i reckon uncapped sfi would have ended up circa 25-30% anyway
poor land farms would have done big %’s in and productive soils would have done very little. - surely it’s better the unproductive land ends up out of production than the good stuff ? and surely it’s the lower productive land...
^ this exactly what the uncapped sfi was doing, it was very attractive on poor soils, interesting on less productive bits of average soils and a none stater on the good higher yield productive soils, overall i very much doubt much more than 25% of production would have gone - defra had it...
how can removing choice for farmers be a good thing ?
more food production means lower prices = less profitable farmers
are either of those thing in farmers best interest ……… or are they simply better fir supermarkets / processors
arguments that this protects tenants are flawed while num3...
it paid the mortgage on land i bought, gave a dividend on land bought by previous generations and it kept landowners i rented from in range rovers
my farming business never saw a £ of BPS in reality as was the case for most that understand the important difference between a trade ( farming) and...
@Bossfarmer - question for you ?
have you ever visited a farm in any of these countries ?
Romania
Russia
USA
Ukraine
Poland
Canada
Australia
South america
evidence please ? UK farm income has never set a cereal price, global markets have and i'm pretty sure there was no BPS in the Ukraine or Canada etc
BPS paid mortgages on land or gave owners dividends on their land
i’ve got a lot of expensive seed sat waiting to drill with a very expensive drill and tractor to get my “money for nothing”
bps was beyond argument money for nothing - i’ve seen the BNG that sfi option deliver on my farm already and it’s a dramatic and positive thing that tax payers are...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.