New CAP not far away

Support an active farmer . Support a young farmer and i say that wit no disrecpect to an old age pension farmer.

I think old age pension farmers should be getting a lot less in terms of cap . I know it's important for old people to be involved in farming for various different reasons but theyll never spend the money they recieve. A young farmer will reinvest the money quickly
 
Support an active farmer . Support a young farmer and i say that wit no disrecpect to an old age pension farmer.

I think old age pension farmers should be getting a lot less in terms of cap . I know it's important for old people to be involved in farming for various different reasons but theyll never spend the money they recieve. A young farmer will reinvest the money quickly
Did I read somewhere that when you reach retirement age in a certain country in the EU that you must forego your SFP, Germany maybe?
 
Support an active farmer . Support a young farmer and i say that wit no disrecpect to an old age pension farmer.

I think old age pension farmers should be getting a lot less in terms of cap . I know it's important for old people to be involved in farming for various different reasons but theyll never spend the money they recieve. A young farmer will reinvest the money quickly

Be careful what you wish for there, probably mainly an Irish phenomena but many farms Might be where the older farmer is the registered farmer but the children are the ones driving the business.

Greening needs to be revisited is a big one. Protein payment preserved. Environmental measures, are people Happy to do say GLAS measures with no payment???

Move away from prehistoric reference period basis. Minimum level of farming activity dependent on area.

Just throwing out some ideas....
 
Be careful what you wish for there, probably mainly an Irish phenomena but many farms Might be where the older farmer is the registered farmer but the children are the ones driving the business.

Greening needs to be revisited is a big one. Protein payment preserved. Environmental measures, are people Happy to do say GLAS measures with no payment???

Move away from prehistoric reference period basis. Minimum level of farming activity dependent on area.

Just throwing out some ideas....
Conacre is making 400 an acre not far from here. What would it go to if people were told the sfp would be judged off their 2018 average? Not saying historic is the answer at all by the way but some lads will always do their best to ride the system into the ground
 
Conacre is making 400 an acre not far from here. What would it go to if people were told the sfp would be judged off their 2018 average? Not saying historic is the answer at all by the way but some lads will always do their best to ride the system into the ground
Minimum stocking rate or a crop grown (proof of silage sale would have to be allowed) to qualify, would get rid of all this nonsense where 300 acres of mountain is seen as equivalent to 300 acres of productive land, support the active producer, not the map farmer which is in nobody's interest except his own (i.e doesn't generate any employment, economic activity or food). @nashmach idea about GLAS measures without payment is difficult as many of those measures cost money to implement, but I think it will be done on an EFA style basis where you will see higher rates (10%) required and if you don't have it then you will need things like new hedges, cover crops and bird cover to earn you points. This also rewards the man/ woman who already has a wildlife friendly farm with lots of hedges or woodland or areas of unfarmed wet ground that have very high nature value.
 
I also think the trailing shoe in derogation is the thin end of the wedge, they've started with the intensive guys who can afford to pay for the service, it also means the workload is achievable for contractors as they gear up, once this is up and running I'd expect to see the net widened to all slurry after the 15th of June, and then possibly to all slurry on a derogation farm.
 
I'd like to see them do away with the reference period. I'd prefer if they based it on an average for the previous 10 years (But I don't know if that would work either). I'm so tired of seeing people getting money based on what they did 25 years ago. I don't have a solution for iit, but I can identify the problem.

I don't think we are going to have a choice on environmental measures in the future. Can anyone actually say that Glas has been a strain on them physically or financially? The money's not spectacular, but it's easy enough to carry out the measures. Getting a SFP based on completing similar measures would be achievable on our farm anyway.
 
Minimum stocking rate or a crop grown (proof of silage sale would have to be allowed) to qualify, would get rid of all this nonsense where 300 acres of mountain is seen as equivalent to 300 acres of productive land, support the active producer, not the map farmer which is in nobody's interest except his own (i.e doesn't generate any employment, economic activity or food). @nashmach idea about GLAS measures without payment is difficult as many of those measures cost money to implement, but I think it will be done on an EFA style basis where you will see higher rates (10%) required and if you don't have it then you will need things like new hedges, cover crops and bird cover to earn you points. This also rewards the man/ woman who already has a wildlife friendly farm with lots of hedges or woodland or areas of unfarmed wet ground that have very high nature value.
Why is it only the tillage farmer that has to deal with the efa stuff. Handy enough when beans were included but now this year it's challenging enough on some farms with large fields. If they uped it to 10% every tillage farm would struggle. Is it a more political correct name for setaside.
 
I’d agree with ye both,
Why is it only the tillage farmer that has to deal with the efa stuff. Handy enough when beans were included but now this year it's challenging enough on some farms with large fields. If they uped it to 10% every tillage farm would struggle. Is it a more political correct name for setaside.

Widen the definition for EFA’s . I have a lot of woodland screens around tillage fields and as far as I know the whole of them cannot be included.
I’d agree with both points, same efa rules for everyone would be fairest. I can’t see why a big woodland has no value whereas a small one does, a nonsense.
 
I'd expect to see the net widened to all slurry after the 15th of June, and then possibly to all slurry on a derogation farm.
This won't happen due to greenhouse gases. Spreading during high summer results in higher ammonia emissions and as a result they want a proportion of it spread earlier in the year.
 
I also think the trailing shoe in derogation is the thin end of the wedge, they've started with the intensive guys who can afford to pay for the service, it also means the workload is achievable for contractors as they gear up, once this is up and running I'd expect to see the net widened to all slurry after the 15th of June, and then possibly to all slurry on a derogation farm.

I hope not as inject and applying in concentrated bands is not good for the soil. I do it here myself but perfer broadcast so a thin layer is pit across the complete surface
 
I'd like to see them do away with the reference period. I'd prefer if they based it on an average for the previous 10 years (But I don't know if that would work either). I'm so tired of seeing people getting money based on what they did 25 years ago. I don't have a solution for iit, but I can identify the problem.

Why do we need reference periods at all. Why not simply pay it based on each years claimed area.
 
This won't happen due to greenhouse gases. Spreading during high summer results in higher ammonia emissions and as a result they want a proportion of it spread earlier in the year.
I think you re misunderstanding me, thats the reason behind trailing shoe after mid June. ( date picked by Dept for derogation)
 
That could drive land price even more mad.
How? Prices are mad because lads need acres to retain entitlements and to secure enough land to qualify for potential future entitlements. If it was based on each year lads might actually look at the profitability of the crop in the current year rather than future years. It would cut out selling and leasing entitlements, cut out premium prices for land just to cover entitlements.

I agree also with a cap but its impossible to enforce as they just divide it across companies.
 
Why do we need reference periods at all. Why not simply pay it based on each years claimed area.

As I said, i don't have the answers. How would they differentiate between a farmer that's well stocked and working very hard and a farmer with 3 or 4 donkeys to eat the rushes that he only sees once a month?
 
Back
Top