893bet wrote: » A lot of complaining about this scheme. Seems fairly simple. Reduce by 5 percent. Estimate tracker on agfood since the start etc. A lot of people will complain no matter what. And others want money for no effort. I will be repaying the money we got. Reference period was poor so it’s not too bad. But didn’t suit to reduce.
I says wrote: » Got new revised numbers on Friday. I’m over but it’s calculated from 1st March to end of June. Doesn’t consider any movement after that date. Me thinks both the Ifa and department are going to be busy sorting this sh1t show out.
Jjameson wrote: » There is no letter stating that the previous one is wrong. I think the ifa should be going for the jugular of the department and seek legal counsel on this.
wrangler wrote: » They've given farmers an option of a different date and giving the money back. Did people not read the Ts and Cs
Jjameson wrote: » The cost of administration is likely to come to more than what going to be recouped. I have two almost identical official letters from the dept telling me I’m well under the limit and another telling me I’m over! And nothing officially retracting one. I’m curious about the legal standing now.
wrangler wrote: » Do you not know your self where you stand
Jjameson wrote: » It’s not where you stand it’s where you predict yourself to stand at the end with all the variables of changing ages and when regards selling fat Most finishers around here were back a lot on stock in the late summer/autumn of the 2018 reference period due to trying to gather late forage or simply no grass to graze so they are now trying to cut 5% from a very low base. The dept can’t get it right what hope has a gom!
tanko wrote: » Only a few days left to defer the 5% reduction until the end of the year.
Jjameson wrote: » Who could afford not to go for it? It was compensation from Fine Gael for letting the cartel profiteer off the the premise of Brexit. Andrew doyle was looking for a seat in Europe and the ifa were looking for a “look what we got over the line”. And no it ain’t rocket science and yes I can keep under it but it is a nonsensical clause, especially the reference period they picked.
wrangler wrote: » If you were around in the 1990s you'd have the same thing, have to sit down and work out the stocking rate at the end of the year. It has been going on since then. I suppose I'm used to it
epfff wrote: » The stocking rate calculation in the 90s for LU was much simpler. Maybe I'm looking back with Rose tinted glasses but Imo you are not comparing anything near like with like when talking about LU and nitrates
wrangler wrote: » We're just on the margins of derogation stocking rate here so we're very aware of monthly figures....... down to even it being important when we get rid of cull ewes. As I said it's not rocket science
epfff wrote: » I think I have it covered here. It took a lot of work and I still got it very wrong because I'm going to be under my limit by approx 300/500 kgs even after making adjustments the last few months when I discovered I was being too cautious. I always aimed to error on the side of safety but not that much. Can you tell me what I'm missing that makes it easy? I sell and replace an average of 1 load of cattle each week. My system works on buying value at any quality level and keep procurement manager happy by supplying when he wants so some weeks I'm given short notice to get to plant or short notice to wait until following week. A few things are getting me 1)cattle changing age mid month 2} coming/going inconsistant. 3) ages of cattle been bought all over the place. I was calculating 2 times a month (mid and last day) while using averages for future projections. This took a lot of time but I was getting 10k to do it. The dept calculator was of very little help because it was 2 months behind. I found the letter I received yesterday of no use because it was once again 2 months behind. . Only way I see of been accurate is daily calculations and be very ridged on ages of cattle purchased. That to me is not rocket science but a more rigid labour intensive unworkable discipline than your average farmer is capable of doing in the privicy of his own home.
Jjameson wrote: » The cost of administration is likely to come to more than what going to be recouped. I have two almost identical official letters from the dept telling me I’m well under the limit and another telling me I’m over! And nothing officially retracting one.I’m curious about the legal standing now.
wrangler wrote: » With €10000 depending on it, do you have to rim it so tight. Especially as the margins are so poor,You're probably gambling losing yor 10000 for an extra margin of a 1000 if you're lucky A computer program would monitor it if you wanted to be that tight
Bass Reeves wrote: » He is not cutting it tight, he is 5-6 bullocks below the allowance for a full year. This is not the same as a derogation limit. If you make a mistake up until next year you could export a few loads of slurry. I worked the 170 kg limit on a 50-60 acre farm 4-5K gallons is a an easy way of sorting it. There is no room for margin on this if you are 1% above you lose the whole lot. That is an extra bullock in a 100. A lot of lads are only drawing 2-3K If you are operating on a net margin of 200/head/year, 5-6 bullocks is 1000-1200 euro, but it probably effects gross margin as well, its unlikely you will spread much less fertlizer, you may end up with an extra 20-30 bales cost you another 500-1K. In my case it was 400 euro on a 60ish head/year kill. As well because of the drough that year I was hanging cattle as fast as they were anyway fit. I took it as a loan. I can never figure how for smaller payments sub 1K were not excluded from the reduction and tiered after that up to 5% at 10K
TCDStudent1 wrote: » The Agfood calculator hasn't been updated with end of May figures. Any reason for this? I thought it would make sense that these be updated to allow farmers make a more informed decision on whether they are deferring the payment.
coolshannagh28 wrote: » As the herd profile database is continually refreshed why wasnt it possible to have a running nitrates total on the database ?
Bass Reeves wrote: » It's just s data base. You would need different software to calculate nitrates as all animals have different rating depending on type and age. As well it's only a section of farmers that are in Beam.
