Article on Latest on CAP Reform

rancher · 27-02-2013 11:43PM

IrishLad2012 wrote: »

2)The government and IFA are supporting aCAP that suits only 2,102 out of a total of nearly 130,000 farmers.

Where and how did you get that figure

Tipp Man · 27-02-2013 11:43PM

signinlate wrote: »

Why would I want to do that?
As I see it the CAP has become a payment for farming under a much stricter regulatory regime than our non-european competitors. There is also a political will in Europe to preserve the family farm model that isn't as strong elsewhere.

Farmers are better off to be in a position where they can respond to market forces than producing for subsidy

I don't disagree

However if you have a blended rate of flat payment and stocking rate then you remove the armchair farmer syndrome and make people someway responsible for a level of production

A flat rate will be a disaster

Dont be daft · 27-02-2013 11:44PM

signinlate wrote: »

Any recoupling of the sfp to production would be a backward step. All it would achieve is give the factories a guaranteed and price insensitive supply. Farmers should have the freedom to produce, or not, as they see fit.

I dont think the freedom to produce benefit would have any effect on the market pricing.
Its not like the decision to produce or not is made in full knowledge of end product pricing. If you finish cattle you probably make the decision to take them to finishing a year or 6 months ahead of actually doing so. So nobody ever knows were the market is really going to be.

The freedom to produce is not being made on accurate predictions of the future market.
Its at best speculation, at worst (from what I see around me) it is pure and simple laziness.

I do accept that thats only my own theory and you may very well be right, but if thats a side effect of having min. stock units to acquire payments then so be it.
The alternative is a continuation of the scenario were the taxpayers subsidize not only loss making farmers but ones sitting on their arses.

I frankly find it an insult have gone out and leased land of a farmer and stocked it while he sat in the house drinkin' tea, and at the end of it all he still got his cheque and I barely had enough to make it worthwhile.

blue5000 · 27-02-2013 11:52PM

rancher wrote: »

Where and how did you get that figure

Did you read the article yet?

French proposal looks good, but are there unseen cons in it?

Tipp Man · 27-02-2013 11:57PM

Dont be daft wrote: »

I do accept that thats only my own theory and you may very well be right, but if thats a side effect of having min. stock units to acquire payments then so be it.
The alternative is a continuation of the scenario were the taxpayers subsidize not only loss making farmers but ones sitting on their arses.

I frankly find it an insult have gone out and leased land of a farmer and stocked it while he sat in the house drinkin' tea, and at the end of it all he still got his cheque and I barely had enough to make it worthwhile.

Using the numbers quoted earlier in this thread a farmer with 50 acres would get 8,000 for literally doing not

It's an absolute joke

signinlate · 28-02-2013 12:01AM

Tipp Man wrote: »

I don't disagree

A flat rate will be a disaster

I don't see how it would be a disaster. However I do think the current system is impossible to defend.

Why pay farmers on the basis of what they did over ten years ago?

Why keep giving some farmers a competitive advantage?

For example I can rent a field, put 10 cattle on it and receive €200/hectare sfp. If my neighbour rents the same field and he puts the same cattle on it yet he receives €500/hectare.

Tipp Man · 28-02-2013 12:12AM

signinlate wrote: »

I don't see how it would be a disaster. However I do think the current system is impossible to defend.

Why pay farmers on the basis of what they did over ten years ago?

Why keep giving some farmers a competitive advantage?

For example I can rent a field, put 10 cattle on it and receive €200/hectare sfp. If my neighbour rents the same field and he puts the same cattle on it yet he receives €500/hectare.

It's pretty simple how a flat rate will be a disaster

It will drive the price of rental land through the roof, it's happening already, and will put a minimum rental price of over 200 euro for any kind of acre of land, any kind of decent land will be 300

It will promote armchair farming even more as there is absolutely no consequence for not producing

rancher · 28-02-2013 12:17AM

blue5000 wrote: »

Did you read the article yet?

French proposal looks good, but are there unseen cons in it?

I read the article alright, but Irish lad said ....''The government and IFA are supporting aCAP that suits only 2,102 out of a total of nearly 130,000 farmers''

The proposed cap suits me and I'm not one of the 2,102 that he's referring to. how many more has he missed out on.

If I'm producing 800 lambs on 100acres and getting €20,000/yr SFP, surely I'm giving better value to the EU and my country than a farmer producing 200 lambs on 100acres and getting €10,000/yr

signinlate · 28-02-2013 12:35AM

Tipp Man wrote: »

It's pretty simple how a flat rate will be a disaster

It will drive the price of rental land through the roof, it's happening already, and will put a minimum rental price of over 200 euro for any kind of acre of land, any kind of decent land will be 300

It will promote armchair farming even more as there is absolutely no consequence for not producing

Some of the increase in the price of rental land could be put down to speculation that we were about to enter a new set of reference years.

With a flat rate there would be more customers for good land but they all would have the same sfp/hectare. With the current system you have fewer customers for the best land each with a large sfp/hectare. At the end of the day you have the same amount of money chasing the same amount of land.

IrishLad2012 · 28-02-2013 12:41AM

rancher wrote: »

Where and how did you get that figure

There is only 2000 farmers in this country getting over 50k in SFP.The IFA and Government dont want to cap SFP because of this small majority.Did you not read the OP's original post?

rancher · 28-02-2013 12:53AM

IrishLad2012 wrote: »

There is only 2000 farmers in this country getting over 50k in SFP.The IFA and Government dont want to cap SFP because of this small majority.Did you not read the OP's original post?

No point in capping SFP, farmers will just split their holdings to suit...ie a farm with a €90,000 euro entitlement would then become two farms (husband/wife or father/son,etc) with €45,000 entitlement

Tipp Man · 28-02-2013 12:56AM

IrishLad2012 wrote: »

There is only 2000 farmers in this country getting over 50k in SFP.The IFA and Government dont want to cap SFP because of this small majority.Did you not read the OP's original post?

And there are thousands of farmers under 50k who will also lose when it goes per acre

They are wrongly counted in the 98%, which is quite frankly a ridiculous number for the original author to use

Tipp Man · 28-02-2013 12:58AM

signinlate wrote: »

Some of the increase in the price of rental land could be put down to speculation that we were about to enter a new set of reference years.

With a flat rate there would be more customers for good land but they all would have the same sfp/hectare. With the current system you have fewer customers for the best land each with a large sfp/hectare. At the end of the day you have the same amount of money chasing the same amount of land.

Well if you think rents of 300 an acre are good for farmers then fair enough

I personally think its a disaster

signinlate · 28-02-2013 01:15AM

Tipp Man wrote: »

Well if you think rents of 300 an acre are good for farmers then fair enough

I personally think its a disaster

Of course high rents are not a good thing but the total paid in rent won't change just because of a change in how the sfp is distributed. It's just that farmers who currently have very high value entitlements will no longer have the field to themselves when it comes to renting the best land.

IrishLad2012 · 28-02-2013 01:40AM

rancher wrote: »

No point in capping SFP, farmers will just split their holdings to suit...ie a farm with a €90,000 euro entitlement would then become two farms (husband/wife or father/son,etc) with €45,000 entitlement

But capping SFP will mean more SFP for farmers on marginal land,I don't mind how the others split theirs,once there is an increase for farmers with small SFP.

merryberry · 28-02-2013 01:52AM

rancher wrote: »

No point in capping SFP, farmers will just split their holdings to suit...ie a farm with a €90,000 euro entitlement would then become two farms (husband/wife or father/son,etc) with €45,000 entitlement

easy get around that by prohibiting the artificial splitting of holdings so as to max financial gain. This was a feature of area based schemes like reps

freedominacup · 28-02-2013 07:09AM

Any more takers for my flat rate per farm proposal of €11.5k per farm with no transfer of entitlements etc. Viewtodiefor thinks it's a great plan brings his payment up by €3-4000. He'll get a grand holiday out of it every year. I see a lot of sh**e talk here about armchair farmers and lads underutilising their land but still drawing a payment do ye not get it? That was the one of the points of the current system, freedom to farm and that means that on occasion some farmers are in a position to not farm or farm very extensively if that's what suits them. It's meant to be that way, this is not an unforseen consequence of the current system more a specific intention of it. Everybody posting about flat rate per acre and armchair farmers needs to be careful about what they're wishing for. As soon as you restore the link between these payments and production the cost of the means of production will be effected badly in the interests of active farmers. Somebody is always going to be in the best position at the sales ring or the conacre auction to pay the strongest price if it's not because of a large SFP it will be some other reason be it location or size of home farm etc. However if you drive 10,000 guys out of the armchair and into the sales rings and auctions in an effort to protect/increase their SFP just watch your margins and any increase you might get in SFP disappear. It has happened before and not in the long distant past less than 15 years ago. If you want to change the system find a way that has no relationship to output or acreage or you will regret it.

coolshannagh28 · 28-02-2013 09:05AM

The current system may have been fair when it came out first but the very fact that it is referred to as the historical system reflects the fact that it is outdated and by extension unfair now .
Myself and other farmers who entered farming after the last round are fortunate in that we are being represented by a Romanian ,Calios who is insisting on genuine reform to benefit all disadvantaged farmers.
What is happening in Ireland is a classic example of the action of a powerful lobby representing the few and unfortunately Coveney had been sucked in by it at the cost of votes to FF due to their populist stance on this issue.This is starting to resemble the PS v private scenario on other threads.
Another point I would make is that SFP is a tradeable asset and shrewd farmers could have and still can improve their position by trading up in value.

Figerty · 28-02-2013 09:20AM

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

The current system may have been fair when it came out first but the very fact that it is referred to as the historical system reflects the fact that it is outdated and by extension unfair now .
Myself and other farmers who entered farming after the last round are fortunate in that we are being represented by a Romanian ,Calios who is insisting on genuine reform to benefit all disadvantaged farmers.
What is happening in Ireland is a classic example of the action of a powerful lobby representing the few and unfortunately Coveney had been sucked in by it at the cost of votes to FF due to their populist stance on this issue.This is starting to resemble the PS v private scenario on other threads.
Another point I would make is that SFP is a tradeable asset and shrewd farmers could have and still can improve their position by trading up in value.

This is a very important point. I have come into the farming and doubled the stocking rate on small farm. However, I don't get rewarded for doing this; instead my payment is based on a stocking rates long before I became active. I can't bring the numbes above 1 cow to 2.5 acres. just not possible on this land.

My neighbour who had a high head count of miserably bred thin hungry cattle who was over stocked to keep the numbers up is still benefitting on that number.

A flat rate, or stocking rate? Perphaps the answer is somewhere in between and factoring in the land quality.

Juniorhurler · 28-02-2013 09:36AM

This whole attitude of part timers deserve less sickens my hole. I saw my auld lad start with nothing bit three hungry kids. He went to a job milking cows for a fella so that he would get a farm labourers house to provide for his family.
He left this to drive a lorry when he had scratched up a deposit for a house. He then rented land, raising bought in dairy bred calves part time. About 12 years after starting this he sold the house and bought a small farm. 2 years later he sold that again and bought a larger, but still small farm.

He did all of this while being on a lorry from 5 until about 4.30 six days a week and sometimes seven. He retired from the lorry only about two years ago, in his sixties. He educated five kids to third level (2 more appeared in the intervening period) and we now farm 120 acres. I bought some of this, but mainly due to the fact that my parents educated me. We now farm 120 acres. The boss full time now, but me only part time.

Explain to me why my father doing 12 hours a day almost, off farm before coming home to start into his work there should preclude him from anything while other small farmers farmed sites, went on farm assist and spent a lot of time whinging and drinking tea?

freedominacup · 28-02-2013 09:40AM

Figerty wrote: »

This is a very important point. I have come into the farming and doubled the stocking rate on small farm. However, I don't get rewarded for doing this; instead my payment is based on a stocking rates long before I became active. I can't bring the numbes above 1 cow to 2.5 acres. just not possible on this land.

My neighbour who had a high head count of miserably bred thin hungry cattle who was over stocked to keep the numbers up is still benefitting on that number.

A flat rate, or stocking rate? Perphaps the answer is somewhere in between and factoring in the land quality.

I don't know what the answer is, but having farmed through the period when your neighbour built up his SFP by ignoring the market and farming the premiums I'm certain of one thing any link of SFP to production or land will reap a bitter harvest. Quality will once again come a poor second to having enough acres or stock regardless of quality. Anyone looking forward to a time that all of those B&W and Jx bull calves are staying here rather than being exported because farmers "need" them for stocking rates or some other production led premium reason. That'll really help the price of all those well bred suckled weanlings being produced by posters on this site. I mean it's all upsides really.

rancher · 28-02-2013 11:31AM

freedominacup wrote: »

I don't know what the answer is, but having farmed through the period when your neighbour built up his SFP by ignoring the market and farming the premiums I'm certain of one thing any link of SFP to production or land will reap a bitter harvest. Quality will once again come a poor second to having enough acres or stock regardless of quality. Anyone looking forward to a time that all of those B&W and Jx bull calves are staying here rather than being exported because farmers "need" them for stocking rates or some other production led premium reason. That'll really help the price of all those well bred suckled weanlings being produced by posters on this site. I mean it's all upsides really.

In one of my earlier posts I wrote that the payment won't be near €270/ha if it goes flat rate because of all the land thats not claimed on....The journal today says that there's 500,000ha not claimed on, so if it goes flat rate on every ha. it won't be worth applying for.

rancher · 28-02-2013 11:47AM

merryberry wrote: »

easy get around that by prohibiting the artificial splitting of holdings so as to max financial gain. This was a feature of area based schemes like reps

They didn't get to stop farmers from splitting holdings when they put the 90 limit on the beef premium in the 90s

merryberry · 28-02-2013 01:27PM

rancher wrote: »

They didn't get to stop farmers from splitting holdings when they put the 90 limit on the beef premium in the 90s

Don't think it will happen. Remember that was the modus oporandi of the CAP back in those days AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT CREATED. The CAP has evolved and moved away from this, but in doing so, it has lead to the problems we face at the present moment.

theaceofspies · 28-02-2013 01:48PM

Nobody is factoring in the missing variable and that is Mr. Coveneys future career ambitions!
He knows that if he secures a deal on this during the Irish presidency that it will be a feather in the cap (no pun intended!). This is a man who sees himself as a future Taoiseach. Getting any deal will be top of his agenda and this will no doubt lead to concessions from an Irish viewpoint. He won't be worrying about moaning and groaning from the IFA on his next climb of the ladder.
The French idea sounds good and they usually have a big say in the final outcome.

Min · 28-02-2013 04:00PM

freedominacup wrote: »

I don't know what the answer is, but having farmed through the period when your neighbour built up his SFP by ignoring the market and farming the premiums I'm certain of one thing any link of SFP to production or land will reap a bitter harvest. Quality will once again come a poor second to having enough acres or stock regardless of quality. Anyone looking forward to a time that all of those B&W and Jx bull calves are staying here rather than being exported because farmers "need" them for stocking rates or some other production led premium reason. That'll really help the price of all those well bred suckled weanlings being produced by posters on this site. I mean it's all upsides really.

Reminds me of when getting the training for the certificate in farming, we had a farm visit, the farmers had some dairying but also sucklers for the suckler premium, bullocks, at 10 and 22mths old for premium and then he got them slaughtered for the slaughter premium.
His farming was based on farming premiums, buying dairy type male animals for the premium benefit.

Min · 28-02-2013 04:05PM

rancher wrote: »

In one of my earlier posts I wrote that the payment won't be near €270/ha if it goes flat rate because of all the land thats not claimed on....The journal today says that there's 500,000ha not claimed on, so if it goes flat rate on every ha. it won't be worth applying for.

That is why it needs to be capped, then apply the French proposals.

I think the main problem with the French proposals is the fact it is not good for those on the larger payments who are inefficient when it comes to cost of production.
The larger the SFP claimed the easier it has been to cover up inefficiences. Given the lower the SFP claimed, the more efficient the enterprise needs to be.

paddysdream · 28-02-2013 05:56PM

As regards capping(at any figure you might like to mention),has anyone here sat down and worked out what a 100k;50k;20k cap would mean extra for those on smaller payments?

Seen the figures and off the top of my head(will look at it when I have time) a total cut off at 100k would give everyone else about 2 euro per entitlement extra;a total cut off at 50k would give the rest of us(yes mine is circa 35k)at a max. 750 euro extra per farm.

The average payment in Ireland is about 11k and average farm size about 37 hectares (average payment is in or around the proposed flat rate of 272).Where ,after the budget cuts and the activation of the approx. 500,000 naked hectares ,is all this extra money to come from?

Have been at lots of meetings re. the new proposals and no one has come up with a solution to keep everybody happy.

Not a so called armchair farmer here but have no problem with some one drawing the subs. without being a so called active farmer.We were told at the begining that the SFP was not related to your future farm activity .

Would have no problem with the total removal of supports but only with a total removal of the envoirnmental, animal health, stocking rate and pollution controls etc.This is never going to happen in the EU in the near or even far distant future so it looks like we are stuck under the present regime for better or worse.

For anyone proposing a limit of say 15k or so;do you think that the beef finisher buying your weanlings or store cattle at present is going to continue to do so with a massive cut in his SFP ?Unlikely he will be able to pay anything like the present prices as most if not all of them rely heavily on it.

Would it not serve us better to increase profitability on our own farms rather than look over the ditch and worry what our neighbour gets?

As regards a flat rate and the arguement that a farmer on poor land is as productive as those on good ground;not a hope !!.Turn the arguement on its head and why should those of us on better land be penalised thru. an accident of birth and be made to pay for those whose land consists of hill mountain and scrub?

rancher · 28-02-2013 06:57PM

paddysdream wrote: »

As regards capping(at any figure you might like to mention),has anyone here sat down and worked out what a 100k;50k;20k cap would mean extra for those on smaller payments?

Seen the figures and off the top of my head(will look at it when I have time) a total cut off at 100k would give everyone else about 2 euro per entitlement extra;a total cut off at 50k would give the rest of us(yes mine is circa 35k)at a max. 750 euro extra per farm.

The average payment in Ireland is about 11k and average farm size about 37 hectares (average payment is in or around the proposed flat rate of 272).Where ,after the budget cuts and the activation of the approx. 500,000 naked hectares ,is all this extra money to come from?

Have been at lots of meetings re. the new proposals and no one has come up with a solution to keep everybody happy.

Not a so called armchair farmer here but have no problem with some one drawing the subs. without being a so called active farmer.We were told at the begining that the SFP was not related to your future farm activity .

Would have no problem with the total removal of supports but only with a total removal of the envoirnmental, animal health, stocking rate and pollution controls etc.This is never going to happen in the EU in the near or even far distant future so it looks like we are stuck under the present regime for better or worse.

For anyone proposing a limit of say 15k or so;do you think that the beef finisher buying your weanlings or store cattle at present is going to continue to do so with a massive cut in his SFP ?Unlikely he will be able to pay anything like the present prices as most if not all of them rely heavily on it.

Would it not serve us better to increase profitability on our own farms rather than look over the ditch and worry what our neighbour gets?

As regards a flat rate and the arguement that a farmer on poor land is as productive as those on good ground;not a hope !!.Turn the arguement on its head and why should those of us on better land be penalised thru. an accident of birth and be made to pay for those whose land consists of hill mountain and scrub?

If you add in the 500,000 ha the average payment drops to €210ha and then you have national reserve, modulation, inflation,......with all the deductions it won't be that far off the english SFP quoted in the journal of £33/ha

Vandy West · 28-02-2013 09:53PM

rancher wrote: »

If you add in the 500,000 ha the average payment drops to €210ha and then you have national reserve, modulation, inflation,......with all the deductions it won't be that far off the english SFP quoted in the journal of £33/ha

Thought modulation was used to distribute money thru the national reserve, and if the flat rate was applied to all of the 500,000 ha then there would be no need for a national reserve or modulation.

Don't understand the logic that a flat rate would increase the cost of rental land. Obviously the cost of rental would go up to account for the flat rate payment but the "real cost" (rental cost - flat rate payment) should not be above the current rental cost for bare acres. As well a flat rate may encourage smaller types to lease land and then all the productive farmers could use that land more efficiently.

Article on Latest on CAP Reform

Comments