- Location
- Hereford
Would have to find someone to buy her first !Sounds like you would sell yer granny
Farm subsidies.. Yay or nay
- Thread starter doasyoulikey
- Start date
And the prices we pay for goods and services.
petergittins
Member
https://assets.publishing.service.g...-bill-evidence-slide-pack-direct-payments.pdf
DEFRA articles showing the glorious benefits of removing subsidies (aka taking money from the farmers)
Don’t get me wrong i’m sure they will put measures in place to protect markets. Environmental schemes will be flooded with incentives.
But its when the reports (written by experts apparently) say things like better business planning will make up for subsidy loss, less use of antibiotics, diversifying more....
Most farmers are already doing all they can.... but the response from policy seems to be work harder... madness
DEFRA articles showing the glorious benefits of removing subsidies (aka taking money from the farmers)
Don’t get me wrong i’m sure they will put measures in place to protect markets. Environmental schemes will be flooded with incentives.
But its when the reports (written by experts apparently) say things like better business planning will make up for subsidy loss, less use of antibiotics, diversifying more....
Most farmers are already doing all they can.... but the response from policy seems to be work harder... madness
Soil health is also hard to accurately measure. Measurable outcomes is what Gove wants. Sure, we all know what a good soil looks like and how it works but as you say, there is more than one way to achieve that health. Environmental benefit is a very broad church.
- Location
- South Wales UK
It will be interesting to see the flip side and increases in claims for other Government benefits when they go.
ollie989898
Member
Most farmers are already doing all they can...but the response from policy seems to be work harder
Do you honestly believe that?
- Location
- Exeter, Devon
2 questions relating to some of the posts above:
Firstly, with subsidies gone, how will the powers that be enforce cross compliance? Fining farmers will be massively more expensive than the “deduct money, prove yourself innocent later” system we currently have.
Secondly, how will min-till/zero-till do once glyphosate is banned, assuming that it will be?
Firstly, with subsidies gone, how will the powers that be enforce cross compliance? Fining farmers will be massively more expensive than the “deduct money, prove yourself innocent later” system we currently have.
Secondly, how will min-till/zero-till do once glyphosate is banned, assuming that it will be?
ollie989898
Member
They will enforce regulations the same way any industry is- if you pollute a stream you get fined.
All this nonsense about 3 crops, grass fallow, not taking a whizz within 2 metres of a hedge... all that bilge will be scrapped because it is unenforceable and it makes no odds to anything whatsoever anyway.
The whole of Deathra, natural England and RPA is a bloated load of cobblers that does not need to exist. There will be an animal health arm and an plant health arm that will deal with disease policy and that is it. The rest of it is a load of nonsense that serves no purpose. On the one hand farmers are told they can't cultivate slopes, or do X or Y or plough p ancient grassland whilst the EA are allowed to flood everything and do whatever the please. The tax payer has to put his hand in his pocket and finance all these shenanigans yet there is no benefit from any of you trimming half a hedge once a year, both sides, ploughing up the village green or not... etc etc. It's all BS.
- Good question. Control is easier when you can easily remove a carrot instead of the more expensive stick of prosecution and the need to prove guilt. They have to make it worthwhile to claim for the control.
- They don't see any ban as a problem. If the electorate want glyphosate banned, it will be banned. I have little doubt that Westminster would throw farmers under a bus if it got them reelected.
Last edited:
petergittins
Member
The subsidy debate obviously varies upon sector. It can make up the vast majority of a farmers incomes, particularly hill farms working with moorland where they are limited to what they can do.
Reports, like the one I presented before, present farmers as armchair farmers for claiming subsidies.
Of course farm management improvements can always be made, but can they be to the extent to cover the cost of loss subsidies?
ollie989898
Member
I don't deny that a lot of farms rely on them for income, however, the industry itself has produced figures which show a vast disparity in production costs between the top and bottom 15% in most sectors. So I am not automatically convinced that everyone is 'doing all they can'. I have met a lot of very astute and technically adept farmers in my time, but I'm not going to lie to myself or anyone else by claiming that every holding in the UK is operated by the same. Far from it, and how can it be if there is such a wide range of production costs and very noticeable ranges in even physical performance?
It's not like any of this is new, either. It was the case 20 years ago. New methods are emerging, techno or mob-grazing, direct drilling, much more varied rotations, cover crops and the like but these are by no means universally adopted methods. There is still a portion of the industry that is in 'do what we always have done and hope it gets better'. Just being in business and working hard is no longer the guarantee of success- a degree of technical acumen and business foresight is required today.
If subsidies remain how do we know if we even have the right production model in any sector?
- Location
- Ceredigion
Should have been scrapped 20 years ago
- Location
- Hereford
I have always maintained the current system of 'fining' farmers is a dubious if not unjust way of implementing the law. If ,in industry, you flout the law you are innocent until proven guilty by a court and you have the right to employ a solicitor to defend your right . You may lose your case and it may cost you money but it is surprising how many win their cases. In agriculture it is in the gift of a RPA inspector to issue a guilty notice and then an 'office ' worker implement the fine . I wonder if all RPA non cross compliances went to court how many would be upheld or would even get there if we were allowed to defend ourselves like any other industry. I'm afraid we are sitting targets.
capfits
Member
Actually it the upstream suppliers that will suffer. The small market towns and communities that they are based in will suffer and before you know it in more, shall we say, peripheral areas will suffer a degree of depopulation.
Downstream of course there maybe some pain, probably intially among primary processors but in situations of increased price volatility the consumer, particularly those on lowest incomes.
If subsidies were removed here I reckon 1/3 of my neighbours would disappear and if I am honest I would not hing around either without a worthwhile income.
Last edited:
yellow belly
Member
- Location
- south west lincolnshire
as I posted in 2013
no subsidy in the form of bps then rent will fall by that amount
no subsidy in the form of unrestricted imports and no bps then rent will fall to the level sustained by the average yield of the land
no bps free imports but paid environmental support the land lord could collect the environmentle payment some one will farm it for low rent dog and stick ,part time week end farmer /shift worker /haulier or share croppers
land prices will depend on the definition of farmer and the tax treatment
what ever with the farmer land owner as the main price setter for land either as the main bidder or as the under bidder the ability of farmers to bid for land will depend on the income from their existing land if this is reduced between £100 and £250 an acre they will have much less spared cash to buy land banks will not lend to farmers based on security
when subsidy was removed in 1922 land prices calapsed with many deals falling through and land impossible to sell
many landowners had big sales due to death duties this and the stock market crash farms were available virtually rent free
what to do now is preserve cash not to commit to any long term deals either rent or purchase
no subsidy in the form of bps then rent will fall by that amount
no subsidy in the form of unrestricted imports and no bps then rent will fall to the level sustained by the average yield of the land
no bps free imports but paid environmental support the land lord could collect the environmentle payment some one will farm it for low rent dog and stick ,part time week end farmer /shift worker /haulier or share croppers
land prices will depend on the definition of farmer and the tax treatment
what ever with the farmer land owner as the main price setter for land either as the main bidder or as the under bidder the ability of farmers to bid for land will depend on the income from their existing land if this is reduced between £100 and £250 an acre they will have much less spared cash to buy land banks will not lend to farmers based on security
when subsidy was removed in 1922 land prices calapsed with many deals falling through and land impossible to sell
many landowners had big sales due to death duties this and the stock market crash farms were available virtually rent free
what to do now is preserve cash not to commit to any long term deals either rent or purchase
This is a difficult one l, I only know about arable.
But when ahdb etc publish stats saying the average price it costs to grow a tonne of wheat is £150/t there is something drastically wrong. It should cost no where near that. Part of me thinks the real subsidy beneficiaries are the various input suppliers machinery, chemical, fert etc.
It seems the ahdb s main aim (not their fault) at the moment is teaching 50 year old farmers at monitor farm meetings how much a tractor costs to run and telling people to make obvious savings that should already be in place on a well run business. They do some great work, but could plough more money into even better work without all this obvious dead weight.
Foward planning I am not expecting to get anything.
But when ahdb etc publish stats saying the average price it costs to grow a tonne of wheat is £150/t there is something drastically wrong. It should cost no where near that. Part of me thinks the real subsidy beneficiaries are the various input suppliers machinery, chemical, fert etc.
It seems the ahdb s main aim (not their fault) at the moment is teaching 50 year old farmers at monitor farm meetings how much a tractor costs to run and telling people to make obvious savings that should already be in place on a well run business. They do some great work, but could plough more money into even better work without all this obvious dead weight.
Foward planning I am not expecting to get anything.
Did you stop claiming yours 20 years ago.
No one was forced to. Welsh farmers have had it particularly good, as you were still getting historic payments until recently .
I think you now say these things from a position of wealth , whereas many of the hill farms that are your customers for forage , wouldn’t be in business without subs , unfortunately .
Last edited:
- Location
- Ceredigion
I think we would all be in a stronger position now rather that standing with a revolver to our heads with one bullet in . Who knows its history now
For once I agree with you
So whatever happened to @doasyoulikey . @Gaz , and @come along ?
And for those wondering what life is like without subs.....take a look at my avatar...
And for those wondering what life is like without subs.....take a look at my avatar...
- Tags
- glyphosate maize