Commonage/hill farmers issues thread, GLAS, GAEC, etc etc

micky mouse · 27-11-2014 11:26pm

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

The land eligibility issue that is quickly coming, affecting SFP, will be a LOT bigger an issue than GLAS ever has been for marginal/hill areas.

whats the land issue that's coming.

Connemara Farmer · 27-11-2014 11:30pm

micky mouse wrote: »

whats the land issue that's coming.

Land being declared ineligible for SFP payment due to the as yet undefined GAEC, inspected by inspectors that have no background training (at least NPWS staff have some training). Heard a figure of 40% bandied about of commonage land being ineligible. This isn't on, considering how the Dept have completely fallen down

Blanket 30% destocking, not taking you % commonage share and stock no's or the carrying capacity of the land into account.
Frozen, out dated Commonage Framework Plans that compounded the damage leading to undergrazing.

We won't be held accountable for the damage the Dept has done through mismanagement.

supersean1999 · 27-11-2014 11:35pm

I think the way commonages were de stocked and tied in with the lowland was disgraceful and never highlighted enough. Completely ruined a lot of hills

Birdnuts · 27-11-2014 11:38pm

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

.

We won't be held accountable for the damage the Dept has done through mismanagement.

At this stage I think if we could cut out the Dept and deal directly with the EU we would get a much better solution to all these issues. Which is why I'm glad more and more delegations are heading direct to Brussels on this matter.

Connemara Farmer · 28-11-2014 11:08am

Protest march details in the pic below, bus details for Connemara area only obviously

MayoAreMagic · 28-11-2014 11:21am

A busload of Galwaymen heading for McHale Park, for once I hope you have a bit of success

Connemara Farmer · 28-11-2014 11:26am

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

A busload of Galwaymen heading for McHale Park, for once I hope you have a bit of success

Two busses on, did ye Mayo lads get any schooling at all

MayoAreMagic · 28-11-2014 11:32am

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Two busses on, did ye Mayo lads get any schooling at all

We got plenty of them in late September!

Connemara Farmer · 30-11-2014 6:38pm

http://galwaybayfm.ie/connemara-hill-farmers-meet-minister/

Connemara Farmer · 02-12-2014 11:54am

Well done Farming Independent, nice to see a few home truths printed in a national publication this morning.

Farmer Pudsey · 03-12-2014 4:59am

I read the article in yesterdays indo. If it true Dept will be under pressure. Can understand where Europe is coming from. Funds being diverted away from extensive farmers towards production systems.

In Ireland over last 5 years we have failed to fund envoirment schemes that compensate those farmers that have restrictions put on them. We now see that 50% rule was a department rule not European based. Was it an attempt to prevent comage farmers accessing GLAS as they would have priority.

It was interesting to also note that the EU was on about hectare restriction. It seems that they have an issue with the way those farmers with SAC, Natura, Commomage, hen harrier land etc are restricted by 5K maximun and also cannot access GLAS funding seperately for other funding like other farmers. It will be interesting to follow.

This will be a general move to redirect payments away from historical structure. There has to be an understanding that basing payments on farming events that will be 20 years old virtuall in next round will not be a goes and that all farmers are entitle to fair access to funding.

rangler1 · 03-12-2014 10:05am

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I read the article in yesterdays indo. If it true Dept will be under pressure. Can understand where Europe is coming from. Funds being diverted away from extensive farmers towards production systems.

In Ireland over last 5 years we have failed to fund envoirment schemes that compensate those farmers that have restrictions put on them. We now see that 50% rule was a department rule not European based. Was it an attempt to prevent comage farmers accessing GLAS as they would have priority.

It was interesting to also note that the EU was on about hectare restriction. It seems that they have an issue with the way those farmers with SAC, Natura, Commomage, hen harrier land etc are restricted by 5K maximun and also cannot access GLAS funding seperately for other funding like other farmers. It will be interesting to follow.

This will be a general move to redirect payments away from historical structure. There has to be an understanding that basing payments on farming events that will be 20 years old virtuall in next round will not be a goes and that all farmers are entitle to fair access to funding.

Whatever about subsidies that show benefits in producing raw materials for industry and employment, subsidies that don't show this benefit won't be tolerated by the European Taxpayer....after all CAP was brought in to ensure food security.
Average age of farmers is near sixty now, so a huge majority were farming in 2000, so it's because subsidies weren't maximised that our national Sfp is €1.2bn instead of nearer to €2bn, If livestock farmers were able to build up to €800/ha surely it's not unreasonable for me to expect all livestock farmers to have entitlements of €400/ha...
It's not going to work taking income off fulltime farmers to give it to part time farmers either, New entrants with poor SFP (most new entrants are farmers sons/daughters and are getting the benefit of their parents entitlements) knew the situation when they started and are working as well, but what about those that are 50+ and commited to fulltime farming, are they going to have to take a hefty cut in their income, because others didn't push the system..seems they have:mad:

_Brian · 03-12-2014 10:22am

rangler1 wrote: »

Whatever about subsidies that show benefits in producing raw materials for industry and employment, subsidies that don't show this benefit won't be tolerated by the European Taxpayer....after all CAP was brought in to ensure food security.
Average age of farmers is near sixty now, so a huge majority were farming in 2000, so it's because subsidies weren't maximised that our national Sfp is €1.2bn instead of nearer to €2bn, If livestock farmers were able to build up to €800/ha surely it's not unreasonable for me to expect all livestock farmers to have entitlements of €400/ha...
It's not going to work taking income off fulltime farmers to give it to part time farmers either, New entrants with poor SFP (most new entrants are farmers sons/daughters and are getting the benefit of their parents entitlements) knew the situation when they started and are working as well, but what about those that are 50+ and commited to fulltime farming, are they going to have to take a hefty cut in their income, because others didn't push the system..seems they have:mad:

I see your point that you maximised the potential of the SFP, a system many years old now and I'm not going to argue it's rights ad wrongs.

However, no system is there forever, yes it's part of your income but
Surely it's no your right that it ou get it in it's current form forever.

How about farms that admittedly were poorly ran and missed on maximising their payments, now taken over by a newer better generation of farmers, but who are locked out and annually punished for the sins of the past generation.

I'm not advocating slashing payments overnight. But surely a gradual equalisation process IS fair to all involved rater than a status quo only being fair to those who historically benifeted.

I still see a rolling averaged scheme on a 3 or 5 year cycle, where payments are based on productivity being the best option. That way we are rewarding the active farmers be they full or part time.

No one should rely on any scheme or payment being there forever as is, any could be drastically changed or eliminated on the whim of a pen pusher who wouldn't know a cow pate from cow pie.

Farmer Pudsey · 03-12-2014 10:57am

rangler1 wrote: »

Whatever about subsidies that show benefits in producing raw materials for industry and employment, subsidies that don't show this benefit won't be tolerated by the European Taxpayer....after all CAP was brought in to ensure food security.
Average age of farmers is near sixty now, so a huge majority were farming in 2000, so it's because subsidies weren't maximised that our national Sfp is €1.2bn instead of nearer to €2bn, If livestock farmers were able to build up to €800/ha surely it's not unreasonable for me to expect all livestock farmers to have entitlements of €400/ha...
It's not going to work taking income off fulltime farmers to give it to part time farmers either, New entrants with poor SFP (most new entrants are farmers sons/daughters and are getting the benefit of their parents entitlements) knew the situation when they started and are working as well, but what about those that are 50+ and commited to fulltime farming, are they going to have to take a hefty cut in their income, because others didn't push the system..seems they have:mad:

Tell me rangler if the Government decided that quota's would be put on all public service jobs. That in future sons and daughter of existing gaurds, nurses and teachers had priority access to these jobs I thinkl they be an outcry.

You point about sons and daughters of those with low SFP can be counter argued that those sons and daughers ogf farmers with highers payments should not have expectations that the benefits build up by there parents should not last forever. There is a passage in the bible that says the sins of the father shall not be passed to their son.

As I posted it is quite likly post 2019 that flat ratinhg will happen faster than farmers expect as it is unlikly that those with lower payments will be as unorganised as with the 2015 process.

rangler1 · 03-12-2014 11:44am

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Tell me rangler if the Government decided that quota's would be put on all public service jobs. That in future sons and daughter of existing gaurds, nurses and teachers had priority access to these jobs I thinkl they be an outcry.

You point about sons and daughters of those with low SFP can be counter argued that those sons and daughers ogf farmers with highers payments should not have expectations that the benefits build up by there parents should not last forever. There is a passage in the bible that says the sins of the father shall not be passed to their son.

As I posted it is quite likly post 2019 that flat ratinhg will happen faster than farmers expect as it is unlikly that those with lower payments will be as unorganised as with the 2015 process.

True anyone can be a guard etc etc but I think the present civil servants would have a problem if the new bunch were lobbying to reduce the income of the existing civil servants even though, unlike the farmers, a lot of them could well afford the reduction.
You have to be careful too , what you wish for, because if the SFP was flatrated across all agriculture land not just what's on present application forms, I think you'd find the rate would be nearer €100/ha than €200.
At those rates there would be a serious drop in production from all the better farmers because no farm would justify full time and the European taxpayer would kick at paying maybe €100 subsidy on every lamb produced in the EU.
To me it's the same as milk quota.....and that lasted thirty years

MayoAreMagic · 03-12-2014 2:08pm

Interesting points. I suppose there is a chicken and egg situation here. Would the current full time farmers/most productive farmers be as such, if their situation as regards land etc wasn't given preferential treatment in the first place? Couldn't it be said that it is this that gave them a leg up over guys on commonages for example and they have subsequently gotten to where they are on the back of that, while the other guy was forced out and had to go small scale as a part time farmer?

Now of course, more productive land deserves more of a focus, that is just simple logic. But the question is how much more and that is something we should be looking to work out.

The reality is more investigation is needed here. I know of farmers who earn a high salary in industry terms on payments towards their lands alone. They are getting that pretty much before they get out of bed (that might not be 100% accurate but you get the point). Which in turn allows them to buy more land (bullying the smaller guy out of the market in the process - who probably needs it more and would do more with it), and make more money in this manner, without actually putting on the wellingtons at all. That is a crux in the issue I believe, the current system is set up to make the rich, richer. I mean you have to ask, at what point does that just become playing the system as opposed to farming? It is like anything, if you want higher standards you should share the wealth as evenly as you can. now that doesn't mean robbing good farmers either, but you have to remember, there could be other good farmers who don't get a chance due to the system in place, which isn't fair either.

rangler1 · 03-12-2014 2:23pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Interesting points. I suppose there is a chicken and egg situation here. Would the current full time farmers/most productive farmers be as such, if their situation as regards land etc wasn't given preferential treatment in the first place? Couldn't it be said that it is this that gave them a leg up over guys on commonages for example and they have subsequently gotten to where they are on the back of that, while the other guy was forced out and had to go small scale as a part time farmer?

Now of course, more productive land deserves more of a focus, that is just simple logic. But the question is how much more and that is something we should be looking to work out.

The reality is more investigation is needed here. I know of farmers who earn a high salary in industry terms on payments towards their lands alone. They are getting that pretty much before they get out of bed (that might not be 100% accurate but you get the point). Which in turn allows them to buy more land (bullying the smaller guy out of the market in the process - who probably needs it more and would do more with it), and make more money in this manner, without actually putting on the wellingtons at all. That is a crux in the issue I believe, the current system is set up to make the rich, richer. I mean you have to ask, at what point does that just become playing the system as opposed to farming? It is like anything, if you want higher standards you should share the wealth as evenly as you can. now that doesn't mean robbing good farmers either, but you have to remember, there could be other good farmers who don't get a chance due to the system in place, which isn't fair either.

That's why I compare it to the milk quota situation, someone draws a line in Brussels and if you're the wrong side you're f.......ed.
Dairy farmers came from 50 mls + away to rent land that I was trying to rent and it was only in the nineties that we got the good subsidies that gave us a chance to compete. I also believe that milk price set the price of inputs too...everything geared to selling to dairy farms, firms making rations would freely admit that

MayoAreMagic · 03-12-2014 2:36pm

The way this is playing out is actually quite interesting. You can see the underlying attitudes held towards certain sectors of farming over others, running right from the minister to agriculture, to the farmers themselves, to the media.

From the off it appeared that people put little value in commonage farmers, seen them as disorganised, and truth be told, probably not delivering anything worthwhile, maybe hobby farmers. The idea of 'let them sort out the commonage themselves because we don't want the hassle' seems to have been the initial motivation with the collective agreement idea. Then higher ranking farmers were happy enough to, behind closed doors, go with this idea also. In the media, the uptake of the hill-farmers side of things has been noticeably slow, probably under the assumption that it was farmers just after money again, and ones that don't produce much at that. It is only since the involvement of Brussels that the change has occurred. They have been viewed as more of a force and with more of a cause. They got the meeting with the minister, something that proved 100% impossible before that, the media is now changing the slant on the reporting, siding with them more in tone, yet the actual details of their protest never changed in the slightest. It just shows you haw powerful pre-conceived ideas can be in society.

Connemara Farmer · 03-12-2014 7:39pm

rangler1 wrote: »

Whatever about subsidies that show benefits in producing raw materials for industry and employment, subsidies that don't show this benefit won't be tolerated by the European Taxpayer....after all CAP was brought in to ensure food security.
Average age of farmers is near sixty now, so a huge majority were farming in 2000, so it's because subsidies weren't maximised that our national Sfp is €1.2bn instead of nearer to €2bn, If livestock farmers were able to build up to €800/ha surely it's not unreasonable for me to expect all livestock farmers to have entitlements of €400/ha...
It's not going to work taking income off fulltime farmers to give it to part time farmers either, New entrants with poor SFP (most new entrants are farmers sons/daughters and are getting the benefit of their parents entitlements) knew the situation when they started and are working as well, but what about those that are 50+ and commited to fulltime farming, are they going to have to take a hefty cut in their income, because others didn't push the system..seems they have:mad:

CAP represents a lot more than food security, but it just suits some to peddle that line.

IFA still roaring today for RDP to be opened, they not worried about the discrimination in it. Some farmers union.

Connemara Farmer · 03-12-2014 8:16pm

_Brian wrote: »

How about farms that admittedly were poorly ran and missed on maximising their payments, now taken over by a newer better generation of farmers, but who are locked out and annually punished for the sins of the past generation.

Or farms that have been artificially kept small through Government ineptitude and land designations.

_Brian wrote: »

where payments are based on productivity being the best option. That way we are rewarding the active farmers be they full or part time.

Believe that to possibly be against WTO rules.

Connemara Farmer · 03-12-2014 8:21pm

rangler1 wrote: »

Whatever about subsidies that show benefits in producing raw materials for industry and employment, subsidies that don't show this benefit won't be tolerated by the European Taxpayer.

And your evidence for this statement? Because it's pure bunkum, if you read the 266 questions from the Commission, I have, have you?

Connemara Farmer · 03-12-2014 8:47pm

Full speed ahead for the protest in Castlebar on Friday.

Spread the word

Connemara Farmer · 03-12-2014 8:55pm

Minister for Discrimination.

http://www.mediahq.com/marianharkinmep/94695/minister-accused-of-discrimination-against-hill-farmers

rangler1 · 03-12-2014 10:47pm

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Minister for Discrimination.

http://www.mediahq.com/marianharkinmep/94695/minister-accused-of-discrimination-against-hill-farmers

Do you not think that if there was any way of changing Coveneys mind that IFA would have done it, we've never agreed to any thing but we've lobbied him since April to reduce the requirements and no one seems to have done any better.
At least now you see that you don't just write a santa list and send it in to the dept and the toys are delivered.
But keep going, you Guys can destroy Coveney, you won't have to meet him again on another issue

Connemara Farmer · 03-12-2014 10:55pm

rangler1 wrote: »

Do you not think that if there was any way of changing Coveneys mind that IFA would have done it, we've never agreed to any thing but we've lobbied him since April to reduce the requirements and no one seems to have done any better.

No, I don't think IFA would have done it. In fact I know IFA haven't done it. IFA are not on the side of commonage, hill, or low income farmers.

IFA supplied no "No Collective Agreement" posters at the protest in Dublin, as you know. Yet the main topic at every meeting previous to it was....... drumroll........ No collective agreement. They had already agreed to the 50% and my information says the top was in favour of 80% before that.

rangler1 wrote: »

At least now you see that you don't just write a santa list and send it in to the dept and the toys are delivered.
But keep going, you Guys can destroy Coveney, you won't have to meet him again on another issue

Simon Coveney said that his door was always open to the president of the IFA, or by phone if he wasn't around. Word was, had IFA supported the hill group that Coveney would have accepted the deal. The fact is that IFA don't want to represent these type of farmers. Various interests want to divert the bulk of monies destined for those areas €522m down to €90m.

As for destroying Coveney, how do you figure that? Personally I'd torpedo him in the morning, but I am one voice of many.

rangler1 · 03-12-2014 10:57pm

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

And your evidence for this statement? Because it's pure bunkum, if you read the 266 questions from the Commission, I have, have you?

What benefit has the ordinary taxpayer, if subsidising farmers doesn't return food and employment......did you not see where England was going to rethink their contribution to Europe a few weeks ago....doesn't matter what the commission thinks if the net contributor tell them to F...off

HillFarmer · 03-12-2014 11:01pm

rangler1 wrote: »

What benefit has the ordinary taxpayer, if subsidising farmers doesn't return food and employment......did you not see where England was going to rethink their contribution to Europe a few weeks ago....doesn't matter what the commission thinks if the net contributor tell them to F...off

I think Rangler if you went to the people on the street in Ireland and asked them asked them which farmer should be more subsidised you'd find they'd go West over East.

Capercaille · 03-12-2014 11:02pm

rangler1 wrote: »

What benefit has the ordinary taxpayer, if subsidising farmers doesn't return food and employment......did you not see where England was going to rethink their contribution to Europe a few weeks ago....doesn't matter what the commission thinks if the net contributor tell them to F...off

Subsidising farmers in Natura 2000/SAC/SPA to preserve endangered habitats/species.

Connemara Farmer · 03-12-2014 11:07pm

rangler1 wrote: »

What benefit has the ordinary taxpayer, if subsidising farmers doesn't return food and employment......did you not see where England was going to rethink their contribution to Europe a few weeks ago....doesn't matter what the commission thinks if the net contributor tell them to F...off

Did Simon write your post? Food, employment & the economy, blinkers superglued on.

Paschal Donohoe might write mine? Thousands of tourists wander my land each year, land managed by commonage farmers, which if it wasn't, well ask some Wicklow walking groups how heather impedes tourism, you know that's part of the economy too. Or indeed ask Burren farmers about hazel.

Or Heather Humphreys maybe? SAC, NHA and other designations preserving habitats and some of the most environmentally sensitive lands in the EU.

Or how about Alan Kelly, with bogs being carbon sinks, production of clean water, flood prevention etc.

None of which is properly realised economically to the farmer but all of which contribute hugely to the economy.

The EU recognise all these things must be paid for.

As for England, are you having a laugh? They're threatening to bail out of the EU every Tuesday.

Oh, you never answered either of my questions?

Username John · 03-12-2014 11:07pm

HillFarmer wrote: »

I think Rangler if you went to the people on the street in Ireland and asked them asked them which farmer should be more subsidised you'd find they'd go West over East.

I think a lot of people would say "stop subsidising"

Connemara Farmer · 03-12-2014 11:09pm

Username John wrote: »

I think a lot of people would say "stop subsidising"

I doubt it, when it's explained most of that money comes from the EU and not the Irish tax payer. People aren't stupid, once things are explained in a truthful way they tend to react positively.

rangler1 · 03-12-2014 11:10pm

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

No, I don't think IFA would have done it. In fact I know IFA haven't done it. IFA are not on the side of commonage, hill, or low income farmers.

IFA supplied no "No Collective Agreement" posters at the protest in Dublin, as you know. Yet the main topic at every meeting previous to it was....... drumroll........ No collective agreement. They had already agreed to the 50% and my information says the top was in favour of 80% before that.

Simon Coveney said that his door was always open to the president of the IFA, or by phone if he wasn't around. Word was, had IFA supported the hill group that Coveney would have accepted the deal. The fact is that IFA don't want to represent these type of farmers. Various interests want to divert the bulk of monies destined for those areas €522m down to €90m.

As for destroying Coveney, how do you figure that? Personally I'd torpedo him in the morning, but I am one voice of many.

That's all lies, when you have proof, come back to me. Why haven't the farming indo published these allegations ...they'd be only too glad to put the boot into IFA and don't kid yourself, loads of journalist follow here in the hunt for news

Connemara Farmer · 03-12-2014 11:15pm

rangler1 wrote: »

That's all lies, when you have proof, come back to me. Why haven't the farming indo published these allegations ...they'd be only too glad to put the boot into IFA and don't kid yourself, loads of journalist follow here in the hunt for news

There's no lie in any of what I said

Username John · 03-12-2014 11:15pm

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

I doubt it, when it's explained most of that money comes from the EU and not the Irish tax payer. People aren't stupid, once things are explained in a truthful way they tend to react positively.

I don't know Con, I think if you just asked the question, a lot of people have this view of farmers getting 'money for nothing'

Connemara Farmer · 03-12-2014 11:17pm

Username John wrote: »

I don't know Con, I think if you just asked the question, a lot of people have this view of farmers getting 'money for nothing'

That's slightly different, people have preconceived notions about lots of things in life from depression to teachers holidays. It also depends on whether the person you're talking to has an open mind or not, not much point in wishing your life away with the latter.

Connemara Farmer · 03-12-2014 11:29pm

rangler1 wrote: »

That's all lies, when you have proof, come back to me. Why haven't the farming indo published these allegations ...they'd be only too glad to put the boot into IFA and don't kid yourself, loads of journalist follow here in the hunt for news

You still haven't answered either of my questions.

rangler1 · 03-12-2014 11:35pm

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

There's no lie in any of what I said

Specify the 'varied interests' and supply proof.
The best thing that ever happened was that you guys decided we weren't doing enough and thought you could do better.
btw There's nothing in Glas for active farmers,

Connemara Farmer · 03-12-2014 11:37pm

rangler1 wrote: »

Specify the 'varied interests' and supply proof.
The best thing that ever happened was that you guys decided we weren't doing enough and thought you could do better.
btw There's nothing in Glas for active farmers,

No, you won't answer my questions.

Who's not an active farmer?

Interesting how when we make a bit of headway on things suddenly a thread on issues takes an IFA slant

Bullocks · 03-12-2014 11:49pm

rangler1 wrote: »

But keep going, you Guys can destroy Coveney, you won't have to meet him again on another issue

Don't think anyone will cry over that , not even Coveney . Im sure he can find something else to occupy himself with

rangler1 · 03-12-2014 11:59pm

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

No, you won't answer my questions.

Who's not an active farmer?

Interesting how when we make a bit of headway on things suddenly a thread on issues takes an IFA slant

What questions

Birdnuts · 04-12-2014 12:01am

I think the problem here is that some people seem to think CAP 2014 is the same CAP that we had in the 80's. And by some people I include this government and the Dept. EU has made it very clear over the last 20 years with the CAP reforms of that time that subsidies for production will be phased out as they are against WTO rules and simply lead to massive costs for storage of excess beef, wine, milk etc. They also hit these commodity prices hard and it puzzles me that some people in the farming community want to repeat all these mistakes over and over again by going back to a headage based system, especially as we are lurching from one crisis to another in this area. The EU has also made it clear that is wants these payments to instead go into over all rural development and environmental protections and are prepared to rewards farmers for that. I see nothing wrong with that since if we went the other way would eventually see a total wipe out of the family farm with American style ranches and feedlots owned by multinational processers and multiples taking over.

rangler1 · 04-12-2014 12:09am

Birdnuts wrote: »

I think the problem here is that some people seem to think CAP 2014 is the same CAP that we had in the 80's. And by some people I include this government and the Dept. EU has made it very clear over the last 20 years with the CAP reforms of that time that subsidies for production will be phased out as they are against WTO rules and simply lead to massive costs for storage of excess beef, wine, milk etc. They also hit these commodity prices hard and it puzzles me that some people in the farming community want to repeat all these mistakes over and over again by going back to a headage based system, especially as we are lurching from one crisis to another in this area. The EU has also made it clear that is wants these payments to instead go into over all rural development and environmental protections and are prepared to rewards farmers for that. I see nothing wrong with that since if we went the other way would eventually see a total wipe out of the family farm with American style ranches and feedlots owned by multinational processers and multiples taking over.

Can't eat the scenery though

Capercaille · 04-12-2014 12:12am

rangler1 wrote: »

Can't eat the scenery though

True. We should level every ditch, drain every bog, level every native forest, destroy all habitats in order to produce more food/money.

Bullocks · 04-12-2014 12:15am

rangler1 wrote: »

Can't eat the scenery though

The Europeans like it though .

Birdnuts · 04-12-2014 12:17am

rangler1 wrote: »

Can't eat the scenery though

Not sure what your trying to say there

This argument is about what is in the best interests of Irish farmers in terms of their return from the industry and the importance of the farmed landscape in terms of our water supplies, tourism etc. Do you believe in producing food at a loss that simple goes into long term storage??

Birdnuts · 04-12-2014 12:20am

Capercaille wrote: »

True. We should level every ditch, drain every bog, level every native forest, destroy all habitats in order to produce more food/money.

As can be seen by the current income crisis in beef,poultry etc.(and soon milk going on todays reports) its certainly not farmers who are making money from that approach.

Capercaille · 04-12-2014 12:23am

Birdnuts wrote: »

As can be seen by the current income crisis in beef,poultry etc.(and soon milk going on todays reports) its certainly not farmers who are making money from that approach.

The most intensive farmers are.

rangler1 · 04-12-2014 12:26am

Birdnuts wrote: »

Not sure what your trying to say there This argument is about what is in the best interests of Irish farmers in terms of their return from the industry and the importance of the farmed landscape in terms of our water supplies, tourism etc. Do you believe in producing in food at a loss that simple goes into long term storage??

All intensive farmers work harder at protecting water quality and environment than any tree hugger, I can tell you and if you travel through the countryside, intensively farmed land is a lot more scenic than badly farmed.
Maybe Connemara etc looks well, but I don't appreciate it, but to me the varying colours in the fields through Wexford, Carlow laoise and counties like it is as good as you get any where

Connemara Farmer · 04-12-2014 12:28am

rangler1 wrote: »

Maybe Connemara etc looks well, but I don't appreciate it

Speaks volumes.

rangler1 · 04-12-2014 12:32am

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Speaks volumes.

If we all had the same taste, life'd be very dul

Commonage/hill farmers issues thread, GLAS, GAEC, etc etc

Comments