Cap reform convergence

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope. Land must be kept in GAEC. To do that the lowland farmer can top it two or three times a year.

How do you top a hill or mountain?

But isn't that why lads had / have donkeys?

I dont know if all hills or mountains are stocked correctly, to keep them in GAEC? But I would have said that GAEC is a low enough bar to meet to be honest?

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

But isn't that why lads had / have donkeys?

I dont know if all hills or mountains are stocked correctly, to keep them in GAEC? But I would have said that GAEC is a low enough bar to meet to be honest?

Your point was that you could leave it idle, with hill ground you cannot, the eye in the sky or ground inspections will get you. There's the same level of inspection on hills as any other land. Hill farmers have to return census same as other farmers. Types of stock is open to anyone.

MayoAreMagic

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope. Land must be kept in GAEC. To do that the lowland farmer can top it two or three times a year.

How do you top a hill or mountain?

Hardly going to stop you from getting an off farm job in fairness. People who work in an office and never set foot on a farm mow their lawn more often than that...

Hill farmers must keep hills in good condition. Not too short and not too long. They also have to deal with a steady stream of hillwalkers, many of whom think they know more than themselves and need answer to nobody, particularly around not keeping their dogs, plural, on a lead. Does anyone else have to put up with that on their private property? Furthermore, hill farmers have enclosed lands also, which must adhere to the same regulations as that of a lowland farmer. Either way, it is beside the point. The fact is there is no justification for a piece of good quality farmland getting a higher rate of subsidisation than a poor one.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Hardly going to stop you from getting an off farm job in fairness. People who work in an office and never set foot on a farm mow their lawn more often than that...

Hill farmers must keep hills in good condition. Not too short and not too long. They also have to deal with a steady stream of hillwalkers, many of whom think they know more than themselves and need answer to nobody, particularly around not keeping their dogs, plural, on a lead. Does anyone else have to put up with that on their private property? Furthermore, hill farmers have enclosed lands also, which must adhere to the same regulations as that of a lowland farmer. Either way, it is beside the point. The fact is there is no justification for a piece of good quality farmland getting a higher rate of subsidisation than a poor one.

It wouldn't but I didn't mention employment, if you let hills go wild you'll get lots of big red lines. But comparing topping to animals, there is a vastly increased labour requirement keeping animals for the sake of keeping land in GAEC than keeping a Fergie 35.

I'll repeat what I said before, if I had tillage quality land I wouldn't require subsidies. Got eaten for that before due to people reacting, not thinking.

Deleted User wrote: »

Your point was that you could leave it idle, with hill ground you cannot, the eye in the sky or ground inspections will get you. There's the same level of inspection on hills as any other land. Hill farmers have to return census same as other farmers. Types of stock is open to anyone.

Well, having a few donkeys is hardly a full time occupation...

Sure I could argue that the donkeys on the hill would take less minding than the poor lowland farmer who has to top his lovely flat fields every so often...

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Well, having a few donkeys is hardly a full time occupation...

Sure I could argue that the donkeys on the hill would take less minding than the poor lowland farmer who has to top his lovely flat fields every so often...

Good practice to check animals at least once a day. Add up the hour figures over a year. I wouldn't rest too much weight on that argument

Deleted User wrote: »

Good practice to check animals at least once a day. Add up the hour figures over a year. I wouldn't rest too much weight on that argument

So do all hill farmers check all their animals every day? I didnt think so...

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

So do all hill farmers check all their animals every day? I didnt think so...

Even if not, add up the hours.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Hardly going to stop you from getting an off farm job in fairness. People who work in an office and never set foot on a farm mow their lawn more often than that...

Hill farmers must keep hills in good condition. Not too short and not too long. They also have to deal with a steady stream of hillwalkers, many of whom think they know more than themselves and need answer to nobody, particularly around not keeping their dogs, plural, on a lead. Does anyone else have to put up with that on their private property? Furthermore, hill farmers have enclosed lands also, which must adhere to the same regulations as that of a lowland farmer. Either way, it is beside the point. The fact is there is no justification for a piece of good quality farmland getting a higher rate of subsidisation than a poor one.

I dont envy you hill farming at all. The hill walkers would probably be the worst... :mad:
Where I am from wouldn't be great land, but where I am now is good land. And the difference in terms of just general ease when dealing with the ground in wet weather is massive...

I would say that whilst lowland farmers might have different issues to deal with, and it is easier to make money from good land than bad land. Its not as if they are rolling in it with the returns from farming...

But, your point of good ground getting a higher rate than bad - yeah, its true. The SFP was put in place as an income support...
It stands to reason that hill farming returns less, so needs more support.

Madisonmenece

I think a payment cap either end of the scale would work, with stocking rate per hectare deciding where on the scale you are. on a dairy farm for instance 3 LU/hec being max (no additional payment for going to 3.5 LU) and say 1 LU/Min which ensures the land is farmed, potentially reduce over stocking.

without taring all with the same brush, but it does appear the farmers with the larger payments are also the ones with very high stocking numbers, driving up rented land prices, feeding high level of concentrates and intensive with chemical fertilizers. (but of course there are good operators out there too)

Deleted User wrote: »

Even if not, add up the hours.

Ah here...

You are saying hill farmers cant be idle, they have to have stock and they have to check them every day(ish)
Lowland farmers also cant be idle, they have to top the fields to make them meet the GAEC.

But now we are arguing as to whether the idle-ness of one is greater than the other?

I would wonder how long it would take both to fall from the GAEC to be honest. I would say you could do nothing for a good while on both before it would actually impact you...

But, maybe idle was the wrong word. Maybe the wording should have been "almost idle" or "do feck all with the land" :rolleyes:

Madisonmenece wrote: »

I think a payment cap either end of the scale would work, with stocking rate per hectare deciding where on the scale you are. on a dairy farm for instance 3 LU/hec being max (no additional payment for going to 3.5 LU) and say 1 LU/Min which ensures the land is farmed, potentially reduce over stocking.

without taring all with the same brush, but it does appear the farmers with the larger payments are also the ones with very high stocking numbers, driving up rented land prices, feeding high level of concentrates and intensive with chemical fertilizers. (but of course there are good operators out there too)

Thats tying the SFP back to production, which wont happen...

wrangler

JohnChadwick wrote: »

Where can you find out what your greening entitlements are per hectare?

Greening is about 23% of the single farm payment

Your full payment is SFP plus 23%

MayoAreMagic

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

I dont envy you hill farming at all. The hill walkers would probably be the worst... :mad:
Where I am from wouldn't be great land, but where I am now is good land. And the difference in terms of just general ease when dealing with the ground in wet weather is massive...

I would say that whilst lowland farmers might have different issues to deal with, and it is easier to make money from good land than bad land. Its not as if they are rolling in it with the returns from farming...

But, your point of good ground getting a higher rate than bad - yeah, its true. The SFP was put in place as an income support...
It stands to reason that hill farming returns less, so needs more support.

Im not really trying to turn it into a 'hill farmers have it harder, no lowland farming is way harder etc etc' They are both models of farming with differences and similarities, positives and negatives in their own right. That would be my stance anyway. I feel that the attitudes displayed at times doesnt fit with this view. As you say, the hill walkers are a pain at times - this is often down not to their hill walking, but their attitude and how they view the farmer whose land they are on. They think, 'ah sure what does this fella know about it, he is climbing up the hill with a pair of wellingtons on him ffs, my dog isnt interested in his sheep' etc etc.
Well at times I feel that lowland farmers, and their lobby, display a similar attitude towards farmers of poorer lands, and this is manifested in the view that they should get a lower rate of pay per hectare. In any other walk of life that would never be deemed acceptable. So why is it here? I havent heard a single reasonable suggestion as to why the auld mollickers on the hills should get a lower rate. If anyone has one Id genuinely be interested to hear the reasoning behind it.

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Ah here...

You are saying hill farmers cant be idle, they have to have stock and they have to check them every day(ish)
Lowland farmers also cant be idle, they have to top the fields to make them meet the GAEC.

But now we are arguing as to whether the idle-ness of one is greater than the other?

I would wonder how long it would take both to fall from the GAEC to be honest. I would say you could do nothing for a good while on both before it would actually impact you...

But, maybe idle was the wrong word. Maybe the wording should have been "almost idle" or "do feck all with the land" :rolleyes:

I was clarifying a point you made about leaving land idle, that if either farmer does that s/he'll get red lined as neither land will be in GAEC. The labour/hours factor is just another related issue.

Seeing as most hill and mountain can't be mechanically topped that farmer is required to own animals to eat that land to keep it in GAEC. Looking after animals takes more man hours than parking a tractor in a shed for a month.

You're fond of the ould donkey - available to any farmer, but let X number of ewes to a hill with X+ other ewes from how many other share holders farms, you must walk that land to ensure your stock is where it's supposed to be from a GAEC POV, theft and general hefting. Any way that cake is cut it adds up to more time compared to topping fields over the growing season adequately.

As for how long would it take land to be ineligible, that depends. I can say with the type of grasses that grow on hills a fire could wipe out (make that land ineligible) pretty much your entire income in a matter of hours.

I agree with Mayo's point, one farmer is picking a system on lowland, where as the hill farmer has a requirement placed upon them. The choice then is either you accept that and farm, or you don't and don't farm.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Im not really trying to turn it into a 'hill farmers have it harder, no lowland farming is way harder etc etc' They are both models of farming with differences and similarities, positives and negatives in their own right. That would be my stance anyway. I feel that the attitudes displayed at times doesnt fit with this view. As you say, the hill walkers are a pain at times - this is often down not to their hill walking, but their attitude and how they view the farmer whose land they are on. They think, 'ah sure what does this fella know about it, he is climbing up the hill with a pair of wellingtons on him ffs, my dog isnt interested in his sheep' etc etc.
Well at times I feel that lowland farmers, and their lobby, display a similar attitude towards farmers of poorer lands, and this is manifested in the view that they should get a lower rate of pay per hectare. In any other walk of life that would never be deemed acceptable. So why is it here? I havent heard a single reasonable suggestion as to why the auld mollickers on the hills should get a lower rate. If anyone has one Id genuinely be interested to hear the reasoning behind it.

I could say that its rooted in the WFP starting as headage, and so you were paid on production - a subsidy to compensate for poor prices on every head of animal you had...
Roll forward 20 years, and people farming who were farming in the headage years probably still have that mentality...

But, I think the biggest reason is for some to get an increase in payment, someone else has to lose. And no one wants to lose.
The ones with the higher payment would probably be what you call lowland, so they are trying to hang onto what they have...
I imagine its not that they don't want to hill farmers to get a higher payment, its they dont want hill farmers to get a higher payment if it means they lose money...
Very understandable really...

Ah, its a mess really...

I have very conflicting views on SFP/BPS...
My biggest issue is should it support full time farmers more?
Its all well and good for me to get a BPS, for what I class as a hobby (dont worry, its not a big BPS

) - but I don't know if its right?
I dont know how you would enact such a change, or police it...

Cran

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

I could say that its rooted in the WFP starting as headage, and so you were paid on production - a subsidy to compensate for poor prices on every head of animal you had...
Roll forward 20 years, and people farming who were farming in the headage years probably still have that mentality...

But, I think the biggest reason is for some to get an increase in payment, someone else has to lose. And no one wants to lose.
The ones with the higher payment would probably be what you call lowland, so they are trying to hang onto what they have...
I imagine its not that they don't want to hill farmers to get a higher payment, its they dont want hill farmers to get a higher payment if it means they lose money...
Very understandable really...

Ah, its a mess really...

I have very conflicting views on SFP/BPS...
My biggest issue is should it support full time farmers more?
Its all well and good for me to get a BPS, for what I class as a hobby (dont worry, its not a big BPS ) - but I don't know if its right?
I dont know how you would enact such a change, or police it...

I hate the part time rubbish tbh, what if you have 2 fellas either side of a ditch sale size farm and one lad is full time gets 45k & is useless farmer but Daddy worked up great sfp. Other lad super farmer maybe bad circumstances during reference years only gets 10k, so has a job to survive. Should the 2nd be penalized, whole system is a mess tbh

MayoAreMagic

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

But, I think the biggest reason is for some to get an increase in payment, someone else has to lose. And no one wants to lose.
The ones with the higher payment would probably be what you call lowland, so they are trying to hang onto what they have...
I imagine its not that they don't want to hill farmers to get a higher payment, its they dont want hill farmers to get a higher payment if it means they lose money...
Very understandable really...

Ah, its a mess really...

Yes absolutely, I understand completely that that is what it is. But when that is the case, then maybe lets just say that, rather than these ideas that one gang is deserving and the other isnt. It is just disingenuous.

Re people just wanting to hang onto their money, well it isnt their money, it is eu monies awarded to whom they see fit. Some were on the gravy train in comparison to others - now the eu is looking to redress that imbalance. All things being equal and I know that it isnt going to happen, but theoretically they should probably be swapping entitlement values between the two, to balance up the last number of years. In respect to that, I just dont see how anyone could make any argument with convergence at all.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope. Land must be kept in GAEC. To do that the lowland farmer can top it two or three times a year.

How do you top a hill or mountain?

You graze it. But very few will do this

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Yes absolutely, I understand completely that that is what it is. But when that is the case, then maybe lets just say that, rather than these ideas that one gang is deserving and the other isnt. It is just disingenuous.

Re people just wanting to hang onto their money, well it isnt their money, it is eu monies awarded to whom they see fit. Some were on the gravy train in comparison to others - now the eu is looking to redress that imbalance. All things being equal and I know that it isnt going to happen, but theoretically they should probably be swapping entitlement values between the two, to balance up the last number of years. In respect to that, I just dont see how anyone could make any argument with convergence at all.

What about front loading? (Which would suit me)

It favours the smaller farmer more - which I think is better.
But, it probably wouldn’t work as good as a flat payment per Ha if you had very large holdings, like you might have in hill farms?

MIKEKC wrote: »

You graze it. But very few will do this

That's just not true Mike.

Donald Trump

There is a fella near me who is supposed to have bought a very marginal hill farm down the country a few years ago just so his son could establish entitlements on it. I heard that they don't do anything with it other than draw the payments.

I'm not sure how true it is. Your man was always a bit of a chancer. So he could be spoofing, but at the same time I'd say that if he thought he could "pull a fast one" he would have done it.

Both himself and the son are in the CAP beneficiaries database though!

eire23

Donald Trump wrote: »

There is a fella near me who is supposed to have bought a very marginal hill farm down the country a few years ago just so his son could establish entitlements on it. I heard that they don't do anything with it other than draw the payments.

I'm not sure how true it is. Your man was always a bit of a chancer. So he could be spoofing, but at the same time I'd say that if he thought he could "pull a fast one" he would have done it.

Both himself and the son are in the CAP beneficiaries database though!

This definitley happens, know a few cases of it. I suppose it's a loophole and ya can't blame people for exploiting it.

wrangler

eire23 wrote: »

This definitley happens, know a few cases of it. I suppose it's a loophole and ya can't blame people for exploiting it.

There was scams pulled off by farmers over the years and I don't know how people got away with it. A farmer here still brags about a hill he rented a hundred miles away and he never stood on it, yet used it to claim beef subsidies on........ how come he was never inspected

eire23

wrangler wrote: »

There was scams pulled off by farmers over the years and I don't know how people got away with it. A farmer here still brags about a hill he rented a hundred miles away and he never stood on it, yet used it to claim beef subsidies on........ how come he was never inspected

Maybe he was just lucky or maybe luck doesn't come into it at all ....depends how skeptical a person ya are!

Deleted User wrote: »

Your point was that you could leave it idle, with hill ground you cannot, the eye in the sky or ground inspections will get you. There's the same level of inspection on hills as any other land. Hill farmers have to return census same as other farmers. Types of stock is open to anyone.

Not true I'm afraid, little or no inspections. One of the conditions of GLAS was to stock the commonage. Almost 100% non compliance with this rule (from the farmers that hadn't already stock on commonage). Everyone continued to get paid. 6,700 didn't opt for the extension, I wonder why?. A few would have leases finished. Vast majority felt 5years payments got ,take the money and run.

Deleted User wrote: »

That's just not true Mike.

I can assure you it's true. 6700 didn't opt for the extension guess why?.In most cases not obeying the rules

J.O. Farmer

wrangler wrote: »

There was scams pulled off by farmers over the years and I don't know how people got away with it. A farmer here still brags about a hill he rented a hundred miles away and he never stood on it, yet used it to claim beef subsidies on........ how come he was never inspected

There's a couple of them in every parish.

I know of one who lets say was on good terms with a department man. He often had more sheep on paper than grass.

wrangler wrote: »

There was scams pulled off by farmers over the years and I don't know how people got away with it. A farmer here still brags about a hill he rented a hundred miles away and he never stood on it, yet used it to claim beef subsidies on........ how come he was never inspected

Very few inspections last few years. Thought there was more during the beef subsidy years