Hilly
Member
- Location
- Scottish Borders.
It’s totaly shyt , but farmers should have rejected it but they embraced it so ultimately as hard as it is their fault,Fbt should never have been introduced.
It’s totaly shyt , but farmers should have rejected it but they embraced it so ultimately as hard as it is their fault,Fbt should never have been introduced.
Its not going to hold beyond the current shortage, which was always on the cards this yr
The 2005 review was a toppers charterIf there is £94/acre less in the pot that is divided between farmer and contractor then both parties will have to live on less. Perhaps with less money there will be less spent on advisors/agents.
IMO with less guaranteed income I.e. no annual lump sum from Brussels, there will be more land available needing specialist management to establish and manage ELMS options with some smaller area of agricultural production. I think this will be an exciting time to be looking to collaborate with others.
Anyone trying to eke a living from marginal land is going to have to seriously reconsider how they achieve this. Maybe they will just cease food production and provide natural capital instead? Plant trees, impound flood water and provide habitat for pollinators may well provide a better more reliable income, as long as they are prepared to have poor cash flow if the RPA run further in arrears. Someone has to manage these options.
The 2005 Mid Term Review was seen as a topper farmers charter but never actually worked out that way. Is this a possibility again now?
It was a land agent con, and the govt fell for itIt’s totaly shyt , but farmers should have rejected it but they embraced it so ultimately as hard as it is their fault,
They did they could have said thanks but no thanks and got a job .It was a land agent con, and the govt fell for it
Tenant Farmers had no influence
And pigs might flyThey did they could have said thanks but no thanks and got a job .
An aside comment not really to do with the thread. Looking at the devastating wet land around here and pondering government support over the past thirty years since the end of FHDS which effectively ended field drainage. What a complete waste of taxpayers money direct payments in effect funding rents and sucked out of practical Agriculture. The taxpayers money could have and should have been spent on infrastructure such as drainage and grain stores that would have benefited the taxpayer. That and the introduction of the Farm Business Tenancy legislation in 1995 with no provision within it the legislation for longer term arrangements to ensure ongoing long term investment. Rant over. As you were.
i dont personally do any contract farming i just wondered how it will stack up, seems to be a lot of differing opinionsBoss farmer loved his threads, I note once started he hasn’t replied
It's an interesting one thoughi dont personally do any contract farming i just wondered how it will stack up, seems to be a lot of differing opinions
Does that include the subsidy? i.e. the subsidy effectively pays the farmers first take, then contractor then gets a similar payment which goes a long way to cover their fixed costs, then the surplus is split 50/50. Is that normal these days?Agree should be 50:50 and simple
Does that include the subsidy? i.e. the subsidy effectively pays the farmers first take, then contractor then gets a similar payment which goes a long way to cover their fixed costs, then the surplus is split 50/50. Is that normal these days?
Usually the BPS goes into the pot, though most CFAs are unique. In theory, the contractor gets paid a fixed fee below the cost of operations, then the farmer gets a fixed fee, then the surplus is split according to the agreed shares. 50:50 is common, but it can go 70:30 to the contractor for the first tier of say the next £50/acre, then reversed for anything above that - this became more common after the bonanza year of 2007. Other proportions are available. You're just trying to share risk and reward if it's a proper collaborative venture, not a sham FBT with extra tax benefits for the farmer.
Where the farmer has a fixed charge, that needs to be reviewed in light of the reducing BPS. You could argue that this is the bulk of the rental equivalent.
If you took the bps payment out of a contract farming agreement and tried to keep things simple, what should the cost per acre be for all operations.
How could you put an incentive payment in?