. IFA will then spin this as a reason not to have a flat greening rate post 2019. The FJ will clap itself on the back as being a saviour of suckler farmers but ignore the damage it will do to farming in general or to the fact that suckler farmers are trapped in a low margin business

If the FJ was interested in west of Ireland farmers or suckler farmers in general it would look for this excess Pillar 2 money be directed either into ANC payments or into enhancing present GLAS payments. As Willfarmer said an area based suckler extensivation payment with those farmers having the choice as to stocking levels would also be an option.

Wrangler a lot of you posts show your ignorance of what happens west of the Shannon or you act dumb regarding it. The proposal of a subsidy would be of benifit only to suckler farmer's on good land, and pedigree bull producers who with there land have choices of what they can farm. You also showed who you were backing when you spoke abot an extra 10k in income for to achieve this a suckler farmer even if it was an extra 200/head would need 50 suckler cows. As well once again we would see a quota system and a trading of entitlements to the benefit of auctioneers and farmers retiring or those exiting to go milking.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No need about2-3 million a year to pay lads to certify and check the grading machines. Then 10-20 million to help farmer set up prodcer groups who would deal directly with factory's. This would stop a lot of the messing and price managment that goes on. As well remove access to CMMS to processors and let producer group managment control this function for QA.

Producer groups don't seem to be a runner, doesn't seem to be a willingness to put the work in,.... not too many fond of voluntary commitment.
Some are successful but it takes work

Bass Reeves wrote: »

There were 73K suckler farmers in Ireland in 2016. Figures may not have changed that much since then but if the have the rest of the figure remain much the same. Considering that most online polls have multiple voting as well as people that are not in the farming sector voting. A realistic figure is that about 4-5% of suckler farmers consider it necessary at present.

If you look at suckler farms in general over 50%(38K) have 10 cows or less and another 20% have between 10-20 cows. Any new scheme will be from Pillar two funding as that is where the excess money is at present and more than likley it will be channelled like the welfare scheme. So in reality it would not be another 200/cow but 60-100 extra/cow.

What will this mean for the majority of suckler farmers it will mean a payment in the high hundreds for there with 10-20 cows a payment between 1000-1500 euro. But the terms and conditions will erode the payment. As well as having to take days off maybe to attend training and meetings. The real winner will be Teagasc more than likly they will be a requirement to attend training and maybe join Discussion group's etc. Look at the DG's at present Teagasc are getting 500/head and still want farmers to stump up another couple hundred to facilate the group.

The processors will be happy because they will have a group of farmers trapped to produce cheap beef for them at a loss. IFA will then spin this as a reason not to have a flat greening rate post 2019. The FJ will clap itself on the back as being a saviour of suckler farmers but ignore the damage it will do to farming in general or to the fact that suckler farmers are trapped in a low margin business

If the FJ was interested in west of Ireland farmers or suckler farmers in general it would look for this excess Pillar 2 money be directed either into ANC payments or into enhancing present GLAS payments. As Willfarmer said an area based suckler extensivation payment with those farmers having the choice as to stocking levels.

Wrangler a lot of you posts show your ignorance of what happens west of the Shannon or you act dumb regarding it. The proposal of a subsidy would be of benifit only to suckler farmer's on good land, and pedigree bull producers who with there land have choices of what they can farm. You also showed who you were backing when you spoke abot an extra 10k in income for to achieve this a suckler farmer even if it was an extar 200/head would need 50 suckler cows. As well would we once again we would see a quota system and a trading of entitlements to the benefit of auctioneers and farmers retiring or those exiting to go milking.

Just a few points,
There's no trading of quota in the sheep welfare...nor should there be.
i'd hope a cow scheme would be the same
I thought I referred to 5 -10000 subsidy because the average IFA member has 38ha and i don't think the national average is much different than that. 25 to 50 cows should be within the reach of the ''average farmer'', only place I referred specifically to 10000 was in my own case when I had 50 cows,
I also wrote about a 20 cow herd too so don't know where your criticisms are coming from. We're all talking a about mythical farmers here, wouldn't say there's too many with cow tyings either
If €200/cow is there for the asking and 10000 want it, why not, it's up to everyone themselves after that.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No need about2-3 million a year to pay lads to certify and check the grading machines. Then 10-20 million to help farmer set up prodcer groups who would deal directly with factory's. This would stop a lot of the messing and price managment that goes on. As well remove access to CMMS to processors and let producer group managment control this function for QA.

You're definitely dreaming now, if you could withdraw cattle until that's delivered you might have a slight hope otherwise No Ted

Limestone Cowboy wrote: »

You'd nearly feel guilty to be a suckler farmer reading this thread. Not sure how you'd justify a 200e suckler payment but if the ones that are there go the west is dead in my opinion. It's bad enough as it is at the moment. To give an example there's only 9 lads based locally on our local football team out of 25 and 5 of us are suckler farmers and the other 4 lads are doing trades. All the rest are living away in Galway, Dublin, limerick and Cork. If the subsidys went I don't think we'd be here either.

I'm don't like people building houses in the country, young people are too removed from the land nowadays and the way dogs are killing sheep is evidence of this, but still I see that the countryside will die if its not well subsidised

freedominacup wrote: »

So roughly speaking the other 30% have in excess of 100 cows on average? You don't hear too many laments for/from them. What is the plan for the 50k odd farmers running less than 20 cows? Part time hardship in perpetuity? Is the long term plan to let demographics deal with it? If so there's going to be a great deal of suffering in the mean time.

If they get the €200 payment it will average something less than €2500 euros each. What does this achieve? If it's the difference between dying and surviving what's the point long term? If it's the difference between a family having a few quid for the extras or wondering why there's so much month left at the end of the money I could see some point in it.

Despite all the apparent profit in dairying average herd size has almost quadrupled since area aid payments were introduced and dairy farm numbers have reduced by over 60% in the same time period.

Sucklers aren't going to be the salvation for any rural area imo. The population in my area is stable or rising slightly for the past thirty years. There were two farmers sons and no farmer on the intermediate hurling team last year. We are lucky to be close to waterford city and unemployment is low. Access to jobs is our salvation and it's the only thing that will arrest the decline in any rural area. I'm aware that my knowledge of the dynamics and realities of farming west of the Shannon would be akin to a fourth generation dubs so don't take the head off me for my ignorance.

You have hit the nub of the matter, As I stated over 50% and I should have put 20%+. 76% of farmer have 20 suckler cows or less and another 10% between 20-30. Below are exact figure.
http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/almost-40000-suckler-herds-have-less-than-10-cows/

The problem is the higher the numbers of suckler cows in herds are more than likly in area's of better land where farmers have the choice to change farming systems.

The west of Ireland stretching from west Cork to Donegal is an area that is in most of it a tough area to farm We could plant it and decimate the rural population as it could effect Tourism to an extent that is not even imagined by those in other parts of the country. Loads of it is designated HH or SAC and these farmers are limited as what they can do. We can all ignore envoirmental schemes but these farmers who should be paid the most by the way of Greening and GLAS are prevented by red tape from getting meaningfull payments.

Once again we see a propaganda attempt to attribute a this as a scheme that will be targeted at them. Wrangler statement that 25-50 should be in the reach of an average farmer show who the agenda is really targeted at. Just like REPS was hijacked for the benefit of the dairy industry for a few years and the knowledge transfer scheme was hijacked to fund Teagasc this schemes will not be to the benefit of the majority of suckler farmers and especially those In the west of Ireland and rural area's.

I agree that jobs are the answer and Tourism provides a large amount of these jobs along the west coast. The last thing tourism wants is large swats of scenic area's planted or attempts at intensive farming in places it has failed in the past. Hill sheep farming even with a ewe subsidy is disappearing and they are now trying to encourage the restocking of hills and commonages with sheep. The last thing they need is another brain fart of a scheme that will deliver a nice fat payment to those on better land who have farming choices but will do SFA for these rural area's.

I am 30 years away from these area's now. But you can could in most locality's count the amount of farmers on one hand that have more than 15-20 cows. Even most of these would benefit more from Willfarmers idea or targeted greening or boosted ANC payments rather than a scheme that will benefit those with larger herds or Teagsc.


Wrangler you made a statement about what is the harm if 6-8K want a suckler payment. The harm is it is redirecting money away from where it should be rightly targeted. Excess Pillar 2 funds should not be used as a slush fund for Teagasc or farmers that IFA represent to the exclusion of where these funds should go

PS by the way the local hurling team had 6 farmers sons on it. However only one was a full time farmer.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Limestone if the scheme was not headage based but rather an extensivation type scheme base on a per HA basis. If ANC payment was enhanced and down the line Greening was flat payment as well as GLAS being enhanced would you
and other suckler farmers around you be better off. .

Anyone around here has more to gain out of area based payments as opposed to headage based one, without a doubt we would be better off but we aren't doing too bad to be getting what we are at the moment either. There is very little intensive farming around here anyway, the nature of the land doesn't allow for it. There is a good bit of uncertainty at the moment with brexit in particular and the effects it will have on us, seems a funny time to go looking for more money when there is a good chance the pot is going to get smaller. I'd be happy enough if we could hold onto what we have for now.

wrangler wrote: »

I'm don't like people building houses in the country, young people are too removed from the land nowadays and the way dogs are killing sheep is evidence of this, but still I see that the countryside will die if its not well subsidised

I can’t agree with you there. People should be allowed build in the country.
I was told buy a Councillor that I would have to get used to living in a town. This was at a time when I had collosill amount of stock and worked on the farm since I left school. Took me about three years to get planning.To many dictators in that regard wrangler

Cattlepen wrote: »

I can’t agree with you there. People should be allowed build in the country.
I was told buy a Councillor that I would have to get used to living in a town. This was at a time when I had collosill amount of stock and worked on the farm since I left school. Took me about three years to get planning.To many dictators in that regard wrangler

I've had a few bad experiences on a lane that there was never houses and now there's eight, couldn't get one crowd to keep in their dogs in until eventually they did harm to inlamb ewes.
Now they're complaining about dirt on the road, FFS, Wait till the guy that has my land rented starts to draw slurry. Anyway not my problem now but you see what I mean

K.G. wrote: »

Would we better off sticking the money into rural broadband

Better off giving it to the finishers

Cattlepen wrote: »

I can’t agree with you there. People should be allowed build in the country.
I was told buy a Councillor that I would have to get used to living in a town. This was at a time when I had collosill amount of stock and worked on the farm since I left school. Took me about three years to get planning.To many dictators in that regard wrangler

The inconsistency is the worst part. If one off housing is banned thats fine but there was a acse here lically of a woman that had a bit of land and a site for her son but he couldnt get planning and he aold the land and built his house somewhere else but a few years later a lad with pull came in and built a line of 2 story houses .the woman committed suicide awhile after that happened

Obviously the guy that proposed the €300, has haggled before. Go high and settle low, as they say.

There is an article on page 10 of the FI today regarding sucklers. A coupled payment in the order of 200/head would cost about 18% of the basic scheme if the money came from there. Micheal Creed told the IFA AGM lastr week that a 200 euro payment might undermine the BDGP scheme. If he is right then suckler farmers would only get 80/head extra on the cow and lose on the BPS.

The ICSA make the point that it is the larger farmers who would mostly be on better land that are exiting. The map with the reduction accross counties shows this with Waterford -18% andTipp, Kilkenny, Wexfordin the 9-11% mark. But along the western seaboard with the exception of Donegal the figures are sub 5%.

As for the meeting in Offaly I have been at one or two like that inside and outside farming. Usually lads that are vocal are not willing to change. It can be at a trade union meeting or a farmers meeting.

On a side note was parked outside a shed this morning filled with AA bullocks in the 650-700kg mark. On adlib ration and silage some already over fat. IMO these cattle should have been killed two weeks ago. Price of 10c/kg will have cost him 35/head and on any he loses AA bonus another 50-70/head as well as the over fat penalty.. Lads finishing cattle out of sheds are again getting it in the back of the neck. It is immaterial what breed they are.