Agents’ cheery outlook post-BPS

[ollie989898]

Plenty of grade 1 and 2 land let on short term tenancies without bps
for maize,potatoes,sugar beet,asparagus, strawberries etc cant see
these rents falling at all infact probably increase due to the expanding
nature of agri businesses.

So what you are saying is, people who own land will be able to give up farming if they can't make it pay and rent their land out and still pocket good money?

 

[Steevo]

your not this whole oh lets pay the old farmers off & get new blood in from scratch is floored from the outset.
how many of us followed on from our fathers & seen the lean times & struggled thru.
we all had one major helping hand, the farm was there, you had some gear etc etc

Where is the attraction for those outside of agriculture to want to take up a career in it....?!

Perhaps "land conservation officers" will become the new career of choice......I'm just not quite sure who would be paying their salaries.

 

[ollie989898]

I don't subscribe to this carbon sink/trading payment BS either.

Show me the evidence that carbon sequestered in soils actually stays there long term? Show me the utility of planting millions of trees for reasons of carbon sequestration? If anything it is the plant life in the oceans that have the ability to really sink serious amounts of carbon, not that found in land biospheres where everything is much more transient or short lived. Even soils are constantly shifting and changing- that is what they do and have done since the dawn of time.

And, if the focus is suddenly put on how much carbon or green house gases a business or operation puts into the atmosphere, then anyone using machines that burn thousands of litres of diesel a day, or where their activities release CO2 or NOx by the ship-load will need to look out. If any carbon trading tom-foolery does come into effect it will be arranged in such a way that big business, who really have the ear of government (no, I don't mean the NFU) will have the system designed around them. So that will be the likes of BP, Shell and Ineos and so forth who have big emissions to negate and avoid payment on first and foremost.

 

[Steevo]

So what you are saying is, people who own land will be able to give up farming if they can't make it pay and rent their land out and still pocket good money?

Why yes of course!

People who have managed land for decades at minimal cost to the country will be able to give up farming and rent their land out and pocket good money

and

People who don't own land and have no experience at managing it will be able to rent land to take up farming which is no longer commercially viable, or turn it over to environmental goods which cost more to create than they will generate.


PERFECT GOVERNMENT LOGIC!

 

[lloyd]

So what you are saying is, people who own land will be able to give up farming if they can't make it pay and rent their land out and still pocket good money?

Better ground probably yes.
Grade 3 cereal ,grass could be taken up more
by farmers skilled at livestock who fancy growing
more cereals in a rotation using their livestock at the
allowed months under the enviromental schemes .
I think the days of large contract ,FBT farmers growing just
cereals on grade 3 are numbered.

 

[ollie989898]

Better ground probably yes.
Grade 3 cereal ,grass could be taken up more
by farmers skilled at livestock who fancy growing
more cereals in a rotation using their livestock at the
allowed months under the enviromental schemes .
I think the days of large contract ,FBT farmers growing just
cereals on grade 3 are numbered.

I have more faith in the resilience and innovation of farmers in general to be able to make too many broad-stroke judgements at this stage.

It is possible the flexible livestock boys, who have the ideas and the capital will rent up large tracts of lower quality land to mob stock using nothing more than a few batteries and some wire. Low intensity livestock production, free from the usual constraints/demands of livestock production: big capital outlays, free from big pollution or waste liabilities, drastically lower labour requirements per finished beast. Probably far better welfare in the long run as well than confinement agriculture as they can better mimic natural lifecycles? No, it will not appear in the press much, does not attract big business trying to sell you stuff nor does it consume vast quantities of expensive inputs or shiny iron. It might not even appeal to people who traditionally have been farmers.

I agree agriculture will change, I'm just not clear on what it will change into. The fact remains that those people who are conscientious, highly technically proficient or highly innovative/responsive to marketplace pressures are the ones most likely to succeed. Unfortunately, there is no score card or rule book to indicate that any present European production model is the 'right' one. Indeed, given the happenings in the last 40 years across the industry, there are plenty of signs one could interpret as being warning signs that we have in fact got it very wrong in places.

I am certain agriculture will remain a sizeable activity in the rural landscape of the UK, just not exactly sure what final format it will take or who will be doing it.

 

[Farma Parma]

Where is the attraction for those outside of agriculture to want to take up a career in it....?!

Perhaps "land conservation officers" will become the new career of choice......I'm just not quite sure who would be paying their salaries.

Farming is never a £40k salary Free Company Car free house & indexed linked pension & a 9-5 job is it.
couldnt be further from this if it tried.
From a workers point of view its not the worse labour type of job, but its not the best paid one neither.
if your from the countryside you will understand all of them reasons.
local village lads who are sparkies,plumbers,joiners & even general builders are far better off & there is always work for them all

 

[farmerm]

I’d concentrate on reducing your input costs whilst maintaining your current yield to achieve the same, but more realistic, outcome. If your figures are correct £10/tonne should do it.

BPS £93/ac £10/t - 9.3T what cereal are you growing that give you 9.3T/ac

Wheat, Wheat, Barley Beans... in a good 4 year give us 4T 3.5T, 3T, 1.5T = 12T or on average 3T crop per ac per year So we need to find production savings or increased sales of £93/ac or £31/T to offset the removal of BPS

When I try save £10/ac is often bites me in the ass, knocking £93/ac off a 3.5T crop of wheat without taking a yield hit takes some doing!

The removal of BPS is pretty irrelevant in the world market value, a world market value to which we will be every more exposed with the removal of tariff and trade barriers.

The figures for those with low stocking density sheep on perm pasture are perhaps worse....

 

[Cowcorn]

The government seem to pull us further away from our customers in my experience. They seem to get in the way and become a filter.

On the one hand they tell farmers that the public are interested in the food that they eat and are increasingly demanding higher standards.
On the other hand they tell the public they can have cheap food and need take no personal responsibilty at all.

I agree entirely that getting closer to the customer is in theory the right answer.......it's far better to understand the customers better than they understand themselves. Don't ask them what they want....observe what they want and provide that.

Unfortunately what the public wants by and large is designer labels the latest electronic gadgets , very large flat screen smart tvs , cheap flights and sun holidays and food appears to be a long way down the list . The main priority with many is that it better be cheap . No easy answers to changing mindsets 60 odd years of encouraging the notion that people have a divine right to cheap food has led to the current situtation where farmers and Agriculture are completely undervalued .
Personally if i was in charge i would revisit Ray Macs origonal plan . Pay a 100 quid acre on the first 300 acres to every separate business . A few quid extra on 5 % that goes into grass strips or other enviro schemes . To claim the support 70 % of income must come from active farming and be supported by cert from the Taxman .Big operators can continue as the please and the wont be costing the public purse any more than the small operator . If the Gov was really serious about carbon reduction then the would tackle the Mick OLearys of the Airline world . The AD operators need a good hard look too whats green about hauling maize 30 miles and generating waste thats going as far in the opposite direction ??
Never happen of course ,the pack of tossers that are in charge would far rather fill Lord Snottys pockets for " rewilding " his estate than implement a genuinely supportive both socially and economically Ag policy .

 

[farmerm]

I don't subscribe to this carbon sink/trading payment BS either.

Show me the evidence that carbon sequestered in soils actually stays there long term? Show me the utility of planting millions of trees for reasons of carbon sequestration? If anything it is the plant life in the oceans that have the ability to really sink serious amounts of carbon, not that found in land biospheres where everything is much more transient or short lived. Even soils are constantly shifting and changing- that is what they do and have done since the dawn of time.

And, if the focus is suddenly put on how much carbon or green house gases a business or operation puts into the atmosphere, then anyone using machines that burn thousands of litres of diesel a day, or where their activities release CO2 or NOx by the ship-load will need to look out. If any carbon trading tom-foolery does come into effect it will be arranged in such a way that big business, who really have the ear of government (no, I don't mean the NFU) will have the system designed around them. So that will be the likes of BP, Shell and Ineos and so forth who have big emissions to negate and avoid payment on first and foremost.

As I have stated many times. How we can use tree planting and soil sequestration of carbon to offset carbon released from burning of fossil fuel is beyond me, right now we are not even close to offsetting the carbon being released from global deforestation and soil degradation. The ones pushing the carbon trading ideas are those who will pocket a very tidy cut from the middle.

 

[Fat hen]

BPS £93/ac £10/t - 9.3T what cereal are you growing that give you 9.3T/ac

Wheat, Wheat, Barley Beans... in a good 4 year give us 4T 3.5T, 3T, 1.5T = 12T or on average 3T crop per ac per year So we need to find production savings or increased sales of £93/ac or £31/T to offset the removal of BPS

When I try save £10/ac is often bites me in the ass, knocking £93/ac off a 3.5T crop of wheat without taking a yield hit takes some doing!

The removal of BPS is pretty irrelevant in the world market value, a world market value to which we will be every more exposed with the removal of tariff and trade barriers.

The figures for those with low stocking density sheep on perm pasture are perhaps worse....

We always like to quote 3.5-4t/ac which for me might happen 3 yrs in 5 at best. What about 2020 harvest?

2-2.5t/ha in the E Mids. I know of 2 farmers who each silaged 1000ha of WW in May.
Serious loss even with BPS.

Doesn't matter how good your land is or how efficient you are as a farmer, if we get the rain/drought at the wrong time.

 

[Bald Rick]

We always like to quote 3.5-4t/ac which for me might happen 3 yrs in 5 at best. What about 2020 harvest?

2-2.5t/ha in the E Mids. I know of 2 farmers who each silaged 1000ha of WW in May.
Serious loss even with BPS.

Doesn't matter how good your land is or how efficient you are as a farmer, if we get the rain/drought at the wrong time.

As farmers we can only manage what we can control.
What can we control?
Not much

Do an annual budget around this time of year but it’s really only so much toilet paper

 

[Fuzzy]

A one off, and final SFP payment then. That I would be interested in.

Yes it is tempting, i bet HMRC are all for it !!!

 

[7610 super q]

Yes it is tempting, i bet HMRC are all for it !!!

I was thinking...take the payment.....buy a combine....

 

[DrWazzock]

Why yes of course!

People who have managed land for decades at minimal cost to the country will be able to give up farming and rent their land out and pocket good money

and

People who don't own land and have no experience at managing it will be able to rent land to take up farming which is no longer commercially viable, or turn it over to environmental goods which cost more to create than they will generate.


PERFECT GOVERNMENT LOGIC!

They have borrowed the land agents calculator. On anything from share farming to FBTs 1 divided by 2 equals 3!
One old fellow could scrape a living but somehow 2 will get a living off the same acreage and so will the land agent. .... that’s till the machinery wears out and the capital introduced is spent.

 

[Fake it ‘til you make it]

As farmers we can only manage what we can control.
What can we control?
Not much

Do an annual budget around this time of year but it’s really only so much toilet paper

Largely price takers on the buy side and the sell side

 

[Simon Chiles]

I’d concentrate on reducing your input costs whilst maintaining your current yield to achieve the same, but more realistic, outcome.

Edited. Note to self not to post whilst doing something else at the same time.

BPS £93/ac £10/t - 9.3T what cereal are you growing that give you 9.3T/ac

Wheat, Wheat, Barley Beans... in a good 4 year give us 4T 3.5T, 3T, 1.5T = 12T or on average 3T crop per ac per year So we need to find production savings or increased sales of £93/ac or £31/T to offset the removal of BPS

When I try save £10/ac is often bites me in the ass, knocking £93/ac off a 3.5T crop of wheat without taking a yield hit takes some doing!

The removal of BPS is pretty irrelevant in the world market value, a world market value to which we will be every more exposed with the removal of tariff and trade barriers.

The figures for those with low stocking density sheep on perm pasture are perhaps worse....

Sorry, post edited.
I agree with you about just skimping on things normally comes back to bite you on the bum. If you’re going to cut costs I think you’ve got to do as a systems approach to be successful. I’ve been growing crops on grade 3 soils for years without ever having a subsidy, therefore from my position I can only see opportunities from the withdrawal of BPS. I’m not counting on claiming ELMS either, if I do I’ll be regarding it as a bonus.

 

[farmerfred86]

I think the retirement payment is a crazy idea, and I don’t think it would go down well with the public if more widely reported.

Perhaps it should be... look at the NeoNic backlash

 

[farmerm]

We always like to quote 3.5-4t/ac which for me might happen 3 yrs in 5 at best. What about 2020 harvest?

2-2.5t/ha in the E Mids. I know of 2 farmers who each silaged 1000ha of WW in May.
Serious loss even with BPS.

Doesn't matter how good your land is or how efficient you are as a farmer, if we get the rain/drought at the wrong time.

Agreed. I could include a fallow in that rotation and replace good year yield yields with more accurate average yields but at 2.5T/ac >37/t price uplift to replace BPS and I don't want to depress anyone more than necessary!

 

[midlandslad]

The sustainable farming incentive will form a max of 25% of current BPS in 2022 and increase to a max of 50% in 2024 on the basis they won’t be paying farmers more than their current income.

Then you have to take off all the new scheme payments and costs to administer, which will take this down to half of the above in my opinion which is £10/ac increasing to £20/ac.