Cap reform convergence

wrangler

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Well because there are no small farmers in the upper echelons of the IFA. The majority of them will lose out on convergence, so it is turkeys voting for christmas.
Have they polled their members about convergence at all?

Turkeys voting for Christmas is right, no one is going to serve on a commitee and give up their free time to lobby for something that's injurious to their farm.
We're not fools

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

A lot of expanding dairy farmers are looking forward to converegence, One of my tenants had 140 cows when he started with me and heading for 300 now. He is looking forward to convergence.
and lots of similar around
Dairy farmers wouldn't be high entitlements in general and when theiri entitlements are spread over twice the acreage there'll be lots of room for convergence.

They'll have to buy or claim entitlements from YFS first to be able to do any of that.

Again, why has Mr Production himself (Coveney) and ICMSA been arguing against convergence if it's the goose that lays the golden egg for dairy?

MayoAreMagic

wrangler wrote: »

A lot of expanding dairy farmers are looking forward to converegence, One of my tenants had 140 cows when he started with me and heading for 300 now. He is looking forward to convergence.
and lots of similar around
Dairy farmers wouldn't be high entitlements in general and when theiri entitlements are spread over twice the acreage there'll be lots of room for convergence.

What percentage of dairy farmers does this apply to though? Convergence is aimed at farmers who are frankly already getting shafted and deserve fairness at the least. If a few dairy lads make a few pound along the way then fair enough as far as im concerned. That could always he addressed with a cap on income further down the line.
Besides, if their payments are increasing you can increase your rent...

MayoAreMagic

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Well because there are no small farmers in the upper echelons of the IFA. The majority of them will lose out on convergence, so it is turkeys voting for christmas.
Have they polled their members about convergence at all?

Just to clarify one thing, the small vs big farmer contains a shítload of factors unique to each farm. It IS possible to have farmers on farms that have a small # of hectares but high value payments. It's wording I've seen people get blown up over in the past.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

What percentage of dairy farmers does this apply to though? Convergence is aimed at farmers who are frankly already getting shafted and deserve fairness at the least. If a few dairy lads make a few pound along the way then fair enough as far as im concerned. That could always he addressed with a cap on income further down the line.
Besides, if their payments are increasing you can increase your rent...

"Front loading" would see a lot of farmers on smaller hectare farms (but higher payments today) not lose much if anything of their payment regarding convergence. BUT, it's my understanding that to adopt front loading would be a member state option, and you can be absolutely sure Ireland wouldn't adopt this.

I will gain under 85% convergence. IF front loading was adopted I could actually lose a little from what I have today - depending on the %'s taken and how many hectares FL would be capped at.

I'm actually in favour of front loading as I see it as fair.

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

They'll have to buy or claim entitlements from YFS first to be able to do any of that.

Again, why has Mr Production himself (Coveney) and ICMSA been arguing against convergence if it's the goose that lays the golden egg for dairy?

In 2013 CAP reform it was your single farm payment divided by whatever you claimed on that year, Aneighbour with high entitlements sold 90% of them and kept two spread over his acreage and they are now converging upwards every year, where as they would've been in freefall had he kept them

J.O. Farmer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They'll have to buy or claim entitlements from YFS first to be able to do any of that.

Again, why has Mr Production himself (Coveney) and ICMSA been arguing against convergence if it's the goose that lays the golden egg for dairy?

If it goes like last time if you had 50 entitlements and 100Ha after the new CAP you'll have 100 entitlements at half the value.

Assuming the 50 entitlements are less than 150% of the national average 75% convergence would benefit them. At 100% convergence if the 50 were less than double the national average the convergence would benefit them too.

MayoAreMagic

wrangler wrote: »

Turkeys voting for Christmas is right, no one is going to serve on a commitee and give up their free time to lobby for something that's injurious to their farm.
We're not fools

But the IFA isnt there to serve one particular type of farm, it is there to serve all farmers equally. If peoples goals are to get as much for themselves as possible, even at the expense of other farmers, then what is the point of the group at all?

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

In 2013 CAP reform it was your single farm payment divided by whatever you claimed on that year, Aneighbour with high entitlements sold 90% of them and kept two spread over his acreage and they are now converging upwards every year, where as they would've been in freefall had he kept them

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

If it goes like last time if you had 50 entitlements and 100Ha after the new CAP you'll have 100 entitlements at half the value.

Assuming the 50 entitlements are less than 150% of the national average 75% convergence would benefit them. At 100% convergence if the 50 were less than double the national average the convergence would benefit them too.

Ok, fair points. I have no information whether that will or won't be the case this time

JohnChadwick

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

If peoples goals are to get as much for themselves as possible, even at the expense of other farmers, then what is the point of the group at all?

This is exactly what 100% convergence would solve - a flattening of payments so farmers aren't unfairly paid based on what way their land was farmed 20 or 30 years ago.

_Brian

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

If peoples goals are to get as much for themselves as possible, even at the expense of other farmers, then what is the point of the group at all?

Isn’t that what we do every time we go to the mart to buy or sell. I don’t see lads refusing to buy cheap animals because it means the last man didn’t make any money ?

Lads that have gotten above average payments for 30 years hardly have a place to complain now that some fairness is being suggested.

MayoAreMagic

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just to clarify one thing, the small vs big farmer contains a shítload of factors unique to each farm. It IS possible to have farmers on farms that have a small # of hectares but high value payments. It's wording I've seen people get blown up over in the past.



"Front loading" would see a lot of farmers on smaller hectare farms (but higher payments today) not lose much if anything of their payment regarding convergence. BUT, it's my understanding that to adopt front loading would be a member state option, and you can be absolutely sure Ireland wouldn't adopt this.

I will gain under 85% convergence. IF front loading was adopted I could actually lose a little from what I have today - depending on the %'s taken and how many hectares FL would be capped at.

I'm actually in favour of front loading as I see it as fair.

Im aware that entitlement values can be transferred to any land. However, the entitlements that were directed to poorer lands from the get go were low. That is where the disparity is. Personally Id be of the mind that convergence should be nailed on to correct the unfair distinction regardless.
Similarly, you dont have to be a small farmer to have low value entitlements either. I think they are two seperate cases. I think both front loading and convergence should be introduced to address each issue and that both are basic common sense.

wrangler

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

But the IFA isnt there to serve one particular type of farm, it is there to serve all farmers equally. If peoples goals are to get as much for themselves as possible, even at the expense of other farmers, then what is the point of the group at all?

I'vee been saying on here since the last CAP reform that you have to get involved with whatever organisation, farmers are too fond of hanging back when representation jobs are being given out. There's no doubt we stole a march in the last CAP reform but not without it taking a lot of time and work
Small farmers way outnumber big farmers, yet they're not represented. Whose fault is that. You're fairly naive if you think farmers or anyone for that matter are going to lobby against themelves. It's a democratic organisation and if you can't be bothered putting in the work, nothing is going to change
A lot of time goes in serving on commitees in IFA,

MayoAreMagic

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Im aware that entitlement values can be transferred to any land. However, the entitlements that were directed to poorer lands from the get go were low. That is where the disparity is. Personally Id be of the mind that convergence should be nailed on to correct the unfair distinction regardless.
Similarly, you dont have to be a small farmer to have low value entitlements either. I think they are two seperate cases. I think both front loading and convergence should be introduced to address each issue and that both are basic common sense.

Having been on if not the lowest, then some of the lowest entitlement's in the country I know all about the value disparity. To lessen the unfairness on farmers of a smaller # of hectares I'm in favour of both also.

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

you can't be bothered putting in the work, nothing is going to change

That's a fair lazy comment given you've seen and heard some of the people who were formerly not just members but officers in IFA who left the organisation.

You also know that information is key to getting anything done, and if within an organisation you''re access to information is curtailed you'll get fúck all done.

MayoAreMagic

_Brian wrote: »

Isn’t that what we do every time we go to the mart to buy or sell. I don’t see lads refusing to buy cheap animals because it means the last man didn’t make any money ?

Lads that have gotten above average payments for 30 years hardly have a place to complain now that some fairness is being suggested.

I think this is the issue. People are bringing the mentality of selling/buying an animal in an open market that they own themselves, across into development of a system that is for the fair treatment for all farmers. They are two different things.

Think of it this way. Say you were in a group scheme with all your neighbours for selling fat stock, and you delivered a lorryload to the factory. The agent says to you, well i will give you a good price for your own calves in the gang, if you agree to cut the rate for everyone elses in the group, what would you say?

That is why they arent the same thing.

kevthegaff

My entitlements are about 200 per hectare, will they go up or down

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a fair lazy comment given you've seen and heard some of the people who were formerly not just members but officers in IFA who left the organisation.

You also know that information is key to getting anything done, and if within an organisation you''re access to information is curtailed you'll get fúck all done.

Access to information is not curtailed if you bothered to look for it, there's always information meetings all over the country on every issue.
Individual members will have their own ideas same as myself but if I wanted to go off on a tangent I'd have to convince the commitee I was on ,who'd then have to convince the national Executive before it's even policy and that's if I could even get it passed by the county to start with.
It's a bit sickening when IFA blamed for something someone says.
If it's not IFA policy, it desn't count

MayoAreMagic

wrangler wrote: »

I'vee been saying on here since the last CAP reform that you have to get involved with whatever organisation, farmers are too fond of hanging back when representation jobs are being given out. There's no doubt we stole a march in the last CAP reform but not without it taking a lot of time and work
Small farmers way outnumber big farmers, yet they're not represented. Whose fault is that. You're fairly naive if you think farmers or anyone for that matter are going to lobby against themelves. It's a democratic organisation and if you can't be bothered putting in the work, nothing is going to change
A lot of time goes in serving on commitees in IFA,

But do you not see that they arent represented because they arent full time? And they arent full time because of the payments, or lack of, they receive. And they dont get any decent payments because the lobby group only look to give them to themselves.
(Ignoring very small farms which will never be full time regardless)

The lobby group, be it the IFA or anyone else, have a responsibility to represent all farmers, not just themselves. I appreciate time and effort goes in, but surely you can see that the overall goal should be to represent all farmers and that not doing so weakens the position of most farmers?
This division is part of the reason why meat factories can operate as a cartel. We are divided already regarding subs so they can just hammer us down on where we should actually be getting paid, and where they are getting paid. It is very short sighted to just look after number 1

Donald Trump

wrangler wrote: »

In 2013 CAP reform it was your single farm payment divided by whatever you claimed on that year, Aneighbour with high entitlements sold 90% of them and kept two spread over his acreage and they are now converging upwards every year, where as they would've been in freefall had he kept them

The man took a chance. The person who bought the high ones probably did fairly well out of them too over those.



If you add up what he got for selling them in 2013 + the yearly BPS on what he kept and compare it to what he would have got for keeping them in that time, which scenario would be better do you think?

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

Access to information is not curtailed if you bothered to look for it, there's always information meetings all over the country on every issue.
Individual members will have their own ideas same as myself but if I wanted to go off on a tangent I'd have to convince the commitee I was on ,who'd then have to convince the national Executive before it's even policy and that's if I could even get it passed by the county to start with.
It's a bit sickening when IFA blamed for something someone says.
If it's not IFA policy, it desn't count

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Walk a mile in my shoes, you'd have a very different opinion.

Information leads to control, control leads to allocation of monies. It's why IFA has such absolute hatred for the likes of Ming, or the Farming Indo etc. These are all outside sources of information that IFA doesn't control therefore doesn't represent or push IFA's agenda of representing the "haves".

wrangler

Donald Trump wrote: »

The man took a chance. The person who bought the high ones probably did fairly well out of them too over those.



If you add up what he got for selling them in 2013 + the yearly BPS on what he kept and compare it to what he would have got for keeping them in that time, which scenario would be better do you think?

He was a politician at the time, he had more inside track than I had. I don't think convergence moved as fast as it was supposed to either so he probably should've stayed as he was

MayoAreMagic

Donald Trump wrote: »

The man took a chance. The person who bought the high ones probably did fairly well out of them too over those.



If you add up what he got for selling them in 2013 + the yearly BPS on what he kept and compare it to what he would have got for keeping them in that time, which scenario would be better do you think?

Exactly, both have done well off that deal. How about the poor eejit out west who has the same amount of land etc as these lads but is directed 90 odd euro entitlements. How did they do in comparison to him?
In reality the land itself should be treated eqaully. The guys on better ground will be rewarded in the income that ground can generate anyway, why reward them twice?

Donald Trump

wrangler wrote: »

He was a politician at the time, he had more inside track than I had. I don't think convergence moved as fast as it was supposed to either so he probably should've stayed as he was

That's the thing. He'll eventually end up at average anyway some day. He just sold the right he had to claim more than that in the meantime.

Donald Trump

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Exactly, both have done well off that deal. How about the poor eejit out west who has the same amount of land etc as these lads but is directed 90 odd euro entitlements. How did they do in comparison to him?
In reality the land itself should be treated eqaully. The guys on better ground will be rewarded in the income that ground can generate anyway, why reward them twice?

The only counter-argument to that are the lads who bought hill farms or land that was not more than waste ground just to collect money off them.


I mentioned a lad close to me who is supposed to have done that and his son set himself up on it on paper but doesn't work. That's the rumour anyway. His son does get a decent chunk according to the CAP beneficiaries database! What he gets it on isn't given of course.



Wasn't there a big mountain farm/block out in Mayo for example that was being sold on one of those bidx1 or allsops there at one time a few years back for about 600 an acre?

Edit. I googled and found this but I don't think that it is the one I remembered. This one eent to auction guided at 727 per acre. I don't know what it made
https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/farm-property/blank-canvass-of-1787-acres-for-sale-in-mayo-35548408.html


Might have been more along the line of this. 557 acres plus a modern house on the market for under 700k. https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/farm-property/557ac-turn-key-site-on-the-market-in-mayo-is-too-good-to-pass-up-38943284.html
In a lot of the country you might get a cottage with a big garden for that sort of money if you were lucky. Maybe a little field out the back to claim 2 entitlements on!

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Walk a mile in my shoes, you'd have a very different opinion.

Information leads to control, control leads to allocation of monies. It's why IFA has such absolute hatred for the likes of Ming, or the Farming Indo etc. These are all outside sources of information that IFA doesn't control therefore doesn't represent or push IFA's agenda of representing the "haves".

If I remember rightly you've more land than I have and in the area of subs for everything so it'd be easy for me to consider you as one of the ''haves''
So if I too was into conspiracy theories I'd be deaming too about those better off.
I can assure you that the farmers that are on the commitees don't give a s...e about Ming or the Indo and I wouldn't say Beef Plan is worrying them either.
With farming properly and serving on commitees they are far too busy for that sort of childishness

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

If I remember rightly you've more land than I have and in the area of subs for everything so it'd be easy for me to consider you as one of the ''haves''
So if I too was into conspiracy theories I'd be deaming too about those better off.
I can assure you that the farmers that are on the commitees don't give a s...e about Ming or the Indo and I wouldn't say Beef Plan is worrying them either.
With farming properly and serving on commitees they are far too busy for that sort of childishness

I can assure you they're not, I can also assure you I've seen (in person) farmers (not from my sector) ask innocent questions about schemes at county level meetings, questions where the information has come from the FIndo and have, shamefully, been cut down by EMPLOYEES of IFA spitting into the microphone "WE DON'T READ *THAT* PAPER* - and no answer to that mans question.

I have sat around the table with then three of the most powerful figures in IFA wagging fingers at farmers "Ye don't want *the likes* of Ming Flanagan in Europe*.

I used the word hatred, it was a most modest description of the venom I've seen come through once authority within IFA was questioned.

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

If I remember rightly you've more land than I have and in the area of subs for everything so it'd be easy for me to consider you as one of the ''haves''
So if I too was into conspiracy theories I'd be deaming too about those better off.
I can assure you that the farmers that are on the commitees don't give a s...e about Ming or the Indo and I wouldn't say Beef Plan is worrying them either.
With farming properly and serving on commitees they are far too busy for that sort of childishness

I have slightly more land than you. If just simple convergence is applied my BPS will increase. I also face significant more legislative challenges towards the use of my land than you.

Now let's talk reality, you have drawn significantly more CAP funding than I have, many, many multiples of times that € figure. You can also, and are, leasing out your land and entitlements for significantly more than I could mine.

The next part is my representative org surveyed it's members on CAP. One of the questions was about front loading. I'm in favour of front loading.

So, if convergence goes to 85%, and depending on what % of BPS is allocated to front loading, and how many hectares on each farm front loading applies to, I will likely see a small loss on my position as of today.

And I'm OK with that, because it steals some of IFA's piss and vinnegar argument about how many farmers stand to loose money. I will become a contributor so another farmer, with less hectares than I own, will see LESS of a loss.

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

I can assure you they're not, I can also assure you I've seen (in person) farmers (not from my sector) ask innocent questions about schemes at county level meetings, questions where the information has come from the FIndo and have, shamefully, been cut down by EMPLOYEES of IFA spitting into the microphone "WE DON'T READ *THAT* PAPER* - and no answer to that mans question.

I have sat around the table with then three of the most powerful figures in IFA wagging fingers at farmers "Ye don't want *the likes* of Ming Flanagan in Europe*.

I used the word hatred, it was a most modest description of the venom I've seen come through once authority within IFA was questioned.

I'd get my answer and I wouldn't be put down.
The venom exhibited by Beef Plan aginst everyone in agriculture is nothing short of shamefull and these are the type of farmers that you say can't stand up for them selves and can be talked down to
. Like anyone not in power, ming flanagan is a joke, of course he'll agree with everyone but that's worth nothing, nothing he says carries any weight, sinn fein is the same

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

I'd get my answer and I wouldn't be put down.
The venom exhibited by Beef Plan aginst everyone in agriculture is nothing short of shamefull and these are the type of farmers that you say can't stand up for them selves and can be talked down to
. Like anyone not in power, ming flanagan is a joke, of course he'll agree with everyone but that's worth nothing, nothing he says carries any weight, sinn fein is the same

I never spoke about beef plan. I spoke of a man who seemed to be a decent genuine middle aged farmer who was just looking for information on how the t's & c's of a particular scheme would affect his farm. The kind of question anyone might ask. His crime was that the only information he could base his question came from a paper not approved by the top table. Not everyone is comfortable with asking questions in front of a large room of their peers. That man deserved a bit of respect and an answer to his question from his representative group, which he pays in to.

One doesn't need to be in power to have influence. I'm privy to some of the work Ming does in Agriculture. Do I agree with every opinion he holds, no, I can see the reasoning behind them though. I would happily wager my farm and CAP monies that he is no joke. Though, I do think that if more people of a certain view DID see him as a joke, it would be advantageous to those of us who've been clinging on to the shítty end of the CAP stick for far too long.

Bass Reeves

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I never spoke about beef plan. I spoke of a man who seemed to be a decent genuine middle aged farmer who was just looking for information on how the t's & c's of a particular scheme would affect his farm. The kind of question anyone might ask. His crime was that the only information he could base his question came from a paper not approved by the top table. Not everyone is comfortable with asking questions in front of a large room of their peers. That man deserved a bit of respect and an answer to his question from his representative group, which he pays in to.

One doesn't need to be in power to have influence. I'm privy to some of the work Ming does in Agriculture. Do I agree with every opinion he holds, no, I can see the reasoning behind them though. I would happily wager my farm and CAP monies that he is no joke. Though, I do think that if more people of a certain view DID see him as a joke, it would be advantageous to those of us who've been clinging on to the shítty end of the CAP stick for far too long.

Problem with IFA now is it's too disrespectful to too many. Sneering at Ming us similar to the sneering the urbanites have at the Healy-Rae's. While you might be lucky to get elected once it's highly unlikely you get re-elected unless you are very capable. The Ming's and the Healy-Rae's may seem an anomaly to some but they are shrewd operators you need to bring a huge cohort of your constituency with you something IFA has failed to do. It has left a huge cohort of its membership with no other choice but to leave it. It is promoting policy that is of benefit to a very small minority of farmers and a lot of its older ordinary farmer membership are still failing to see that. The easy ride IFA gets from some agri journalist was to the fore in the last presidential election where the catch phrase upward only convergence was left off with no questioning it reality

Convergence is being driven by a cohort of these TD's and MEP's who are independends. The west of Ireland independent's are at the forefront of it.

Herd quitter similar to you I will lose a bit by convergence, however I hope front loading will soften the blow along with flat rating of greening. A cohort of farmers from the better land part of the country are now getting excited but they have had it too good for too long. The way payments were structured it allowed them a huge economic advantage over other farmers

wrangler

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Problem with IFA now is it's too disrespectful to too many. Sneering at Ming us similar to the sneering the urbanites have at the Healy-Rae's. While you might be lucky to get elected once it's highly unlikely you get re-elected unless you are very capable. The Ming's and the Healy-Rae's may seem an anomaly to some but they are shrewd operators you need to bring a huge cohort of your constituency with you something IFA has failed to do. It has left a huge cohort of its membership with no other choice but to leave it. It is promoting policy that is of benefit to a very small minority of farmers and a lot of its older ordinary farmer membership are still failing to see that. The easy ride IFA gets from some agri journalist was to the fore in the last presidential election where the catch phrase upward only convergence was left off with no questioning it reality

Convergence is being driven by a cohort of these TD's and MEP's who are independends. The west of Ireland independent's are at the forefront of it.

Herd quitter similar to you I will lose a bit by convergence, however I hope front loading will soften the blow along with flat rating of greening. A cohort of farmers from the better land part of the country are now getting excited but they have had it too good for too long. The way payments were structured it allowed them a huge economic advantage over other farmers

I wouldn't put too much importance on farmers leaving IFA, look what they done to beef plan...... you couldn't please them

morphy87

What is convergence? Is it that people on higher payments will be eventually brought back down to the average?

What is the average payment going to be an hectare going forward?

With the new eco scheme and greening been put in place will these bring payments back up to the current levels?

What is from loading? Is this where the first amount of certain acres get a higher rate and it gets lower the higher number of hectares you have?

MIKEKC

Donald Trump wrote: »

The man took a chance. The person who bought the high ones probably did fairly well out of them too over those.



If you add up what he got for selling them in 2013 + the yearly BPS on what he kept and compare it to what he would have got for keeping them in that time, which scenario would be better do you think?

How can you spread entitlements over an acerage. Doesn't one entitlement go with one Ha. Never seen anywhere that entitlements could be split

wrangler

MIKEKC wrote: »

How can you spread entitlements over an acerage. Doesn't one entitlement go with one Ha. Never seen anywhere that entitlements could be split

They were split for the last CAP reform in 2013,
If you applied for more hectres than you had entitlements for, your payment was divided over what ever hectares you applied for,
Most people didn't notice because they didn't chnge their amount of hectares, but the option was there.

Dinzee Conlee

wrangler wrote: »

They were split for the last CAP reform in 2013,
If you applied for more hectres than you had entitlements for, your payment was divided over what ever hectares you applied for,
Most people didn't notice because they didn't chnge their amount of hectares, but the option was there.

And the reverse was true too - I stacked entitlements onto a lower acreage, which increased their value but reduced the overall number of entitlements.

Not sure it was the best plan in hindsight, but it suited me at the time...

Bass Reeves

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

And the reverse was true too - I stacked entitlements onto a lower acreage, which increased their value but reduced the overall number of entitlements.

Not sure it was the best plan in hindsight, but it suited me at the time...

I bought low value entitlements at face value and stacked them onto ny payments it kept my payments above average. As well it was an opportunity to reduce you entitlement area if you had any overgrown land or rocky outcrops

MayoAreMagic

Donald Trump wrote: »

The only counter-argument to that are the lads who bought hill farms or land that was not more than waste ground just to collect money off them.


I mentioned a lad close to me who is supposed to have done that and his son set himself up on it on paper but doesn't work. That's the rumour anyway. His son does get a decent chunk according to the CAP beneficiaries database! What he gets it on isn't given of course.



Wasn't there a big mountain farm/block out in Mayo for example that was being sold on one of those bidx1 or allsops there at one time a few years back for about 600 an acre?

Edit. I googled and found this but I don't think that it is the one I remembered. This one eent to auction guided at 727 per acre. I don't know what it made
https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/farm-property/blank-canvass-of-1787-acres-for-sale-in-mayo-35548408.html


Might have been more along the line of this. 557 acres plus a modern house on the market for under 700k. https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/farm-property/557ac-turn-key-site-on-the-market-in-mayo-is-too-good-to-pass-up-38943284.html
In a lot of the country you might get a cottage with a big garden for that sort of money if you were lucky. Maybe a little field out the back to claim 2 entitlements on!

I get what you say, but consider for a second who is actually buying this land in the scenario you describe. Young farmers? Unlikely to be able to afford the level of initial investment, and would probably need more productive ground to be farming on anyway, if they are true young farmers establishing their own farm.

The guy who buys that land knows the system well so is probably already farming, and they have capital to invest so must be on a good payment, with maybe an off farm job etc.

Step forward, the established farmer with a good level of payments already. So although it might be hill ground, the guy in the perfect position to make money off it is the established guy who got good entitlements and is now leveraging that to put their son in a similar position.

Re the 700k farm - a great opportunity, but moreso for someone who would rent the house out on airbnb and rent the land to young farmers at a high rate. When that is your best potential profit making plan, it speaks volumes about the potential of actually farming it.

MayoAreMagic

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I get what you say, but consider for a second who is actually buying this land in the scenario you describe. Young farmers? Unlikely to be able to afford the level of initial investment, and would probably need more productive ground to be farming on anyway, if they are true young farmers establishing their own farm.

The guy who buys that land knows the system well so is probably already farming, and they have capital to invest so must be on a good payment, with maybe an off farm job etc.

Step forward, the established farmer with a good level of payments already. So although it might be hill ground, the guy in the perfect position to make money off it is the established guy who got good entitlements and is now leveraging that to put their son in a similar position.

Re the 700k farm - a great opportunity, but moreso for someone who would rent the house out on airbnb and rent the land to young farmers at a high rate. When that is your best potential profit making plan, it speaks volumes about the potential of actually farming it.

To add a further bit of realism.

I'm assuming the 557ac farm in one block is private hill rather than commonage so a minus in schemes like GLAS for example is a significantly lower payment rate, and coming to today that farm is excluded from REAP as I'd bet my left nut there's heather, and unwanted in Organics on points.

I'd guess it's also got some level of designations attached? Possibly multiple designations and if by some stroke of fortune not, I'd think the chances of it being designated this decade are very high.

Land type is the next pitfall, the apartheid GAEC2 regs would apply which could reduce or eliminate agriculture activities depending on regulation wordings, so there's that to keep the owner awake at night. Also any designations would seriously hamper any diversification or improvement efforts including every day things like fencing, drainage and even type of animal grazed.

While €24k+ BPS isn't to be sneezed at, that farm isn't the goose that lays the golden egg some may think it to be. It potentially has some extreme limiting factors existing and worry some challenges to overcome in the future.

Dinzee Conlee

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I get what you say, but consider for a second who is actually buying this land in the scenario you describe. Young farmers? Unlikely to be able to afford the level of initial investment, and would probably need more productive ground to be farming on anyway, if they are true young farmers establishing their own farm.

The guy who buys that land knows the system well so is probably already farming, and they have capital to invest so must be on a good payment, with maybe an off farm job etc.

Step forward, the established farmer with a good level of payments already. So although it might be hill ground, the guy in the perfect position to make money off it is the established guy who got good entitlements and is now leveraging that to put their son in a similar position.

Re the 700k farm - a great opportunity, but moreso for someone who would rent the house out on airbnb and rent the land to young farmers at a high rate. When that is your best potential profit making plan, it speaks volumes about the potential of actually farming it.

I was thinking about that post yesterday as well Mayo, as its maybe not something I hadnt though through before...

Say you had 2 lads with 500k to spend on a farm
500k in hill farm country might buy ~300 acres - that ~1700/acre
500k in prime country might buy ~35 acres - thats ~14k/acre

At 250/ha CAP payment, in the new converged world...
The hill farm would get 25-30k, allowing for some reduction in area
The prime farm would get ~4k

So, maybe a difference of 20k...

My calculations are very rough, I havent researched those figures, they are more going from the articles linked above plus what I have heard myself in land sales locally...

I accept prime land will generate more money from farming than poor land. But 16k is a lot to generate on 35 acres, to get to the same annual return as the hill farm...

Going through that scenario, it doesn't seem very right somehow. I suppose its kinda the opposite of the situation we have now?
But I dont know in this scenario if a simple reversal is right...

Lime Tree Farm

Donald Trump wrote: »

The only counter-argument to that are the lads who bought hill farms or land that was not more than waste ground just to collect money off them..............
...........

Might have been more along the line of this. 557 acres plus a modern house on the market for under 700k.

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/farm-property/557ac-turn-key-site-on-the-market-in-mayo-is-too-good-to-pass-up-38943284.html

"One man called a few days ago and he wants to buy everything, including the sheep. He even asked if there was a sheepdog,"


good thinking, the sheepdog alone could be worth 18K
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-51620008

Dinzee Conlee

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

I was thinking about that post yesterday as well Mayo, as its maybe not something I hadnt though through before...

Say you had 2 lads with 500k to spend on a farm
500k in hill farm country might buy ~300 acres - that ~1700/acre
500k in prime country might buy ~35 acres - thats ~14k/acre

At 250/ha CAP payment, in the new converged world...
The hill farm would get 25-30k, allowing for some reduction in area
The prime farm would get ~4k

So, maybe a difference of 20k...

My calculations are very rough, I havent researched those figures, they are more going from the articles linked above plus what I have heard myself in land sales locally...

I accept prime land will generate more money from farming than poor land. But 16k is a lot to generate on 35 acres, to get to the same annual return as the hill farm...

Going through that scenario, it doesn't seem very right somehow. I suppose its kinda the opposite of the situation we have now?
But I dont know in this scenario if a simple reversal is right...

The national average is currently €265ish give or take 1 or 2 euros.

Convergence to date has brought people up to 60% of the national average.

From what I understand, just to be inflammatory (:D) "the haves" don't want to see convergence exceed 75% of the national average (today) by >>> 2027 <<<

There are other complicating factors to take into account, front loading is one, that won't see "straight" convergence, so no more than the journal front page a couple of weeks ago figures can be made look a certain way if influencing factors are left out. On front loading, if convergence were to go to 85%, and then depending on the # of hectares per farm and in total the dept think should be front loaded, and the payment rate on those front loaded figures, that would see the 85% recipient likely not budge from their €figure income today, and indeed they may become a contributor towards front loading not just from a forfeited increase (from 60-85%) but out of the 60% also.

So the basis figures of your calculation aren't correct. As well as that, your figures portray a close to 100% convergence scenario happening today, where as the reality is that whatever convergence figure agreed, the final result won't be a fact until 2027 (and it sure as hell won't be 100%).

And a lot can happen between now and then.

Donald Trump

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I get what you say, but consider for a second who is actually buying this land in the scenario you describe. Young farmers? Unlikely to be able to afford the level of initial investment, and would probably need more productive ground to be farming on anyway, if they are true young farmers establishing their own farm.

The guy who buys that land knows the system well so is probably already farming, and they have capital to invest so must be on a good payment, with maybe an off farm job etc.

Step forward, the established farmer with a good level of payments already. So although it might be hill ground, the guy in the perfect position to make money off it is the established guy who got good entitlements and is now leveraging that to put their son in a similar position.

Re the 700k farm - a great opportunity, but moreso for someone who would rent the house out on airbnb and rent the land to young farmers at a high rate. When that is your best potential profit making plan, it speaks volumes about the potential of actually farming it.

The fella near me who was rumoured to have done it did it for that reason. Bought very cheap hilly ground somewhere so that his son could establish and draw payments on it. It would be a no-brainer really if you knew that they BPS over even the next 5 years were going to cover a large chunk of the repayments!


The only thing that will happen if there is full convergence for these places is that the prices of those hill farms will shoot up. Which will make the current owners very happy of course!

MayoAreMagic

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

I was thinking about that post yesterday as well Mayo, as its maybe not something I hadnt though through before...

Say you had 2 lads with 500k to spend on a farm
500k in hill farm country might buy ~300 acres - that ~1700/acre
500k in prime country might buy ~35 acres - thats ~14k/acre

At 250/ha CAP payment, in the new converged world...
The hill farm would get 25-30k, allowing for some reduction in area
The prime farm would get ~4k

So, maybe a difference of 20k...

My calculations are very rough, I havent researched those figures, they are more going from the articles linked above plus what I have heard myself in land sales locally...

I accept prime land will generate more money from farming than poor land. But 16k is a lot to generate on 35 acres, to get to the same annual return as the hill farm...

Going through that scenario, it doesn't seem very right somehow. I suppose its kinda the opposite of the situation we have now?
But I dont know in this scenario if a simple reversal is right...

You are right, but that doesnt factor in the need for the farmers to have full entitlements for the farm first and foremost. Are two lads spending 250,000 on land going to qualify as young farmers? In the real world it is unlikely. If they dont then they will need to buy them.
Secondly, how much stock will they need to stock the land the the minimum requirements? Those wont be small numbers and the ground will need to be travelled on foot. Will they need to farm it full time?
Thirdly, the payment must be split between the two of them.
Fourthly, there is nothing stopping the lads buying the good land from buying the hill farm instead.

In reality, the prices involved will change as the focus of agriculture changes. Comparing prices from a few years back and discussing them in light of new directions in agriculture wont ever give an accurate reflection of the state of play, be it land or anything else. We have a habit of looking at the extreme cases, rather than recognising them as an exception rather than the rule. 'Well I know of a lad that...insert extreme case' Are there many hill farms of that size in the country? Most I know of are around 30-40 hectares including commonage.

Donald Trump

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

You are right, but that doesnt factor in the need for the farmers to have full entitlements for the farm first and foremost. Are two lads spending 250,000 on land going to qualify as young farmers? In the real world it is unlikely. If they dont then they will need to buy them.
Secondly, how much stock will they need to stock the land the the minimum requirements? Those wont be small numbers and the ground will need to be travelled on foot. Will they need to farm it full time?
Thirdly, the payment must be split between the two of them.
Fourthly, there is nothing stopping the lads buying the good land from buying the hill farm instead.

In reality, the prices involved will change as the focus of agriculture changes. Comparing prices from a few years back and discussing them in light of new directions in agriculture wont ever give an accurate reflection of the state of play, be it land or anything else. We have a habit of looking at the extreme cases, rather than recognising them as an exception rather than the rule. 'Well I know of a lad that...insert extreme case' Are there many hill farms of that size in the country? Most I know of are around 30-40 hectares including commonage.

How do they work out stocking rates though? Would it not be on the entire land base?


A lad with 200 acres of dairy and beef in North Cork who buys a mountain farm of 100 acres of hill farm in West Cork probably has his stocking rate calculated over his entire "farm" and is already over minimum threshold. Might also bring him under nitrates limits as well by having the extra maps!


They don't do spot checks or monitoring of individual plots do they?

MayoAreMagic

Donald Trump wrote: »

The fella near me who was rumoured to have done it did it for that reason. Bought very cheap hilly ground somewhere so that his son could establish and draw payments on it. It would be a no-brainer really if you knew that they BPS over even the next 5 years were going to cover a large chunk of the repayments!


The only thing that will happen if there is full convergence for these places is that the prices of those hill farms will shoot up. Which will make the current owners very happy of course!

Yes of course he did. But where did the money come from to buy it? I.e. he wasnt a young farmer just starting out. Is his own farm a hill farm? Im guessing not.

It is the trickle down effect of some getting good entitlements and others not. Fast forward 10 years and the lads who got the good ones are buying up the farms of the lads who didnt. They are in tune with farms schemes while those who got f all arent because they were making nothing out of it and had to go to dublin/london etc working in a different area altogether. So the worthless farm is left idle and the older generations die off. Then the lad with good payments sees the potential change in tack and uses his good-payments-money to buy the hill farm and sticks in his useless son to milk the system.
Progress...

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

How do they work out stocking rates though? Would it not be on the entire land base?


A lad with 200 acres of dairy and beef in North Cork who buys a mountain farm of 100 acres of hill farm in West Cork probably has his stocking rate calculated over his entire "farm" and is already over minimum threshold. Might also bring him under nitrates limits as well by having the extra maps!


They don't do spot checks or monitoring of individual plots do they?

They do checks, they do walk commonages, and insist on GPS photographic evidence as well as the usual paper trail.

Donald Trump

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Yes of course he did. But where did the money come from to buy it? I.e. he wasnt a young farmer just starting out. Is his own farm a hill farm? Im guessing not.

It is the trickle down effect of some getting good entitlements and others not. Fast forward 10 years and the lads who got the good ones are buying up the farms of the lads who didnt. They are in tune with farms schemes while those who got f all arent because they were making nothing out of it and had to go to dublin/london etc working in a different area altogether. So the worthless farm is left idle and the older generations die off. Then the lad with good payments sees the potential change in tack and uses his good-payments-money to buy the hill farm and sticks in his useless son to milk the system.
Progress...

Well the father is an absolute chancer who holds onto a lot of his money by sticking people and not paying them by all accounts. That's a whole different story though!


5.5% loan for land. You won't make the interest cost back on regular land easily by working it. You'd make the interest cost back and more on a hill farm with established entitlements at the National average (plus 25% top-up)

MayoAreMagic

Donald Trump wrote: »

How do they work out stocking rates though? Would it not be on the entire land base?


A lad with 200 acres of dairy and beef in North Cork who buys a mountain farm of 100 acres of hill farm in West Cork probably has his stocking rate calculated over his entire "farm" and is already over minimum threshold. Might also bring him under nitrates limits as well by having the extra maps!


They don't do spot checks or monitoring of individual plots do they?

If it is hill ground and it isnt being grazed then it will be deemed ineligible. They are monitered via satellite so you wont get a notification, you will just get the results.

I know of two young farmers who bought hill ground a good 90 minutes from them and stocking it has been a disaster truth be told. Other people grazing it, sheep going missing in groups of 10, people dont take kindly to outsiders and they know that they wont be around every day. It is a nice handy spillover for them and that is the way they want to keep it. But it has to be stocked so their hands are tied.

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

They do checks, they do walk commonages, and insist on GPS photographic evidence as well as the usual paper trail.

A few mountain blackfaces thrown onto it might leave enough of an impact for a chancer to plausibly try to claim it is being used if they do get inspected maybe?


I'm not suggesting anyone do anything illegal. I'm wondering if people do it. It's not relevant to my own situation anyway

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

A few mountain blackfaces thrown onto it might leave enough of an impact for a chancer to plausibly try to claim it is being used if they do get inspected maybe?


I'm not suggesting anyone do anything illegal. I'm wondering if people do it. It's not relevant to my own situation anyway

TBH they need to stay where they're supposed to be, not many ring fenced commonages around here at least. Add to that satellite imagery is now top notch, so they have access to where stock is and when via more than ground inspections.

I know a Cork man used to own shares in a commonage I'm on, to be fair to him he had a local man run the correct number of sheep on it too.