- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Not enough in it to make it worthwhile and just concentrate on retail of his own meat etc and paddle his own canoe
For those farming less than 200 acres.
- Thread starter delilah
- Start date
Nearly
Member
- Location
- North of York
Yes but those acres are only 50mm deep.
if rents rise I simply won‘t farm it ….. simple
if some other idiot want to work for nothing they are welcome
- Location
- south norfolk
I expect there are several doing that at the moment.
nick…
Darwin had a theory that will eventual run it’s course for anyone prepared to work consistently at a loss
Is landlord keeping the BPS widespread ? Is it even legal ? Got to be in control of the land on the 15th May in Wales......
contract farming agreements usually have a landowners first charge ……. Tends to be the same value as the bps cheque……. Coincidentally
same here, loads of people like that.
Bossfarmer
Member
- Location
- between Perth and Inverness
more often than not the loss will be propped up with outside income of some sort
The thread tittle was those that farm less than 200 acres, not those that might own 150 but farm another 3000 on the side.
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
The thread tittle was those that farm less than 200 acres, not those that might own 150 but farm another 3000 on the side.
And presumably not for those of us over the border either, seeing as we haven’t got a clue what’s going on yet?
yep get on down the road and when you get to the junction fork off
- Location
- South Wales UK
Where there is a scheme there is a schemer?
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
One of Grandad's favourite sayings was "you'll never compete with a man who doesn't realise he's going out of business yet"
Excellent points made by Jyoti Fernandes on farming today, explaining why SFI should be open to those farming less than 5 Ha. There is a huge amount of 'public good' delivered by small producers, and as Jyoti said if SFI is going to go to large estates to rewild then it should go to small farms actually feeding people.
- Location
- Devon
Maybe it will dawn on people that this is the whole point. Ending BPS and putting it in ELMS is actually about removing any help for farmers and giving it to the charities and corporations that have been so effective at lobbying for it.
It isn't even about improving the environment but a missguided, ideologically driven redistribution.
More money for rewilding and destroying existing habitats and increasing imports and destroying habitats abroad as well while relying on fossil fuels to get it here.
But it will win votes. {until the results of such a flawed policy become clear}
If we get to the end of the pilot/ co-design process, and it still looks like it does now, then I will agree with 'conspiracy'. Until then, whilst there's still time to change it, i'm going with 'cock up' .
How can money for a sustainable FARMING incentive go to rewilding ? makes no sense because if everywhere was rewilded there would be no farming
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
Is it a good use of public money to spend more on administration, than they actually pay out? That was always the justification for not paying BPS on holdings of less than 5ha, quiet understandably IMO.
The payments look like being even lower under SFI, and the administrative costs can only be higher. On that basis, it could be argued that they should go the other way, removing holdings of less than (an arbitrary) 10ha from the scheme?