SFI....FUBAR

[Chris W]

Personally I agree with the cap.. The money should be used to improve the rural economy not degrade it.

The scheme shouldn’t promote “retirement farms” it should promote letting someone else having go via rent or purchase.

Without the cap all the farmers/contractors farming investor owned land via either fbt or cfa would be replaced by a set and forget SFI option

I am concerned about how much the goal posts keep changing though. In the 3yrs of SFI every year’s agreement has been completely different from the previous, no one can plan for this.

 

[Two Tone]

Personally I agree with the cap.. The money should be used to improve the rural economy not degrade it.

The scheme shouldn’t promote “retirement farms” it should promote letting someone else having go via rent or purchase.

Without the cap all the farmers/contractors farming investor owned land via either fbt or cfa would be replaced by a set and forget SFI option

I am concerned about how much the goal posts keep changing though. In the 3yrs of SFI every year’s agreement has been completely different from the previous, no one can plan for this.

It is a very interesting situation.
SFI was supposed to replace BPS and CS (In England).
All the money from both BPS and CS was ring-fenced to be redistributed via SFI.
(But the was a catch insofar that it is for the lifetime of this Parliament).

So by restricting (various parts of) SFI can all the BPS and CS money be redistributed?
How can farmers replace their former BPS and CS money if there are SFI maximum restrictions?


With regards Goal post movements, we need stability not an ever changing situation.
How can we run a business when they can change the Goal posts so radically each year?
That, simply isn’t on!


SFI is in trouble! Why else would they keep changing it?
Out of 212,000 holdings in the UK, so far just 14,000 SFI agreements are established.

Also, the penny has dropped and the Government at last realise the prime objective of farming is the creation of food for us, over and above the birds.
After all they have done, have the bird populations increased?
Well the Buzzards and Red Kites have, killing everything else!


I have farmed through every system they have ever had.
The best one by far that addressed the problems was IACS.

I think they need a modified IACS, but with set aside being replaced with the environmental goals they want.

 

[Huno]

SFI is not FUBAR but it does discriminate between farm businesses and it has NOT replaced BPS income for the MAJORITY of UK farmers and therefore with the current economics we Farmers are FUBAR not SFI??

 

[Chris W]

SFI is not FUBAR but it does discriminate between farm businesses and it has NOT replaced BPS income for the MAJORITY of UK farmers and therefore with the current economics we Farmers are FUBAR not SFI??

Personally I have almost replaced my BPS (before costs) whilst taking less than 4% out of production.

 

[Huno]

Personally I have almost replaced my BPS (before costs) whilst taking less than 4% out of production.

Well done you. and 14999 others to date but what about the other 74,000? SFI is perfect for an arable lowland farm rotation... IT is still DISCRIMINATION

 

[Huno]

Personally I have almost replaced my BPS (before costs) whilst taking less than 4% out of production.

Did you knock off your COSTS? Good luck with the learning curve there...

 

[Huno]

I have seen some hilariously wrong COST estimates if it wasnt such a serious subject published in the farming gutter press.. Clearly written by people who dont control all the annual accounts of all interested parties on that piece of land..

 

[Clive]

No doubt helped by their Pals-in-crime, the NFU. Who are claiming it was their idea to limit SFI on these options to 25%.

How in all that is Holy, can they not see that this now restricts every one of their members in retrieving much of the depleting and lost BPS they have and continue suffer?

No Fecking Use! Indeed.

NFU claiming credit for 25% SFI cap

Received an email today from NFU welcoming SFI cap and was a result of their lobbying. Can you believe it. !!

thefarmingforum.co.uk

the more I think about this the more it stinks that the NFU should lobby for anything that removes choice from farmers

their obsession with pushing for maximum production creates oversupply that keeps prices low, the only winners are supermarkets and input suppliers

I'm disappointed that DEFRA couldn't see this

 

[gone up the hill]

the more I think about this the more it stinks that the NFU should lobby for anything that removes choice from farmers

their obsession with pushing for maximum production creates oversupply that keeps prices low, the only winners are supermarkets and input suppliers

I'm disappointed that DEFRA couldn't see this

Minette Batters stated time and time again that it was farmers duty to supply food as cheaply as possible

No idea what the new president thinks as he has apparently gone to ground like a rabbit.

The problem is with Minettes thinking and the NFU's push to restrict taxpayer support to thousands of farmers is that we are now looking at a very high cost base, much reduced tax payer support and still expected to produce food below the cost of production which anyone knows with any common sense cant carry on for long !

 

[Clive]

Minette Batters stated time and time again that it was farmers duty to supply food as cheaply as possible

she was very clearly on the supermarkets side - I think the NFU's change of attitude on RT since she left the building now clearly demonstrates how much of a problem she was, i would bet serious money on her next employment being connected to a big processor, retailer or associated quango

if the 25% cap is right or not is not my issue here, what I can't understand is why the NFU would lobby for it ?? it's not in farmers interest, even the argument that it protects tenants is flawed while we still have options like NUM3 that are uncapped ?

 

[gone up the hill]

Personally I agree with the cap.. The money should be used to improve the rural economy not degrade it.

The scheme shouldn’t promote “retirement farms” it should promote letting someone else having go via rent or purchase.

Without the cap all the farmers/contractors farming investor owned land via either fbt or cfa would be replaced by a set and forget SFI option

I am concerned about how much the goal posts keep changing though. In the 3yrs of SFI every year’s agreement has been completely different from the previous, no one can plan for this.

If there was to be a cap it should have always been in place and applied to everyone!

The current situation now is so unfair its beyond belief, we were told that SFI was designed so that farmers could replace all their lost BPS by joining the scheme, well that might have been possible for arable/ mixed farms before they bought in the caps last week but before the cap and now for grassland farms you do not have a hope in hell of getting back anything like your full BPS payment before or after costs!

And do not forget it is livestock farms that buy your grain and if they go you will have no market for your grains ( other than cheap exports ) and then you will be 100% reliant on your SFI payment.

 

[gone up the hill]

she was very clearly on the supermarkets side - I think the NFU's change of attitude on RT since she left the building now clearly demonstrates how much of a problem she was

if the 25% cap is right or not is not my issue here, what I can't understand is why the NFU would lobby for it ?? it's not in farmers interest, even the argument that it protects tenants is flawed while we still have options like NUM3 that are uncapped ?

I think you will find in time that the NFU have not changed their attitude on RT.

NFU lobbied for the 25% cap as they get hundreds of thousands if not millions a year from the supermarkets etc.

 

[Clive]

I think you will find in time that the NFU have not changed their attitude on RT.

NFU lobbied for the 25% cap as they get hundreds of thousands if not millions a year from the supermarkets etc.

I think they don't want to change their attitude but have come to understand they have no choice, they are loosing a LOT of members over RT

 

[Two Tone]

I think they don't want to change their attitude but have come to understand they have no choice, they are loosing a LOT of members over RT

I think they could lose a whole lot more members over NFU’s involvement with creating these SFI restrictions.

‘Foot and Mouth’ suddenly has a whole new meaning as regards NFU speak!

 

[Henarar]

it's not in farmers interest,

that depends on what the gov do with the money saved, they may pay it out in a way to benefit more farmers.
are those that have gone 1005 non production even farmers or are they park keepers, NFU is meant to be a farmers union and so is BFU

 

[Henarar]

If there was to be a cap it should have always been in place and applied to everyone!

they have changed environmental schemes before and let ones that were already in place run, this is nothing new

 

[Henarar]

The current situation now is so unfair its beyond belief

no it isn't it has happened before

 

[Henarar]

now for grassland farms you do not have a hope in hell of getting back anything like your full BPS payment before or after costs!

yes you do, we have and more oh and we are still getting a bit of BPS and have not cut production

 

[Henarar]

I think they could lose a whole lot more members over NFU’s involvement with creating these SFI restrictions.

A poll would be interesting, many will be for it as TFF shows

 

[gone up the hill]

no it isn't it has happened before

Not with the main sub payment system it has not !

Things like CS then yes