The Strike is over. What happens now?

Base price

Base price wrote: »

I wonder did the Chinese come up with the requirement for under 30 month old cattle or did the factories/Bord Bia sell it to them considering that QA is not a requirement.

To answer my own question there is explanation in the Farmers Journal. Unfortunately it's subscription only so I've pasted the relevant part -
"Due to our past history of BSE, Ireland is classified as a controlled BSE risk by OIE, the world organisation for animal health. This category is applied to a number of countries that have a BSE history, but it is considered to be under control and managed. Other members are the UK (excluding the North), Canada, Ecuador, Greece, Chinese Taipei and France.
All other major beef exporting nations, including Brazil, are classified as negligible BSE risk, a higher status. Ireland too had achieved negligible risk status in 2015, but lost it quickly when a BSE case was discovered in Co Louth.
Northern Ireland and Scotland also achieved negligible risk status, though Scotland, like Ireland, had a BSE case subsequently and reverted to controlled risk status again."
https://www.farmersjournal.ie/chinas-30-month-age-limit-explained-513566

patsy_mccabe

Looks like chaos in Galway tonight. Anyone there?

https://twitter.com/amyforde6/status/1215022461173075970

patsy_mccabe

More madness;


https://twitter.com/amyforde6/status/1215026248629542914

boggerman1

A mob is all beef plan is/become.loads of auld lads roaring and shouting at each other.easy known beef is f::ked

wrangler

boggerman1 wrote: »

A mob is all beef plan is/become.loads of auld lads roaring and shouting at each other.easy known beef is f::ked

Some of you won't get to read this but I'll put the link up anyway.

https://www.farmersjournal.ie/beef-plan-chaos-power-struggle-and-financial-questions-519457.

some crack

Keep Sluicing

wrangler wrote: »

Some of you won't get to read this but I'll put the link up anyway.

https://www.farmersjournal.ie/beef-plan-chaos-power-struggle-and-financial-questions-519457.

some crack

In fairness Wrangler, most on boards wont get to read it, not some, not too many subscriptions to the IFJ.
But read it earlier. Bp is a sh1t show. It should get its house in order or disband

Base price

boggerman1 wrote: »

A mob is all beef plan is/become.loads of auld lads roaring and shouting at each other.easy known beef is f::ked

I'm not a member but I think they were overrun by the Independent Farmers group. In fact looking at the videos I see at least one farmer who was a militant factory blockader (et al), that doesn't feed/finish cattle and is known to have sold and bought cattle in the marts during the blockades.
The same farmer blockaded many of his neighbours bringing a cull cow/ewe to the factory

Albert Johnson

Base price wrote: »

I'm not a member but I think they were overrun by the Independent Farmers group. In fact looking at the videos I see at least one farmer who was a militant factory blockader (et al), that doesn't feed/finish cattle and is known to have sold and bought cattle in the marts during the blockades.
The same farmer blockaded many of his neighbours bringing a cull cow/ewe to the factory

I'm reminded of an old saying that goes as follows, "The closer to the church the farther from God". As for the BP I always thought of them as being a mixture of well and not so well intentioned individuals. Yes there's those with there hearts in the right place but there's as many rent a mouth's ready for there 60 seconds of fame.

I can only go by the few snippets posted from the above meeting but tbh it doesn't look that different from the single meeting I attended in Elphin mart shortly after the BPM was first formed. Namely a lot of shouting into mic's, beating of chests and all round mouthing as to who was the biggest enemy of all things beef farming. I understand that emotions run high at such events but I failed to see any meaningful efforts to address the issues raised apart from providing a sounding board for lad's to vent there frustrations. It's only a suckler fanatic's support group imo and I swore to never have anything to do with them afterwards. I wish all those involved the best of luck now as I did then but I still haven't seen anything to change my mind in the mean time.

Base price

Albert Johnson wrote: »

I'm reminded of an old saying that goes as follows, "The closer to the church the farther from God". As for the BP I always thought of them as being a mixture of well and not so well intentioned individuals. Yes there's those with there hearts in the right place but there's as many rent a mouth's ready for there 60 seconds of fame.

I can only go by the few snippets posted from the above meeting but tbh it doesn't look that different from the single meeting I attended in Elphin mart shortly after the BPM was first formed. Namely a lot of shouting into mic's, beating of chests and all round mouthing as to who was the biggest enemy of all things beef farming. I understand that emotions run high at such events but I failed to see any meaningful efforts to address the issues raised apart from providing a sounding board for lad's to vent there frustrations. It's only a suckler fanatic's support group imo and I swore to never have anything to do with them afterwards. I wish all those involved the best of luck now as I did then but I still haven't seen anything to change my mind in the mean time.

As I said I'm not a member but I did see where they (Beef Plan) connected/appealed to farmers, particularly suckler farmers especially after the IFA Smith debacle.

Albert Johnson

Base price wrote: »

As I said I'm not a member but I did see where they (Beef Plan) connected/appealed to farmers, particularly suckler farmers especially after the IFA Smith debacle.

Incase there's any confusion I'm not a member, I could also see why the BP model appealed to lad's but sadly they seemed to attract mostly the wrong type of (vocal) supporter. Perhaps my local group is blighted by poor representation and bad luck but most of the more prominent and vocal supporters can only be described as total "dodges" imo. There's a story behind nearly each and every one of them and it's not a particularly reassuring one. Without getting into specifics there largely the type of people you'd consider emigrating so as to avoid and a significant number of them would start a row in an empty room. I don't want to come across as being totally blanket anti BP without good reason but it (as an organization) has been and continues to be totally fanatical from my own personal experience.

Base price

Albert Johnson wrote: »

Incase there's any confusion I'm not a member, I could also see why the BP model appealed to lad's but sadly they seemed to attract mostly the wrong type of (vocal) supporter. Perhaps my local group is blighted by poor representation and bad luck but most of the more prominent and vocal supporters can only be described as total "dodges" imo. There's a story behind nearly each and every one of them and it's not a particularly reassuring one. Without getting into specifics there largely the type of people you'd consider emigrating so as to avoid and a significant number of them would start a row in an empty room. I don't want to come across as being totally blanket anti BP without good reason but it (as an organization) has been and continues to be totally fanatical from my own personal experience.

I understand what you posted but do you not think that these farmers felt abandoned, not represented by the incumbent farming organisations (IFA, IHFA, ICMSA to name but a few) that they paid membership subs, EIF levies, attended/supported local meetings/charity/fundraising functions etc -

Albert Johnson

Base price wrote: »

I understand what you posted but do you not think that these farmers felt abandoned, not represented by the incumbent farming organisations (IFA, IHFA, ICMSA to name but a few) that they paid membership subs, EIF levies, attended/supported local meetings/charity/fundraising functions etc -

Perhaps they did and I suppose that the BP offered hope for an inclusive and understanding organisation ran by beef farmers for beef farmers. It's appeared very much an Irish solution to an Irish problem, however you have to consider as to why the existing organizations had failed to convey this badly needed service. To a certain extent it's impossible to be all things to all men and there brief was imo too broad from the outset. They attempted to do everything at once and it was largely pure pie in the sky type stuff.

Secondly as Wrangler has often pointed out agreeing and supporting are two different things, I often wonder how many of the most vocal BP supporters ever made an attempt to further the other available organizations. The BP was new and unsullied and therefore desirable, the other groups are archaic and "an old boy's club" and therefore not that attractive to the modern beef farmer.

The BP has a strong following and obviously must have made the right noises at some stage. However there becoming a victim of there own mantra to a degree as if you don't agree with the official society stance you start you're own organization as has already happen. It's somewhat ironic imo that a group that was supposed to unite disgruntled farmers is now causing them to splinter into even more varied and divided groups supposedly all working towards the one goal. I don't proclaim to have any answers to the big questions but I do question the mindset and reasons behind the actions of those in the driving seat.

wrangler

Base price wrote: »

I understand what you posted but do you not think that these farmers felt abandoned, not represented by the incumbent farming organisations (IFA, IHFA, ICMSA to name but a few) that they paid membership subs, EIF levies, attended/supported local meetings/charity/fundraising functions etc -

Indifference of members will destroy any organisation,
if they're not represented in a democratic organisation it's there own fault, plenty of meetings around the country, it's poor form being too lazy to go to meetings and then whingeing that members not being listened too.
Livestock Committee has thirty members, if there's no suckler farmers on it it's because they can't be bothered, same with suckler farmers on National Council.
You'd spend more on a couple nights out now than membership of IFA, if farmers think it's too dear then so be it, you definitely get the value of membership back every year along with Representation, when I see farmers with turnovers of 100s of thousand paying maybe €150 for IFA and maybe opposing the levy, you see why the levy is there.
I can see nothing but good for IFA coming out of what's going on with BP and have said all along that when BP try to deal with farmers they'll change their attitude . they've done only harm so far

patsy_mccabe

What exactly is going on with the Beef Plane Movement at the moment?

I always thought that the Independent Farmers Group was just a clever rename on the BPM, so that injunctions could not be served on the officers of the BPM. There seems to have been a blowup recently. Whatsapp groups locked up etc.

Is there a splinter group that wants to go back blocking factory gates?

mr.stonewall

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

What exactly is going on with the Beef Plane Movement at the moment?

I always thought that the Independent Farmers Group was just a clever rename on the BPM, so that injunctions could not be served on the officers of the BPM. There seems to have been a blowup recently. Whatsapp groups locked up etc.

Is there a splinter group that wants to go back blocking factory gates?

It wouldnt surprise me if they went blockading again. Dont know would they take on the factories as the support would be limited

Bass Reeves

I often wonder what do lads expect. At present if a cow slips a calf its BP's fault. We have the FJ, IFA the minister all calling for farm unity. Yet no one wants to represent the smaller producers. IFA has already came out this week stating they will fight convergence. That means they support the status quo. That means no farmer who's BP is below 250/HA can in reality support them.

On another thread Calf price chitchat, lads have posted FR and AA bulls and this would indicate HE heifers as well are making 50-70/head, AA heifers 20/head less and HE bulls about 100 euro. What will it be like the 1st of March. But I am alright jack I finish cattle and take my margin. Lads forget in the year 200 we had 4 million ewe's in the country today we have 2.5 million. Suckler and store men are being expected to take all the hit and this can continue only for so long.

The minister bragging that Beam and the calf weighing scheme put 120 million in farmer pockets except over the last 18 months we have suffered a reduction in Beef prices of about 600 million. That can only go on for so long.

An article a few weeks ago in the FJ says that in 2017 the IFA made a loss of about 2 million, it reduced that to 250k in 2018, but that over the next 12 months the leakage of members could again cause it financial trouble. It all very well for Creed, IFA etc to be talking about farm unity but IFA must represent all farmers not just some.

kk.man

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I often wonder what do lads expect. At present if a cow slips a calf its BP's fault. We have the FJ, IFA the minister all calling for farm unity. Yet no one wants to represent the smaller producers. IFA has already came out this week stating they will fight convergence. That means they support the status quo. That means no farmer who's BP is below 250/HA can in reality support them.

On another thread Calf price chitchat, lads have posted FR and AA bulls and this would indicate HE heifers as well are making 50-70/head, AA heifers 20/head less and HE bulls about 100 euro. What will it be like the 1st of March. But I am alright jack I finish cattle and take my margin. Lads forget in the year 200 we had 4 million ewe's in the country today we have 2.5 million. Suckler and store men are being expected to take all the hit and this can continue only for so long.

The minister bragging that Beam and the calf weighing scheme put 120 million in farmer pockets except over the last 18 months we have suffered a reduction in Beef prices of about 600 million. That can only go on for so long.

An article a few weeks ago in the FJ says that in 2017 the IFA made a loss of about 2 million, it reduced that to 250k in 2018, but that over the next 12 months the leakage of members could again cause it financial trouble. It all very well for Creed, IFA etc to be talking about farm unity but IFA must represent all farmers not just some.

For the last number of years it's practically all Dairy with the IFA.

Bass Reeves

kk.man wrote: »

For the last number of years it's practically all Dairy with the IFA.

No farmer that has a PAYE job can serve on National Committee's or as County chairs . This rule excludes a huge amount of farmers from being active in IFA. So most have followed the cry at American Independance ''no taxation without representation''

wrangler

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No farmer that has a PAYE job can serve on National Committee's or as County chairs . This rule excludes a huge amount of farmers from being active in IFA. So most have followed the cry at American Independance ''no taxation without representation''

Don't know where you find that rule, Granted it wouldn't be fair on your employer with the amount of time taken by IFA,
There's County Chairs that'd be busier at home than PAYE workers, yet put in the time with IFA.
Our County Chair is a suckler farmer as is the new National livestock Chair.
Only a fool would lobby for Convergence if they had an above average entitlement, most worked too hard for it to let it be thrown away at the stroke of a pen
As said all along, members can destroy any Organisation, pity I took so long to discover that, Ironic that Beef Plan proved it for me

Zeebsisgone654

kk.man wrote: »

For the last number of years it's practically all Dairy with the IFA.

No it’s not, in my county at a two or two and a half hour county meeting, dairying would be lucky to get a 5 minutes of time, most of IFAs time is taken up with the problems of beef in my county . The department of Ag are completely against dairy farmers and constantly finding new ways to life difficult

Zeebsisgone654

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No farmer that has a PAYE job can serve on National Committee's or as County chairs . This rule excludes a huge amount of farmers from being active in IFA. So most have followed the cry at American Independance ''no taxation without representation''

Incorrect I serve on a national committee of IFA and several members have PAYE employment

kk.man

Zeebsisgone654 wrote: »

No it’s not, in my county at a two or two and a half hour county meeting, dairying would be lucky to get a 5 minutes of time, most of IFAs time is taken up with the problems of beef in my county . The department of Ag are completely against dairy farmers and constantly finding new ways to life difficult

I have no doubt you are correct however as a National Item Beef, Sheep and Tillage are mere second rate with the IFA.

wrangler

kk.man wrote: »

I have no doubt you are correct however as a National Item Beef, Sheep and Tillage are mere second rate with the IFA.

Same structure is devoted to each commodity, ie, a commitee of 30 farmers with representation on National executive, It's really up to the commitee themselves then how much publicity they get, When I was on National exec Henry Burns could hog 2 hours plus of the meeting. Dairy Farmers are good on Committees and put in the work, there is no reason for any commodity to to be prominent apart from the energy of the respective Commitees

wrangler

Zeebsisgone654 wrote: »

Incorrect I serve on a national committee of IFA and several members have PAYE employment

Bass has referred to this many times and I've told him he's incorrect, it's like all the pubtalk that's out there.
Incidentally fair dues to you for taking time off to go to meetings etc, can't be easy

Buford T. Justice XIX

wrangler wrote: »

Don't know where you find that rule, Granted it wouldn't be fair on your employer with the amount of time taken by IFA,
There's County Chairs that'd be busier at home than PAYE workers, yet put in the time with IFA.
Our County Chair is a suckler farmer as is the new National livestock Chair.
Only a fool would lobby for Convergence if they had an above average entitlement, most worked too hard for it to let it be thrown away at the stroke of a pen
As said all along, members can destroy any Organisation, pity I took so long to discover that, Ironic that Beef Plan proved it for me

I was at a presentation by Tomas Bourke, the Animal health exec secretary last night. He's a brilliant rep for us, made his presentation on what needs to be done on BVD, TB and the incoming premovement TB testing across the country and you could see the two Dept reps deflating with every point he made.

A lot of the anti IFA posting here is wishful thinking but the representation capital they have for issues like those above is lessened by much of the criticism but their standing is greatly enhanced when compared to what's happening with the BPM atm.

As one lad said on twitter a while back, they'll have 86 different organisations to fight for each of their 86 points fairly soon.

Zeebsisgone654

wrangler wrote: »

Bass has referred to this many times and I've told him he's incorrect, it's like all the pubtalk that's out there.
Incidentally fair dues to you for taking time off to go to meetings etc, can't be easy

I am a full time farmer myself but glad to work with anyone for the betterment of fellow farmers

Dinzee Conlee

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

I was at a presentation by Tomas Bourke, the Animal health exec secretary last night. He's a brilliant rep for us, made his presentation on what needs to be done on BVD, TB and the incoming premovement TB testing across the country and you could see the two Dept reps deflating with every point he made.

A lot of the anti IFA posting here is wishful thinking but the representation capital they have for issues like those above is lessened by much of the criticism but their standing is greatly enhanced when compared to what's happening with the BPM atm.

As one lad said on twitter a while back, they'll have 86 different organisations to fight for each of their 86 points fairly soon.

Kinda along those lines - one thing that struck me here was people are happy to say the IFA are ****e, but they’ll also happily ring them for help when their BPM is delayed or the likes...

wrangler

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

I was at a presentation by Tomas Bourke, the Animal health exec secretary last night. He's a brilliant rep for us, made his presentation on what needs to be done on BVD, TB and the incoming premovement TB testing across the country and you could see the two Dept reps deflating with every point he made.

A lot of the anti IFA posting here is wishful thinking but the representation capital they have for issues like those above is lessened by much of the criticism but their standing is greatly enhanced when compared to what's happening with the BPM atm.

As one lad said on twitter a while back, they'll have 86 different organisations to fight for each of their 86 points fairly soon.

Tomas is very good, great for sorting problems, also talks a language that farmers understand, no BS

MIKEKC

wrangler wrote: »

Don't know where you find that rule, Granted it wouldn't be fair on your employer with the amount of time taken by IFA,
There's County Chairs that'd be busier at home than PAYE workers, yet put in the time with IFA.
Our County Chair is a suckler farmer as is the new National livestock Chair.
Only a fool would lobby for Convergence if they had an above average entitlement, most worked too hard for it to let it be thrown away at the stroke of a pen
As said all along, members can destroy any Organisation, pity I took so long to discover that, Ironic that Beef Plan proved it for me

One must ask why so many are below the average entitlement?. They obviously weren't very productive in the reference years, or their predecessors weren't. Now they want to take from the people that worked hard to build entitlements.
As one person put it about milk quotas, the reason the present generation have small quotas is they had lazy fathers

wrangler

MIKEKC wrote: »

One must ask why so many are below the average entitlement?. They obviously weren't very productive in the reference years, or their predecessors weren't. Now they want to take from the people that worked hard to build entitlements.
As one person put it about milk quotas, the reason the present generation have small quotas is they had lazy fathers

That'd be my thoughts too, no organisation is going to lobby to take income off one member and give it to another member, it'd be a sad organisation that'd do it, especially in farming where profit is on the floor anyway.

Buford T. Justice XIX

MIKEKC wrote: »

One must ask why so many are below the average entitlement?. They obviously weren't very productive in the reference years, or their predecessors weren't. Now they want to take from the people that worked hard to build entitlements.
As one person put it about milk quotas, the reason the present generation have small quotas is they had lazy fathers

Ah jaysus, have a small bit of cop on will you!

We and Kerry in general had a much smaller quota than the rest of the country because Kerry was singled out as the testing ground for the original Brucellosis Eradication Scheme in 1980. We were cleared out in 1980 and had to cease production under one of the two available schemes.

Despite the rest of the country increasing production by 40% between 1980 and 1984, we and many others like us were prevented from increasing our production under the prequota years and no retrospective allowance was made for us to have an increased quota allocation though it was recommended under the EEC court judgements of 1985 and 1987 for SLOM1 and SLOM2.

Our 1979 production was more than double what our allocated quota was when returning.

Many farmers were at different stages of their production cycle while buying land and putting up buildings which meant they didn't get the quotas in milk, sucklers and sheep when quotas were introduced in their enterprises.

I could take you to 20 or 30 farmers around me that I would know well and they would open your eyes as to the reasons for lower quotas than deserved and it's an awful insult to those farmers and their families to characterise them as lazy.

alps

wrangler wrote: »

That'd be my thoughts too, no organisation is going to lobby to take income off one member and give it to another member, it'd be a sad organisation that'd do it, especially in farming where profit is on the floor anyway.

Whoahhhh....way offside Wrangler...and I know it's inly a retort to a clownish statement...

Starter farming after reference years. Took over a dairy inly farm...no SFP.. stocked to limit and grew by 60% by buying quota from people who still hold into that SFP...now buying in our total winter feed requirements from guys who claim SFP..

I've never felt shortchanged by that......until now...


IT'S a bull**** argument..


Only fair way to distribute SFP is to redistribute it in direct ratio of what you are producing now..if you weren't lazy back in 2000 and still farming today, you'll keep your payment, if you started since then and aren't lazy, you'll get a payment, and if you're lazy and retired, you'll loose the payment...

Put in my share of representation for farmers, but I couldn't represent the narrow minded selfish ,downright degrading comments of above..

Zeebsisgone654

MIKEKC wrote: »

One must ask why so many are below the average entitlement?. They obviously weren't very productive in the reference years, or their predecessors weren't. Now they want to take from the people that worked hard to build entitlements.
As one person put it about milk quotas, the reason the present generation have small quotas is they had lazy fathers

With regards to milk quota, there was very little quota available in some coops . I built up decent entitlements through hard work so it’s galling to see my work being undone to the benefit of people who did very little during the reference period.

MIKEKC

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Ah jaysus, have a small bit of cop on will you!

We and Kerry in general had a much smaller quota than the rest of the country because Kerry was singled out as the testing ground for the original Brucellosis Eradication Scheme in 1980. We were cleared out in 1980 and had to cease production under one of the two available schemes.

Despite the rest of the country increasing production by 40% between 1980 and 1984, we and many others like us were prevented from increasing our production under the prequota years and no retrospective allowance was made for us to have an increased quota allocation though it was recommended under the EEC court judgements of 1985 and 1987 for SLOM1 and SLOM2.

Our 1979 production was more than double what our allocated quota was when returning.

Many farmers were at different stages of their production cycle while buying land and putting up buildings which meant they didn't get the quotas in milk, sucklers and sheep when quotas were introduced in their enterprises.

I could take you to 20 or 30 farmers around me that I would know well and they would open your eyes as to the reasons for lower quotas than deserved and it's an awful insult to those farmers and their families to characterise them as lazy.

I agree that they weren't all lazy. I was quoting what one farmer said at an IFA meeting

wrangler

alps wrote: »

Whoahhhh....way offside Wrangler...and I know it's inly a retort to a clownish statement...

Starter farming after reference years. Took over a dairy inly farm...no SFP.. stocked to limit and grew by 60% by buying quota from people who still hold into that SFP...now buying in our total winter feed requirements from guys who claim SFP..

I've never felt shortchanged by that......until now...


IT'S a bull**** argument..


Only fair way to distribute SFP is to redistribute it in direct ratio of what you are producing now..if you weren't lazy back in 2000 and still farming today, you'll keep your payment, if you started since then and aren't lazy, you'll get a payment, and if you're lazy and retired, you'll loose the payment...

Put in my share of representation for farmers, but I couldn't represent the narrow minded selfish ,downright degrading comments of above..

There is no farm organisation supporting convergence,
Who is going to redistribute the money.
The money that's going to young farmers isn't all going to active farmers, if that's what you think is the answer, it'll be worse than what's going on at the moment, more than me says that the the young farmer money ends up in places like Coppers. Lots of farmers have said to me that the son is farming ''on paper anyway''

MIKEKC

alps wrote: »

Whoahhhh....way offside Wrangler...and I know it's inly a retort to a clownish statement...

Starter farming after reference years. Took over a dairy inly farm...no SFP.. stocked to limit and grew by 60% by buying quota from people who still hold into that SFP...now buying in our total winter feed requirements from guys who claim SFP..

I've never felt shortchanged by that......until now...


IT'S a bull**** argument..


Only fair way to distribute SFP is to redistribute it in direct ratio of what you are producing now..if you weren't lazy back in 2000 and still farming today, you'll keep your payment, if you started since then and aren't lazy, you'll get a payment, and if you're lazy and retired, you'll loose the payment...

Put in my share of representation for farmers, but I couldn't represent the narrow minded selfish ,downright degrading comments of above..

Should the profitability of an enterprise not be considered when redistributing entitlements? Why should beef and sheep farmers payments be cut and given to dairy farmers who can make a much higher profit per acre?

Gawddawggonnit

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Ah jaysus, have a small bit of cop on will you!

We and Kerry in general had a much smaller quota than the rest of the country because Kerry was singled out as the testing ground for the original Brucellosis Eradication Scheme in 1980. We were cleared out in 1980 and had to cease production under one of the two available schemes.

Despite the rest of the country increasing production by 40% between 1980 and 1984, we and many others like us were prevented from increasing our production under the prequota years and no retrospective allowance was made for us to have an increased quota allocation though it was recommended under the EEC court judgements of 1985 and 1987 for SLOM1 and SLOM2.

Our 1979 production was more than double what our allocated quota was when returning.

Many farmers were at different stages of their production cycle while buying land and putting up buildings which meant they didn't get the quotas in milk, sucklers and sheep when quotas were introduced in their enterprises.

I could take you to 20 or 30 farmers around me that I would know well and they would open your eyes as to the reasons for lower quotas than deserved and it's an awful insult to those farmers and their families to characterise them as lazy.

Mülder!

I can’t speak for you Chief, but I was destocked by brucellosis at that time also. I got a veritable ball of money as compensation for not getting a quota in ‘84...best work I never did!
Along with receiving a quota, I got to OWN that quota, which turned out to be the best unearned asset I was ever given, again for free!

The dogs in the street knew that sfp in some shape or form was coming in at least a couple of years before 2000. There was a huge area aid for growing linseed at the time, so I was one of the biggest growers in Ireland...fcuking gravy!

Interestingly dairy farmers, who were well protected by quota, got sfp by growing maize, a crop that had fallen out of favor in Ireland since the ‘70s.
Dairy farmers, due to their highly protected market, were never supposed to receive sfp...thus maize was their inside track into a scheme that was never meant for them.

MIKEKC

wrangler wrote: »

There is no farm organisation supporting convergence,
Who is going to redistribute the money.
The money that's going to young farmers isn't all going to active farmers, if that's what you think is the answer, it'll be worse than what's going on at the moment, more than me says that the the young farmer money ends up in places like Coppers. Lots of farmers have said to me that the son is farming ''on paper anyway''

Is the INHFA (I think that's what they are called.) They represent hill farmes not supporting convergence.

wrangler

MIKEKC wrote: »

Is the INHFA (I think that's what they are called.) They represent hill farmes not supporting convergence.

Convergence will be a gravy train for hill farmers, they're farming huge areas of land so if they get 200+/ha they'll be getting mega money.
Not surprising if they're openly supporting Convergence

Gawddawggonnit

The French have floated an idea for future restructuring of sfp. They have proposed that they should be based on environmental work and a function of labor units employed in the business.

I do think it would be fair, once not abused by extensive mountain or bog acres, and only for productive land.

tanko

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

The French have floated an idea for future restructuring of sfp. They have proposed that they should be based on environmental work and a function of labor units employed in the business.

I do think it would be fair, once not abused by extensive mountain or bog acres, and only for productive land.

Good idea but it'll never happen in Ireland. The IFA fat cat trough dwellers who all have huge payments will see to that. The IFA doesn't give a shyte about most farmers who have modest payments they only care about the farmers with big payments. The farmers with smaller payments are still throwing millions of euros at the IFA while they stab them in the back but sure once they get a few miserable euros off their tractor insurance it's all grand. You couldn't make it up.

wrangler

tanko wrote: »

Good idea but it'll never happen in Ireland. The IFA fat cat trough dwellers who all have huge payments will see to that. The IFA doesn't give a shyte about most farmers who have modest payments they only care about the farmers with big payments. The farmers with smaller payments are still throwing millions of euros at the IFA while they stab them in the back but sure once they get a few miserable euros off their tractor insurance it's all grand. You couldn't make it up.

How do you think you're entitled to take it off other farmers when you were never entitled to it in the first place, at least IFA aren't lobbying to take it off farmers like those that begrudge it are. Your farm had the same chance as mine to maximise payments, this whinge that you weren't farming then cuts no ice with me, someone let the chance go, it's not the fault of those that did work to accumulate entitlements and draw subsidies that people messed up.

wrangler

Zeebsisgone654 wrote: »

With regards to milk quota, there was very little quota available in some coops . I built up decent entitlements through hard work so it’s galling to see my work being undone to the benefit of people who did very little during the reference period.

If another father tells me his son is farming ''on paper only'' and he's home every third week or something I'll tell him a few facts,
I'll be losing 23000/ yr (down from 35000/yr) after next CAP reform and until I saw the way the Young Farmer subs were distributed, I was resigned to losing it, I didn't think I deserved to keep it pfft....... now I'm not so sure, at least I live on the farm, not 100 miles away

jaymla627

wrangler wrote: »

If another father tells me his son is farming ''on paper only'' and he's home every third week or something I'll tell him a few facts,
I'll be losing 23000/ yr (down from 35000/yr) after next CAP reform and until I saw the way the Young Farmer subs were distributed, I was resigned to losing it, I didn't think I deserved to keep it pfft....... now I'm not so sure, at least I live on the farm, not 100 miles away

In another 10 years the biggest beneficiaries of cap will be nursing homes, given the age profile of farmers, no ones entitled to an income of the back of work done 20 odd years ago ffs

Dinzee Conlee

tanko wrote: »

Good idea but it'll never happen in Ireland. The IFA fat cat trough dwellers who all have huge payments will see to that. The IFA doesn't give a shyte about most farmers who have modest payments they only care about the farmers with big payments. The farmers with smaller payments are still throwing millions of euros at the IFA while they stab them in the back but sure once they get a few miserable euros off their tractor insurance it's all grand. You couldn't make it up.

Ah, it’s all rubbish... same argument and ****e again and again...

Anyways tanko, my payment is less than 3k. If yours is greater will you give me some of yours? Just to be fair like...

Or, let me guess, you should keep your payment, and someone else should give theirs is it?

wrangler

jaymla627 wrote: »

In another 10 years the biggest beneficiaries of cap will be nursing homes, given the age profile of farmers, no ones entitled to an income of the back of work done 20 odd years ago ffs

Yea, you mean like milk quota..... that was nearly 35 years protected income including intervention safety net in case it wasn't possible to pay for the skiing every year

Water John

Fair bid of mud slinging going on here. Ye'd put the Galway BPM lads and lassies to shame.

wrangler

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Ah, it’s all rubbish... same argument and ****e again and again...

Anyways tanko, my payment is less than 3k. If yours is greater will you give me some of yours? Just to be fair like...

Or, let me guess, you should keep your payment, and someone else should give theirs is it?

"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

bogman_bass

wrangler wrote: »

How do you think you're entitled to take it off other farmers when you were never entitled to it in the first place, at least IFA aren't lobbying to take it off farmers like those that begrudge it are. Your farm had the same chance as mine to maximise payments, this whinge that you weren't farming then cuts no ice with me, someone let the chance go, it's not the fault of those that did work to accumulate entitlements and draw subsidies that people messed up.

As somebody who is neither going to win or lose much with convergence I feel I can speak without bias in this case.

Many farmers played their cards rights and maximized their payments (going by your posts I believe you were one)
I tip my hat to them and commend them. They were dead right to do so.
However.....
They got their reward and can’t have thought it would last ad finitum.
Any investment at the time has been well rewarded so the argument that others (or their parents) were foolish not to do the same rings hollow after that timeframe.

bogman_bass

wrangler wrote: »

"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Income based on work 20 years ago is the height of socialism.
Farmers always seem to be the first to decry socialism except when it affects them.