Any views on this on the arable front. How about those who grew non iaacs crop ie root crops in the years 2000 - 2002 who will lose out. What about tenants or owners who have taken over farms since and may not be able to claim. Would it be better to have a simple system where the ministry pays out the average yield across all the iaacs acreage to the present occupier? though this would penalise people who were all cereals and rape in the qualifying period, bearing in mind though that sugar beet will lose its regime in 2006.

Stephen, you are absolutely right, this proposal is indeed discriminatory in its current guise.Any system that rewards the unimaginative sod that has leeched as much as possible from the IACS regime as possible deserves to be chucked out with the bathwater.To my mind anyone who has had the vision and the nerve to pioneer other crops should not lose out to a crazy scheme like this.

Especially those who had the courage to do GM trials! Just reinforces my argument that I do not like a system that does not pay on results. Jack Caley

Thanks I must confess that i have an interest as only 25% of my arable acres qualify for iaacs payments, and before anyone says that I chose to grow these other crops yes I did but then by growing them there was less wheat, rape etc on the market as a result.

same as us livestock lads we were taken out as a contiguous cull in april 2001 and had very little subsidy 2001/2002 are we to be treated unfairly through no fault of our own as well

don`t panic it sounds as if foot and mouth affected farms may be able to use 1997-2000 as the reference years, although I`m sure they will use the 2002 payment rates.

Whilst I agree with your sentiment regarding pioneering other crops, being unimaginative was/is a neccessity if a rent has to be found. IACS put a bottom in the rental market so which tenant could afford to forego these payments? We tried flax on non-registered land the crop had a value of £0 but the subsidy (paid by the intervention board) amounted to over £200/acre. I don`t feel like an unimaginative sod for chasing that subsidy, most of us do exactly that, witness the rise and fall of linseed while the sub was high.

on the face of it the mid term doesn`t look too bad to my mind (arable wise). If you grew root crops in the reference period (2000-2002) then yes it looks likely that you will lose out on payments on those hectares. If during the reference period you were renting in additional land then your IACS cheque would have been bigger but if those acres have since been returned you will not be entitled to those payments. You will only be able to claim on acres being farmed. My understanding as regards new tenants or owners taking over since the refernce period is there may be a national reserve for special cases. At least we won`t be chasing individual subsidies, one payment and we can farm or not farm as we choose with 10% non-rotational (hopefully not) set-aside. Of course these are still only proposals and as we know the devil will be in the detail.

but you have all had your "compensation" already?

Explain.

well all person's that had livestock slaughtered had "compensation" for the value of thoses animals, ie if on the green, blue or red etc plus a lump sum on top. Yes we all know the compensation was high in 99% of cases. So therefore they had compensation for their "losses" mid term review as well?! Or perhaps they would like to give the excess back and then claim a hardship case!

that compensation wasn`t just for the value of the animals, it was to cover loss of earnings while they had no animals to sell and to purchase new stock.

and machinery and cars and buildings and land and quota and holidays and concrete and earn £20/hour cleaning and hiring there own equipment and having a nice clean farm!

wasnt compensation was compulsary purchase and as slugpelleter says was was value of animal plus loss of 12 months income and has nothing to do with mid term review and by the way wasnt £20 per hour we had £15 for the owner and £5 for our staff

SP , you were not being unimaginative growing flax, it is a pretty rare crop round here.I intended to highlight that some farmers have never looked past wheat and rape etc.We will lose out because we grow other crops such as herbage seed and potatoes which operate outside the IACs system.Of course it is our choice and our money at risk , but it seems unfair we could lose out because we havent taken the easy option and just added to the wheat surplus.It doesnt matter if you pay a rent or a mortgage , everyone should get fair treatment.

compulsary purchase?? like land? do you get money for loss of income for that then? What about loss of expenses? were thoses not included? You weren't paid the same as thoses round here. £20/hr "team leader" £15 for "team members" Just own up 90% were very well compensated. But thoses that fought and won no compensation for the stress and worry or even extra feed costs are laughing now......no TB bought in ....our neighbour bought 150 milkers 12 months ago only got 100 left, they just didn't move well.

Our farms were designated IAC’s claimable land years back. We then had to stay within the designated remit. So in my opinion whether or not we grew claimable crops or not, the farm should be compensated to the total claimable land that was allocated. It is just a scam by DEFRA or who ever to get out of paying what really is due to each individual farm. Gee as time goes on I am getting more and more embarrassed to be called a farmer, as hell we must all be as thick as too short planks, by how time and time again we get stitched up !!!!! You can imagine the decision makers sat in their luxurious board rooms saying “ these farmers are as green as grass, we can do what ever we want to stitch them up, they will just lie down and take it”. They are real “ thick Suckers !!!!! Until we stick together as one big body ( this will never happen ) nothing will change, and we deserve all we are getting as we are just letting it happen !!!! Ujay