some rents were no more than the BPS
New limits to SFI.
- Thread starter Yale
- Start date
livestock 1
Member
Look back there it is for you
We will all cop the lot of it with sfi being paid not to produce it’s not cool is it
farmerm
Member
- Location
- Shropshire
No, it didn't. BPS keeping down food prices is a myth. We are now at 50% of BPS, has the value of farm output increase by £115/ha, no! BPS has zero correlation to prices consumers pay which are driven by supply and demand, primarily global supply and demand. How did BPS keep down the price of a bunch of Bananas, a bag of potatoes or an iceberg lettuce, it never did. BPS has kept family farms afloat but it never made any difference to consumers pockets.
livestock 1
Member
As a production motivated farmer a support payment system linked to production would seem to make more sense than a system that pays the best money to produce the least
- Location
- Devon
It was not far off being about £100/ acre originally. More before they started modulating to fund other things such as the Wildlife Trusts. So about £250/ hectare.
That £250/ Ha would need to be £458.51 to have the same value today.
livestock 1
Member
Prices have shot up for consumers as bps has dropped
Coincidence? No
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
But that went in 2004 with end of direct support payments.
livestock 1
Member
Makes more sense than paying people the most not to farm
livestock 1
Member
Just because some on here are trying to justify growing nothing doesn’t mean that Joe Public won’t throw this lot back in our face as time goes on
My opinion doesn’t matter it will happen
My opinion doesn’t matter it will happen
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Coincidence. Being pedantic you have chosen the wrong word Livestock1. The word you should have chosen is ‘correlation’. Not that that helps you I fear.
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Yes, i concurr.
livestock 1
Member
We did say it would happen and it has
Why argue about facts
farmerm
Member
- Location
- Shropshire
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Sorry if I appear to be arguing. Not intentional. But the increase in food prices is more than the raw material. Most food has some element of processing after leaving the farm gate and i suggest most of the increase in prices I pay at the supermarket has little to do with price of raw material leaving the farmgate. Though I appreciate from these threads you are pretty strident in your opinion, and I can understand why. Cheers
- Location
- East Yorkshire
It has kept many farms afloat, thereby contributing to over production which HAS kept commodity prices mainly low. The thing most Govts fear is a shortage of food and energy. Without the subsidy there was certainly more risk of lower production. This apparently doesn't matter any more.
And remember most agricuture worldwide is subsidised in some way.
And now SFI options have been severely restricted, the 25% rule farming for profit is going to be much harder. OMO of course!
livestock 1
Member
At the end of the day most farmers I know used bps to help their businesses produce the payment wasn’t enough to stop producing but was enough to ensure a reasonable working profit on what they produced
Now that production has been reduced due to this and simultaneously the shopping prices have gone up
Now I’m not saying that was ideal for me or anyone else as a farmer however it is what’s happened regardless of any argument anyone comes up with
Now that production has been reduced due to this and simultaneously the shopping prices have gone up
Now I’m not saying that was ideal for me or anyone else as a farmer however it is what’s happened regardless of any argument anyone comes up with
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
But is that due to correlation or simply pure coincidence. That is the question? Bit of both maybe?
- Location
- Devon
I don't often disagree with you, but I am absolutely convinced that the reduction in BPS has, is and will increase food prices.
I don't think you can over-estimate the impact on the psyche of farmers of having the safety net and support of their pre- christmas cheque, reduced and removed.
I consider it one, if not the only positive thing, that farmers will now be forced to consider production entirely on financial merit.
Returns have to substantially increase to maintain production.
I think/ hope that the nature of having to 'earn' SFI payments will prevent it being used to subsidise production the way BPS and its forerunners did.
livestock 1
Member
You can’t rewrite history regardless of what you say
I’m not really arguing or saying bps was all it’s cracked up to be just stating a fact
more to farming than wheat