The Department of Agriculture do not adhere to the t&c's themselves.
Current in Government TD's are not listening to farmers (or any of the public it seems). Sinn Fein are more than happy to listen, I would encourage folks to make contact with them. A simple email or quick phone call is all it takes
Nitrates is per animal per day by the department. If you buy a 3 year old bullock on the 20th June for the months of June the calculation 10/365X 65 for the the nitrates he produces. ICBF uses a ba5tardised system but it gives a higher nitrates reading for farms.
With nitrates you will never hit exactly 5% or near it except on Suckler farmers. On drystock 7-8% would have been a good result IMO.
What did I do. I only got 400. Euro as I have posted many time and I took it as an interest free loan. However if it had been worth my while I would have complied with the scheme. However the drought that year left me with a low nitrates level so Unless I had had a substantial payment I would not have tried to comply
I don't think it is clear at all how they calculated it..
The department said a 5% reduction in organic nitrogen between set dates. That's all, nothing else. The information regarding rates of organic nitrogen produced by animals of different ages was there for everyone. The T's and C's were clear from the outset.
That's a lie. The t&c's had 3 subordinate parts annexed to the original document made in the outset.
I didn't realise that. I complied with the scheme and the only stipulation that I adhered to was the minimum of 5% reduction in organic nitrogen. I got the letter stating same a couple of weeks back so I don't see how necessary the extra t's & C's were required?
Can you put up the 3 subordinate parts and the dates that they were added?
Even if that works as the case, and I have not seen it followed up so the ICSA may have been incorrect. If you calculated on a daily basis and achieved the reduction you could appeal it and the department would conceed. However I have always calculated out my nitrates for to remain under 170/ha on a daily basis and always CE in at where I expected. You make you assumptions on sales dates and buying dates calculate out to see what slurry you needed to export. But I then adhered to my sales/buying dates and achieved the result.
No, the ICSA were correct. How are you to calculate it on a daily basis? Of course it can be done, but it’s beyond the ability of most of us. I’ll hold my hands up here, even if people are “embarrassed” for me.
Well done on complying with BEAM, but that’s not my point, anyone could comply with it it, all you needed to do was damage your business more than the value of the payment and you were fine…
I understand what you’re saying about damaging your business to comply and with the way factory prices have gone this year I would say you are correct in saying that. But the point about that is we all knew when we signed up that’s what we had to do so there’s no point complaining now.
Any farmer that didn’t like the thoughts of having to do that either shouldn’t have signed up or, if they did sign up, should have known they would have to give the money back and treat it as an interest free loan.
DBK1 you are correct, I didn't join, it was worth a around €4,500 to me, I killed a load of cattle the week after the cut off which pissed me off with the scheme in the first place (that would have added another €1,500 to the kitty).
I felt the reduction needed would have hit my bottom line more that the €4,500 available, thinking about it I thought if a fed a few more cattle I could easily make up the €4,500 and the way this year has turn out, that has been the case thankfully. I am trying to build up my herd and my suckler cow numbers so something aimed at reducing numbers wasn't going to appeal to me
What have the TDs got to listen to ?
Whatever their constituents want them to.
We are talking about BEAM, so I presume it must have something to do with that.?
My response may have come across as glib but there is a divide on beam here. TDs will have to listen to both sides if that argument. Which side they come down on is up to them but they will have to listen.
In a way in a way no. The 5%reductions was set by the EU as a precondition of the introduction to the scheme. If that is set aside now what about farmers that did not apply because of that precondition. What about farmers that went out of there way to fulfill the conditions. You can appeal the terms and interpretation of the rules but it would be totally unfair to just overturn the conditions. If you join the army you wear the boots
The TDs will suck their fingers, stick them in the air and gauge the direction of the wind and then decide where they lie.
And the EU comission will tell them what can do
I honestly think you are being small minded. In my book a win for farmers is good, a win for obtuse bureaucracy is bad. The fact you view it as "unfair" if the 5% rule would be removed means you lost more than you care to admit to abide by the scheme, and rather than argue for the merits of the scheme (of which there is none unless you have shares in Icantbelieveitsnotmeat) you should voice your discontent. At the end of the day you are not in competition with anyone here.
The obvious thing to do would be to give the €100 to everyone who sold cattle during the 2019 reference period whether they signed up or not. Still not "fair", but better. (I lost out 2,500 by selling cattle a few days outside the 2020 "top up", but such is life.)
Like have a 12.5% corporation tax rate? Amazing the way the EU opinion apply to one and not the other.
I killed 28 that fitted into the scheme. I had another 28 went to the mart 2 weeks later. They would have been fs2 if only I knew I'd have killed them too!
But I was careful out always ringing advisor to check my progress I didn't want to repay the money.
I did not lose anything to abide by the scheme....because I had decided that for 400 euro it was not worth abiding by the scheme.
I believe the scheme was flawed because it rewarded stupidity and encouraged further stupidity.
Scheme's like this are market distorting. However if there are conditions they should be adhered to.
Well the ones that won’t have any say in the decision will.
Rural Independents have made their careers on championing lost causes that they know won’t be overturned but hey , they faought for the little guy didn’t they?
Anyone get money deducted off their anc?
Got a phone call back from our local Sinn Fein TD. They said they will look into this asap, gave the usual speil that it was ridiculous etc etc but they will hold the Government to account.
Not holding my breath but you'd never know if enough people put the pressure on what might happen
A piece in the Journal about retracting BEAM monies from non-compliant farmers.
https://www.farmersjournal.ie/money-is-never-given-without-conditionality-heydon-on-beam-648442
What do you expect to happen?. Anyone that didn't comply should pay back the money. When it's taken should make no difference
This is getting ridiculous at this stage, a lot of farmers didnt join because of 5% reduction ( me included ) majority who joined complied with conditions, even most who didnt comply fully expect money to go back, so all this aggravation for a very small number of people ( 1000 to 1500 ??? ).
Latest figures
I searched for this thread using the boards search facility and failed to find it. The search facility is forum wide search and is not confined to the farming & forestry section as you would expect it to be..
What I have found is using Google brings up instant results.
Try it out on Google, boards.ie Beam
I got a letter yesterday apologising for the deduction from my ANC last month.
Despite them not deducting a red cent! Hope they think they did! 😀
