Can I ask what is your like of work Tim W?
You seem to have all the answers for everything. Columnist in the Gaurdian maybe by any chance?
You seem to have all the answers for everything. Columnist in the Gaurdian maybe by any chance?
ELMS Fiasco
- Thread starter BrianV
- Start date
You don't reseed or drain or hedge cut or clear ditches on the land i use (45 degree slopes)
I pay rents according to market rates
The demise of BPS will (i think) cut the landowners income by 50% but they will still get some payments for ''env. schemes''
If the demand to rent the land from graziers increases they will get a better return if not they could get less
Return on investment will be lower ---that's life
Sheep grazier
I have loathed the subsidy system for decades & am happy to dance on it's grave ----i know that many don't share my views but that's ok we can all have differing opinions and live with it
lol but seriously ...
All the work that @Tim W /the Exlana people do is so very useful and quite apart from the shedding ability ie removing the horrible maggot risk ..getting cast no dagging costs etc. also particularly noteworthy and very current .. is the worm resistance /resilience work
...... and well worth paying for over bloom dipped fancy pants ....
Totally agree with
Give an example in Wales.
Welsh assembly government a few years ago gives a large company from abroad, I think Japan or china something like 300 million to help them start up a factory business in south Wales. A year later the company jumps ship from Wales and the moneys gone.
Farmers across the UK receive the annual subsidy and that's all more or less spent locally a maintains the economy. For every pound thats received, am I right in saying £7 is being spent in the local economy by farmers.
No one wants hand outs but if people want cheap food then this is a subsidy to produce affordable food for the public. Not many people can afford organic produce on a daily basis.
I'd like to hear your suggestions for a way forward Tim.
I can see your point and as an upland farm we don't like the fact that these payments are seen as handouts. Most industries receive some sort of government support in one way or another.
Give an example in Wales.
Welsh assembly government a few years ago gives a large company from abroad, I think Japan or china something like 300 million to help them start up a factory business in south Wales. A year later the company jumps ship from Wales and the moneys gone.
Farmers across the UK receive the annual subsidy and that's all more or less spent locally a maintains the economy. For every pound thats received, am I right in saying £7 is being spent in the local economy by farmers.
No one wants hand outs but if people want cheap food then this is a subsidy to produce affordable food for the public. Not many people can afford organic produce on a daily basis.
I'd like to hear your suggestions for a way forward Tim.
- Location
- Oxfordshire
ask the general public that
Aspiring Peasants
Member
- Location
- North Pennines
I don't like the subsidy system either, but it is a subsidy to the consumer for cheap food rather than the farmer. I think most farmers would rather receive a fair price for their product than receive subsidy. However it is political suicide to come forward with a policy that increases food prices. The ironic thing is that it would be much 'greener' to eat local food instead of shipping it right round the world and then transporting it up and down motorways.
if he hasn't received any subsidy its a bit unfair to be asking him to spend any time at all to be even suggesting ways forward for those that have and cant think for themselves.
and see my post above with regards to lowering costs of lamb production.
a lot of subsidy money has been 'unwisely distributed' over the years ,he has a point.
Subsidy has historically rewarded land ownership not farming =immoral
Subsidy has little effect on food price in an international market
The way forward? ---it should include removing all of the BPS immediately rather than phasing it out over a few years---it's been on the cards for ages and if we can't do without it now we never will . In which case it's time to get out and let others have a go
Payments for ''public goods' are fine but they have to give value for money to the taxpayer
This is difficult to do but i would suggest that in return for cash the public will want things like more access , a bit of freedom to roam etc as well as the govt. touted greening/flood prevention/reduction in herbicides, pesticides etc
I don't actually think that these ELMS ideas will make much financial sense for many landowners ---in fact the best return for land investors is probably on the poorest land & most smart buyers have been putting their £ there for a while
The key to success for farmers i think is to
1) realise that direct payments are going ---many haven't come to terms with that yet
2) Figure how to manage your investment (land?) so that you can get a return from it ---and accept that to do this you may have to farm as a part time job ---many do this already
I think its always the case if you voice an opinion then, it's fare to then ask that person what answers they can come up with.
You throw your hat in the ring so expect someone to ask questions back.
yes i guess fair enough.
and the point you raise re uplands is of course very valid ,
and with reference us on the lowlands with small fields with
if part of your farming life is spent maintaining that 'infrastructure;then going out to work as well doesn't really answer that conundrum despite me giving more than its fair share of thought .
its not
so simple for down to earth practical farmers/ land managers whatever were called as he makes out is my comment and ive made it before plenty.
Aspiring Peasants
Member
- Location
- North Pennines
No fencing costs, no water supply costs, no insurance costs, no weed control costs, no gates ever need replacing, grass grows by itself, no brash to clear from the hedges that are never cut blowing over in the wind, I'm certainly doing something wrong (apart from the hedges)
Fencing has been paid for as part of env. schemes ----good productive land that i farm doesn't get these env. payments and i use electric fencing
Grass does grow by itself ---sun/rain
As a landowner these are all things you have to maintain or get reduced rental value if you don't ---like any asset
If neither of these options work then you have to cash in your asset and invest elsewhere?
If I've learnt anything it's that there is always someone with a different approach who will have a go /do something different with a set of circumstances
- Location
- East yorks
Or a big chunk of building money burning a hole in their pockets
Must be some kind of lunatic to spend building money on going to farm sheep on a 45 degree slope!
- Location
- Devon
Given that virtually every farmer in the world is given some 'assistance' to keep food supplies plentiful and cheap, it would be foolish to say subsidies do not effect the price on the international market.
These subsidies are often indirect, such as paying for people to fence their fields........
The thing that has just dawned on me from reading the other thread is that farming 'environmentally sustainably' will/ may not be financially sustainable. ELMS needs to find a way of making it so.
Aspiring Peasants
Member
- Location
- North Pennines
I don't disagree with this, but the whole subsidy situation is a much broader subject. It's about securing food supplies at home, deciding on the price, environmental sustainability and being able to help other countries in the world that are facing food crises.
There was a recent headline about the first people facing starvation in Africa due to climate change causing flooding. I'm sure they'd be well pleased that we are proposing to help their situation by taking land out of food production to rewild. That is immoral
The problem is, we as food producers cannot get our heads around the fact that our political masters believe that agricultural production in this country is too expensive, both environmentally and financially, because we at the sharp end see daily, how fragile production can be, doesn't mean that the rest of the population understand,(enter Clarkson). we are going to live through our own updated, repeal of the corn laws, it took a century and a sea battle or two to sort out, in the mean time land was rewilded by default and largely brought back into production by the war ag. However paying wealthy folk tax payers money because they are wealthy, in lots of cases to do nowt isn't sustainable nor moral, but government policy can turn on a sixpence, certainly with Boris in charge! when shortages emerge. Owning land may just become something that is nice to have, not an automatic right to an income.
That’s a sociological, political and economic issue not a production one. US ‘food aid’ has a lot to answer for.