Farming Chit Chat

hugo29

also anyone heard of a 300l sprayer being too small for back of a 4w drive tractor, thats what the ever reliable sales man told me at local dealer

" oh you need a 400l or even 600l sprayer" i tried to tell the muppet i only want to spray me own land not all the neighbours as well

Username John

hugo29 wrote: »

seeing as we are on the subject

how much are entitlements to buy, purchased 16 acres there week ago

would one chance the low value in the hope they level up to the national average or just get the national average value ones now

Dont know this guy, and no idea if these are good value or not... but might be a help
http://farmentitlements.ie/

bbam

reilig wrote: »

SFP is a supplement for farmers wages. It is paid by the EU in recognition that Farmers sell their produce (Cattle, sheep etc) with low margins. This supplement is supposed to compensate them for this. The supplement is paid to ensure adequate supplys in Europe at prices that average European buyers can afford. It is paid to ensure food availability and price stability.

It is only fair that farms with 10 hectares receive less than those with 100 hectares and as it is set up now, this is what happens in most cases. I don't agree that everyone should receive the same amount - those who have bigger farms should receive more than those with smaller farms, but why should any farmer need more than €50k as an income supplement?

However, there are farmers and businesses out there with low levels of production who receive in excess of €500k. This payment is based on what they did in the past - not what they are doing now. Capping the amount that these people receive would mean more money to distribute to smaller or more active farmers.

The issue if the historical references at least will have to be tackled. It's impossible to justify its continuance. Equally so I feel would any new reference year be a bad idea. Surely it could be done annually on either LU or acerage farmed or a combination.

The cap is a nice idea but I feel that those with an influence on the powers that be are more likely to have a SFP in excess of €100k rather than those of us with less than €5k having any influence.

I know one lad renting 100acres 20 miles from home in the hope it will be an acerage based reference, has stocked it up to cover that too, but only wants to break even. He took it two years ago on a five year lease and reckons he has the new reference years covered, then he plans to sit back on his 40 acre farm and 20 sucklers with his new big SFP!!

Timmaay

hugo29 wrote: »

also anyone heard of a 300l sprayer being too small for back of a 4w drive tractor, thats what the ever reliable sales man told me at local dealer

" oh you need a 400l or even 600l sprayer" i tried to tell the muppet i only want to spray me own land not all the neighbours as well

What size fields are you doing? 2bh I priced up a 400l and 600l recently, and the 600 was only 100quid more!

But hmm only way I could see it being too small is if the controls are too far away on a big 4wd, no possible other issues!

bogman_bass

bbam wrote: »

I know one lad renting 100acres 20 miles from home in the hope it will be an acerage based reference, has stocked it up to cover that too, but only wants to break even. He took it two years ago on a five year lease and reckons he has the new reference years covered, then he plans to sit back on his 40 acre farm and 20 sucklers with his new big SFP!!

I hope he gets stung!

But in fairness, if he does then he'll just have to lump it unlike the bondholders with the bands but thats for another day......

bogman_bass

hugo29 wrote: »

also anyone heard of a 300l sprayer being too small for back of a 4w drive tractor, thats what the ever reliable sales man told me at local dealer

" oh you need a 400l or even 600l sprayer" i tried to tell the muppet i only want to spray me own land not all the neighbours as well

Its called being a good salesman

hugo29

Timmaay wrote: »

What size fields are you doing? 2bh I priced up a 400l and 600l recently, and the 600 was only 100quid more!

But hmm only way I could see it being too small is if the controls are too far away on a big 4wd, no possible other issues!

field size varies generally 2.5 acre down

just thought 300l was big enough am waiting for WHYTES to get back to me

Tipp Man

Lads ye are looking at this completly the wrong way by using phrases such as income and income supplement which highlights the way that many farmers look at farming

Farming is a business and it is your return on capital that is important. So if we assume that a tillage farm for example is break even (grain sales equal all costs) then the SFP is 2 things, your income and your return on capital - now if a 200 acre tillage farmer gets the same SFP as a 500 acre tillage farmer, at say 50k, then something is seriously wrong. We are saying that you are allowed to take an income from the farm but no return on capital??

hugo29

bogman_bass wrote: »

Its called being a good salesman

i know but it does not half pee me off, do they think we are totally stupid, just answer the question I asked

ah cant blame a man for trying i suppose

Tipp Man

reilig wrote: »

SFP is a supplement for farmers wages. It is paid by the EU in recognition that Farmers sell their produce (Cattle, sheep etc) with low margins. This supplement is supposed to compensate them for this. The supplement is paid to ensure adequate supplys in Europe at prices that average European buyers can afford. It is paid to ensure food availability and price stability.

.

Who has said it is an income supplement Reilig?

hugo29

bbam wrote: »

The issue if the historical references at least will have to be tackled. It's impossible to justify its continuance. Equally so I feel would any new reference year be a bad idea. Surely it could be done annually on either LU or acerage farmed or a combination.

The cap is a nice idea but I feel that those with an influence on the powers that be are more likely to have a SFP in excess of €100k rather than those of us with less than €5k having any influence.

I know one lad renting 100acres 20 miles from home in the hope it will be an acerage based reference, has stocked it up to cover that too, but only wants to break even. He took it two years ago on a five year lease and reckons he has the new reference years covered, then he plans to sit back on his 40 acre farm and 20 sucklers with his new big SFP!!

40 acres and 20 sucklers, has he any tips, crikes that tight

Tipp Man

reilig wrote: »

Was reading some other forums and some newspapers and I am seeing a lot of proposals about SFP being capped. What's people's opinion on this?

Basically some people are proposing that SFP be capped at a nominal figure such as €50,000. The idea being that this should be an adequate income top up for any farmer. At the end of the the SFP is supposed to be an income top up and not something which is supposed to be invested into the farm.

Some farmers who receive in excess of this amount claim that they will go bust if their SFP is capped. But is it viable that farmers are using their SFP to keep their farm's afloat? Would it not be better to force them to downsize or change farming practices so that they could survive on the €50k SFP?

It is claimed that if a limit was set, then there would be more money to go around for everyone and the average per hectare payment would be greatly increased.

What's your opinion on it?

Have you become a communist overnight Reilig??

Viewtodiefor

Username John wrote: »

Hi Reilg,

Is 50k not enough - ha ha, I'd love to have a SFP of 50k
In my mind, 50k is a lot of money...

But every number is relative...
If they capped it at 10k, and did more redistribution, then I would still be very happy, maybe even happier - as I have no chance of ever getting near 50k...
So everyone will have a different number...

But... your point is valid, that 50k is a good wage / salary for someone to get... (from farming )



A supplement to what though?
To the price you get for your cattle?
Or the money you make from each hectare of land?
Or just an amount of money you should get when farming, if so, should we all get the same amount?

I dunno...
I guess I agree with the idea of a limit, but this is cos it would benefit me, and maybe benefit the majority or people, but I don't agree with setting limits like this in principal...

Of course 50k is more than enough if you are getting 50k and can't survive on that then your not a good farmer are you?
But as it's the big boys involved in the negotiation it would be fair to assume that won't happen.
On a side note we might all be very surprised how big the cuts will be especially now we seem to be getting our so called Debt forgiveness from Europe ,
Some may say that is not relevant to sfp but I'd say there will have to be some give n take. So the big payments may take a large cut anyway regardless.

Tipp Man

Viewtodiefor wrote: »

Of course 50k is more than enough if you are getting 50k and can't survive on that then your not a good farmer are you?
But as it's the big boys involved in the negotiation it would be fair to assume that won't happen.
On a side note we might all be very surprised how big the cuts will be especially now we seem to be getting our so called Debt forgiveness from Europe ,
Some may say that is not relevant to sfp but I'd say there will have to be some give n take. So the big payments may take a large cut anyway regardless.

Yeah because they don't have farmers in other European countries receiving large payments

dzer2

where do you all think the subsides came from in the start????

Dont be daft

Why should farmers have to accept a cap of 50k?

If you produce more why shouldnt you earn more. Every other industry in the world is geared around the notion that if you work hard and work smart you have the opportunity to make a better living.

What your saying is to put in place a ceiling and use that the money saved by this ceiling to give back to the smaller farmers.
Thats possibly the worst business model anyone can imagine and smacks more of communism than free market.

Were would the incentive to expand or develope be if a ceiling was in place?

Why would I bother borrowing 100k to build onto my parlour or lease and stock a dry farm?
Why would I take the risk if I didnt have the cushion that the SFP gives me?

Why would I go out and give 2hrs more on an expanded farm when the only reward I was looking at was a slight margin and if not a loss?

CAP isnt about rural employment, keeping people on the land etc. etc.
Its about stability and growth. Without stability in the market there can be no growth. Without growth the EU will not be able to feed itself going forward.

Capping SFP will in my view limit growth among the smaller farmers. It'll also remove the stability provided to the larger farmers by the SFP.

Its also a complete falicy so say that high SFP farmers have lower costs. Most are renting the majority of their land, paying employees etc.
Some of the lowest cost systems out there are small farmers, with no debt, own all their land and have no employees.

bbam

Dont be daft wrote: »

Why should farmers have to accept a cap of 50k?

If you produce more why shouldnt you earn more. Every other industry in the world is geared around the notion that if you work hard and work smart you have the opportunity to make a better living.

What your saying is to put in place a ceiling and use that the money saved by this ceiling to give back to the smaller farmers.
Thats possibly the worst business model anyone can imagine and smacks more of communism than free market.

Were would the incentive to expand or develope be if a ceiling was in place?

Why would I bother borrowing 100k to build onto my parlour or lease and stock a dry farm?
Why would I take the risk if I didnt have the cushion that the SFP gives me?

Why would I go out and give 2hrs more on an expanded farm when the only reward I was looking at was a slight margin and if not a loss?

CAP isnt about rural employment, keeping people on the land etc. etc.
Its about stability and growth. Without stability in the market there can be no growth. Without growth the EU will not be able to feed itself going forward.

Capping SFP will in my view limit growth among the smaller farmers. It'll also remove the stability provided to the larger farmers by the SFP.

Its also a complete falicy so say that high SFP farmers have lower costs. Most are renting the majority of their land, paying employees etc.
Some of the lowest cost systems out there are small farmers, with no debt, own all their land and have no employees.

Why do think as a farmer you have a right to expand into a break even or loss making business and have the "cushion" to keep you going?? Really what other business sector would make this argument and if they were we'd be saying they're crazy..


Imagine if Tesco said they were selling everything at a loss but being subsidised by the EU to do so, there'd be outrage and rightly so.

Expand if you wish, but only a fool expands a loss making business and expects tax payers in another country to subsidise their income..

This is the result of SFP & CAP, many farming sectors have been turned into loss making systems and there is a sense of entitlement that someone pays us to do it... its madness!!

Tipp Man

bbam wrote: »

Why do think as a farmer you have a right to expand into a break even or loss making business and have the "cushion" to keep you going?? Really what other business sector would make this argument and if they were we'd be saying they're crazy..


Imagine if Tesco said they were selling everything at a loss but being subsidised by the EU to do so, there'd be outrage and rightly so.

Expand if you wish, but only a fool expands a loss making business and expects tax payers in another country to subsidise their income..

This is the result of SFP & CAP, many farming sectors have been turned into loss making systems and there is a sense of entitlement that someone pays us to do it... its madness!!

Actually that happens all the time

For example airlines receive subsidies to fly loss making routes but governments support it as it is seen as a necessity for particular areas/regions etc

There are loads of similar types of examples - our very own IDA are kings at using subsidy/grants to bring business to this country which wouldn't come here in a million years without the grants

bogman_bass

Tipp Man wrote: »

Have you become a communist overnight Reilig??

you cant take advantage of a socialist model of farm subsidisation and then accuse another man of being a communist.

You cant have it both ways!

Tipp Man

bogman_bass wrote: »

you cant take advantage of a socialist model of farm subsidisation and then accuse another man of being a communist.

You cant have it both ways!

hey i have never said i wanted the subsidy system

but i can't change it and am having to work within it

And there is a huge difference between working within a subsidy system and suggesting redistributing land and assets

freedominacup

Tipp Man wrote: »

Have you become a communist overnight Reilig??

After 20 years of personal experience of the restrictions of the milk quota regeime and the unbelieveable efforts made by IFA and Dept of Ag to restrict the ability of certain farmers, based on location and quota size, to expand I'm quite certain that buried deep inside many farmers there's a little black communists soul. Not close to the surface but it's there nonetheless.

Despite all of these ridiculous restrictions the numbers of dairy farmers has reduced by 60% over this period anyway the most they acheived was a slowdown in the rate of reduction. Be careful what ye wish for lads those of ye wishing to expand, caps will come home to bite very quickly. You don't want any more power over your ability to earn money put in the hands of civil servants. Benign neglect is my fervent wish for how the dept of ag treats us in the future. If they cap or put too many further restrictions on the SFP I'll be selling and they can go hang.

Manoffeeling

Sold all the bales of silage today. €20 for the good ones and €15 for the others. It's enough for them to be honest.

Dont be daft

bbam wrote: »

Why do think as a farmer you have a right to expand into a break even or loss making business and have the "cushion" to keep you going?? Really what other business sector would make this argument and if they were we'd be saying they're crazy..

Imagine if Tesco said they were selling everything at a loss but being subsidised by the EU to do so, there'd be outrage and rightly so.

Expand if you wish, but only a fool expands a loss making business and expects tax payers in another country to subsidise their income..

The long and the short of it is that the EU needs me and every other farmer to expand. I'm not necessarily talking about expansion in acres but in the amount of produce made.
The numbers are clear. Food security is the elephant in the room and how the agri-industry is nurtured in the next 20yrs will have more of an effect on European stability than we fully appreciate.

The cushion I'm talking about, allows expansion by decreasing the risk. How could I build cow numbers if I'm totally reliant on a price for milk which can without much rhyme or reason dip below the cost of production.

Remove the stability which the SFP can provide and your left with a stagnant industry.

As for expecting Tax Payers to shoulder the cost of expansion, thats not strictly the case. I'm saying that EU funding should be distributed so as to create the conditions to allow expansion. This can be seen in almost every industry. Admittedly it will cost money, paid for by the EU consumer.
By why shouldn't they pay for it? Ask yourself who has really benefitted the most from CAP?

Its the consumers who have reaped the rewards as their household expenditure is slashed through subsidised food.
And in 30yrs time when the Africans and Indians are lumpin the heads of each other cos they haven't enough food to see the morning its the EU consumer who'll once again see the benefit of CAP, as he tucks into his dinner in his nice safe stable city.

Birdnuts

On the subject of the new CAP, subsidies etc. - there was a discussion on Radio 1 last sunday on this involving Eamonn O'Cuiv and John Bryan. One point that was raised which I found quiet startling was that farmers in the US get 5 times the supports that EU farmers get!!:eek: I was aware that the US regime is a alot more generous then the one on this side of the pond, but didn't realise it was on that scale!!. Kinda undermines the arguement of those who would have Ireland go down the route of vast industrial farming units that characterize American farming.

Tipp Man

Birdnuts wrote: »

On the subject of the new CAP, subsidies etc. - there was a discussion on Radio 1 last sunday on this involving Eamonn O'Cuiv and John Bryan. One point that was raised which I found quiet startling was that farmers in the US get 5 times the supports that EU farmers get!!:eek: I was aware that the US regime is a alot more generous then the one on this side of the pond, but didn't realise it was on that scale!!. Kinda undermines the arguement of those who would have Ireland go down the route of vast industrial farming units that characterize American farming.

Does anybody really want Ireland to go down the American route?

Even if they did it would be virtually impossible for it to happen in Ireland (bar the odd 1 or 2)

JohnBoy

The biggest question here is what the purpose of the SFP is?


everyone has a different view, and to be honest I'm not even sure if the eurocrats themselves know.



Some say it's an income support, some say it's a food security measure, without a clear definition of the purpose of the SFP I dont think you can rule too much one way or another..

Birdnuts

JohnBoy wrote: »

The biggest question here is what the purpose of the SFP is?


everyone has a different view, and to be honest I'm not even sure if the eurocrats themselves know.



Some say it's an income support, some say it's a food security measure, without a clear definition of the purpose of the SFP I dont think you can rule too much one way or another..

A powerfull arguement for a sustaineable CAP, which would also garner support from the general population, would be to highlight its role in the provision/safe guarding of public goods like water supplies, landscape features,wildlife resources etc. which are important for other industries like tourism, various types of value added food products,crafts etc. This approach is already being used by various NGO's at EU level to safe-guard funding to small scale farmers and those farming in marginal areas under various agri/community/environmental schemes

Birdnuts

Tipp Man wrote: »

Does anybody really want Ireland to go down the American route?

)

Well one would get that impresson going on much of what one reads in the mainstream farming press along with utterances from certain farming orgs.

Tipp Man

Birdnuts wrote: »

Well one would get that impresson going on much of what one reads in the mainstream farming press along with utterances from certain farming orgs.

I have to disagree with you here

I think that in general farmers are being encouraged to be bigger and more productive - but that is still a million miles from the USA system

Birdnuts

Tipp Man wrote: »

I have to disagree with you here

I think that in general farmers are being encouraged to be bigger and more productive - but that is still a million miles from the USA system

I hope your right TM cos the only ones to benefit from that state of affairs will be a handfull of big agri corporations, retailers and processors:(.

Viewtodiefor

Birdnuts wrote: »

A powerfull arguement for a sustaineable CAP, which would also garner support from the general population, would be to highlight its role in the provision/safe guarding of public goods like water supplies, landscape features,wildlife resources etc. which are important for other industries like tourism, various types of value added food products,crafts etc. This approach is already being used by various NGO's at EU level to safe-guard funding to small scale farmers and those farming in marginal areas under various agri/community/environmental schemes

Yea but what they receive is tiny compared to the bigger guys what chance has a smaller guy got to expand if land next to him comes up? if there is a guy next door with huge sfp

Cap it at 50k and distribute the savings to guys of avg farm size up to 32 hectares. And a big sliding scale after that gives everyone a fair chance then

Birdnuts

Viewtodiefor wrote: »

Yea but what they receive is tiny compared to the bigger guys what chance has a smaller guy got to expand if land next to him comes up? if there is a guy next door with huge sfp

Cap it at 50k and distribute the savings to guys of avg farm size up to 32 hectares. And a big sliding scale after that gives everyone a fair chance then

I'd agree with most of that, but what if any of it is being pushed by Coveney or the major farming orgs at the up and coming CAP reform talks??

flat out !!

What about the guys that worked their ass off, borrowed money, leased land, bought sucker entitlements to establish a decent sps payment before the reference years. I think these lads would have a right to feel grieved to see part of their payments being distributed to "armchair farmers." I'd have no problem with a new reforms that distributes some of the bigger payments to guys that made an effort to farm in their own right over the last few years, but not a blanket spread to the lower paid ones.

bbam

flat out !! wrote: »

What about the guys that worked their ass off, borrowed money, leased land, bought sucker entitlements to establish a decent sps payment before the reference years. I think these lads would have a right to feel grieved to see part of their payments being distributed to "armchair farmers." I'd have no problem with a new reforms that distributes some of the bigger payments to guys that made an effort to farm in their own right over the last few years, but not a blanket spread to the lower paid ones.

You see this is where things aren't quite right...
What about working your ass off for a genuine profit.. Any industry where its acceptable to work your ass off to gain more subsidies rather than a proper sustainable profit, just isn't correct.

Tipp Man

bbam wrote: »

You see this is where things aren't quite right...
What about working your ass off for a genuine profit.. Any industry where its acceptable to work your ass off to gain more subsidies rather than a proper sustainable profit, just isn't correct.

So you want all SFP, subsidies, grants done away with in European Agriculture??

dzer2

Tipp Man wrote: »

So you want all SFP, subsidies, grants done away with in European Agriculture??

For what i get they could scrap it. We were never armchair farmers farm the was always fully stocked and progressive but due to the way we farmed we never got subsidies beyond the DAS and the first 10 milking cows and bull. Even today we are progressive with the bull beef system. We make a profit every year because we have to neither the wife or myself work else where full time. If every one had to make a profit maybe calves would be a mad price which would increase my profits:mad:

Viewtodiefor

flat out !! wrote: »

What about the guys that worked their ass off, borrowed money, leased land, bought sucker entitlements to establish a decent sps payment before the reference years. I think these lads would have a right to feel grieved to see part of their payments being distributed to "armchair farmers." I'd have no problem with a new reforms that distributes some of the bigger payments to guys that made an effort to farm in their own right over the last few years, but not a blanket spread to the lower paid ones.

I'm sure they would feel agrieved but so do lots of farmers who were in purely dairy or selling cattle at the marts in the previous reference years and missed out, the sfp is not designed to be a guaranteed although it has kind of become that.

1chippy

Just in from carnaross, heifers were mental money e3 a kilo easily got for what i could only describe as plain heifers, saw 1 330kg make 1100.
Cows were pretty cheap, picked up a nice dec calver, 2 purebred registered limos in calf to mas de clo made 920 and 1070. you would need to spend the money you saved on building frames to keep them in but.

simx

1chippy wrote: »

Just in from carnaross, heifers were mental money e3 a kilo easily got for what i could only describe as plain heifers, saw 1 330kg make 1100.
Cows were pretty cheap, picked up a nice dec calver, 2 purebred registered limos in calf to mas de clo made 920 and 1070. you would need to spend the money you saved on building frames to keep them in but.

3e/kg? Id be thinking twice about giving 2e/kg sometimes, lads in meath must know something were dont

1chippy

nearly all dealers, couple of the usual roscommon lads, donegal men and even a few dubs. the smaller heifers 220 to 300 seemed to be absolutaly crazy.

coolshannagh28

Cialios the commissioner is determined to reform the SFP system in order to make it fairer for poorer farmers in Eastern Europe regardless of the efforts oflarge vested interests in Ireland and western Europe . the historic system in Ireland is biased against young farmers , farmers with poorer land and new entrants.
,FF and O Cuiv have spotted this as a vote getter and I expect that a lot of pressure will come to bear on Coveney in the next few weeks.
Where is the logic of propogating a system so open to abuse ,the trading of entitlements allowed anyone with any cop on to sell their low value entitlements early on and replace them with the highest value possible ,multiply their SFP and get multiple years of returns and the IFA proposes to allow this until 2020 . surely a scam .

freedominacup

Tipp Man wrote: »

So you want all SFP, subsidies, grants done away with in European Agriculture??

Short answer. Yes.

tismesoitis

1chippy wrote: »

Just in from carnaross, heifers were mental money e3 a kilo easily got for what i could only describe as plain heifers, saw 1 330kg make 1100.
Cows were pretty cheap, picked up a nice dec calver, 2 purebred registered limos in calf to mas de clo made 920 and 1070. you would need to spend the money you saved on building frames to keep them in but.

did u get into d bull ring chippy to check out trade??

bbam

Tipp Man wrote: »

So you want all SFP, subsidies, grants done away with in European Agriculture??

You can't just lump in SFP with Grants..
Grants are used to encourage farmers to upgrade facilities above current levels for a specific aim, eg environtmental.. while one can manage with 15 cows round a feeder in a field it was grant aided to upgrade to slatted shed for environmental reasons..

SFP is different, people are treating it like a right and entitlement when the truth is that it has skewed our industury down to a position where many cannot break even without it, but it supports them to keep going..

I feel that yes a phased reduction of the payments would be healthy for the industury, I appreciate other points made about it providing food security but I think if a decent profit were available, people would farm to meet demand..

flat out !!

But of course Covney and co are getting their fair share of the bigger sps payments back in 42% income tax, social charges, vat on capital expenditure, dirt tax on savings, even stamp duty on land purchases, so might be hard to blame him if he was reluctant to rob the bigger sps payments too much. Cutting 10-20% from payments over €40k and using this money to fund Aeos or suckler schemes for active farmers would make more sense, and help towards the agri 2020 targets.

reilig

Tipp Man wrote: »

Who has said it is an income supplement Reilig?

SFP is the Common Agricultural Policy. It was set up to provide farmers with a reasonable income, consumers with quality food at fair prices and to preserve rural heritage. SFP is paid by the EU to farmers as an income supplement

www.ec.europa.eu

reilig

Tipp Man wrote: »

Have you become a communist overnight Reilig??

I never said that this was my view. I was merely reporting what I had read over the past few days. I have my own view of how the money should be paid out. This would most certainly involve the cutting of payments to Larry and the likes. It would also involve the cutting of payments to non active farmers. However, it is clear that the IFA are taking the side of those who get the most money in SFP's. According to yesterday's farming Independent, they don't have major concern for new entrants, nor do they have major concern for smaller farmers. Their goal is to get SFP levels to remain the same. I don't think that this will aid the future development of irish Agriculture. SFP needs to be used to encourage development within the agricultural sector by bringing in young entrants, improving efficiency, and targeting farming practices that have potential for development.

That's my view. Its far from communist!

reilig

Dont be daft wrote: »

Why should farmers have to accept a cap of 50k?

If you produce more why shouldnt you earn more. Every other industry in the world is geared around the notion that if you work hard and work smart you have the opportunity to make a better living.

What your saying is to put in place a ceiling and use that the money saved by this ceiling to give back to the smaller farmers.
Thats possibly the worst business model anyone can imagine and smacks more of communism than free market.

Were would the incentive to expand or develope be if a ceiling was in place?

Why would I bother borrowing 100k to build onto my parlour or lease and stock a dry farm?
Why would I take the risk if I didnt have the cushion that the SFP gives me?

Why would I go out and give 2hrs more on an expanded farm when the only reward I was looking at was a slight margin and if not a loss?

CAP isnt about rural employment, keeping people on the land etc. etc.
Its about stability and growth. Without stability in the market there can be no growth. Without growth the EU will not be able to feed itself going forward.

Capping SFP will in my view limit growth among the smaller farmers. It'll also remove the stability provided to the larger farmers by the SFP.

Its also a complete falicy so say that high SFP farmers have lower costs. Most are renting the majority of their land, paying employees etc.
Some of the lowest cost systems out there are small farmers, with no debt, own all their land and have no employees.

You are supposed to be making profit from your farm, nor relying solely on the SFP for profit. If you produce more on your farm, then you should be aiming to make more profit from the farm - not from SFP. This should be the encouragement and the reward for working harder.

reilig

JohnBoy wrote: »

The biggest question here is what the purpose of the SFP is?


everyone has a different view, and to be honest I'm not even sure if the eurocrats themselves know.



Some say it's an income support, some say it's a food security measure, without a clear definition of the purpose of the SFP I dont think you can rule too much one way or another..

You have it there in this post. Its an income suport for farmers which in turn is a food security measure for consumers. Its clear - in black and white.

What do others think SFP is?

freedominacup

bbam wrote: »

You see this is where things aren't quite right...
What about working your ass off for a genuine profit.. Any industry where its acceptable to work your ass off to gain more subsidies rather than a proper sustainable profit, just isn't correct.

This is exactly the reason the current system was introduced. It was all about the subsidies 15 years ago. Every decision taken was about how much more subsidy you could harvest. The country was full of screw sucklers producing s**t product that was very hard to sell. Guys were making mad decisions around sales rings based on how much premium was left to harvest from a beast, the actual market for that beast as a finished animal was irrelevant.

It had to be changed and those who are looking for a link between SFP and production are deluding themselves if they think it will lead to more money in their pockets. You end up with people renting acres at inflated prices to claim aid on them and cattle being bought simply to fill a quota of subs with no regard for the market conditions. I see plenty of suckler farmers on here and producing quality cattle has become a badge of honour, 15 years ago the nudge around the ring would be "that X got around 400 slaughter subs last year abd would you look at the yokes he's buying" the guy doing his best to produce quality was far less common than today.

The big change that is needed is in relation to the subsidies going to active farmers. Guys renting maps, or having land set for years and still claiming SFP needs to be stopped. As with milk quota use it or lose it. Land for rent should be land for rent, maps and SFP shouldn't come into it. Land for sale I would treat differently entitlements should probably transfer in a land sale.