Realistic rent £50 actual rent demanded £130 income after costs etc including bps -£10 no straw sales drainage rate havn't trimmed hedge yet .love this system lets expand out of trouble loads of free land !
Confessions of a farmer.......BPS payments
- Thread starter Sonoftheheir
- Start date
And should register for business rates too of course.Of course you do
I hope these sidelines are pure farming? Any non-farming activities means you're not a real farmer and so will immediately be struck of the RPA's BPS list
- Location
- Limousin/Charentes toad land
In my own last years of experience, arable in the uk, by pure coincidence, the sfp on my own owned land came to a similar amount to the rent we paid for rented land (with no sub of course). I thought this was quite a progressive way of expanding? Prices collapsed, our overheads were too high, job was sinking fast so managed to pull the plug on the whole lot before we finished with nothing (or worse). In reality, for those last years with poor prices we would have been better off just farming our own land and utilising the sfp to sub the poor returns but this was because the rent was too high on the rented ground, set back in the days of profitable commodity prices
- Location
- Limousin/Charentes toad land
- Location
- West Suffolk
In my own last years of experience, arable in the uk, by pure coincidence, the sfp on my own owned land came to a similar amount to the rent we paid for rented land (with no sub of course). I thought this was quite a progressive way of expanding? Prices collapsed, our overheads were too high, job was sinking fast so managed to pull the plug on the whole lot before we finished with nothing (or worse). In reality, for those last years with poor prices we would have been better off just farming our own land and utilising the sfp to sub the poor returns but this was because the rent was too high on the rented ground, set back in the days of profitable commodity prices
How long ago czechmate?
Old McDonald
Member
- Location
- Harray, Orkney
Not reading posts properly for starters.
My post that you quoted was purely in response to the post of yours, which I had quoted, that queried (with ???) the post of glasshouse saying ewes in NZ had been down to $2.
The rest of your post, which I quote above, has nothing whatsoever to do with my post that you quoted. I am not arguing with what you post there, but it has no relevance to the post I made and to which you purport to be replying by quoting it.
On other threads you have made incorrect statements about the size and state of the Australian fat lamb flock, despite me providing you with govt statistics. Also moaned about NZ farmers being able to cut silage in October. I, and @czechmate have both tried pointing out to you that NZ is in the southern hemisphere with much land closer to the equator than you are, and it is equivalent to me cutting silage in April. I do not make silage, nor anyone else around about, but most people cut their hay in the first week of May.
If you are going to make references to other parts of the world, then make sure you have the correct information about them before posting, otherwise you leave yourself open to criticism of not knowing you subject.
- Location
- Limousin/Charentes toad land
A two stage affair. The first (planned), during 2013, selling houses, small paddocks, to fund buying this farm in France for myself, leaving the owned farm land and rented land for my son to continue with, the second, (self forced - but was rapidly looking like becoming forced), selling the majority of the farm land (still some bits and bobs left) to reinvest the remaining balance in a neighbouring farm, close to this one - this process was actually finalised last week, taking very close to a year
Grassman
Member
- Location
- Derbyshire
So you aren't just a farmer?
I would say in my area 90% of farmers have other sidelines.
But who set the rent level ?, I think this the boss is in this position now with his mortgage staring into an abyss with no sub bridge potentially hence his horror at the thought of no sub .I walked away from the said land it was the right decision but I cant keep doing that . I see brexit as an opportunity not a threatIn my own last years of experience, arable in the uk, by pure coincidence, the sfp on my own owned land came to a similar amount to the rent we paid for rented land (with no sub of course). I thought this was quite a progressive way of expanding? Prices collapsed, our overheads were too high, job was sinking fast so managed to pull the plug on the whole lot before we finished with nothing (or worse). In reality, for those last years with poor prices we would have been better off just farming our own land and utilising the sfp to sub the poor returns but this was because the rent was too high on the rented ground, set back in the days of profitable commodity prices
Bossfarmer
Member
- Location
- between Perth and Inverness
According to @Pasty and the likes on here if you cant make a profit without the sub even in a bad year your a bad farmer and not efficient, i personally understand this isnt the caseIn my own last years of experience, arable in the uk, by pure coincidence, the sfp on my own owned land came to a similar amount to the rent we paid for rented land (with no sub of course). I thought this was quite a progressive way of expanding? Prices collapsed, our overheads were too high, job was sinking fast so managed to pull the plug on the whole lot before we finished with nothing (or worse). In reality, for those last years with poor prices we would have been better off just farming our own land and utilising the sfp to sub the poor returns but this was because the rent was too high on the rented ground, set back in the days of profitable commodity prices
- Location
- Limousin/Charentes toad land
Myself and the land owner set the rent. Mind, there is a local add plant looking for any land for maize locally, so they set a floor (quite a high floor!). Thing was with prices where they were (and no one saw the collapse coming), the land owner was on a winner - my rent plus his sfp- and I could see a tidy profit too. Everyone happy. Prices all but halved and land owner became more interested in selling his land than talking about a reduced rent, so for me that was that.
I wouldn't say a bad farmer, but a bad businessman. You should've factored in the risk. If you had done your SWOT analysis etc you would be able to know what the risks were and how to mediate them.
When the milk price was high, everyone knew it wasn't going to last, but did people keep the money or invest it. Did they feck.
- Location
- Northern Ireland
Bit of both. Replaced anything that I was likely to want to replace within the following couple of years. Made a few improvements that would help lower cost structure. That spending helped take some off the tax bill. Put a couple of big lumps in my SIPP, which further helped. The remainder stored away for safe keeping. Thankfully haven't touched it yet, and prices are firming again.
- Location
- Bedfordshire
I'd agree with that, I can't think of any one I work for, who would be able to claim subs.
@Bossfarmer you'd have to stop payments to limited companies aswell, or all of the these lawyers that are claiming, could put the land into a separate firm and claim that way.
Bossfarmer
Member
- Location
- between Perth and Inverness
How
many SWOT analysis would factor in 4 years in a row of low cereal prices(something which hasnt happened for decades) or milk at 7ppl?
- Location
- West Suffolk
And the thread is dead.
Anonymous...
Member
It was
It's been intresting reading, and I am sure anyone reading it will conclude that their are problems with the current system, that are distorting overheads like rent prices, and are subsidising farms that maybe don't need it and not helping others.
But let's face if it was a system designed to cover the whole of the EU.
There is little to no chance a system so wide spread was going to fit everyone.
To be realistic, going forward the farmers that are over a set size that more or less don't need subsidy to live are most likely going to lose it. They should start to plan for that on brexit.
The last revision for subsidy started to favour new entrants to help them get started. That is only going to increase and help for small farms to grow to a more stable size is not a silly way to help small farmers and new entrants.
So it would seem to me that a progressive cap on subsidies is more likely the bigger you are the smaller the subsidy you get upto a max size and you get non.
This would help the rental market as big farms drop area to hit the best balance for subsidy payments. This releases land to smaller growers and new entrants at actual realistic rent values, so they can expand.
What the government wants is a system that helps farmers reach a size that is naturally profitable, that then discourages them from trying to expand on tax payers money. The long term goal should be to increase the number of active farmers that are farming what the governance term an average size farm that can support a family with a income that allows investment, and maintenance of said farm, if that result can be created that doesn't require subsidy great.
I also think the government should help farmers better control their overheads, with selling schemes and buying schemes.
Creating a more stable income, it's no good getting thousands in subsidy if all that happens is the fert and spray suppliers just put prices up....and they make millions profit, that is just tax payers money, from the farmers pocket. Which happens now if we have a good year everything goes up in price.
I also think the subsidy could be given in a different way, no actualy active farmer would complain if it payed directly for inputs....... or rent...
It just feeds back as profit, On the backend. And getting say a set amount of fert each year and chemical based on your area for free, would balance overheads out and control input costs. The governance ride the free market on their side we just get the fert/chemical.
So if the government gets the price down it reduces what it costs them to subsidise farmers. The ultimate buying group.....we can also buy any extra chemical of fert we need at fixed prices.
But let's face if it was a system designed to cover the whole of the EU.
There is little to no chance a system so wide spread was going to fit everyone.
To be realistic, going forward the farmers that are over a set size that more or less don't need subsidy to live are most likely going to lose it. They should start to plan for that on brexit.
The last revision for subsidy started to favour new entrants to help them get started. That is only going to increase and help for small farms to grow to a more stable size is not a silly way to help small farmers and new entrants.
So it would seem to me that a progressive cap on subsidies is more likely the bigger you are the smaller the subsidy you get upto a max size and you get non.
This would help the rental market as big farms drop area to hit the best balance for subsidy payments. This releases land to smaller growers and new entrants at actual realistic rent values, so they can expand.
What the government wants is a system that helps farmers reach a size that is naturally profitable, that then discourages them from trying to expand on tax payers money. The long term goal should be to increase the number of active farmers that are farming what the governance term an average size farm that can support a family with a income that allows investment, and maintenance of said farm, if that result can be created that doesn't require subsidy great.
I also think the government should help farmers better control their overheads, with selling schemes and buying schemes.
Creating a more stable income, it's no good getting thousands in subsidy if all that happens is the fert and spray suppliers just put prices up....and they make millions profit, that is just tax payers money, from the farmers pocket. Which happens now if we have a good year everything goes up in price.
I also think the subsidy could be given in a different way, no actualy active farmer would complain if it payed directly for inputs....... or rent...
It just feeds back as profit, On the backend. And getting say a set amount of fert each year and chemical based on your area for free, would balance overheads out and control input costs. The governance ride the free market on their side we just get the fert/chemical.
So if the government gets the price down it reduces what it costs them to subsidise farmers. The ultimate buying group.....we can also buy any extra chemical of fert we need at fixed prices.
Controlled inputs? That's the mass collectivisation of agriculture, which successfully starved millions of communists for decades FFS! The very last people we need managing the land and food are politicians! Look at the government procurement system in the military & NHS - do you call that an effective use of resources?????
Capping subs has more merit I think, though efficiencies from scale will balance out the reduction in sub IMO. I manage 2800 acres, so this might seem like I'm shooting myself in the foot here. The side effect of this is making larger business less dependent on a sub - the smaller ones will still be "addicted" to the handouts.
On the environmental side I heartily oppose any kind of capping. 50 acres of land out of production into pollinator habitat deserves the same per acre as 5 on a smaller farm.
Capping subs has more merit I think, though efficiencies from scale will balance out the reduction in sub IMO. I manage 2800 acres, so this might seem like I'm shooting myself in the foot here. The side effect of this is making larger business less dependent on a sub - the smaller ones will still be "addicted" to the handouts.
On the environmental side I heartily oppose any kind of capping. 50 acres of land out of production into pollinator habitat deserves the same per acre as 5 on a smaller farm.