Future in farming

Capercaillie · 09-11-2015 12:13AM

Miname wrote: »

Glas is of more benefit to small farmers that are less intensive. Cap is pulling all entitlement s back to have a one size fits all . I think you want all the grants just to suit your way of farming, and use the save the pigeon excuse as way for you to not try and actually farm your own ground.

That's a fairly ignorant to say. I have certain management techniques which I have to do on my farm in the scheme I'm in. I could do the bare minimum, but I do a lot more than the scheme requests. For exampleI have to mow on September 1st, but I mow on September 14th. Stocking density in aftermath grazing has to be maximum 0.5LSU/Ha, while I graze at 0.2 LSU/Ha. I would earn a lot more from the farm if I leased it out or managed it intensively, but I choose to farm the land this way.

barnaman · 09-11-2015 12:23AM

Glas is no bad thing personally I think that farmers should be land stewarts and farm without wrecking everything; there are some shocking ignorant lads out there unfortunatley. However like all these schemes its flawed I could not enter round 1 as I am a young farmer now number of plans/actions could have done are closed to me. How those that make any sense. again whole thing too artifical and beurocratic.

Deepsouthwest · 09-11-2015 12:24AM

Capercaillie wrote: »

EU gave Irish Government 528 million euros for farmer in SAC/SPA/Natura2000 sites. DAFM/IFA decided to relocate the funds.
The original budget for distribution to farmers managing land within these protected areas was €528 million. However, in 2013 the Department of Agriculture abruptly announced that only €93 million would be spent on Natura 2000 sites and that the massive balance of more than €400 million would be reallocated elsewhere. This represents a reallocation of greater than 80%.
EU gave Irish Government 540 million euros.

What's this got to do with the reallocation of my SFP? Or have u decided not to discuss this. Subsidies were originally brought in to support people who were contributing the most to the food chain, now they're being reallocated to far less productive farms, like urs I'd imagine by the way u describe it, yet ur still not happy.

Miname · 09-11-2015 06:23AM

Capercaillie wrote: »

That's a fairly ignorant to say. I have certain management techniques which I have to do on my farm in the scheme I'm in. I could do the bare minimum, but I do a lot more than the scheme requests. For exampleI have to mow on September 1st, but I mow on September 14th. Stocking density in aftermath grazing has to be maximum 0.5LSU/Ha, while I graze at 0.2 LSU/Ha. I would earn a lot more from the farm if I leased it out or managed it intensively, but I choose to farm the land this way.

How's that ignorant, you come on here preaching about how great you are and how badly the whole Irish agriculture scene is, not just now but the whole time. You keep crying about how badly your being done on grants, we'll just get off your lazy ass and farm your land and you just mightn't need the grants.

Capercaillie · 09-11-2015 09:47AM

Miname wrote: »

How's that ignorant, you come on here preaching about how great you are and how badly the whole Irish agriculture scene is, not just now but the whole time. You keep crying about how badly your being done on grants, we'll just get off your lazy ass and farm your land and you just mightn't need the grants.

Thanks for the advice:). I wonder what would happen if all subsidies stopped in the morning. Would everybody just shut up and say we need to work harder and just forget about the subsidies. Or would everybody be up in Dublin protesting?

kowtow · 09-11-2015 09:59AM

Capercaillie wrote:

Thanks for the advice . I wonder what would happen if all subsidies stopped in the morning. Would everybody just shut up and say we need to work harder and just forget about the subsidies. Or would everybody be up in Dublin protesting?

If all the subsidies stopped in the morning it would be the day that saved irish farming.

einn32 · 09-11-2015 10:13AM

I think the OP should give farming the 100 acres a go and see if it does give you an income. Not much point in asking will it.. just go do it! I'd have loved to be giving it a go with 100.

These future of farming debates always descend into payments etc. talk. Is it like a drug to Irish farming? I don't think Irish farming is going anywhere unless these subsidies go.

Panch18 · 09-11-2015 10:33AM

kowtow wrote: »

If all the subsidies stopped in the morning it would be the day that saved irish farming.

Are you talking about all subsidies worldwide or just in ireland/eu? Because if just ireland/eu then i think your statement above is rubbish

yosemitesam1 · 09-11-2015 10:37AM

Deepsouthwest wrote: »

What's this got to do with the reallocation of my SFP? Or have u decided not to discuss this. Subsidies were originally brought in to support people who were contributing the most to the food chain, now they're being reallocated to far less productive farms, like urs I'd imagine by the way u describe it, yet ur still not happy.

But will taking money away from the more intensive lads have positives. Presumably this money will be spent outside of farming, so it might balance out

Panch18 · 09-11-2015 10:46AM

Fullback333 wrote: »

Do you thinks a 100 acre farm would be give a sustainable income for a young farmer?( have sucklers and sheep)

For a full time living excluding SFP you'd want to be milking cows, but like most things in life there is an opportunity cost to milking cows which is your time. With beef and tillage you can easily hold down a full time job and still farm to a high level quite easily and have a good income and life style. 100 acres of beef or tillage will give you an income of 20-25k and say 10k SFP your up to 30k plus and loads of available time to do off farm work. If you got even a handy job earning say 20-25k then you have an income well into the 50-60k range. There's not many in rural ireland who'd be better off than you

personally I'd go for the easiest job you could find as it would allow yiu to be fresher for the farm. Something like working in your local coop would be handy enough. You could also do a bit of farm contacting such as hedgecutting, fencing or relief milking and you'd have yourself a damn nice income and lifestyle

Cran · 09-11-2015 10:50AM

Fullback333 wrote: »

We're in Carlow so the land would be good enough, I'll probably end up part time farming it

This depends on your age, situation and drive. If you're near me its probably some of the best land in the country, and can be used for any farming entreprise you are interested in. Are you in your 20's and own the land yourself with no other parties, and have the drive to farm rather than travel or work else where in your 20's? If this all ticks why not farm full time for a while and try make a go of it, if your productive opportunities for leasing more land will be available in near future I think.
No one will really be able to answer the question but yourself once its tried, nothing ventured nothing gained...

I travelled and worked elsewhere in my 20's and dont regret a minute of it, but no matter what anyone says there is no right or wrong way to get somewhere....

Dawggone · 09-11-2015 10:54AM

Panch18 wrote: »

For a full time living excluding SFP you'd want to be milking cows, but like most things in life there is an opportunity cost to milking cows which is your time. With beef and tillage you can easily hold down a full time job and still farm to a high level quite easily and have a good income and life style. 100 acres of beef or tillage will give you an income of 20-25k and say 10k SFP your up to 30k plus and loads of available time to do off farm work. If you got even a handy job earning say 20-25k then you have an income well into the 50-60k range. There's not many in rural ireland who'd be better off than you

personally I'd go for the easiest job you could find as it would allow yiu to be fresher for the farm. Something like working in your local coop would be handy enough. You could also do a bit of farm contacting such as hedgecutting, fencing or relief milking and you'd have yourself a damn nice income and lifestyle

€20/25k from 100 acres of tillage??

No way.

Deepsouthwest · 09-11-2015 11:04AM

Capercaillie wrote: »

Thanks for the advice:). I wonder what would happen if all subsidies stopped in the morning. Would everybody just shut up and say we need to work harder and just forget about the subsidies. Or would everybody be up in Dublin protesting?

I don't know about everybody, but I'm pretty sure u'd be up in arms in Dublin, crying over ur subsidies.
I farm my land and produce food for my income, subsidies only supplement it.
If they went in the morning it might free up an awful lot of land to people who actually want to work for their money.

Panch18 · 09-11-2015 11:06AM

Dawggone wrote: »

€20/25k from 100 acres of tillage??

No way.

There are plenty of tillage lads in my area paying 240-275 an acre for rent so if you own the ground and only make that on it there you have it

Timmaay · 09-11-2015 11:06AM

Panch18 wrote: »

If you got even a handy job earning say 20-25k then you have an income well into the 50-60k range. There's not many in rural ireland who'd be better off than you

Alternatively rent out the farm on a long term lease tax free, I'm sure he'd have no problems getting 200e in carlow, that's 20k a year tax free, combined with say a 40k a year "industrial average income" job, that would be a take home pay of say 50k a year (against your before tax figure of 50/60k, your well into the high rate so prb only taking home 35k), combining this with zero income tide up with stock. It's an option I most certainly keep in the back of my mind all the time, especially in the context of earlier discussion on profit monitor threads etc, I definitely cannot fool myself into thinking that I'm producing milk for say 25c/l etc when I'm definitely losing out a big opportunity cost by renting out the farm instead.

Panch18 · 09-11-2015 11:12AM

Timmaay wrote: »

Alternatively rent out the farm on a long term lease tax free, I'm sure he'd have no problems getting 200e in carlow, that's 20k a year tax free, combined with say a 40k a year "industrial average income" job, that would be a take home pay of say 50k a year (against your before tax figure of 50/60k, your well into the high rate so prb only taking home 35k), combining this with zero income tide up with stock. It's an option I most certainly keep in the back of my mind all the time, especially in the context of earlier discussion on profit monitor threads etc, I definitely cannot fool myself into thinking that I'm producing milk for say 25c/l etc when I'm definitely losing out a big opportunity cost by renting out the farm instead.

Obviously a lot, majority even?, of farmers in ireland would be better off leasing their farms rather than farming them with the new tax rules. I assumed the op wanted to know abiut farming it as opposed to leasing it.

I think its obvious that, cows aside, cattle, beef and sheep can never compete with tax free leasing at current prices. Which is staggering really

Farrell · 09-11-2015 11:20AM

barnaman wrote: »

I am a young farmer and had land with no entitlements. This was the flaw with subsidies and why Ithink they should be scrapped like the milk quota, taxi licences and pub licences. They do not reflect actually farming if you farm farm and leave at that. Lads bought a pile of bullocks years ago knowing that that year would be a reference year got high beef slaughter premiums and numbers and promptly sold them. If you cannot farm to make money do something else. I am trying to currently figure if it is making money for me and looking at my figures without the BFP it is not. That tells me that I cannot guarentee that I will be farming in 10 years and if thats the case so be it. Farming is a business simple as that and the problem in Ireland is the farms are in reality way too small.

Barnaman this is not meant to you personally, just replying to your point.
Like you I started farming after all SFP were arranged. I intend to buy more entitlements next year, if I can get them.
I don't see why allot of people in this country think that they should get stuff for nothing, I started farming in 2009, so (just) missed out on installation aid, too long farming now for latest stuff. I've had to take out loans, & so have others.
I think we (like in GAA) have to play the whistle, no matter how unfair we know the game is being played.

rangler1 · 09-11-2015 11:22AM

Capercaillie wrote: »

EU gave Irish Government 528 million euros for farmer in SAC/SPA/Natura2000 sites. DAFM/IFA decided to relocate the funds.
The original budget for distribution to farmers managing land within these protected areas was €528 million. However, in 2013 the Department of Agriculture abruptly announced that only €93 million would be spent on Natura 2000 sites and that the massive balance of more than €400 million would be reallocated elsewhere. This represents a reallocation of greater than 80%.
EU gave Irish Government 540 million euros.

It was reallocated because there was a very poor take up for it, people obviously didn't want to have to work for it

Fullback333 · 09-11-2015 12:16PM

Thanks for all the replies lads, very interested to hear your opinions!

20silkcut · 09-11-2015 01:32PM

kowtow wrote: »

If farming really does need more EU support to make it viable that's a very good reason for young talent to run a mile ... drive + determination to take the world on and shape it are what we want, not an inherited dependence culture and the "price taker" mentality which goes hand in hand with it.

If the above sounds idealistic, it's supposed to be, because idealism and ideas are what's needed.

Plenty of time for the young to get old and dissolusioned later on.

The EU happily sacrifices its own agricultural industry in trade deals.

Look at the sugar regime changes in the mid 00's and what Peter mandelson was trying to achieve in the WTO talks c2009/10.
This referendum in Britain is going to make things worse as they try and leverage more EU reforms in their favour.
The Brits are the biggest opponents of the CAP.
It's frightening how weak the agricultural lobby is in this country and throughout Europe bar France.
Any reduction in or watering down of CAP absolutely must be offset by amendments to trade deals in favour of EU agriculture.

Bullocks · 09-11-2015 01:57PM

rangler1 wrote: »

It was reallocated because there was a very poor take up for it, people obviously didn't want to have to work for it

What scheme was it offered under to the Natura and SAC farmers do you know rangler and what work did they not want to do ?

kowtow · 09-11-2015 02:19PM

The problem for both farmers & consumers is that agricultural subsidies of any kind (except perhaps pure ecological incentives) are - sometimes literally - a poisoned Chalice.

Despite the stated intention of subsidies, which is to make food cheaper while keeping farmers fed, the mechanism of subsidy benefits three groups of people:

1. Processors
2. Consumers
3. Farmers

Of these groups, it is overwhelmingly the processors who benefit most. They benefit because subsidy encourages a cheap(er) reliable supply of simpler commodities, which they are able to process ("add value to") before selling to consumers. A reliable subsidised supply means they can invest in more complex processes which capture a larger part of the value chain for themselves - something which is essential in a world where for their own survival processors must grow profits faster than consumers can grow families or farmers can grow food.

Consumers benefit - in a sense - because of the abundance of processed food means that they don't feel hungry - well actually, they do feel hungry, and more often, but they are able to satisfy cravings with an abundant supply of processed convenient food - which suits the processor fine, although when obesity, diabetes and all the other nasty unintended consequences are taken into account it may turn out that the consumer pays a price he didn't expect to for all that cheap food.

Farmers benefit - directly - from subsidy, but they pay for it many times over. By distorting the natural mechanism of the market subsidy effectively forces farmers to scale up and specialise, providing an ever increasing supply of cheaper commodity grade raw materials to the processors who can turn a profit on it. The connection between farmer & consumer is removed, and the farmer in effect begins to work a treadmill upon which no matter how fast he runs, and how much raw material he sends to the processor, he can barely make ends meet without a cheque from the government. The further along this road he runs, the less chance he has of turning back, because the system of subsidies has encouraged him (at his own risk) to specialise and invest for the benefit of the processor.

It seems unlikely, on the face of it, that this system can continue indefinitely - certainly if it does it is difficult to imagine Irish family farms continuing the way they are today.

But there is no other explanation for a situation where - in a country with food prices 14% higher than the rest of Europe and likely to enjoy the highest rates of obesity in the EU within a decade or two, a farmer with 100 acres & some stock who is prepared to work full time cannot make a living which would feed his family.

Capercaillie · 09-11-2015 03:25PM

rangler1 wrote: »

It was reallocated because there was a very poor take up for it, people obviously didn't want to have to work for it

That's what Coveney said when he was found out.

Bullocks wrote: »

What scheme was it offered under to the Natura and SAC farmers do you know rangler and what work did they not want to do ?

x2 I'd like to know as well. I thinks Bullocks is in a SPA/SAC as well.

20silkcut · 09-11-2015 04:03PM

kowtow wrote: »

The problem for both farmers & consumers is that agricultural subsidies of any kind (except perhaps pure ecological incentives) are - sometimes literally - a poisoned Chalice.

Despite the stated intention of subsidies, which is to make food cheaper while keeping farmers fed, the mechanism of subsidy benefits three groups of people:

1. Processors
2. Consumers
3. Farmers

Of these groups, it is overwhelmingly the processors who benefit most. They benefit because subsidy encourages a cheap(er) reliable supply of simpler commodities, which they are able to process ("add value to") before selling to consumers. A reliable subsidised supply means they can invest in more complex processes which capture a larger part of the value chain for themselves - something which is essential in a world where for their own survival processors must grow profits faster than consumers can grow families or farmers can grow food.

Consumers benefit - in a sense - because of the abundance of processed food means that they don't feel hungry - well actually, they do feel hungry, and more often, but they are able to satisfy cravings with an abundant supply of processed convenient food - which suits the processor fine, although when obesity, diabetes and all the other nasty unintended consequences are taken into account it may turn out that the consumer pays a price he didn't expect to for all that cheap food.

Farmers benefit - directly - from subsidy, but they pay for it many times over. By distorting the natural mechanism of the market subsidy effectively forces farmers to scale up and specialise, providing an ever increasing supply of cheaper commodity grade raw materials to the processors who can turn a profit on it. The connection between farmer & consumer is removed, and the farmer in effect begins to work a treadmill upon which no matter how fast he runs, and how much raw material he sends to the processor, he can barely make ends meet without a cheque from the government. The further along this road he runs, the less chance he has of turning back, because the system of subsidies has encouraged him (at his own risk) to specialise and invest for the benefit of the processor.

It seems unlikely, on the face of it, that this system can continue indefinitely - certainly if it does it is difficult to imagine Irish family farms continuing the way they are today.

But there is no other explanation for a situation where - in a country with food prices 14% higher than the rest of Europe and likely to enjoy the highest rates of obesity in the EU within a decade or two, a farmer with 100 acres & some stock who is prepared to work full time cannot make a living which would feed his family.

What can be done about this?

Dawggone · 09-11-2015 04:09PM

kowtow wrote: »

The problem for both farmers & consumers is that agricultural subsidies of any kind (except perhaps pure ecological incentives) are - sometimes literally - a poisoned Chalice.

Despite the stated intention of subsidies, which is to make food cheaper while keeping farmers fed, the mechanism of subsidy benefits three groups of people:

1. Processors
2. Consumers
3. Farmers

Of these groups, it is overwhelmingly the processors who benefit most. They benefit because subsidy encourages a cheap(er) reliable supply of simpler commodities, which they are able to process ("add value to") before selling to consumers. A reliable subsidised supply means they can invest in more complex processes which capture a larger part of the value chain for themselves - something which is essential in a world where for their own survival processors must grow profits faster than consumers can grow families or farmers can grow food.

Consumers benefit - in a sense - because of the abundance of processed food means that they don't feel hungry - well actually, they do feel hungry, and more often, but they are able to satisfy cravings with an abundant supply of processed convenient food - which suits the processor fine, although when obesity, diabetes and all the other nasty unintended consequences are taken into account it may turn out that the consumer pays a price he didn't expect to for all that cheap food.

Farmers benefit - directly - from subsidy, but they pay for it many times over. By distorting the natural mechanism of the market subsidy effectively forces farmers to scale up and specialise, providing an ever increasing supply of cheaper commodity grade raw materials to the processors who can turn a profit on it. The connection between farmer & consumer is removed, and the farmer in effect begins to work a treadmill upon which no matter how fast he runs, and how much raw material he sends to the processor, he can barely make ends meet without a cheque from the government. The further along this road he runs, the less chance he has of turning back, because the system of subsidies has encouraged him (at his own risk) to specialise and invest for the benefit of the processor.

It seems unlikely, on the face of it, that this system can continue indefinitely - certainly if it does it is difficult to imagine Irish family farms continuing the way they are today.

But there is no other explanation for a situation where - in a country with food prices 14% higher than the rest of Europe and likely to enjoy the highest rates of obesity in the EU within a decade or two, a farmer with 100 acres & some stock who is prepared to work full time cannot make a living which would feed his family.

Very well written and impossible to argue against Kow.

You completely disregard the other agricultural giants that compete with Eu farmers. These are heavily subsidized also. Apart from the arms industry, agriculture is one of the industries suffering from the most political interference.

I like a level playing field.

kowtow · 09-11-2015 04:24PM

Dawggone wrote: »

You completely disregard the other agricultural giants that compete with Eu farmers. These are heavily subsidized also. Apart from the arms industries agriculture is one of the industries suffering from the most political interference.

Agree completely - only to add that it is the complexity of the processing chain and commodity grade food from the farm that gives such a big inroad into the market to produce originating in other countries / continents.

If we allow the processing industry to persuade our local consumers that chicken nuggets are food, we can hardly blame the consumer for caring too much whether the corn which goes into them came from Offaly or Iowa.

Bullocks · 09-11-2015 04:32PM

Capercaillie wrote: »

That's what Coveney said when he was found out.

x2 I'd like to know as well. I thinks Bullocks is in a SPA/SAC as well.

I have some land but not the full farm thankfully in an SAC .
I think the truth is known about the scheme (ghost scheme possibly ) and the sooner it comes out the better .
One thing I know is that most farmers on marginal land aren't afraid of hard work , if they were they would be long gone out of those areas . If a fair scheme came in tomorrow that afforded them the chance to live on the land and by the rules governing SACs and SPAs they would take it but as it stands the schemes /money is being watered down and too many people outside these areas are getting access to it while the few that have to work within commonages, or on destocked hills and asked to maintain SACs aren't being paid accordingly

coconnellz · 09-11-2015 04:33PM

Subsidiary's also keep farmers small as it artificially inflates land prices which benefits the processors as they have the power and we can't say boo to them if change their prices

Capercaillie · 09-11-2015 04:57PM

Bullocks wrote: »

I have some land but not the full farm thankfully in an SAC .
I think the truth is known about the scheme (ghost scheme possibly ) and the sooner it comes out the better .
One thing I know is that most farmers on marginal land aren't afraid of hard work , if they were they would be long gone out of those areas . If a fair scheme came in tomorrow that afforded them the chance to live on the land and by the rules governing SACs and SPAs they would take it but as it stands the schemes /money is being watered down and too many people outside these areas are getting access to it while the few that have to work within commonages, or on destocked hills and asked to maintain SACs aren't being paid accordingly

Most of my neighbors would be happy enough to abide by the SPA rules if they got comparable treatment to other farmers (ie those planting forestry).

rangler1 · 09-11-2015 04:58PM

Bullocks wrote: »

What scheme was it offered under to the Natura and SAC farmers do you know rangler and what work did they not want to do ?

It's a long time ago, but I do remember the urgency for getting it spent.

Was coveney in power when it was going on

Future in farming

Comments