Is there any future in suckler cows ?

[Sharpy]

I probably would have done it if the money was every year, it’s a absulote load of sh!t the money should have just went on the calf sub .

Was to get round the WTO rules on direct support, but when uptake was lower than envisaged, followed by a lot of people dropping out of the scheme, you would think the remaining money allocated would have been used to pay participating farmers in years 4 and 5, not thrown at the administration/ professionals involved.

 

[Chae1]

Personally i would say its all things we are doing anyway.

Has our business benefited in any way from taking part. No. Apart from the 10k a year.

I don't grudge the professionals there pound of flesh. We chose to be farmers and will just have to accept we're at bottom. Giving more money to farmers for doing nothing is how we ended up in position we are in.

No doubt Jim and Co above will have seen money available for providing this kind of stuff, and will be why they've got involved!

 

[Farmer Fin]

Is that not the point in subsidies for farmers. It’s a way of putting money into the rural economy. Surely better spent on local advisors than shiney foreign machinery???

 

[Stuart J]

I probably would have done it if the money was every year, it’s a absulote load of sh!t the money should have just went on the calf sub .

Add up your total for three years, close your eyes and imagine it's split over the 5. Problem solved.

Harm no. Things like we were promised information about our stock as part of the scheme, we have received none, but in the meantime the bureaucracy/professionals involved have been doing rather better out of it than the farmers involved. E.g £500 for the carbon audit? For about 90mins work filling out a form that we provided all the info for? It's not in the spirit of the scheme we were asked to support, a method of getting pillar 2 money to active farmers, not giving it away to folk in offices.

We had a letter yesterday detailing our stock against country averages. Not sure what more you are looking for.
You can do the carbon audit yourself.

 

[Bossfarmer]

some of this convergence money should be used to top up the beef efficiency payments so that farmers get paid for years 4 and 5, otherwise i can see a lot of farmers not bothering to do it

 

[Sharpy]

Add up your total for three years, close your eyes and imagine it's split over the 5. Problem solved.

We had a letter yesterday detailing our stock against country averages. Not sure what more you are looking for.
You can do the carbon audit yourself.

Thats good we are finally getting some info back, will see it when it comes, the point about the carbon audit was the disproportionate hourly rate versus the easyness of the job. My main point is that the scheme was not what we were sold, and has turned into "jobs for the boys ". That annoys me. The spare money has been hived off to "the boys". That annoys me.
Yes, the money is handy, no we shouldn't get it for nothing, but the scheme could have been so much better, and isn't.

 

[shearerlad]

Not read all of this thread, bugg tv my thoughts on some of the ideas. The main point is do what suits your farm and if it doesn’t pay, sell the cows.

We get about 960-970mm annual rainfall but that doesn’t matter a stuff when there is 250000 acres upstream collected water that’s to pass by/over the main block of land. Also my soils simply cannot hold cows up, neighbours 4-5 miles each side of me can out winter but I can’t.
Because I’ve to house my cows I’m as well to have a cow that can produce a top end store calf, calving issues can be kept to a minimum with correct mineral/trace element balance and BCS control through the ration. The biggest cost attributable to the cows is straw and the dung it produces, but that is offset by reduced bagged fertiliser.

It’s funny how the experts, pre brexit, forecasted doom and gloom for sheep and a fairly positive outlook for beef. But then that’s experts!

 

[Sharpy]

some of this convergence money should be used to top up the beef efficiency payments so that farmers get paid for years 4 and 5, otherwise i can see a lot of farmers not bothering to do it

Don't complete the scheme, pay back all monies received iirc.

 

[Hilly]

Was to get round the WTO rules on direct support, but when uptake was lower than envisaged, followed by a lot of people dropping out of the scheme, you would think the remaining money allocated would have been used to pay participating farmers in years 4 and 5, not thrown at the administration/ professionals involved.

How many dropped out ?

 

[Hilly]

Add up your total for three years, close your eyes and imagine it's split over the 5. Problem solved.

We had a letter yesterday detailing our stock against country averages. Not sure what more you are looking for.
You can do the carbon audit yourself.

I’m not that desperate enough for money I lower myself to joining a half arsed scheme so I didn’t !

 

[Sharpy]

How many dropped out ?

I think there are 1200ish left in, possibly 2400 started.

 

[Hilly]

I think there are 1200ish left in, possibly 2400 started.

Bloody hell thats not good.

 

[Chae1]

I’m not that desperate enough for money I lower myself to joining a half arsed scheme so I didn’t !

Your too good. Wouldn't have learned anything?

Don't need the money cause your loaded anyway!?

 

[Chae1]

Thats good we are finally getting some info back, will see it when it comes, the point about the carbon audit was the disproportionate hourly rate versus the easyness of the job. My main point is that the scheme was not what we were sold, and has turned into "jobs for the boys ". That annoys me. The spare money has been hived off to "the boys". That annoys me.
Yes, the money is handy, no we shouldn't get it for nothing, but the scheme could have been so much better, and isn't.

Somebody developed the software program for carbon audit?

It was probably because they did such a good job the time to complete it was so short.

 

[Sharpy]

Somebody developed the software program for carbon audit?

It was probably because they did such a good job the time to complete it was so short.

Pretty sure that he was logged in to the Bes site. Could be wrong though.

 

[Sharpy]

Bloody hell thats not good.

Don't know if its a reflection on farmers or the scheme, but no, not good.

 

[S J H]

Well of course there is a difference, that's an extremely obvious point!

I'm not comparing a dry cow to one rearing a calf, I'm saying that a roof makes no difference to cattle performance if they are of a suitable type, it just makes a difference to the land and the staff.

If cattle are performing worse òutside than in, then they are simply the wrong kind for keeping outdoors.

The main difference is what they're lying on, is it not?

 

[le bon paysan]

My wife was having a conversation with another vet who is a researcher rather than a practicing vet. She is developing a bolus for cows which consumes methane. She is looking for funding just now to trial it. Sounds like a promising way to shut up the environment brigade ?

Can she do one for hot air so we can bolus the environmentalists?

 

[Chae1]

Pretty sure that he was logged in to the Bes site. Could be wrong though.

No its not on bes site its agrecalc.com. It's pretty farmer friendly. Even i managed do it myself this year!
I'm afraid doing a carbon audits going to become mandatory the way things are going with farming and the environment. I'm quite happy I've already completed one and came out of it in a good light.

I think part of the problem with the scheme is the way those running it communicate. They come across quite aggressive in correspondence. I think many farmers have just told them where to go. I know I've been tempted a few times.

 

[Sheeponfire]

Your too good. Wouldn't have learned anything?

Don't need the money cause your loaded anyway!?

Come on now chae1...

You have to admire his stance on the matter... Its not for us to say if its right or wrong...

It's just a thought... But sometimes I think we as a group of farmers should take more of a stance...