We are pleased to tell you that the latest version of Farm Matters (Version 2016.4.4) includes a new feature called grid layouts. This feature will allow you to have multiple layouts of a grid and switch between them easily. You could have one layout with columns switched on about breeding, another layout with the weight columns, another for medication, etc.
To switch on this feature load a screen such as On Farm andGrid Layouts go to Tools->Layout Selector. You will see a small toolbox appear called ‘Grid Layouts’. To create a new layout simple click the add button and give the new layout a name (Note: nothing will initially change on the grid). You can then move the columns around as desired for the new layout. If you then want to view the original layout simply select it from the drop down and the layout will change. There is no need to save layouts, this is done automatically when you leave the screen. You can call on the different layouts at any time. This is available on most screens inc. Cattle On Farm, Individual Sheep, Fields, Sales, Purchases, Treatments, Products, etc.
If you are looking for a easy to use and cost effective EID solution, Tag-ie4 is the answer. For only £250+VAT the Tag-ie 4 includes:
• Batching of tag lists
• Weights recording
• 4,000 tag capacity
• Lightweight & IP66 rating
Tag-ie4 is fully compatible with Farm Matters. The software can download data directly from the handset either into your events or to display on screen. History data can be uploaded directly to the handset from Farm Matters with a choice of what data to upload. For more details about Tag-ie4 or to order one, please contact Neil on 0191 3000 189.
It has come to our attention that some sheep farmers think they need to record the individual chip number of slaughter/flock mark tags. This is not the case! The rule of thumb is you only need to record what you can see. The legislation is based on the visible identification at the point of the event.
Conversely some farmers think they don’t need to record when tagging animals with slaughter/flock mark tags. However it is a legislative requirement that all tagging events are recorded including slaughter/flock mark tags. This can be as simple as recording ‘250 x UK123456’ in your identification records (Section 3 of the Holding Register).
Farm Matters Tip: If you tag your animals as they leave your farm, you can simply enter the movement off/sale event into Farm Matters and answer yes to the ‘Record Tagging’ question. This will automatically create the identification records based on the tag numbers entered for the movement.
This is vitally important that all sheep producers read this.
We have been made aware of many farmers having experienced full RPA sheep inspections. To our shock and dismay we learn that the inspectors are out sourced to a company called HallMark Ltd. This has unearthed rather dangerous results in the inspectors application of the legislation criteria and therefore is causing many false inspection issues and breaches of cross compliance.
One of the issues raised is the fact that sheep producers must present a copy of the Holding Register in original booklet form as supplied by the RPA.
It is NOT a requirement to have the manual Holding register completed as an addition to any correctly presented print outs or correctly presented records. This is NOT a breach of cross compliance and if this is suggested by the inspector we strongly recommend protesting this issue and informing the RPA of the matter.
We are confident that Farm Matters Software will produce the correct records for RPA sheep inspections in accordance with cross compliance and government regulations.
If you have any experiences like this or wish to discuss the matter please get in touch.
Here at Farm Matters we are eager to promote our software solution but also advise all our customers on a regular basis about queries and problems we are finding with the industry, particularly confusion caused by crazy legislation and inspection worries.
A current issue seems to be the confusion of sheep record keeping, ARAMS and general identity issues. Well here are the basics which may help people make things a little bit more straight forward and clear.
A sheep can run around on the farm until it is 9 months old without any tag in its ear. When it becomes 9 months or it has to be moved to a new holding number irrelevant of distance it must be tagged. This tag can be a single slaughter tag EID chip number included but not visible or a double EID visible tag(s).
Basically if you intend to sell the sheep slaughter then a single EID slaughter tag is fine. If you intended to keep for breeding or the animal becomes older than 12 months it needs a double EID tag (s).
You do not have to record every separate tag when you move sheep in your keeper ship between holdings but you do need to keep a record of the flock numbers.
we can advise that anyone buying or selling a large number of mixed sheep with EID double tags needs to buy a EID reader, this can then be downloaded into the Farm Matters software and populate the tag identification element of your records.
There are many more issues regarding sheep legislation so if you need any advise just get in touch. firstname.lastname@example.org
With less than two weeks until the system is scheduled to go live everyone should have heard about the the new Animal Recording And Movement Service (ARAMS) for sheep, goats and deer. We’ve been talking to people within the industry and there appears to be plenty of sheep farmers, farm managers and even markets that know little or nothing about the new system. There are even more people who are confused about what ARAMS is and what benefits it offers.
ARAMS is the new system for sheep farmers to notify sheep, goat & deer movements. No more sending AML1 forms to your local Trading Standards, instead producers must notify ARAMS at their Milton Keynes office. The first thing to clarify is that AML1 forms must accompany sheep, goats and deer on all movements (a slightly modified version of the form will be released) as they do presently. Notifying ARAMS can be done via mail and fax as usual or via two new methods; firstly a new website run by ARAMS and secondly via your Farm Software Provider such as our highly recommended Farm Matters.
ARAMS is definitely a good idea for inspectors and legislative bodies like RPA with all movements recorded in a central location in a standardised format. But will it benefit farmers? Maybe! Since an AML1 must still accompany all movements little will change in the practicalities of moving sheep, goats and deer. The benefits will be more from a record keeping & reporting perspective. You will now be able to record and notify movements in a single step using electronic notifying rather than keeping the required records and then posting/faxing a copy to Trading Standards. Unfortunately the electronic reporting system is not as straight forward as good old BCMS. Whereas BCMS simply requires you to notify an on or off regardless of where cattle are being moved from/to, ARAMS take a different approach.
You cannot record movements to store or slaughter markets, it is the markets responsibility to record this
On movements should not be notified rather you must confirm on movements from a list downloaded from ARAMS
However on movements where you are also recording the off movement should be notified in full to ARAMS
Our research leads us to believe initially most sheep farmers are not going to use electronic reporting and instead stay with the tried and tested methods of fax and mail. Some farmers will benefit from ARAMS while most will wonder ‘What am I gaining?’; the answer unfortunately is not a great deal.
RPA have released figures showing that farmers have seen their SPS (Single Payment Scheme) payments reduced by £1.4 million for failing to comply with the Cross Compliance regulations.
Of the 1,947 breaches, the most common was failing to report cattle deaths or movements, at 670 breaches. It is important to not only keep accurate records but to report them to BCMS in a timely manner. Reporting movements and deaths is easy with a host of options: CTS Online, CTS Self-Service Helpline or our personal favourite, Farm Matters.
The number of NVZ (Nitrate Vulnerabel Zone) breaches have almost trebled from 72 to 205 in 2012. We understand the NVZ regulations appear complicated but RPA will not accept this as a reason for failure to keep the accurate and up to date records. If you struggle with NVZ record keeping either use our farmer friendly software, NVZ Matters, or contact a qualifed professional, such as Countryside Consulting Ltd (01409 281 038).
Can you afford to lose 5% of your SPS payments? No! Ensure you keep your Cross Compliance records accurate and up to date.
RPA have reported the proportion of cattle movements reported electronically to BCMS has hit record highs for two consecutive months. December saw a record 95% of movements reported electronically either through CTS Online, CTS Web Services or the CTS Self-Service Line. This represented an increase of 17% over reporting in December 2010. However the record high didn’t last long as in January 95.49% of cattle movements were reported electronically.
With such a small proportion of cattle movements being reported using paper forms (Only 10% of births too) it does raise the question might it worth stopping the paper form method and force 100% electronic reporting by farmers?
There are now several different methods of electronic reporting through the Internet, telephone or farm software. This gives the farmer a choice of services to meet their needs with the minimum requirement being a telephone. In addition farm software packages can reduce the duplication of record keeping and reporting. Electronic record keeping would help to reduce RPA costs, reduce farmers costs and improve the reliability of reporting (we won’t get into the Royal Mail’s reliability).
There does appear to be a strong case for compulsary electronic reporting, however not everyone has confidence in the technology and it is important that all farmers have confidence in how the system works. Also it seems doubtful in the current financial climate that any reduction in operating costs, once the need to process the paper forms is gone, will result in any benefit to the farming community.
While we are strong advocates of electronic reporting we would suggest that even higher proportions of farmers need to voluntarily use electronic methods before it should be made compulsory.