My â‚¬100m BEAM scheme

Hurling Hereford · 31-08-2019 7:12pm

wrangler wrote: »

It's scandalous that , after IFA getting €50m from Europe, some desk driver fecks it up like that for farmers.

The I.F.A. ???

MikeSoys · 01-09-2019 3:56pm

i sent 24 cattle to factory. its my understanding they want you to reduce the no of CATTLE during 07/20 -06/21 on agfood they have me down as having 1908kgs (livestock manure nitrogen); 5% of this 96kgs(which is 2 cattle i need to have less in 01/07/20-30/07/21..)

but the problem is im struggling to work out where they got 1908kgs from i have a mix of 1-2 yr old cattle and >2yr olds.

I had 32 cattle in 2018 & 36 in 2019(within the ref. period) and as some cattle became >24 months during the ref period so im not understanding this
anyone else having this issue?

also next yr if i have more cattle ...the only penalty is i just give the aid money back? no penalties etc this right? tks

wrangler · 01-09-2019 6:02pm

Hurling Hereford wrote: »

The I.F.A. ???

Yea Joe healy even said on the news since I put up that post, had it been left to the Public Disservice it'd never have been got

High bike · 01-09-2019 7:51pm

MikeSoys wrote: »

i sent 24 cattle to factory. its my understanding they want you to reduce the no of CATTLE during 07/20 -06/21 on agfood they have me down as having 1908kgs (livestock manure nitrogen); 5% of this 96kgs(which is 2 cattle i need to have less in 01/07/20-30/07/21..)

but the problem is im struggling to work out where they got 1908kgs from i have a mix of 1-2 yr old cattle and >2yr olds.

I had 32 cattle in 2018 & 36 in 2019(within the ref. period) and as some cattle became >24 months during the ref period so im not understanding this
anyone else having this issue?

also next yr if i have more cattle ...the only penalty is i just give the aid money back? no penalties etc this right? tks

the 1908 kgs is worked out on a daily basis depending on the cattle’s ages, don’t know what the story is on the penalty if ur over

gerryirl · 01-09-2019 7:56pm

if you apply for this folks do you only have reduce the 4 or 5% till 2021 can you go back up again without risking a penalty.

coolshannagh28 · 01-09-2019 8:00pm

I cant understand why Farm Organisations didn't insist on other means of reducing carbon than stock reduction , ie less concentrates , earlier turnout etc!

gerryirl · 01-09-2019 8:03pm

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

I cant understand why Farm Organisations didn't insist on other means of reducing carbon than stock reduction , ie less concentrates , earlier turnout etc!

have to agree and plus if they are that worried about things there has been no grant etc to change lights to led in farm yard sheds etc. Come winter time we all know the amount of energy used. its only a small thing but can have a huge impact

kk.man · 01-09-2019 8:19pm

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

I cant understand why Farm Organisations didn't insist on other means of reducing carbon than stock reduction , ie less concentrates , earlier turnout etc!

I think the EU insisted on it.

Robson99 · 01-09-2019 8:44pm

gerryirl wrote: »

if you apply for this folks do you only have reduce the 4 or 5% till 2021 can you go back up again without risking a penalty.

Ya one year only. Too good to leave behind. Think I will carry extra for summer and then cut back what I put into te shed for winter

MikeSoys · 01-09-2019 9:02pm

High bike wrote: »

the 1908 kgs is worked out on a daily basis depending on the cattle’s ages, don’t know what the story is on the penalty if ur over

okay thanks so if it done on daily basis.. the only way to match it is to go through every month and work out the age of each animal, and take the average?

Say my name · 01-09-2019 9:15pm

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

I cant understand why Farm Organisations didn't insist on other means of reducing carbon than stock reduction , ie less concentrates , earlier turnout etc!

It'd be too hard for the Dept to police and weather dependent.
Stocking rates is easily done by algorithms on the dept cmms system to show any offenders.

They'll be a few different things brought in though I'd say.
From feed additives to covers on open slurry tanks to the already slurry injection systems in place to the seai grant on solar and biomass system purely mostly for farm use.

wrangler · 01-09-2019 9:15pm

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

I cant understand why Farm Organisations didn't insist on other means of reducing carbon than stock reduction , ie less concentrates , earlier turnout etc!

Impossible to monitor or police, livestock database will be surer

High bike · 01-09-2019 9:37pm

MikeSoys wrote: »

okay thanks so if it done on daily basis.. the only way to match it is to go through every month and work out the age of each animal, and take the average?

yeah all u need is their ages and the number of days in ur herd no

Lime Tree Farm · 01-09-2019 10:04pm

Login to ICBF website and select from their MENU
VIEW PROFILES
2nd last option STOCK NUMBERS
Select NITRATES REPORT
Select year 2018 SUBMIT
When the report appears
On the right hand side top of report select EXCEL
This will drop a copy of the nitrates 2018 report into Excel
Select year 2019 SUBMIT
When the report appears
On the right hand side top of report select EXCEL
This will drop a copy of the Nitrates 2019 report into Excel
Open the 2018 Excel file and copy July to Dec cells into a new book
Open the 2019 Excel file and copy Jan to Jun Cells to the right of Dec 2018 cells
Average each age group from July 2018 to end June 2019
Paste in the known kg nitrogen for each category of animal in Cell beyond Avg Cell
Animal Type Dairy Cows = 85, Suckler Cows = 65, Total Cattle 0 - 12 mths = 24, Total Cattle 12 - 24 mth = 57, Total Cattle 24 mths = 65, for N kg/hd

Multiply the average for each animal category by the relevant N kg/hd figure.
Total each category up and you have your total nitrogen from July 2018 to Jun 2019.
This is based on a monthly average, a daily basis would be more accurate as calculated by Dept

Hurling Hereford · 01-09-2019 11:01pm

tanko wrote: »

I sold four cows in the mart which were killed shortly after.
Am I right in saying i get nothing and the lads that got them killed get €400?

It all depends who bought your animals

red bull · 02-09-2019 12:19am

I'm a dairy farmer with montbeliarde x fleckieh xcows and it appears I can claim €40 on there beef breed calves, accordingly 33x40 =1320. Not sure if I will claim

coolshannagh28 · 02-09-2019 9:52am

wrangler wrote: »

Impossible to monitor or police, livestock database will be surer

I completed a carbon navigator in BDGP as did all participants and a stipulation of the payment is participation in a scheme , it was indicated that the dept has carbon information on all participants in these programmes.

wrangler · 02-09-2019 9:57am

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

I completed a carbon navigator in BDGP as did all participants and a stipulation of the payment is participation in a scheme , it was indicated that the dept has carbon information on all participants in these programmes.

If farmers tell the truth.:rolleyes:
They don't need to do inspections in the present system, computer will flag any problems.

coolshannagh28 · 02-09-2019 10:00am

wrangler wrote: »

If farmers tell the truth.:rolleyes:
They don't need to do inspections in the present system, computer will flag any problems.

Im addressing the main farmer issue with the scheme; the number reduction , there are other ways of reducing carbon . This is a concession to the anti farmer vegan PS climate lobby which sets a precedent unfavourable to farmers.

High bike · 02-09-2019 6:42pm

Any word on what the uptake on this scheme has been, well under subscribed I'd imagine

Keep Sluicing · 02-09-2019 9:16pm

High bike wrote: »

Any word on what the uptake on this scheme has been, well under subscribed I'd imagine

Its under subscribed. The department of agriculture restricted the eligible dates so much in the hope to spend less than 20 million of the 50 million that the government had to put up. They'll spend the 50 million from Europe alright.

wrangler · 02-09-2019 9:23pm

Keep Sluicing wrote: »

Its under subscribed. The department of agriculture restricted the eligible dates so much in the hope to spend less than 20 million of the 50 million that the government had to put up. They'll spend the 50 million from Europe alright.

70m would be a great cash injection all the same,

High bike · 02-09-2019 10:03pm

Keep Sluicing wrote: »

Its under subscribed. The department of agriculture restricted the eligible dates so much in the hope to spend less than 20 million of the 50 million that the government had to put up. They'll spend the 50 million from Europe alright.

so no increase in payments so eventhough payments were to be reduced if it was over subscribed??

Keep Sluicing · 02-09-2019 10:07pm

High bike wrote: »

so no increase in payments so eventhough payments were to be reduced if it was over subscribed??

Yeah, thats the look of it.

wrangler · 02-09-2019 10:09pm

High bike wrote: »

so no increase in payments so eventhough payments were to be reduced if it was over subscribed??

All schemes are that way now, maximum budget and tough if not enough applied.
We'd always be advising to apply for schemes, if it's fully used it means it was needed and helps to get more money the next time

Cavanjack · 02-09-2019 10:11pm

Keep Sluicing wrote: »

Its under subscribed. The department of agriculture restricted the eligible dates so much in the hope to spend less than 20 million of the 50 million that the government had to put up. They'll spend the 50 million from Europe alright.

Where did you see that it was under subscribed? Farmers are notorious for leaving things till the last minute so it’ll probably fill up closer to the cut off date.

High bike · 02-09-2019 10:20pm

Cavanjack wrote: »

Where did you see that it was under subscribed? Farmers are notorious for leaving things till the last minute so it’ll probably fill up closer to the cut off date.

if it does it’s because lads are so fed up with sucklers they’r either cutting way back or getting out and getting a few bob for it

High bike · 02-09-2019 10:21pm

wrangler wrote: »

All schemes are that way now, maximum budget and tough if not enough applied.
We'd always be advising to apply for schemes, if it's fully used it means it was needed and helps to get more money the next time

surely if there’s 100 m budget it should be spent and split between all applicants

wrangler · 02-09-2019 10:54pm

High bike wrote: »

surely if there’s 100 m budget it should be spent and split between all applicants

Doesn't do farmers any good either if we claim that farmers have lost 100m and then they only look for 50m.
There might be time yet, when's the closing date

High bike · 02-09-2019 11:02pm

wrangler wrote: »

Doesn't do farmers any good either if we claim that farmers have lost 100m and then they only look for 50m.
There might be time yet, when's the closing date

8th or 9th Sept not sure which

wrangler · 02-09-2019 11:12pm

High bike wrote: »

8th or 9th Sept not sure which

Still a week so
If beef was a good trade you wouldn't be surprised at farmers reluctance for the 5% destock
but at present prices it's hard to understand

coolshannagh28 · 02-09-2019 11:23pm

wrangler wrote: »

Still a week so
If beef was a good trade you wouldn't be surprised at farmers reluctance for the 5% destock
but at present prices it's hard to understand

It shows the inherent optimism of farmers.

Bellview · 02-09-2019 11:25pm

wrangler wrote: »

Still a week so
If beef was a good trade you wouldn't be surprised at farmers reluctance for the 5% destock
but at present prices it's hard to understand

i think some of the fear is that by applying for the scheme will this scheme get used by a desk jockey as another stick to beat farmers with on ie capping a payment/future scheme... unfortunately there is lots of distrust out there

amacca · 02-09-2019 11:28pm

Its worth hardly a **** to me money wise the way things worked out.

But even if it was significant my family and I have ended up burned before by sneaky terms/conditions, rules/regulations and regard strings attached to schemes like this with deep suspicion.

High bike · 02-09-2019 11:32pm

Not for me anyway I’m jumping through enough hoops already

Keep Sluicing · 03-09-2019 9:36am

I've applied, was planning reducing numbers anyway. Due to the restrictions on dates, its worth very little to me tho.

Anto_Meath · 03-09-2019 9:43am

Not for me either, I killed cattle 40 cattle a year, the way it it has worked out most were in July / August 2018 (late spring dry summer cattle were slow coming fit) and June / July 2019 so I am not getting any top up on these groups and the €40 a cow would be worth €800. I would have to cut back about 5 cattle in total for this money. If I can't turn more than €800 on 5 cattle then there is something seriously wrong.

wrangler · 03-09-2019 9:53am

Bellview wrote: »

i think some of the fear is that by applying for the scheme will this scheme get used by a desk jockey as another stick to beat farmers with on ie capping a payment/future scheme... unfortunately there is lots of distrust out there

It's case by case any way, as long as those that fed a good few get it, they're needed around the ring now.
I know two that are getting the max

Green&Red · 03-09-2019 1:41pm

Hurling Hereford wrote: »

P.S. A reduction of less than 4% shall incur a 100% penalty

I presume that means you’ll lose the grant rather than be penalised?

High bike · 03-09-2019 1:53pm

Green&Red wrote: »

I presume that means you’ll lose the grant rather than be penalised?

id like to see that in writing

whelan2 · 03-09-2019 3:29pm

Do you have to be bord bia approved for this scheme?

High bike · 03-09-2019 3:40pm

whelan2 wrote: »

Do you have to be bord bia approved for this scheme?

i think Glas or the Beef Data scheme will get u in

Base price · 03-09-2019 3:40pm

whelan2 wrote: »

Do you have to be bord bia approved for this scheme?

No, if you already in a environmental scheme like GLAS you are covered, if not you have to commit to sign up to BB before the 1/12/19

wrangler · 03-09-2019 4:20pm

High bike wrote: »

id like to see that in writing

Reading the small print and filling in forms is the best paying job on a drystock farm.

OnDtown · 03-09-2019 4:34pm

Have a question towards this and maybe someone can help my understanding?

In my fathers case he will qualify for the full 10k payment.
This will be subject to tax/PRSI/etc so he will come out with slightly less than half.
Next year he will have to reduce stock numbers (we're estimating 10-15 head) in order to meet the nitrates requirement.
This would mean he would be spending 10-15k less towards stocking the farm next year and this 10-15k would them be subjected to tax again, meaning he would actually be paying more back in tax than he received in the first place?
Could this be correct? I find it hard to believe but please correct me where I'm mistaken.

The above scnario assumes top rate of tax, no borrowings for stocking, etc.

Neddyusa · 03-09-2019 4:41pm

OnDtown wrote: »

Have a question towards this and maybe someone can help my understanding?

In my fathers case he will qualify for the full 10k payment.
This will be subject to tax/PRSI/etc so he will come out with slightly less than half.
Next year he will have to reduce stock numbers (we're estimating 10-15 head) in order to meet the nitrates requirement.
This would mean he would be spending 10-15k less towards stocking the farm next year and this 10-15k would them be subjected to tax again, meaning he would actually be paying more back in tax than he received in the first place?
Could this be correct? I find it hard to believe but please correct me where I'm mistaken.

The above scnario assumes top rate of tax, no borrowings for stocking, etc.

I believe your assumptions are correct - Except for the fact that if you buy €10-15k less cattle you'll also sell €12-18k less cattle next year.

Also, if you're on the top rate of tax from beef finishing at the moment, you're in a very small cohort - what's the secret????!

wrangler · 03-09-2019 4:46pm

OnDtown wrote: »

Have a question towards this and maybe someone can help my understanding?

In my fathers case he will qualify for the full 10k payment.
This will be subject to tax/PRSI/etc so he will come out with slightly less than half.
Next year he will have to reduce stock numbers (we're estimating 10-15 head) in order to meet the nitrates requirement.
This would mean he would be spending 10-15k less towards stocking the farm next year and this 10-15k would them be subjected to tax again, meaning he would actually be paying more back in tax than he received in the first place?
Could this be correct? I find it hard to believe but please correct me where I'm mistaken.

The above scnario assumes top rate of tax, no borrowings for stocking, etc.

He's not really the farmer that's being targetted, if it's all taxed it means he's not one that has lost money on beef.
Destocking isn't a problem if your accountant has the stock valued right in the first place, I've destocked twice in the last ten years without a hefty tax bill, more than that I don't know

wrangler · 03-09-2019 4:48pm

Neddyusa wrote: »

I believe your assumptions are correct - Except for the fact that if you buy €10-15k less cattle you'll also sell €12-18k less cattle next year.

Also, if you're on the top rate of tax from beef finishing at the moment, you're in a very small cohort - what's the secret????!

Parttime farmer claiming all allowance on his salary/pension, country is full of them

OnDtown · 03-09-2019 5:02pm

wrangler wrote: »

He's not really the farmer that's being targetted, if it's all taxed it means he's not one that has lost money on beef.
Destocking isn't a problem if your accountant has the stock valued right in the first place, I've destocked twice in the last ten years without a hefty tax bill, more than that I don't know

Ironically I think he is exactly the farmer that was targetted by this scheme, he could have claimed 2-3 times the max amount if it wasn't capped at 100 cattle, and trust me he definately has lost alot of money on beef!

But between his state/private pensions + BPS/ANC payments, this will push him into the higher tax bracket.
Off the top of my head calculations estimate that he could be liable to 11k tax payments over 2 years, just to receive this 10k payment. It sounds nuts to be honest!

I really not sure how the smart destocking works with the accountant and niether of us have much faith in the current guy either.

Neddyusa · 03-09-2019 5:03pm

wrangler wrote: »

He's not really the farmer that's being targetted, if it's all taxed it means he's not one that has lost money on beef.
Destocking isn't a problem if your accountant has the stock valued right in the first place, I've destocked twice in the last ten years without a hefty tax bill, more than that I don't know

Agree with Wrangler.
Destocking not an issue if accountant was on the ball.
You will be taxed on the BEAM support as income though.

My â‚¬100m BEAM scheme

Comments