Farm subsidies.. Yay or nay

[doasyoulikey]

This might get a bit of a debate going

Is the future of GB farming with / without subsidies?

Which do you think would be better for farmers long term?

My personal thoughts are it would be better scrapped, but we need the rest of the EU to do the same!

 

[Gaz]

If it's scrapped then the consumer would have to start paying for the real costs of production on the weekly food bill, any government that imposes that would be commiting suicide.

 

[come along]

If it's scrapped then the consumer would have to start paying for the real costs of production on the weekly food bill, any government that imposes that would be commiting suicide.

perhaps we still need a subsidy, but not in the same form as now.

food tokens anyone

 

[le bon paysan]

You can't compete with someone who pays his staff $50 a month and $100 an acre for his land.
We have first world living standards, wages and land prices with all the regulations that come with them.
If you get rid of subsidies, you have to stop the importation of all products not produced under our regulations .
That will never happen, Go figure.

 

[yellow belly]

i will just pay less rent the landowner farming or non farming will lose out

in the long term land would be lost to food production as non food uses of land would that payed more than farming would take over lowest margin land

 

[sleepy]

i will just pay less rent the landowner farming or non farming will lose out

in the long term land would be lost to food production as non food uses of land would that payed more than farming would take over lowest margin land

yep

 

[Dave645]

I don’t think we get a vote.
I don’t see a bright future for the industry, and I can see why people are against subsidies especaly blanket ones, I actualy think farming needs shifting away from bigger business farming, and reintroduce family farming, long term we need new blood not yet more bigger farms.
When you look into the future, of all employment, it’s not one where full employment is ever going to happen, so why not encourage more people back onto the land even if it requires some type of incentive.
It’s more palatable for £3billion in subsidy to be supporting 100’s of thousands of small farmers than the current system that give a large portion of that to a relatively small pool of large farmers.

If I had a say I would chop some or all sub from the big land owners/ farmers or at least drastically cut it, then used the money saved to encourage new entrants, if what I would expect to happen, happens. we would see falls in rent prices and land values, then use that to buy small farms and tenant them to smaller growers.

My guess is environmental money is where subs are going.
I would see that are the reverse too the system they had before, where they paid farmers to do them, rather a farmer has to do them to get sub.
Which is easy to do and can be on a simple points system like the old ELS was run on. They can even ramp up the points needed over time.
The current system doesn’t reward a good farmer looking after his land more a bad farmer to put them in.
As you get nothing for being good, but you get stacks for putting in stuff they most likely removed years ago.

I expect the new system to involve soil health CO2 and other mesures, like encouraging grazing, livestock over intensive etc etc.

 

[7610 super q]

Is this one of those threads started by @sleepy to generate traffic in the early days ??

 

[Brisel]

I don’t think we get a vote.
I don’t see a bright future for the industry, and I can see why people are against subsidies especaly blanket ones, I actualy think farming needs shifting away from bigger business farming, and reintroduce family farming, long term we need new blood not yet more bigger farms.
When you look into the future, of all employment, it’s not one where full employment is ever going to happen, so why not encourage more people back onto the land even if it requires some type of incentive.
It’s more palatable for £3billion in subsidy to be supporting 100’s of thousands of small farmers than the current system that give a large portion of that to a relatively small pool of large farmers.

If I had a say I would chop some or all sub from the big land owners/ farmers or at least drastically cut it, then used the money saved to encourage new entrants, if what I would expect to happen, happens. we would see falls in rent prices and land values, then use that to buy small farms and tenant them to smaller growers.

My guess is environmental money is where subs are going.
I would see that are the reverse too the system they had before, where they paid farmers to do them, rather a farmer has to do them to get sub.
Which is easy to do and can be on a simple points system like the old ELS was run on. They can even ramp up the points needed over time.
The current system doesn’t reward a good farmer looking after his land more a bad farmer to put them in.
As you get nothing for being good, but you get stacks for putting in stuff they most likely removed years ago.

I expect the new system to involve soil health CO2 and other mesures, like encouraging grazing, livestock over intensive etc etc.

There's two sides to the capping debate. On one side, bigger businesses should be less reliant on support therefore why not cap it? On the other, you are penalising the bigger units who might employ just as many staff/acre as the smaller ones (not always the case, especially in arable) and you also create a two tier system with the smaller ones just as dependent on subsidy therefore less likely to reform. Beware the unintended consequences.

Land prices - these won't decrease much until there is major tax reform and tenancy reform. DEFRA accept that the current systems are no conducive to a liquid land market where entrepreneurs can get a start in a rural career. Too much dead wood holding on using their BPS as their pension & means of not changing anything.

Greener subs - I agree. Much more palatable to the taxpayer. Not so sure the results based criteria are workable though, even if the intentions are sound. Points and £ for good measures worked well before but there needs to be a degree of checking up to prove the farmers are actually carrying out the work, not paying lip service and doing the minimum. Expect water, air, biodiversity and soil quality to dominate. Public access too.

 

[Still Farming]

The one's claiming most will shout and miss the most.
The small or low value claimant will grin and bear it and carry on as they are, as little or no effects caused.

 

[Chae1]

No, scrap them. Our customers know we're getting them and factor it into price we get.

 

[Still Farming]

No, scrap them. Our customers know we're getting them and factor it into price we get.

Can't see tractor prices dropping with them gone.

 

[ollie989898]

No, scrap them. Our suppliers know we're getting them and factor it into price we get.

 

[Bury the Trash]

No, scrap them. Our customers know we're getting them and factor it into price we get.

Scrapping it wont stop i mports/ alter world prices. Hopefully then you can produce and profit at argentinian beef prices can you.. ?


My small fields and lanes are expensive to keep up and manageble i know that much.

 

[ollie989898]

Scrapping it wont stop i mports/ alter world prices. Hopefully then you can produce and profit at argentinian beef prices can you.. ?

Have people tried?

 

[marshbarn]

We dont need a crystal ball to see the results of subsidy removed, We only have to look what happened in New Zeland when they did it and the results were alot of small farmers were forced out of buisness and larger farms ranching large acreages was the outcome.
Cant really see that as being positive for UK farmers.

 

[ollie989898]

We dont need a crystal ball to see the results of subsidy removed, We only have to look what happened in New Zeland when they did it and the results were alot of small farmers were forced out of buisbess and larger farms ranching large acreages was the outcome.
Cant really see that as being positive for UK farmers.

Large or small isn't the deciding factor. 'Good or pants' was the determiner.

 

[Chae1]

There on about a subsidy of £250/head to support declining suckler herd. Can guarantee it wouldn't leave us £250/head better off.

 

[Davy_g]

Get them gone, distorts market price. Induces over production which drives down prices.
If you can’t make money without subs stop farming.
The one cravat would be all imports that are not subject to at least the same welfare and environmental standards are levied to provide some form of new entrant grant scheme - help replace the ageing farms and farmers.

 

[Cropper]

Surely what is really needed is an old farmer subsidy, only paid out when old farmers retire completely and hand over to the younger generations. It’s time to get the average age figures down by about 20 years!