Cap reform convergence

wrangler wrote: »

There was maximum number of subs you could draw per Hectare.
It was a job for christmas week here to sit down and make sure to get the maximum number for our hectares,

They never had that problem here ...... no danger of there not being enough hectares to claim .... my grandfather at the time used to sell all the cattle with the subs not claimed. That is why the BPS here was so low even though there are probably 3 times the cattle in the place now.

Base price wrote: »

Yep there was. I got inspected every six to nine months. I reckoned it was because I was located in NCD (closer to Kildare St.) for the suckler cow sub which was a pia cause I'd have to run the cows through the crush for the inspector. Having said that the odd in calf/maiden heifer or two made the cut. At that time the inspectors didn't know if they were cows cause the calf registration system wasn't computerised. Those were also the days where some farms had multiple twin births
However, times have moved on and AIM put a stop to that. After reading your post I looked in the filing cabinet and found a original Suckler Cow Subsidy form from 1999.

4 cows calved one day here last year and all had twins. Then another the next day had twins although one of those died due to not being taken quick enough. Never saw anything like that before.


Couldn't register more than the first two sets without a form having to be sent out and signed!

Base price wrote: »

In those years there was a good trade for fresian bull calves bought in from dairy farmers (there was no need for calves to be tagged/registered on the farm of birth) and registered as a twin to another calf that was born on the farm. Eventually the Dept copped onto what was going on and clamped down - maybe that is why they now query several twin births in the same herd/year??

Loads of potential reasons probably. Off the top of my head, maybe they are trying to protect against lads "laundering" calves from unregistered animals. Or maybe fellas trying to reduce the number of movements. Another possibility might be to keep the ages down - calf born in January and register him in April as the twin of another one instead. Better chance to get finished under 30 months.



As far as I know, above a certain threshold you have to sign the form to confirm that they are twins and that the department can do a genetic test to confirm if they are suspicious.

wrangler wrote: »

There must have been a lot of farmers not needing money when i needed it, it was money for jam, why didn't everyone maximise it then.
Makes no difference to me now, but I was sick when i read the IFJ this week, doom and gloom etc, it was reminding me that in the nineties it was always reprting increases and extra subsidies.

I dont know, maybe they didnt exist yet? Most young farmers today were young children in the 90s. Maybe they had different types of farms that wasnt making the jam that was wanted? Hill farms were never given much consideration in the design of schemes down the years - not a gripe to be honest with you, but simply a statement of fact. Even in glas, commonage was kinda lumped in on a half page with very little interest in it or money that could be made from it. There was more detail offered on the design of bird boxes than the entire commonages section. No jam there. It is ridiculous when you consider the amount of land involved there and the goal of glas itself, but that is what self-interest does - a potential ace in the pack is given the minimum possible consideration.

Either way, your response is what I would call whataboutery, and it isnt really relevant to the point of convergence. The 90s is the best part of 30 years ago. It would be the equivalent of someone in the 90s harping back to the 60s. What would your response have been in the 90s to someone talking about farmers getting in on the gravy train in the 60s?

Deleted User wrote: »

Always around CAP time there is underhanded spin. Dept example figures excluded front loading, and then included the greening payment at the start of their table, but excluded the eco scheme payment at the end of their table - which makes the figures look worse for those on higher entitlements and makes figures for those on lower entitlement look as if they won't move much if at all.

In one word, politics.

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/department-modelling-on-cap-payments-is-misleading-inhfa/

Indeed. The headline in a journal article - '54500 farmers face payment wipeout'
The facts - the farmers whos entitlements are being brough in line with the national average. Apparently getting the average rate is a wipeout. What does that make the guys on the less than average rate then? You know, the people this is designed to give a fair chance to? It is very disingenuous.
Then you have a guy in another article telling all farmers to stand together on the issue. These fellas would want to get real. It is actually insulting to peoples intelligence.

wrangler wrote: »

There was maximum number of subs you could draw per Hectare.
It was a job for christmas week here to sit down and make sure to get the maximum number for our hectares,

Plus extensification at two stocking rates which was added to beep premiums and suckler cow payments 26 pounds at the lower rate not sure what the higher rate was

Bitten & Hisses wrote: »

The mindset to take action to maximise subsidies was not in place on this farm and with the benefit of hindsight, it was a failing. (Easy for me to say this many years later)
They were always very passive about subsidies - always claiming for what was in place, but never changing how the place operated to get the most out of the various schemes.
We have a below average SFP, but to be honest it's pure luck that it isn't a fraction of what it is, due to other factors influencing the stocking rate during the reference years.

Similar here.
We have above average but it’s circumstances rather than planning.


However.
I think the real failing in the system is that those with influence decided it would be better if farmers farmed subsidies and then sold their products at below cost to enable mega profits for processors.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Would the suckler farmer have options to do something similar with their own entitlements?
In reality, I feel you are giving quite extreme examples. For example, your 500 ewes vs the hill man with 50 ewes. It is easy to pick out flaws in every idea, but the goal of giving everyone the same starting point is patently the fairest also.

If Iremember rightly the hill guy had 200 acres.
My farm isn't big at 120 acres, extreme is a bit of an overstatement.
Any way there'll be plenty of lobbyists fighting everyones corner so all to play for still.

einn32 wrote: »

There is a fair amount of tinkering going on with payments, tax relief, grants and inspections I'd allege given the anecdotal evidence I heard over the years. Like any system some people play it.

If I got to sell my entitlements tax free and penalty free, as was the case last CAP reform, I'd be very happy.
I see IFA are looking for that

RedDevil55 wrote: »

How did that work for the last cap do you mind me asking. How much did the purchaser pay for the entitlements?

We're leasing some entitlements currently.

About twice the face value I think

Western Pomise wrote: »

Is it likely that stocking numbers will be taken into account rather than hectares farmed in deciding new CAP payments?
Through circumstances out of my control I had to reduce sheep numbers by 70% this year so have a far lower number on this years Census than last few years.
Would screw me if they decided to pick this year or and average over last few years to work out your payments under the new CAP.
Interested in people’s thoughts on likelihood of there being a ‘reference years’ type scenario in the new CAP?

Extremely doubtful they would return to a production based model in my opinion...
But, that’s just an opinion, which means nothing really

morphy87 wrote: »

What way will payments work for someone new starting off next year that never drew money? Will they just get the average payment and if so how much is it? I think it’s 100 an acre

The budget is very much reduced so unlikely to be the same average as now also there's proposal that some will be paid out as environmental payment, so I could see the greening being a seperate payment to be paid on completion of tasks. leaving otu the greening will reduce it by 25%ish .
I could see the average being €60 or €70 /acre so

wrangler wrote: »

The budget is very much reduced so unlikely to be the same average as now also there's proposal that some will be paid out as environmental payment, so I could see the greening being a seperate payment to be paid on completion of tasks. leaving otu the greening will reduce it by 25%ish .
I could see the average being €60 or €70 /acre so

So possibly when greening is added it could be up around the 100? How would greening work in conjunction with reps?

So at the moment if a new entrant,young farmer, went in with no payments I think they get 100 an acre and a top up of 25 for a five year scheme, so if eligible would this be a better option to go for next year? These figures were given to me by an advisor

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Do you or did you apply to the national reserve for these?
Does that have to be done by SFP submission date?

Yes it has to be done by SFP date, no I didn’t apply as I will still be eligible for a few years yet, but I will apply next year before it changes, I was told once your in the scheme it has to be honored for the 5 years, that’s what my advisor told me

wrangler wrote: »

Says here the 17may

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/applications-to-national-reserve-2021-to-open-in-february/

You seem to be very up to date with these schemes, would I be correct in what I am saying? Do you think going into the scheme I mentioned would be a better move than waiting for the new cap?

morphy87 wrote: »

You seem to be very up to date with these schemes, would I be correct in what I am saying? Do you think going into the scheme I mentioned would be a better move than waiting for the new cap?

I don’t understand - why would you wait?

Surely you would have been better off applying this year and getting paid sooner than hanging on year after year to see if there might be a better payment?

Like, even if it was a worse payment applying now - at least applying now means you’re in the system getting a payment, and should continue to get a payment vs nothing by not applying...

I’m confused by your approach...

--

RedDevil55 wrote: »

Would the face value be excluding or including any greening/eco-scheme premium?

Including greening
High entitlements the last time were making 2.5 +times and low were making under 2 times from what I cn remember
Buying entitlements is the same as buying land, you have to pay for them from after tax profits, they cannot be claimed for tax relief

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

I don’t understand - why would you wait?

Surely you would have been better off applying this year and getting paid sooner than hanging on year after year to see if there might be a better payment?

Like, even if it was a worse payment applying now - at least applying now means you’re in the system getting a payment, and should continue to get a payment vs nothing by not applying...

I’m confused by your approach...

We are getting payments all right but the reason for waiting to transfer the payments to me is that I am taking on extra land next year that is naked so this will be eligible for the young farmers scheme, so if I joined the young farmers scheme say this year I couldn’t add this parcel next year

morphy87 wrote: »

We are getting payments all right but the reason for waiting to transfer the payments to me is that I am taking on extra land next year that is naked so this will be eligible for the young farmers scheme, so if I joined the young farmers scheme say this year I couldn’t add this parcel next year

Naked land is no good unless looking to the NR. I don't know if you can do that for extra entitlements. You can get new ones where you've none or existing ones brought up to the national average.

The top up is on whatever entitlements you claim each year but you need the land to claim them.

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

Naked land is no good unless looking to the NR. I don't know if you can do that for extra entitlements. You can get new ones where you've none or existing ones brought up to the national average.

The top up is on whatever entitlements you claim each year but you need the land to claim them.

Our payments are very small,so if I went in as a new entrant with no payments would I be entitled to the national average plus the top up for the young farmers scheme? I would like as much feedback on this as possible as it seems a vague area,

Donald Trump wrote: »

As long as you satisfy the conditions - age and qualifications I think - and do your paperwork correctly, then you should get them from what I understand

So if I took over with no payments, I should then get the average plus the top up which would come to 125 an acre I think? I presume if I went in next year before the cap changes I would be ok for 5 years as the scheme is for 5 years

wrangler wrote: »

I was drawing €900/ha inc REPS for a while, it helped concentrate the mind I can tell you.
Last reform, dept took your payment and spread it over what ever you applied for in the first year so anyone that doubled their acreage since decoupling halved their entitlement value and if it was under the national average convergence click in and increased their entitlement value.
Some farmers with high values then brought it a stage further and sold most of their entitlements so their payment was small and convergence has brought them up now too even though they sold entitlements worth over a thousand each, sold at 2-3 times their value.
If that is the way it's done this time and some dairy farmers even trebling their land base, they will benefit hugely from convergence at the expense of small suckler farmers whose payments are being decimated due to convergence

Most likely that the dairy farmer who has trebled his land base, is drawing the current payment and giving it back in total to the landowner. Many leases have actually factored in that the leasing of the entitlements may not continue, and there are clauses within that if that eventuality occurs, the lease price changes to ag value plus what the new payment to the active farmer represents...

Well covered off by those who got good advise..

alps wrote: »

Most likely that the dairy farmer who has trebled his land base, is drawing the current payment and giving it back in total to the landowner. Many leases have actually factored in that the leasing of the entitlements may not continue, and there are clauses within that if that eventuality occurs, the lease price changes to ag value plus what the new payment to the active farmer represents...

Well covered off by those who got good advise..

Do many leases have this?

It doesn’t affect me, but would have thought this was going a bit too far? And it would only cover a few years til the lease was up and then in a new lease the entitlements are the property of the farmer who leased the land...

I don’t know, not sure I agree with it...