Farming Chit Chat

reilig · 20-11-2012 10:56AM

Durrus Boy wrote: »

Legs,

How are you finding the SFL calves? Bought a few straws in the Spring but never used them yet. Was planning to use them on the tail-end of the autumn calvers to tighten things up another bit...

Cheers..

I have a good few SFL calves every year (approx 20). They have some great benefits - they are easy calved, and don't develop the double muscle until 2 to 3 months old. The gestation period is short relative to other breeds - I have tightened up most of my cows by 1 month per year (Thats 3 months over 3 years).

One tip is not to put SFL on low cows. He's ideal for tall cows. Calves can be stumpy off low cows. He also brings a lot of red calves if there is Limousin breeding in the cows. I haven't found them to be worse sellers because of the red colour.

What I like most about SFL is the speed of growth. I sold 2 calves off 1/2 bred limousin cows last week. One born May 20th and weighing 305kg made €920. The other born June 10th was 265kg and he made €840. Both ate approximately €80 worth of creep each. You could really see the meal put condition on them. It wasn't bad for calves 5 to 6 months old. Don't think I could achieve it with any other breed.

reilig · 20-11-2012 11:45AM

Was reading some other forums and some newspapers and I am seeing a lot of proposals about SFP being capped. What's people's opinion on this?

Basically some people are proposing that SFP be capped at a nominal figure such as €50,000. The idea being that this should be an adequate income top up for any farmer. At the end of the the SFP is supposed to be an income top up and not something which is supposed to be invested into the farm.

Some farmers who receive in excess of this amount claim that they will go bust if their SFP is capped. But is it viable that farmers are using their SFP to keep their farm's afloat? Would it not be better to force them to downsize or change farming practices so that they could survive on the €50k SFP?

It is claimed that if a limit was set, then there would be more money to go around for everyone and the average per hectare payment would be greatly increased.

What's your opinion on it?

bogman_bass · 20-11-2012 12:07PM

I'm all for it. One of the ideas of CAP is to keep family farms going. we cant expect Joe public to subsidise huge opperators.

The "you are hurting the most productive farmers" arguement is bull****. The most productive farmers need subsidies the least. If we want to hold onto large SFP's for the big boys then a stronger arguement will have to be put forward.

Now you can argue about what the cap should be but definatly should be less than 100k

Who likes seeing Larry et al raking in huge payments? Not me!

Durrus Boy · 20-11-2012 12:24PM

reilig wrote: »

I have a good few SFL calves every year (approx 20). They have some great benefits - they are easy calved, and don't develop the double muscle until 2 to 3 months old. The gestation period is short relative to other breeds - I have tightened up most of my cows by 1 month per year (Thats 3 months over 3 years).

One tip is not to put SFL on low cows. He's ideal for tall cows. Calves can be stumpy off low cows. He also brings a lot of red calves if there is Limousin breeding in the cows. I haven't found them to be worse sellers because of the red colour.

What I like most about SFL is the speed of growth. I sold 2 calves off 1/2 bred limousin cows last week. One born May 20th and weighing 305kg made €920. The other born June 10th was 265kg and he made €840. Both ate approximately €80 worth of creep each. You could really see the meal put condition on them. It wasn't bad for calves 5 to 6 months old. Don't think I could achieve it with any other breed.

Cheers for that reply Reilig,

Did you ever put him on heifers? I see a 20 mth CH heifer is repeating this morning again inside so must serve her later on again:mad:. I do similar to yourself and serve CH & Lim for most of the breeding season and then swap to BB's for the tail-enders & any late repeaters. I find this allows me to serve for another 10'ish days without lengthening the calving season. I like to finish calving the autumn calvers in early Sept. as calves are hardy going into the shed ( & are left creep back out ) & we do annual herd test at end of Sept...

reilig · 20-11-2012 12:35PM

Durrus Boy wrote: »

Cheers for that reply Reilig,

Did you ever put him on heifers? I see a 20 mth CH heifer is repeating this morning again inside so must serve her later on again:mad:. I do similar to yourself and serve CH & Lim for most of the breeding season and then swap to BB's for the tail-enders & any late repeaters. I find this allows me to serve for another 10'ish days without lengthening the calving season. I like to finish calving the autumn calvers in early Sept. as calves are hardy going into the shed ( & are left creep back out ) & we do annual herd test at end of Sept...

I never put him on heifers, but a guy in our discussion group does and has no problems with him.

Had the vet to do a section on a cow in calf to my own CH bull late last night. She had a SFL bull last year with no problems at all. All well TG. Had a big calf off my own bull 2 weeks ago and had to put him down yesterday too because he never stood up. Hopefully I'll have more luck with the rest of them. Cows are going onto a more strict diet from today!

whelan1 · 20-11-2012 12:43PM

let my cows back out today, kept them in yesterday as it was crap, nearly 60 in the group, have about a week left for them, they are stale milkers , only being milked once aday... have another group of fresh calvers that are housed fulltime..... great saving on silage

bbam · 20-11-2012 01:34PM

reilig wrote: »

Was reading some other forums and some newspapers and I am seeing a lot of proposals about SFP being capped. What's people's opinion on this?

Basically some people are proposing that SFP be capped at a nominal figure such as €50,000. The idea being that this should be an adequate income top up for any farmer. At the end of the the SFP is supposed to be an income top up and not something which is supposed to be invested into the farm.

Some farmers who receive in excess of this amount claim that they will go bust if their SFP is capped. But is it viable that farmers are using their SFP to keep their farm's afloat? Would it not be better to force them to downsize or change farming practices so that they could survive on the €50k SFP?

It is claimed that if a limit was set, then there would be more money to go around for everyone and the average per hectare payment would be greatly increased.

What's your opinion on it?

I'm all for it too.
It would allow for those who are getting pity fully small payments to get a little more and also for new entrants to be helped too.

My overall preference would be a path towards no payments but a decent margin on produce. Most "non armchair" farmers would prefer to operate in a system where work was rewarded with profit margin. Idealistic maybe, but it would be my preference.

Username John · 20-11-2012 02:05PM

reilig wrote: »

Was reading some other forums and some newspapers and I am seeing a lot of proposals about SFP being capped. What's people's opinion on this?

Basically some people are proposing that SFP be capped at a nominal figure such as €50,000. The idea being that this should be an adequate income top up for any farmer. At the end of the the SFP is supposed to be an income top up and not something which is supposed to be invested into the farm.

Some farmers who receive in excess of this amount claim that they will go bust if their SFP is capped. But is it viable that farmers are using their SFP to keep their farm's afloat? Would it not be better to force them to downsize or change farming practices so that they could survive on the €50k SFP?

It is claimed that if a limit was set, then there would be more money to go around for everyone and the average per hectare payment would be greatly increased.

What's your opinion on it?

My opinion - I don't know

I don't really like the idea of setting limits or caps like this...

I can see the logic that "the average per hectare payment" could increase, as there would be more money to be spread around if it was taken off...

But I think the SFP should be tied to the level of production somehow, even if you are a big operator. Otherwise, why not just take the big pot of SFP, and divide by the number of farmers in the country and we all get an equal share?

I have read the argument raised here often that farmers would "give up the SFP, if they received an adequate price for their output"
Is this policy of capping, saying "Once you get to a certain level of output, we don't think you deserve an adequate price for your cattle..."

I think a better system would be a sliding scale of payments - so if its based on a per hectare payment... you get so much for the first say, 20 hectares, then less for the 20, less again for the next 20... etc...
It would allow a higher payment to smaller operators, but also not "cap" people who are trying to expand and make good money... It would seem a fairer way to do it to me...

But of course I don't think this will happen...

And I always think of Tipp man's comment to a post I put a while back related to the SFP "Fair is not always equal"

reilig · 20-11-2012 02:17PM

Username John wrote: »

I have read the argument raised here often that farmers would "give up the SFP, if they received an adequate price for their output"
Is this policy of capping, saying "Once you get to a certain level of output, we don't think you deserve an adequate price for your cattle..."

That was my argument. Capping the SFP has nothing to do with the price that you receive for your animals. SFP is supposed to be an income supplement. Farmers are not supposed to spend it on running their farm because this causes below cost production but many do.

I think the argument of what I posted above looks at the SFP as an income supplement. Is €50k not enough of an income supplement for farmers to receive?

JohnBoy · 20-11-2012 02:24PM

I think I'm more in favour of the sliding scale than a "relatively" low cap.

A sliding scale that peters out to almost, but not quite nothing, with more targeted modernisation and infrastructural schemes would in my mind be a better use of the money.

You help the little guy get a decent wage from it and you allow everyone a chance to improve their infrastructure in ways that can help grow their businesses and deliver environmental benefits too

bbam · 20-11-2012 02:26PM

Of course major changes in the SFP would have implications for non farming folk too.
Although few non farmers like to admit it the SFP has subsidised the price of food in the EU. Any major redistribution would have a knock on effect on food prices.
If a major finisher has his SFP cut from €150k to the new cap of €50k. Surely he will need to negotiate better prices in the factory, and they in turn pass this extra cost on to the customer.

towzer2010 · 20-11-2012 02:32PM

reilig wrote: »

I think the argument of what I posted above looks at the SFP as an income supplement. Is €50k not enough of an income supplement for farmers to receive?

Dead right reilig. €50k is a serious income supplement and this idea of the most productive farmers being affected is a red herring. It they are meant to be the most productive and still need more that 50k then that is a complete contradiction.

Anyway why should what my Dad produced be the basis of what I get 10 years later? I know at least 3 farmers that are getting a huge SFP and none of them can be considered to be actively farming anymore.

A level playing field is what is needed going forward and forget about who got what in the past.

just do it · 20-11-2012 02:40PM

bbam wrote: »

Of course major changes in the SFP would have implications for non farming folk too.
Although few non farmers like to admit it the SFP has subsidised the price of food in the EU. Any major redistribution would have a knock on effect on food prices.
If a major finisher has his SFP cut from €150k to the new cap of €50k. Surely he will need to negotiate better prices in the factory, and they in turn pass this extra cost on to the customer.

Whilst I agree, red meat is already costly. Look at your dinner plate with meat, spuds and 2 veg (carrots and parsnips). Good meat €2-3, spuds €0.30, veg €0.50. How much more of a premium can you put on red meat without affecting sales?

Suckler · 20-11-2012 02:48PM

Username John wrote: »

I have read the argument raised here often that farmers would "give up the SFP, if they received an adequate price for their output"

This is a dangerous statement for farmers to make. Adequate price does not neccessarily mean you'll end up with cash in the bank after all is paid in/out.

I think there'd be a huge market adjustment that would be the demise of the small to medium farmer as they might not be able to compete with the bigger producers. Demand might be a saving grace.

For example: if SFP is taken away:
Farmer A, B & C is producing at €2.50 per Kg after all payments in and out;
Will they be able to compete with farmer D, a bigger operator who can produce at €1.50 per Kg because of economys of scale.

Getting a fair price doesn't mean that you get what you put in + profit. Would Farming in Ireland withstand this type of competitive market and market correction?

I know we'd be runnning a hobby farm and only selling a few bales to keep the grass down.

bbam · 20-11-2012 02:49PM

Well you can be sure that the costs won't go down if the SFP was reduced. Neither will the factories/supermarkets take a cut in their profits. Joe public benifets from subsidised food through the CAP system, major changes to ye CAP will filter down to either a jump in cheap n nasty imports or a price hike in basic foods.

Another problem with the current SFP system is that it has zero credibility with Joe Public, there is near no link to current farm production levels. It is hard to keep people on side when their tax money is being spent on an antiquated sub system. It needs to be linked directly to the annual production on farm.

Suckler · 20-11-2012 03:03PM

bbam wrote: »

Well you can be sure that the costs won't go down if the SFP was reduced. Neither will the factories/supermarkets take a cut in their profits.

Exactly. This was why I was playing devils advocate a bit. Take this year - fodder prices will be up and expected expenditure for housing animals will be up ( not including how long they could be in for in early 2013). Will farmers be able to cope with the fluctuations without SFP to fall back on if they are producing at a higher cost but getting market rates?

bbam wrote: »

Joe public benifets from subsidised food through the CAP system, major changes to ye CAP will filter down to either a jump in cheap n nasty imports or a price hike in basic foods.

True but will this lead to a drive of cheaper imports?

bbam wrote: »

Another problem with the current SFP system is that it has zero credibility with Joe Public, there is near no link to current farm production levels. It is hard to keep people on side when their tax money is being spent on an antiquated sub system. It needs to be linked directly to the annual production on farm.

This is key to the revamp of the SFP.

towzer2010 · 20-11-2012 03:10PM

bbam wrote: »

...... there is near no link to current farm production levels. It is hard to keep people on side when their tax money is being spent on an antiquated sub system. It needs to be linked directly to the annual production on farm.

I agree. In my case there is no link at all. I wasnt farming in the reference years. How could anyone looking in from outside understand a system where you are paid on stocking rates 10 years out of date

Username John · 20-11-2012 03:57PM

reilig wrote: »

I think the argument of what I posted above looks at the SFP as an income supplement. Is €50k not enough of an income supplement for farmers to receive?

Hi Reilg,

Is 50k not enough - ha ha, I'd love to have a SFP of 50k

In my mind, 50k is a lot of money...

But every number is relative...
If they capped it at 10k, and did more redistribution, then I would still be very happy, maybe even happier - as I have no chance of ever getting near 50k...
So everyone will have a different number...

But... your point is valid, that 50k is a good wage / salary for someone to get... (from farming

)

reilig wrote: »

That was my argument. Capping the SFP has nothing to do with the price that you receive for your animals. SFP is supposed to be an income supplement. Farmers are not supposed to spend it on running their farm because this causes below cost production but many do.

A supplement to what though?
To the price you get for your cattle?
Or the money you make from each hectare of land?
Or just an amount of money you should get when farming, if so, should we all get the same amount?

I dunno...
I guess I agree with the idea of a limit, but this is cos it would benefit me, and maybe benefit the majority or people, but I don't agree with setting limits like this in principal...

reilig · 20-11-2012 04:15PM

Username John wrote: »

Hi Reilg,

A supplement to what though?
To the price you get for your cattle?
Or the money you make from each hectare of land?
Or just an amount of money you should get when farming, if so, should we all get the same amount?

I dunno...
I guess I agree with the idea of a limit, but this is cos it would benefit me, and maybe benefit the majority or people, but I don't agree with setting limits like this in principal...

SFP is a supplement for farmers wages. It is paid by the EU in recognition that Farmers sell their produce (Cattle, sheep etc) with low margins. This supplement is supposed to compensate them for this. The supplement is paid to ensure adequate supplys in Europe at prices that average European buyers can afford. It is paid to ensure food availability and price stability.

It is only fair that farms with 10 hectares receive less than those with 100 hectares and as it is set up now, this is what happens in most cases. I don't agree that everyone should receive the same amount - those who have bigger farms should receive more than those with smaller farms, but why should any farmer need more than €50k as an income supplement?

However, there are farmers and businesses out there with low levels of production who receive in excess of €500k. This payment is based on what they did in the past - not what they are doing now. Capping the amount that these people receive would mean more money to distribute to smaller or more active farmers.

hugo29 · 20-11-2012 04:31PM

seeing as we are on the subject

how much are entitlements to buy, purchased 16 acres there week ago

would one chance the low value in the hope they level up to the national average or just get the national average value ones now

hugo29 · 20-11-2012 04:34PM

also anyone heard of a 300l sprayer being too small for back of a 4w drive tractor, thats what the ever reliable sales man told me at local dealer

" oh you need a 400l or even 600l sprayer" i tried to tell the muppet i only want to spray me own land not all the neighbours as well

Username John · 20-11-2012 04:34PM

hugo29 wrote: »

seeing as we are on the subject

how much are entitlements to buy, purchased 16 acres there week ago

would one chance the low value in the hope they level up to the national average or just get the national average value ones now

Dont know this guy, and no idea if these are good value or not... but might be a help
http://farmentitlements.ie/

bbam · 20-11-2012 04:49PM

reilig wrote: »

SFP is a supplement for farmers wages. It is paid by the EU in recognition that Farmers sell their produce (Cattle, sheep etc) with low margins. This supplement is supposed to compensate them for this. The supplement is paid to ensure adequate supplys in Europe at prices that average European buyers can afford. It is paid to ensure food availability and price stability.

It is only fair that farms with 10 hectares receive less than those with 100 hectares and as it is set up now, this is what happens in most cases. I don't agree that everyone should receive the same amount - those who have bigger farms should receive more than those with smaller farms, but why should any farmer need more than €50k as an income supplement?

However, there are farmers and businesses out there with low levels of production who receive in excess of €500k. This payment is based on what they did in the past - not what they are doing now. Capping the amount that these people receive would mean more money to distribute to smaller or more active farmers.

The issue if the historical references at least will have to be tackled. It's impossible to justify its continuance. Equally so I feel would any new reference year be a bad idea. Surely it could be done annually on either LU or acerage farmed or a combination.

The cap is a nice idea but I feel that those with an influence on the powers that be are more likely to have a SFP in excess of €100k rather than those of us with less than €5k having any influence.

I know one lad renting 100acres 20 miles from home in the hope it will be an acerage based reference, has stocked it up to cover that too, but only wants to break even. He took it two years ago on a five year lease and reckons he has the new reference years covered, then he plans to sit back on his 40 acre farm and 20 sucklers with his new big SFP!!

Timmaay · 20-11-2012 04:52PM

hugo29 wrote: »

also anyone heard of a 300l sprayer being too small for back of a 4w drive tractor, thats what the ever reliable sales man told me at local dealer

" oh you need a 400l or even 600l sprayer" i tried to tell the muppet i only want to spray me own land not all the neighbours as well

What size fields are you doing? 2bh I priced up a 400l and 600l recently, and the 600 was only 100quid more!

But hmm only way I could see it being too small is if the controls are too far away on a big 4wd, no possible other issues!

bogman_bass · 20-11-2012 04:55PM

bbam wrote: »

I know one lad renting 100acres 20 miles from home in the hope it will be an acerage based reference, has stocked it up to cover that too, but only wants to break even. He took it two years ago on a five year lease and reckons he has the new reference years covered, then he plans to sit back on his 40 acre farm and 20 sucklers with his new big SFP!!

I hope he gets stung!

But in fairness, if he does then he'll just have to lump it unlike the bondholders with the bands but thats for another day......

bogman_bass · 20-11-2012 04:55PM

hugo29 wrote: »

also anyone heard of a 300l sprayer being too small for back of a 4w drive tractor, thats what the ever reliable sales man told me at local dealer

" oh you need a 400l or even 600l sprayer" i tried to tell the muppet i only want to spray me own land not all the neighbours as well

Its called being a good salesman

hugo29 · 20-11-2012 04:59PM

Timmaay wrote: »

What size fields are you doing? 2bh I priced up a 400l and 600l recently, and the 600 was only 100quid more!

But hmm only way I could see it being too small is if the controls are too far away on a big 4wd, no possible other issues!

field size varies generally 2.5 acre down

just thought 300l was big enough am waiting for WHYTES to get back to me

Tipp Man · 20-11-2012 04:59PM

Lads ye are looking at this completly the wrong way by using phrases such as income and income supplement which highlights the way that many farmers look at farming

Farming is a business and it is your return on capital that is important. So if we assume that a tillage farm for example is break even (grain sales equal all costs) then the SFP is 2 things, your income and your return on capital - now if a 200 acre tillage farmer gets the same SFP as a 500 acre tillage farmer, at say 50k, then something is seriously wrong. We are saying that you are allowed to take an income from the farm but no return on capital??

hugo29 · 20-11-2012 05:01PM

bogman_bass wrote: »

Its called being a good salesman

i know but it does not half pee me off, do they think we are totally stupid, just answer the question I asked

ah cant blame a man for trying i suppose

Tipp Man · 20-11-2012 05:02PM

reilig wrote: »

SFP is a supplement for farmers wages. It is paid by the EU in recognition that Farmers sell their produce (Cattle, sheep etc) with low margins. This supplement is supposed to compensate them for this. The supplement is paid to ensure adequate supplys in Europe at prices that average European buyers can afford. It is paid to ensure food availability and price stability.

.

Who has said it is an income supplement Reilig?

Farming Chit Chat

Comments