nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Cap reform convergence

orchard farm

I see the inhfa are holding a serious of meetings on future cap reforms and redistribution of high entitlements to farmers with lowest entitlements mainly affecting farmers in the west,just wondering whats peoples opinions on 100%convergence and will it be an election issue

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Grueller

wrangler wrote: »

That was my thoughts too, if they mind my land and get an advantage out of the change. well best of luck to them.

To be fair to you wrangler, that is the best attitude by far to have. Any other one would only foster bitterness and resentment on both sides.

Western Pomise

So in answer to my earlier query about whether my current lower than normal stock numbers are likely to have any effect in how your CAP payment is worked out in new deal is it fair to say that would be quite unlikely?

Thanks for replies.

FarmerDougal

Western Pomise wrote: »

So in answer to my earlier query about whether my current lower than normal stock numbers are likely to have any effect in how your CAP payment is worked out in new deal is it fair to say that would be quite unlikely?

Thanks for replies.

The last reference years was one years entitlements value claimed divided into the previous years land, nothing about stocking rate. The only event I 'predict' happening is a payment at some stage to reduce numbers by x percent like the beam scheme at the minute, in which case keeping numbers up as high as possible may give you more options.

morphy87

wrangler wrote: »

That was my thoughts too, if they mind my land and get an advantage out of the change. well best of luck to them.

Well I can tell you there isn’t too many like you back this side that are willing to do that, I’d say it’s rare every where

morphy87

Donald Trump wrote: »

My understanding is that as long as you have naked land, you can establish entitlements on it. You would get one per hectare submitted from the national reserve at the national average rate - whatever that is. Then you'd also get the YFS 25% top up for up to 5 years I think.

Don't take my word as gospel though - just as a starting point in your own research

From what I understand your spot on unless it changes

[Deleted User]

morphy87 wrote: »

From what I understand your spot on unless it changes

Just be careful in case there was entitlements on the land, sold to allow the land to be leased. That may be seen as an artificial creation to extract more money from CAP than was drawn previously.

wrangler

morphy87 wrote: »

Well I can tell you there isn’t too many like you back this side that are willing to do that, I’d say it’s rare every where

Landlords shouldn't be allowed keep entitlements anyway.
Any changes will be reflected in the next lease ,
With the numbers retiring from farming the land rent prices mightn't always be upwards only.
''High prices usually cures high prices'' etc

cute geoge

The problem is the older farmers aint retiring and there hanging on to rented land they have entitlements on ,taking a cut of silage off this ground is as much as they will do ,there entitlements more then cover the rent and they have very little profit to show but still wont give up .It is a fuked system if you are young lad trying to rent some ground ,average naked ground is gone over 350 /acre

alps

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Do many leases have this?

It doesn’t affect me, but would have thought this was going a bit too far? And it would only cover a few years til the lease was up and then in a new lease the entitlements are the property of the farmer who leased the land...

I don’t know, not sure I agree with it...

The dairy farmer remains in a good position as long as
the net cost of the land continues to be the agricultural value of it. The critical point is that he/she can continue to access it (presuming walking access for cows), and the return of the BP won't really be a negative to the financial equation.

However, and it would be one of my concerns, because it has precedent, is that as the BP moves to the hands of the primary producers, the processors will start to reel it in...

It happened to all other commodities..

amacca

alps wrote: »

However, and it would be one of my concerns, because it has precedent, is that as the BP moves to the hands of the primary producers, the processors will start to reel it in...

It happened to all other commodities..

Could you explain what you mean there about processors for someone not so quick on the uptake?

Processors will drop prices even More???

morphy87

Deleted User wrote: »

Just be careful in case there was entitlements on the land, sold to allow the land to be leased. That may be seen as an artificial creation to extract more money from CAP than was drawn previously.

That’s something that could catch you out

[Deleted User]

morphy87 wrote: »

That’s something that could catch you out

Yes, I've heard of a case where leases were signed etc. the Dept said "No". Would make for some uncomfortable conversations.

alps

amacca wrote: »

Could you explain what you mean there about processors for someone not so quick on the uptake?

Processors will drop prices even More???

Yes....the real price pressure on processors is to pay just enough to keep 80% of their suppliers in business....a further increase in subsidies to a producer group will lower the price required of the processor...

kevthegaff

alps wrote: »

Yes....the real price pressure on processors is to pay just enough to keep 80% of their suppliers in business....a further increase in subsidies to a producer group will lower the price required of the processor...

That's my biggest worry with cap, theyl be an alignment of prices to what cap pays

Young95

I think the new cap will get rid of a lot of those older generation farmers. There’s going to be a lot of changes with the eco schemes .. and you’ll only get your payments if you do the work and a lot of the old lads just won’t be able for it .. if you see what is required in the new reap scheme that’s only a glimpse of what’s to come . It’s hard to get a chance in farming At present if starting out as land is just to dear . with milk being good doesn’t help but at least the cap and entitlement situation will be sorted next cap should make a difference and land prices and rent should fall

Grueller

Young95 wrote: »

I think the new cap will get rid of a lot of those older generation farmers. There’s going to be a lot of changes with the eco schemes .. and you’ll only get your payments if you do the work and a lot of the old lads just won’t be able for it .. if you see what is required in the new reap scheme that’s only a glimpse of what’s to come . It’s hard to get a chance in farming At present if starting out as land is just to dear . with milk being good doesn’t help but at least the cap and entitlement situation will be sorted next cap should make a difference and land prices and rent should fall

Don't bet on that too much. I am hearing that land prices will fall since the eighties. Other than a few years of a blip following the crash they are rising steadily. Land around here is at and exceeding boom time prices. Business peoe are flooding into the market at huge prices.

wrangler

Aneighbour has just sold land, they kept the entitlements, they tell me they can transfer them to their forestry, How does that work

[Deleted User]

wrangler wrote: »

Aneighbour has just sold land, they kept the entitlements, they tell me they can transfer them to their forestry, How does that work

Is it native woodland?

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it native woodland?

It forestry they sowed in the last 10 years, don't know what's in it but the forestry is land that had entitlements of it's own and they were allowed keep using them, I can understand that but selling land and still being able to use the entitlements I can't understand

Bleating Lamb

Whatever about entitlement usage was it not the case that once you planted trees on land it was gone from ‘agricultural use’ forever?

[Deleted User]

wrangler wrote: »

It forestry they sowed in the last 10 years, don't know what's in it but the forestry is land that had entitlements of it's own and they were allowed keep using them, I can understand that but selling land and still being able to use the entitlements I can't understand

That's interesting. I haven't heard of that before, I wonder are they right

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

That's interesting. I haven't heard of that before, I wonder are they right

I questioned it too, but they said that the teagasc advisor told them they could, I think there could be 40 acres involved. They're not the sort that you can question so I just left it

[Deleted User]

wrangler wrote: »

I questioned it too, but they said that the teagasc advisor told them they could, I think there could be 40 acres involved. They're not the sort that you can question so I just left it

I know the type, while I'm not betting the farm on doubting them I've been put in the wrong by Teagasc before and know others the same. Good luck to them either way if they can make it work.

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

I know the type, while I'm not betting the farm on doubting them I've been put in the wrong by Teagasc before and know others the same. Good luck to them either way if they can make it work.

I wouldn't like to see them missing the opportunity to rent them out if it's not possible to use them.
Their family aren't going to farm and the land is twenty miles away and needs work so it was the obvious thing to do, they're my age

kevthegaff

wrangler wrote: »

I wouldn't like to see them missing the opportunity to rent them out if it's not possible to use them.
Their family aren't going to farm and the land is twenty miles away and needs work so it was the obvious thing to do, they're my age

Their not drawing forrestry payments I'd say If they can do it

Dinzee Conlee

wrangler wrote: »

I wouldn't like to see them missing the opportunity to rent them out if it's not possible to use them.
Their family aren't going to farm and the land is twenty miles away and needs work so it was the obvious thing to do, they're my age

You can draw BPS on forestry ground all right, see here...

I wonder does their forestry have no entitlements at present? Maybe they stacked the entitlements onto the farm when they could have a few years ago?

Hard Knocks

wrangler wrote: »

Their family aren't going to farm and the land is twenty miles away and needs work so it was the obvious thing to do, they're my age

Would selling and give someone else the opportunity not be a better option?

Western Pomise

FarmerDougal wrote: »

The last reference years was one years entitlements value claimed divided into the previous years land, nothing about stocking rate. The only event I 'predict' happening is a payment at some stage to reduce numbers by x percent like the beam scheme at the minute, in which case keeping numbers up as high as possible may give you more options.

Thanks so hopefully fact that I am well down on stock numbers this year compared to last few years won't affect next CAP payments for me?

......was just a bit worried as I remember my Dad telling me about a neighbour that got badly hit when the last 'reference years ' model was decided...

He had over 50 Sucklers farming full time at home and land rented up the country,wife had a heart attack and took several years to get back on her feet so he had to give up his rented land,and sell 30 cows to be able to mind her at home.....this coincided with the reference years and badly hit his payments then.
Was tough on them as he was a good hardworking farmer who had built up a fine herd and entitlements.You would probably understand what happened him.....would it be that he lost out on entitlements he had rented or something?

wrangler

Hard Knocks wrote: »

Would selling and give someone else the opportunity not be a better option?

They are selling the land but the advisor told them they can put the entitlements from the sold land onto forestry that they have. but that forestry also has it's own entitlements on it already, he's probably right and we're missing something

[Deleted User]

wrangler wrote: »

They are selling the land but the advisor told them they can put the entitlements from the sold land onto forestry that they have. but that forestry also has it's own entitlements on it already, he's probably right and we're missing something

So they're stacking them? Thought that option was gone