- Location
- Montgomeryshire
Wasn’t the smallest tank eligible on the Welsh scheme 1500 litres? That’s hardly a big tank is it?
I can’t believe that would be a lot dearer than a smaller tank, that would still need the same pump, meter, hoses, etc.
New Farming Investment Fund launched today
- Thread starter Janet Hughes Defra
- Start date
Wasn’t the smallest tank eligible on the Welsh scheme 1500 litres? That’s hardly a big tank is it?
I can’t believe that would be a lot dearer than a smaller tank, that would still need the same pump, meter, hoses, etc.
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
Can you not put several items together to count towards the minimum spend (assuming they were all sensible purchases of course)?
- Location
- West Sussex
Hi Janet. Any update on the strip till drill question from Tuesday?
I think lots of people would consider strip till an important transition to ”pure” direct drilling and I think excluding it from the grant scheme is a big mistake.
One Of the early versions of the SFI pilot advanced soil standards required 50% of high risk land to be direct drilled or strip till drilled. The grant scheme seems to be at odds with this thinking.
The Claydon WAS eligible if specced with their leading disc.
Problem is that DEFRA won't give you a direct yes/no answer if you ask whether a specific make is eligible.
Perhaps if you speak to the manufacturer?
(If you trust their answer!)
Strip till is min till it’s not magic.
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
Surely the make is irrelevant? The grant has been made really simple by just needing the equipment to meet the minimum spec detailed. If you can show it meets that spec, what does the colour matter?
Not true as it seems you can't make it yourself spec or no spec
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
That's an entirely different thing though.
why ?
whats the difference in me making it rather than someone else ? it wouldn't be the first time I had made my own kit
No difference at all. That wasn't the point.
It is perhaps left to your own interpretation and sometimes it's different to others. I'm saying that could be avoided by a yes/no answer.
d williams
Member
As long as it’s to the same specifications then it should be and save the money instead of putting it into someone’s else bank
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
Haven't we all, but it would need to be up to a standard, which would be near impossible to police I'd have thought. In another post upthread, someone had inquired about importing kit from China, and had received the reply that it was OK, as long as it was CE marked, etc.
Not impossible to police, come and see it work
- Location
- North Wales
A few of my observations.
This scheme isn't new so the ones that want to benefit from the items generally have in the previous format.
This means that it needs new/different items to be covered to make it still relevant for the previous claimants.
But then if it's only just one item you require you, as you got your new cattle crush or mobile pens in the old scheme, you may not meet the required minimum grant so you need to claim for unneeded items or go without the grant.
It looks like it's still trying to fund "toys" to please the farmer. 'Hey, here's some money to buy sweeties to replace the money were taking away'. The grant could do with looking to fund items the farmer doesn't 'want to buy' but 'needs to buy'. Renewable energy to reduce carbon seems a good idea, electric charging etc.
It does look to penalise smaller farmers. With the minimum spend and large items to comply. E.g. the diesel tank being a set size. Now the scheme is set up and running, surely it wouldn't be difficult to extend the range to 3 sizes of diesel tank, small 1000l tank to suit the small farms, a mid sized tank and a larger tank for bigger units, all with a comparable grant amount. A day on the phone to major manufacturers would get prices for the different sizes to set the grant.
My final point would be inflation, considering that some of the items are currently only funded by 20% on the day the scheme opens even though they're are supposed to be calculated at 40%. Being out of date after 12months would be bad enough but on day 1 is quite embarrassing.
This scheme isn't new so the ones that want to benefit from the items generally have in the previous format.
This means that it needs new/different items to be covered to make it still relevant for the previous claimants.
But then if it's only just one item you require you, as you got your new cattle crush or mobile pens in the old scheme, you may not meet the required minimum grant so you need to claim for unneeded items or go without the grant.
It looks like it's still trying to fund "toys" to please the farmer. 'Hey, here's some money to buy sweeties to replace the money were taking away'. The grant could do with looking to fund items the farmer doesn't 'want to buy' but 'needs to buy'. Renewable energy to reduce carbon seems a good idea, electric charging etc.
It does look to penalise smaller farmers. With the minimum spend and large items to comply. E.g. the diesel tank being a set size. Now the scheme is set up and running, surely it wouldn't be difficult to extend the range to 3 sizes of diesel tank, small 1000l tank to suit the small farms, a mid sized tank and a larger tank for bigger units, all with a comparable grant amount. A day on the phone to major manufacturers would get prices for the different sizes to set the grant.
My final point would be inflation, considering that some of the items are currently only funded by 20% on the day the scheme opens even though they're are supposed to be calculated at 40%. Being out of date after 12months would be bad enough but on day 1 is quite embarrassing.
We could well do that, but as you say they need to be sensible purchases of things that would benefit us. A lot of the things we either already have, don’t need or can’t justify the spend even with grant aid as know we could pick a used one that would be better suited to our situation for less outlay.
yes but it probably wouldnt be shiny with fancey stickers on.
there's a lot of snobbery with it all 'oh yos ive got a lady da etc..'
basically i dont give a jot what it looks like ,function is all, and often new kit would need mods on it to get actually it better, at the job or more user friendly.
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
The idea is for a simple, accessible grant scheme with minimal amounts taken from the pot to cover admin. They don't want to be incurring the extra costs of going out to inspect machines working (and let's face it, most civil servants wouldn't know if it was working properly anyway). If a machine has been manufactured and sold then it will have a CE mark, in which they appear to have faith.
I guess you could always set up as a manufacturer, then get the kit CE marked, etc? Or just get on and make it without a grant if you think that's the route to go down?
It seems it does make a difference what colour it is then.yes but it probably wouldnt be shiny with fancey stickers on.
there's a lot of snobbery with it all 'oh yos ive got a lady da etc..'
basically i dont give a jot what it looks like ,function is all, and often new kit would need mods on it to get actually it better, at the job or more user friendly.
The colour here depends on what the colour of the second hand bit of steel I made it from is
Had kit made and altered before by people I know that would probably be far better at their job than those working for some major manufacturers but hay it seems its the sticker that's important not what it does, odd when you think that livestock can't read
same here , often if look hard enough you can find something of a useful shape that saves time fabricating as its already part formed/very suitable as a starting pointIt seems it does make a difference what colour it is then.
The colour here depends on what the colour of the second hand bit of steel I made it from is
good welders angle grinders cutters drills is all you need fundimentally ,plus a lot of thought in one go or lots of little thoughts in on going use and modification...
recycling ,very good for the environment, saves on Co2 creation.