IrishLad2012 wrote: » 2)The government and IFA are supporting aCAP that suits only 2,102 out of a total of nearly 130,000 farmers.
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
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.
rancher wrote: » Where and how did you get that figure
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.
Tipp Man wrote: » I don't disagree A flat rate will be a disaster
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.
blue5000 wrote: » Did you read the article yet? French proposal looks good, but are there unseen cons in it?
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
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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
