Big announcement tonight!

[som farmer]

The problem is this 'new direction' will be based on fashion and fads to pander to environmental pressure groups and to make the government appear green.
Policies won't be based on science, even the pressure groups are contradicting one another as to how things ought to be done.
This means schemes will constantly be changing to keep up with the relentless release of 'scientific studies' telling farmers 'yer doing it rong!'

nothing changes, everybody says we do it wrong anyway !

 

[Poorbuthappy]

gabe brown's book....fudgeing rubbish

So you've read it?

and if you want to read books, read ones by peeps who've actually done something on a farm. charlie flindt for example.

Ah, it seems not. Otherwise you'd know he is a hands on farmer.

 

[fgc325j]

Personally I think that it’s all about knowing where you are making money and where you are not, so collective data over a decade or so. Should show most of us where to use mid,tier, ELMS or carbon sequestration through forestry and the rest of the land we should maximise output.

in the next 30 years meat consumption will double world wide. There is still a market for food production

The problem is that the global population is increasing in countries with incomes well below the UK's, i.e a
few quid a day. So to expect these countries to be able to afford to buy our meat, with our production costs,
is a non-starter.

 

[wanton dwarf]

The problem is this 'new direction' will be based on fashion and fads to pander to environmental pressure groups and to make the government appear green.
Policies won't be based on science, even the pressure groups are contradicting one another as to how things ought to be done.
This means schemes will constantly be changing to keep up with the relentless release of 'scientific studies' telling farmers 'yer doing it rong!'

IMHO it's a money making scheme .. all paths lead to Globalist Liberal politics where all other opinion and dissent is silenced.

 

[Goweresque]

I bet within at least some of our lifetimes there will yet again be a complete reversal of policy and the government will be insisting food production is brought to the fore again.

Spot on - think of any area of government policy and track it over the post war period. The prevailing thinking will have switched back and forth from one extreme to another. It used to be that everything had to be nationalised, then privatised, now the pendulum is swinging back to more State ownership and control. Farming has only managed to have 75 years of consistency because at the point we might have changed thing we joined the EEC and set agricultural policy in stone (otherwise know as what French farmers wanted). Certainly by the 80s UK politicians would have reformed/removed agricultural subsidies but couldn't because of the CAP.

There is no way that this format of agricultural policy will last more than a couple of Parliaments, then someone new will be in with completely different priorities. Politicians in government have to 'do' things, especially if replacing those of another party, so there is a natural tendency to change things for changes sake.

 

[DRC]

Spot on - think of any area of government policy and track it over the post war period. The prevailing thinking will have switched back and forth from one extreme to another. It used to be that everything had to be nationalised, then privatised, now the pendulum is swinging back to more State ownership and control. Farming has only managed to have 75 years of consistency because at the point we might have changed thing we joined the EEC and set agricultural policy in stone (otherwise know as what French farmers wanted). Certainly by the 80s UK politicians would have reformed/removed agricultural subsidies but couldn't because of the CAP.

There is no way that this format of agricultural policy will last more than a couple of Parliaments, then someone new will be in with completely different priorities. Politicians in government have to 'do' things, especially if replacing those of another party, so there is a natural tendency to change things for changes sake.

Exactly this. I will jump in and out of whatever scheme pays or not. We had 10 years of a very good paying HLS, but at the end they didn't see the sense in keeping the same payments and wanted to call arable reversion, p pasture with very little payment, so it got ploughed up again and now grows maize and other crops for dairy and AD.
It might now be more attractive to go environmental again. Everyone's circumstances will be different, but as a nearly 58yr old, putting the farm in a decent paying 10 yr scheme, would enable semi retirement with a pension to go with it, whilst staying put on the farm.

 

[Goweresque]

Exactly this. I will jump in and out of whatever scheme pays or not. We had 10 years of a very good paying HLS, but at the end they didn't see the sense in keeping the same payments and wanted to call arable reversion, p pasture with very little payment, so it got ploughed up again and now grows maize and other crops for dairy and AD.
It might now be more attractive to go environmental again. Everyone's circumstances will be different, but as a nearly 58yr old, putting the farm in a decent paying 10 yr scheme, would enable semi retirement with a pension to go with it, whilst staying put on the farm.

Farmers are going to have to get used to being political footballs. The days of 'Oh well I can count on the IACS/SFP/BPS virtually indefinitely' are now over. We now face the possibility of fundamental alterations to agricultural policy every 5 years or so. So basically don't sign any contracts with the State that are much longer than the political cycle and always have an eye for an exit route if the rug gets pulled from under you.

 

[JP1]

Farmers are going to have to get used to being political footballs. The days of 'Oh well I can count on the IACS/SFP/BPS virtually indefinitely' are now over. We now face the possibility of fundamental alterations to agricultural policy every 5 years or so. So basically don't sign any contracts with the State that are much longer than the political cycle and always have an eye for an exit route if the rug gets pulled from under you.

The worrying aspect as has been pointed out before on here is an HLS or whatever for 10 years, when you try to come out and plough etc and you can't

 

[ajd132]

that's kind of what i'm saying. a new era. no living in the past with bps, silly eviro schemes, etc, etc.
and if you want to read books, read ones by peeps who've actually done something on a farm. charlie flindt for example.

Charlie flindt writes anecdotes about farming life, gabe brown writes about regenerative farming systems based on experience and science. To compare them is utterly ridiculous

 

[steveR]

Exactly this. I will jump in and out of whatever scheme pays or not. We had 10 years of a very good paying HLS, but at the end they didn't see the sense in keeping the same payments and wanted to call arable reversion, p pasture with very little payment, so it got ploughed up again and now grows maize and other crops for dairy and AD.
It might now be more attractive to go environmental again. Everyone's circumstances will be different, but as a nearly 58yr old, putting the farm in a decent paying 10 yr scheme, would enable semi retirement with a pension to go with it, whilst staying put on the farm.

Bang on the money. I am already manouvering to revert land to Stewardship in some form or another, as long as it pays! Like the oldfox, I have been in and out of various schemes of one flavour or another, Linseed growing was a real payer here, especially combined with seed crops and sugar beet. As was a fallow/wheat rotation for a number of years.

The point about being wary of locking land in an irreversible fashion, such as wetland or trees is a concern, so I can see the latest funky fashion in farming, that of "carbon building" will suit me and the farm nicely

Temporary grassland reversion is another option I'd like to explore further if the schemes go that way.

But have to see what transpires. But an easy few years as I get ancient as opposed to just old, will be good!!

 

[farmerm]

Exactly this. I will jump in and out of whatever scheme pays or not. We had 10 years of a very good paying HLS, but at the end they didn't see the sense in keeping the same payments and wanted to call arable reversion, p pasture with very little payment, so it got ploughed up again and now grows maize and other crops for dairy and AD.
It might now be more attractive to go environmental again. Everyone's circumstances will be different, but as a nearly 58yr old, putting the farm in a decent paying 10 yr scheme, would enable semi retirement with a pension to go with it, whilst staying put on the farm.

ELMS isn't due to launch before 2024!! That's 4 years into the 7 year period of cutting BPS payments to zero! We can surely expect the average farm BPS payment to have been cut to half its 2019 value before anyone sees a penny of ELMS funding, if the early years cuts are more gradual, those that don't take up ELMS will have to face a cliff like drop in subsidy income around 2024/5.

The worrying aspect as has been pointed out before on here is an HLS or whatever for 10 years, when you try to come out and plough etc and you can't

If you have seen the thread regards the university questionnaire that is being used to "advise the government" some of the options lock agreement holders into 20 and 50 years!!! Can't trust a government for 5 years, who would be happy to sign a 50 year agreement

I have no doubt all ELMS agreements will be worded such as to give one party, ie the government the means to amend any of the terms or break the agreement altogether if they so wish whilst us farmers will be locked in. No one should have ever agreed to the unfair and unclear terms that are present in Countryside Stewardship but the phasing in was gradual as ELS and HLS schemes ended growers. If ELMS agreement terms turn out to be equally one sided then it is vital as an industry we all stand as one until fair terms are put forward...

I accept the scheme may need to evolve and it may be necessary to amend the terms during ELMS agreements. Such changes should only be permitted if agreed by a board comprising of both government and farm industry stakeholders.

In the event of an stakeholder agreed modification of terms, producers should have a right to exit or amend there agreements. All agreements should also allow farmers exiting the scheme the right to revert land to its 2020 land use if they so choose, such right must supersede any other regulations that would otherwise prevent such a reversion, temporary payments must not be allowed to result in land being reclassification for ever! If the government want permanency they must surely purchase the land not rent it!

Payment schedules must be clear and payments must made on time, if producers face financial penalties for failures to comply then government must also be compelled to compensate farmers for failings relating to administration and payment!!

We will get one shot to get this right!

 

[DRC]

Bang on the money. I am already manouvering to revert land to Stewardship in some form or another, as long as it pays! Like the oldfox, I have been in and out of various schemes of one flavour or another, Linseed growing was a real payer here, especially combined with seed crops and sugar beet. As was a fallow/wheat rotation for a number of years.

The point about being wary of locking land in an irreversible fashion, such as wetland or trees is a concern, so I can see the latest funky fashion in farming, that of "carbon building" will suit me and the farm nicely

Temporary grassland reversion is another option I'd like to explore further if the schemes go that way.

But have to see what transpires. But an easy few years as I get ancient as opposed to just old, will be good!!

ha ha, should have said 58 years young. Still playing football once, sometimes twice a week

 

[PercyBlakeney]

Whatever this country does is miniscule on a global scale !

That is true, but also that is the point of the Paris agreement - most countries in the world individually make very little contribution. The point is that each country needs to see other countries acting on climate change/ghgs to encourage each small part of the cog to do its bit, and collectively, that will go some way in bringing down global emissions.

 

[T Hectares]

How nice it is to see a person with a serious amount of power actually backing the farmers and what they do! Maybe he should tell his made Boris!

It's all bullsh*t though...
The deal steps up $7 billion dollars between years 1 & 2 but it's still $4.5 billion short of what the Chinese bought from them in 2017 and is why they'll still be trying to dump produce on us...

Hardly the basis of buying farms and tractors !!!

 

[Hindsight]

It's all bullsh*t though...
The deal steps up $7 billion dollars between years 1 & 2 but it's still $4.5 billion short of what the Chinese bought from them in 2017 and is why they'll still be trying to dump produce on us...

Hardly the basis of buying farms and tractors !!!

The Don is salesman. Buyer beware. Election coming up.

 

[DanniAgro]

Farmerm said:

ELMS isn't due to launch before 2024!! That's 4 years into the 7 year period of cutting BPS payments to zero! We can surely expect the average farm BPS payment to have been cut to half its 2019 value before anyone sees a penny of ELMS funding, if the early years cuts are more gradual, those that don't take up ELMS will have to face a cliff like drop in subsidy income around 2024/5.

Well spotted - it shows that you can't trust politicians an inch, and they try to appear fair to the public whilst trying to conceal their crookery in the small print.

 

[farmerm]

Farmerm said:

ELMS isn't due to launch before 2024!! That's 4 years into the 7 year period of cutting BPS payments to zero! We can surely expect the average farm BPS payment to have been cut to half its 2019 value before anyone sees a penny of ELMS funding, if the early years cuts are more gradual, those that don't take up ELMS will have to face a cliff like drop in subsidy income around 2024/5.

Well spotted - it shows that you can't trust politicians an inch, and they try to appear fair to the public whilst trying to conceal their crookery in the small print.

A doubt the politians have noticed either, the do know or understand the small print that's delegated to civil servants!! I also think most farmers are still blind to the details too and are expecting some fudge where we continue to receive similar payments for the "life of this parliament" at least. Some will be in for a nasty shock.

 

[glasshouse]

Dont know if anyone noticed, but russia limited wheat exports the other day

 

[Cowabunga]

Trump: Farmers will need to buy ‘more land,' 'bigger tractors’ to handle China’s farm purchases | Fox Business Video

Trump rally, trade, farmers

video.foxbusiness.com

Meanwhile in america

What a refreshing contrast in attitude and policy compared with the UK where its all about CO2 emissions, restrictions, tree planting, rewilding and taking land out of production and reducing the number of animals.

Imagine the UK in trade talks with the USA and that difference in attitude and emphasis. America First! "I love my farmers and they need to produce more and buy bigger tractors"
Meanwhile in the UK we are leaving the biggest trading block that is only 26 miles from our border to try and trade with an aggressively export oriented behemoth that expressly puts themselves first and can bury us feet deep in their produce.

 

[Suffolk Serf]

What a refreshing contrast in attitude and policy compared with the UK where its all about CO2 emissions, restrictions, tree planting, rewilding and taking land out of production and reducing the number of animals.

Imagine the UK in trade talks with the USA and that difference in attitude and emphasis. America First! "I love my farmers and they need to produce more and buy bigger tractors"

He does seem to have the motivation of a lot of farmers sussed "to buy land and buy bigger tractors".