Dexter Cattle For Sale Discussion Board

First of all, Happy new year! With a new year coming in and with most of the details released for the CAP reforms I'm assessing what is the best strategy. I know that it has been applied slightly differently in Scotland to England and Wales, however I am interested to know if anyone is altering because of it.
For the Scottish scheme I think it is now a better scheme for hill farmers and should help to get more animals onto the poorer ground. I think it will go against Dexters in Scotland however as the new scheme very much favours native breed cattle and sadly Dexter is not on the list, on the plus side Dexter X Native Scottish Breed will be suitable.
The sheep scheme in Scotland should help many of the poorer areas get sheep back, however with a requirement to have 80% poor to good ground it is hard to know how many farmers will be able to access this scheme.
Anyway I can't complain as I'm not getting any Single Farm Payment just how so anything is a bonus.

I don't take a lot of notice really, I try to farm without relying on subsidy so anything I can claim is a bonus that helps pay for improvements. I don't change the strategy to suit the sub and for 90% of the farm it is claimed by the owners anyway. Filling the form in is certainly the most productive ten minutes every year, though.

I have not been eligible for SFP, but I am eligible for the new 2015 Basic Payment. My choices are:

a. Decline to claim
b. Claim, and keep the money
c. Claim, and give the money away to more deserving causes than me

I have such a low opinion of CAP and its implementation in Scotland, that option b. would be difficult. My nature and inclination is option a. and keep well away from a pathetically poorly implemented benefit scheme. However, when cuts to essential services, like schools, are all around us, shouldn't I grab the money and redistribute?

I went to a local seminar aimed at sheep farmers. For me, there is basically no change. I've double tagged with EID for everything born on the place since it was introduced and have always listed individual ID nos when moving sheep, so couldn't see what the fuss was about. I'm permanent pasture so no greening requirement. Can't see that there'll be any difference for the cattle either.
I decided I would miss the subsidy, so have taken on extra land and bought entitlement, so I just scrape over the 5ha requirement.
I loathe the form filling, but as everyone round here says, it's the most profitable time spent in the year.
On that note, may I wish everyone a Prosperous New Year!

Although I would like to get enough from selling produce and would ultimately like it to be removed, sadly farmers after the war had the choice and voted to keep the subsidy based system and we are left where we are. If you want to now make a living off the land it is essential to work within the system and it is worth taking the time to see what is changing. I am also interested in the preservation of farming on heathland and see this as very important to maintaining a way of life and wildlife. I think that previous schemes have given more money to farmers who have the best ground and farm it in a fairly intensive way. I hope the new changes will make it viable for some hill farmers to bring back native breed cattle and sheep. Sadly the scheme does not include Dexter and it is not a Scottish breed.

cairnhill wrote:Although I would like to get enough from selling produce and would ultimately like it to be removed, sadly farmers after the war had the choice and voted to keep the subsidy based system and we are left where we are. If you want to now make a living off the land it is essential to work within the system and it is worth taking the time to see what is changing.

Some people are running sucessful businesses without any subsidies and I think it is largely responsible for the increasing average age of farmers in the UK today, creating a barrier to sucession.

I like JohnnyP's approach but I claim it in the absence of any workable capital grants scheme so it goes part-way to increasing returns and resilience for the future of the farm. My father's generation received significant grants that enabled them to put up buildings in the 1970's that have lasted their entire working lives and I think that would be a better use of the money. But of course to get that money on the annual payments you need to already have the infrastructure in place to be able to farm the land, which is a catch-22 for the next generation, unless they can inherit everything. We've scraped together the pennies to invest in improvements but only being able to manage with a small herd in the meantime has meant that fixed costs have been a more significant proportion of our expenditure.

Some people are running sucessful businesses without any subsidies

Who are those people?

think it is largely responsible for the increasing average age of farmers in the UK today

I think it is due to the Single Farm Pension that the average age of farmers are increasing, sadly unless you have better land it is not easy making a living from farming. So perhaps it seems that I like the system, however I am much happier when I get money from produce than money from the government, however farming today is dependent on getting both the grants and the product right. I think with any of the grant schemes they are in danger of creating a false market, for example with the Dexters in Ireland, was it a good scheme? It did boost the export market for Dexters but when it came to an end it has made it a challenge if you are dependent on it. I think it is a good thing that the government is encouraging Scottish native breed cattle, however how long will it last and will people get around it by using Continental x native breeds, I expect so.

My farm manages a small profit without subsidies, much to the amazement of my neighbours but with the new payment changes in Wales I will be applying for national reserve entitlement this year.

I agree that capital grants would be better than a pay / pension cheque every December.
My farm needs investment in building and claiming subsidies look like the best way to fund it.

I would need approximately an extra £30 a head for my lambs in the market to compare with what my neighbours get with subsidies.

So until there is a better way I need to join the system. Hopefully I'll be successful.

Because I have been farming without payments I can't be a new entrant (100 per cent payment), too old for a young farmer (100 per cent payment), I have to be a production entrant (20 per cent payment 1st year).
Looks like if you have tried to farm and made it work you don't need as much as everyone else ???

cairnhill wrote:

Some people are running sucessful businesses without any subsidies

Who are those people?

Alan Gamble is one, go to http://www.farmersguardian.com and type 'subsidies' into the search box, it should come up with his article and other examples.

When we started we got slaughter premium, as a landless holding, and then extensification premium when we bought the farm. When SFP came in, as 'new' entrant, we got 10% the first year, which was the equivalent of selling an extra box of beef. It focussed the mind somewhat on relying upon the sub. We also took on a CSS agreement and got 10 years with a small regular payment plus some capital grants that allowed us to dig out the ponds and pipe water to the fields. That was great on the one hand but I would have much preferred to just have had the grants as it definitely took our focus off making the farm earn it's keep and improve. Now that CSS has ended I'm determined not to do the same with SFP (or BPS) as it should be a sugar lump, not the bread and butter.

Rob, I've read the article, very interesting and I like what he is doing, however as he indicates it is very tight, however I do believe it is a correct aspiration, even if not fully achievable for most. As everyone who isn't getting single farm payment is indicating.
If I was changing strategy I would look at the following factors:

A. What sells at market
B. What is suitable for the land
C. What you enjoy or can work with
D. What enables in subsidy payment

I would order it B,C,A,D . For example I purchased sheep the year before last, they have managed A. B. and C. , however I didn't get any subsidy payment. With the hill payment it will meet all criteria.

I think that's the right way to approach it, so long as the decision is made before D & it doesn't creep up the pecking order. I try to spend it [mentally] in advance, on something I know will be beneficial, but not absolutely essential.

cairnhill wrote:Rob, I've read the article, very interesting and I like what he is doing, however as he indicates it is very tight, however I do believe it is a correct aspiration, even if not fully achievable for most. As everyone who isn't getting single farm payment is indicating.
If I was changing strategy I would look at the following factors:

A. What sells at market
B. What is suitable for the land
C. What you enjoy or can work with
D. What enables in subsidy payment

I would order it B,C,A,D . For example I purchased sheep the year before last, they have managed A. B. and C. , however I didn't get any subsidy payment. With the hill payment it will meet all criteria.

This is how it works on my farm except no D for us.
I have Dexter cattle & hardy sheep, make sure we are under stocked our own hay. Very little bought in feeds mainly blocks & minerals. If I manage to get D life would get a lot easier at the market when selling against heavily subsidised farmers.