Guy Smith at Stratford market

[Henarar]

Anyway more important than subs which has been done to death is imports, if we are going to be subject to AG imports from subsidised countries and/or countries that have lower enforced standards and lower enforced costs than we do, this needs to be apposed @Guy Smith to protect our home market before we even think about exports
A hard ask I know as the gov will be loathed to do anything to make the cost of food higher

 

[Derrick Hughes]

it does now

But under the safety net system production is unaffected more or less
If you are happy with this then so be it but then don't moan if prices are suppressed

 

[milkloss]

Anyway more important than subs which has been done to death is imports, if we are going to be subject to AG imports from subsidised countries and/or countries that have lower enforced standards and lower enforced costs than we do, this needs to be apposed @Guy Smith to protect our home market before we even think about exports
A hard ask I know as the gov will be loathed to do anything to make the cost of food higher

That would depend on how intensive you are wouldn't it? A man moving 1500 cattle a year on minimal acres is going to be far keener on import/export controls than an extensive pasture based producer who might be keener on subs edit: and or grants

 

[Henarar]

But under the safety net system production is unaffected more or less
If you are happy with this then so be it but then don't moan if prices are suppressed

I haven't moaned
I have always stated that I would be quite happy with no subs as long as no one else gets them and sells AG produce in to this country and those that do sell to this country keep to the same enforced standards as we have to

 

[Henarar]

That would depend on how intensive you are wouldn't it? A man moving 1500 cattle a year on minimal acres is going to be far keener on import/export controls than an extensive pasture based producer who might be keener on subs edit: and or grants

true I would quite like both

 

[Robigus]

All that happens with grant schemes is that the price of things like drainage/ new sheds etc go up by the same % as what the grant money will be ( ie say its a 1000 cost and the grant will cover 50% of this the drainage will suddenly go upto 1500 ).

I agree with your theory but your maths is out.

 

[Tarw Coch]

All that happens with grant schemes is that the price of things like drainage/ new sheds etc go up by the same % as what the grant money will be ( ie say its a 1000 cost and the grant will cover 50% of this the drainage will suddenly go upto 1500 )

Another simple fact is that farmers will not invest in things like drainage/s sheds etc unless the core business they are in ( ie say milk/ beef/ lamb production ) is profitable.

Have been a few water catchment grants near here in recent years, most of them have ended up going to non farmers who own farms to cover their yards, these sheds are now being converted into houses/ storage faster than you can blink an eye!

Area payments work well as they buffer farmers from low prices/ bad weather years like 2012, if subs go then you will see the industry in a state not seen since the 1930's with millions of jobs destroyed and people being driven from the land alongside millions of jobs in the supply industry.

One of the reasons prices go up with grants is jobs have to be done up to a standard eg six inches of stone under six inches of concrete with mesh rather than four inches of stone and four inches of concrete will do, you know farmers, they'll cut costs if they can. Yes the core business needs to be profitable to match find but is there really a future in propping up in profitable business? I doubt if they contribute much into the economy, at least the grants generate employment in the wider economy.

I doubt wether many yards were covered with the intent of turning them into houses, not sure exactly how these schemes worked as in not in an area that qualifies despite being in an NVZ. A mate a few miles away who isn't in an NVZ has had a grant to cover a handling area but I'm pretty sure it is conditional on him continuing to farm for a number of years or pay the grant back.
If there have many been put up with that intent the scheme rules need looking at rather than saying the scheme is a bad idea.

I have no doubt if subs go completely it will be hard on many, I can't help but think it's the bigger you are the harder it will be, no doubt there's other factors such as borrowings, rent and type of land that will determine just how hard it hits individual businesses.
There certainly won't be millions driven from the land and allied businesses, there's approx 60 million people in the country and approx half are in employment, split roughly half and half between the public and private sector, I doubt wether farming and allied industries make up a large percentage of the private sector and they certainly won't all go out of business.

Like it or not, farm support is going to change and I can't help but think it could be done better than it is now, I think the industry has a choice of trying to get a farm support scheme that is more acceptable to the public and politicians than just handing out money to farmers on the basis of the more land you have the more you get or getting nothing.

 

[Henarar]

but I'm pretty sure it is conditional on him continuing to farm for a number of years or pay the grant back

five years y

 

[Flasheart]

My experience of grants is you don't get what you need, but what some civil service specification thinks you need, at a price that has been hiked up cos it's government money.

 

[gone up the hill]

One of the reasons prices go up with grants is jobs have to be done up to a standard eg six inches of stone under six inches of concrete with mesh rather than four inches of stone and four inches of concrete will do, you know farmers, they'll cut costs if they can. Yes the core business needs to be profitable to match find but is there really a future in propping up in profitable business? I doubt if they contribute much into the economy, at least the grants generate employment in the wider economy.

I doubt wether many yards were covered with the intent of turning them into houses, not sure exactly how these schemes worked as in not in an area that qualifies despite being in an NVZ. A mate a few miles away who isn't in an NVZ has had a grant to cover a handling area but I'm pretty sure it is conditional on him continuing to farm for a number of years or pay the grant back.
If there have many been put up with that intent the scheme rules need looking at rather than saying the scheme is a bad idea.

I have no doubt if subs go completely it will be hard on many, I can't help but think it's the bigger you are the harder it will be, no doubt there's other factors such as borrowings, rent and type of land that will determine just how hard it hits individual businesses.
There certainly won't be millions driven from the land and allied businesses, there's approx 60 million people in the country and approx half are in employment, split roughly half and half between the public and private sector, I doubt wether farming and allied industries make up a large percentage of the private sector and they certainly won't all go out of business.

Like it or not, farm support is going to change and I can't help but think it could be done better than it is now, I think the industry has a choice of trying to get a farm support scheme that is more acceptable to the public and politicians than just handing out money to farmers on the basis of the more land you have the more you get or getting nothing.

The public couldn't care less about what grants farmers get!

Only reason this point is raised by the likes of the NT etc is to further their own case for them rather than farmers getting more money for stewardship work!

If it goes down the grant road it wont help the industry one iota, all will happen is that the most of the grant money will be swallowed up in increased costs both at farm level and at RPA etc level.

If you want to get rid of subs then fine but I want too see all the red tape BS concerned with cattle TB movement controls thrown in the bin as they are stopping me for trading for months and its costing people like me thousands of ££ss in lost income! at the moment we are being forced to farm with one hand tied behind our back all the time and thus because of this then we should be getting direct support payments! ( sorry its been a bad morning TB wise! )

 

[gone up the hill]

I agree with your theory but your maths is out.

Er how? if the job without a grant costs 1000 and then a grant comes along which you can claim 50% of this 1k what will happen is the job will suddenly cost 1500 and you will get a grant for £500 so in real terms the farmer is not seeing any of the grant money as the £500 is actually swallowed up by the person like the fencer / drainage contractor who is actually doing the work by way of bumping up their prices because they know you have a grant. .

 

[Derrick Hughes]

Er how? if the job without a grant costs 1000 and then a grant comes along which you can claim 50% of this 1k what will happen is the job will suddenly cost 1500 and you will get a grant for £500 so in real terms the farmer is not seeing any of the grant money as the £500 is actually swallowed up by the person like the fencer / drainage contractor who is actually doing the work by way of bumping up their prices because they know you have a grant. .

We did all the work ourselves

 

[Robigus]

Er how? if the job without a grant costs 1000 and then a grant comes along which you can claim 50% of this 1k what will happen is the job will suddenly cost 1500 and you will get a grant for £500 so in real terms the farmer is not seeing any of the grant money as the £500 is actually swallowed up by the person like the fencer / drainage contractor who is actually doing the work by way of bumping up their prices because they know you have a grant. .

But if the grant was 50% of the cost then the cost would be the inflated figure of £1,500.

 

[gone up the hill]

But if the grant was 50% of the cost then the cost would be the inflated figure of £1,500.

Even that way the farmer is only getting £250 of the grant as the other £250 would go to the person doing the job ( if you compare it to the non grant cost ) so either way the farmer comes off worse!

 

[Henarar]

what you want is a nice quiet grant that no one else knows about