Confessions of a farmer.......BPS payments

[digger64]

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.

I think the govt could finance the consequences of its own actions eg fallen stock removal, eartags,plastic disposal etc .this would benefit ALL farmers large or small

 

[Henarar]

I think the govt could finance the consequences of its own actions eg fallen stock removal, eartags,plastic disposal etc .this would benefit ALL farmers large or small

pet badgers, 6 day standstill, otm costs

 

[Dave645]

I am not looking at the government controlling our inputs just at the cost,
Just think of it as a national buying group, where you can spend your subsidies on what you want.

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.

I dont think my post was even hinting at communist practices.
Buying groups and Selling groups already exist, enlarging that to a national level can only create savings and stability.
and mass collectivisation done correctly can offer stability. I agree we are already far to close to communist control as we are with environmental control measures telling farmers how to farm.
But you cannot really see a national buying group as a bad thing.....can you. Farmers all know we would be stronger if we acted together or we could just continue to let merchants, middle men and retailers control us without Mercy as they do now.
The only diffrence i suggest is that we use our subsidy as the means to pay for our purchases from the national scheme.
The only reason I suggested a set amount of fert and chem was included was to stop people buying far more than they need to sell on and profit from. And it's a way for the scheme to judge how much to order.....because like schemes now they need a good idea what the demand is so they can use it as leaverage to get the best price.
This info could be extrapolated from land use, this may look like government control but it's just based on averages, not a limit to what you can order from the nation scheme.

 

[digger64]

I am not looking at the government controlling our inputs just at the cost,
Just think of it as a national buying group, where you can spend your subsidies on what you want.

I dont think my post was even hinting at communist practices.
Buying groups and Selling groups already exist, enlarging that to a national level can only create savings and stability.
and mass collectivisation done correctly can offer stability. I agree we are already far to close to communist control as we are with environmental control measures telling farmers how to farm.
But you cannot really see a national buying group as a bad thing.....can you. Farmers all know we would be stronger if we acted together or we could just continue to let merchants, middle men and retailers control us without Mercy as they do now.
The only diffrence i suggest is that we use our subsidy as the means to pay for our purchases from the national scheme.
The only reason I suggested a set amount of fert and chem was included was to stop people buying far more than they need to sell on and profit from. And it's a way for the scheme to judge how much to order.....because like schemes now they need a good idea what the demand is so they can use it as leaverage to get the best price.
This info could be extrapolated from land use, this may look like government control but it's just based on averages, not a limit to what you can order from the nation scheme.

Isn't it complicated enough for you now ? The main beneficaries of buying groups are agents and farmers who dont farm hands on ie put sourceing inputs in the hands of someone else rather than trust a key employee jobs for the boys I think

 

[two-cylinder]

If subs need redistributing to help the active farmer a far better idea would be free training to keep up the active workforce up to speed with legislation.
Also free testing of machinery- which is now demanded by statute or assurance schemes.
Two things that at present are fixed costs that impact more on new entrants or the smaller farmer who have less area to spread the costs over.

 

[two-cylinder]

I could go further and suggest grants for replacing application machinery over a certain age?
A measure that could be sold for its 'environmental credentials'?

 

[Dave645]

Isn't it complicated enough for you now ? The main beneficaries of buying groups are agents and farmers who dont farm hands on ie put sourceing inputs in the hands of someone else rather than trust a key employee jobs for the boys I think

Ok.... buying groups are about buying power someone ordering 5 million litres of fuel will get it at a price better than the single farmer that rings around 20 company's for his 10k order. If you truly believe it's possible for the reverse to be true, then I am very surprised. Add to that the cost of the time involved and possible call cost.

You have got to remember if everyone's in the group, if a supplier doesn't match the group price they don't have any buyers....if suppliers want to sell anything they have to agree to sell at the set group price.
With that clout buyers fix the price.............., just like they do to us when we sell our produce. We treat the people supplying us like the people we sell our produce too treat us now.

And the cost of running the scheme is not in ringing around it's in admin there are ways to reduce that where the people running the scheme don't handle the paper work just set the prices, we just ring up and order stuff from local suppliers, but only pay the group price.

And no single farmer can ring up a fuel supplier and say oil prices have fallen so I am now paying 2p a litre less for fuel. Where a national buying group that's buying millions of litres a week can. They could purchase from refinery direct not the fuel company's.

I think its a no brainer.

 

[lazy farmer]

surely it would be better for the collective brilliance of those on this site/thread to be thinking about what happens post 2020 in a at least reduced subsidy environment than talking about how to spend the sub?

 

[digger64]

Ok.... buying groups are about buying power someone ordering 5 million litres of fuel will get it at a price better than the single farmer that rings around 20 company's for his 10k order. If you truly believe it's possible for the reverse to be true, then I am very surprised. Add to that the cost of the time involved and possible call cost.

You have got to remember if everyone's in the group, if a supplier doesn't match the group price they don't have any buyers....if suppliers want to sell anything they have to agree to sell at the set group price.
With that clout buyers fix the price.............., just like they do to us when we sell our produce. We treat the people supplying us like the people we sell our produce too treat us now.

And the cost of running the scheme is not in ringing around it's in admin there are ways to reduce that where the people running the scheme don't handle the paper work just set the prices, we just ring up and order stuff from local suppliers, but only pay the group price.

And no single farmer can ring up a fuel supplier and say oil prices have fallen so I am now paying 2p a litre less for fuel. Where a national buying group that's buying millions of litres a week can. They could purchase from refinery direct not the fuel company's.

I think its a no brainer.

Come and look at the massive office complex just up the road from me and say that , alot of people are not in the group as you have to pay for this and work on their terms

 

[Brisel]

surely it would be better for the collective brilliance of those on this site/thread to be thinking about what happens post 2020 in a at least reduced subsidy environment than talking about how to spend the sub?

That pulls the thread nicely back on track

If it's a BACS payment based on area managed with cross compliance like the BPS the it will go into the account and be used for trading/cashflow etc. I'll have the line in the accounts for non specific subsidy income and aim to be sustainable without that.

If it's in the form of specific grants for planting hedges, habitat creation/maintenance, water/soil/air quality then the cash will be used for that.

 

[DRC]

Ok.... buying groups are about buying power someone ordering 5 million litres of fuel will get it at a price better than the single farmer that rings around 20 company's for his 10k order. If you truly believe it's possible for the reverse to be true, then I am very surprised. Add to that the cost of the time involved and possible call cost.

You have got to remember if everyone's in the group, if a supplier doesn't match the group price they don't have any buyers....if suppliers want to sell anything they have to agree to sell at the set group price.
With that clout buyers fix the price.............., just like they do to us when we sell our produce. We treat the people supplying us like the people we sell our produce too treat us now.

And the cost of running the scheme is not in ringing around it's in admin there are ways to reduce that where the people running the scheme don't handle the paper work just set the prices, we just ring up and order stuff from local suppliers, but only pay the group price.

And no single farmer can ring up a fuel supplier and say oil prices have fallen so I am now paying 2p a litre less for fuel. Where a national buying group that's buying millions of litres a week can. They could purchase from refinery direct not the fuel company's.

I think its a no brainer.

Isn't that just doing to our suppliers exactly what we complain about supermarkets doing to us.
Image one big company gets the uk farmers fuel order, which then puts all the others out of business. Then the one big supplier can charge what it likes as it's got no competition.
In that case you might as well nationalise everything. One big farming company !!

 

[bobk]

Isn't that just doing to our suppliers exactly what we complain about supermarkets doing to us.
Image one big company gets the uk farmers fuel order, which then puts all the others out of business. Then the one big supplier can charge what it likes as it's got no competition.
In that case you might as well nationalise everything. One big farming company !!

Thought you were on your jollies ?

 

[DRC]

Thought you were on your jollies ?

Just catching up sitting by the pool. Taking a break from the heat!
Foreign countries have wi fi

 

[bobk]

Just catching up sitting by the pool. Taking a break from the heat!
Foreign countries have wi fi

Bet the Mrs is impressed.... on your hols logged in to the farming forum

 

[DRC]

I'm mostly reading Jeremy Paxmans autobiography . A very good read!
Just worried you might be missing me.!
Besides , who says I'm here with the Mrs ?

 

[bobk]

I'm mostly reading Jeremy Paxmans autobiography . A very good read!
Just worried you might be missing me.!
Besides , who says I'm here with the Mrs ?

Whose Mrs have you gone with

 

[DRC]

Whose Mrs have you gone with

It is the current one, as Terry Wogan used to say. Talk about me being on here, at least I'm on holiday. You must be in for an early lunch, or is it too cold to venture outside

 

[bobk]

It's lovely here ... must be at least 6 degrees

 

[digger64]

Isn't that just doing to our suppliers exactly what we complain about supermarkets doing to us.
Image one big company gets the uk farmers fuel order, which then puts all the others out of business. Then the one big supplier can charge what it likes as it's got no competition.
In that case you might as well nationalise everything. One big farming company !!

Boss farms international ltd ?

 

[JohnGalway]

Balance of BPS in account today I may need saving from myself as I'm considering splashing out on two brand new galvanised gates for the farm