Is there any way we can farm in the UK without subsidies?

[SilliamWhale]

Is Wales going to be " Better off "than England, when we have to plant 10% of our land with trees, and take another 10% out for wildlife schemes ?
I won't be doing the above BTW. Quite looking forward not having anything to do with trying to claim dole money again.

If they pay us for it then I'll do it.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Ant, I think the current problems you will see voiced on this forum in the state of things in the UK as because the systems used by many to farm, possibly for 2 or even 3 generations are becoming somewhat unworkable. There curtains are drawing in from several directions- the loss of agrochemicals, closure of certain markets, opening of certain others. Legislation on A or B, which could even create more opportunities than it restricts. Commodity prices- well these have been all over the place for decades and anyone old enough to post on this forum knows that- it's the name of the game, same as with the weather.

The big part everyone here needs to recognise and accept is that Europe is sort of stuck in the middle of two opposing forces.

On the one hand, you have 'small farmer good', local food, sustainability, keep people in jobs/rural employment/look after the countryside/landscapes kind of pull. On the other hand you have the 'global markets/commodities/carbon trading/output and profit are king' type pull which probably works just fine for huge farms in the plains of France/Germany or Eastern Europe. I'm not sure that subsidy makes any sense for either part of this see-saw. You get people adapting their farming to suit the subsidy environment and farming money- this leads to it's own problems, not least a great deal of waste when it invariably had unintended side effects.

The UK now has to forge it's own path (thank god) and not before time because the EU is a dinosaur organisation with too many masters and interests you cannot possibly balance. A lot of farmers have redecorated their pants over this but every man on this forum would have told you the subsidy thing needed stopping as far back as the 1980's when they must surely have realised what a lark they were. You'll have to forgive the howls of protest but the reality is the guys knew the writing was on the wall years ago. It's politically unworkable and backward to use tax payer cash in this way and they all know it.

The net result of this little essay of mine is that UK agriculture is changing. It's going to adapt: by changing shape and focus. By changing structure. And understandably no one likes change. But the same universal truth will remain: farmers who are good at what they do will survive in business because as with any change it creates opportunities as well as threats. In reality they have been adapting what they do for over 60 years. Another ripple in the surf is nothing.

I've liked this as I think it is broadly correct.
But I really fear this is much more than a ripple.
UK, and in particular English agriculture is being hit by multiple problems, simultaneously.
Combined with the huge difficulty of being able to change and adapt a farm quickly for logistical and tax reasons, there could be carnage.
And even those that are resilient, can't avoid being affected by the problems of those that are not.

 

[B'o'B]

I've liked this as I think it is broadly correct.
But I really fear this is much more than a ripple.
UK, and in particular English agriculture is being hit by multiple problems, simultaneously.
Combined with the huge difficulty of being able to change and adapt a farm quickly for logistical and tax reasons, there could be carnage.
And even those that are resilient, can't avoid being affected by the problems of those that are not.

As a seed grower, my premium depends on other farmers buying seed. No seed sales = no premium.

 

[TelesnaAg]

Ant, I think the current problems you will see voiced on this forum in the state of things in the UK as because the systems used by many to farm, possibly for 2 or even 3 generations are becoming somewhat unworkable. There curtains are drawing in from several directions- the loss of agrochemicals, closure of certain markets, opening of certain others. Legislation on A or B, which could even create more opportunities than it restricts. Commodity prices- well these have been all over the place for decades and anyone old enough to post on this forum knows that- it's the name of the game, same as with the weather.

The big part everyone here needs to recognise and accept is that Europe is sort of stuck in the middle of two opposing forces.

On the one hand, you have 'small farmer good', local food, sustainability, keep people in jobs/rural employment/look after the countryside/landscapes kind of pull. On the other hand you have the 'global markets/commodities/carbon trading/output and profit are king' type pull which probably works just fine for huge farms in the plains of France/Germany or Eastern Europe. I'm not sure that subsidy makes any sense for either part of this see-saw. You get people adapting their farming to suit the subsidy environment and farming money- this leads to it's own problems, not least a great deal of waste when it invariably had unintended side effects.

The UK now has to forge it's own path (thank god) and not before time because the EU is a dinosaur organisation with too many masters and interests you cannot possibly balance. A lot of farmers have redecorated their pants over this but every man on this forum would have told you the subsidy thing needed stopping as far back as the 1980's when they must surely have realised what a lark they were. You'll have to forgive the howls of protest but the reality is the guys knew the writing was on the wall years ago. It's politically unworkable and backward to use tax payer cash in this way and they all know it.

The net result of this little essay of mine is that UK agriculture is changing. It's going to adapt: by changing shape and focus. By changing structure. And understandably no one likes change. But the same universal truth will remain: farmers who are good at what they do will survive in business because as with any change it creates opportunities as well as threats. In reality they have been adapting what they do for over 60 years. Another ripple in the surf is nothing.

I agree,

Advocating being paid for the least amount of work, i.e. pp, i think is deplorable, and will in turn kill your industry.

Ant...

 

[Briar]

Subsidies or not, we have the same options as before available to us as farmers.
We continue to become "more efficient" and/or bigger to reduce our costs per Ha as we have been encouraged to do for years.
We can diversify our businesses or take other employment off farm reducing our reliance on actually farming to earn a living. ie subsidise our farms through other means. Farming becomes a hobby/part time occupation.
Or rent out/sell up if the above doesn't suit.
Irrespective we need to adapt and evolve to survive without expecting a bailout or help from any Government.

 

[DrWazzock]

The thing I’ve noticed is that “letting farmland go” is easy. But getting it back into production is much harder. Pernicious weeds that had more or less died out here by the late seventies are now back with a vengeance. Ragwort, Buck thistles, docks, creeping thistles seem more resilient than ever. Every corner taken out of production becomes a way in for them and a beach head for spread across cultivated land. And with no labour we’d be stuffed without chemical control. Do I really want to encourage this kind of pestilence? This year I’m blitzing them. I’ve had enough. They can become a serious and expensive problem very quickly.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

I agree,

Advocating being paid for the least amount of work, i.e. pp, i think is deplorable, and will in turn kill your industry.

Ant...

I don't think you have properly considered @delilah 's suggestion.
Permanent pasture requires a lot of management to maximise it's potential for sequestrating carbon, producing food, maintaining biodiversity and meeting requirements regarding water.
Recognising and supporting this important asset would achieve almost everything on societies wish list.

 

[DrWazzock]

But it's been this way for years. I could drive you to hundreds of parcels of land just I know of that are being farmed but probably shouldn't. There is no U-boat war on, so the need to 'feed the people' and till everything isn't there. If it doesn't pencil is it ever worth the outlay and grief involved?

No. Probably not. But I’m having difficulty persuading some of my older partners of this.
I’m torn really between “dig for victory” and just let it go.

 

[manhill]

Too much livestock on market = race to bottom.
Less livestock = higher prices, less inputs and sounds better for the farmer. No?

 

[unlacedgecko]

Prices will have to rise to meet the true cost of production

That's arse about face.

Producers of globally traded commodities will receive the global market price for those commodities. As such, they will have to configure their businesses to have a cost of production to give them a margin at this global market price.

The market can remain stupid for longer than you can remain solvent.

 

[spin cycle]

Is Wales going to be " Better off "than England, when we have to plant 10% of our land with trees, and take another 10% out for wildlife schemes ?
I won't be doing the above BTW. Quite looking forward not having anything to do with trying to claim dole money again.

what subsidy do you get in return?

sounds good to me tbh

 

[Jackov Altraids]

That's arse about face.

Producers of globally traded commodities will receive the global market price for those commodities. As such, they will have to configure their businesses to have a cost of production to give them a margin at this global market price.

The market can remain stupid for longer than you can remain solvent.

Absolutely.
I was flabbergasted when those buying the expensive fertiliser declared that the people buying their produce would have to cover that cost.
Sadly, they don't.

 

[Eggs and Things]

The big part everyone here needs to recognise and accept is that Europe is sort of stuck in the middle of two opposing forces.

On the one hand, you have 'small farmer good', local food, sustainability, keep people in jobs/rural employment/look after the countryside/landscapes kind of pull. On the other hand you have the 'global markets/commodities/carbon trading/output and profit are king' type pull which probably works just fine for huge farms in the plains of France/Germany or Eastern Europe. I'm not sure that subsidy makes any sense for either part of this see-saw. You get people adapting their farming to suit the subsidy environment and farming money- this leads to it's own problems, not least a great deal of waste when it invariably had unintended side effects.

Your analysis is virtually there. The UK, as a country or society, need to decide what they want. UK Ag is pulled in two different directions. On the one hand society (most of it), pressure groups, and some parts of the govts (Ag being devolved) say they want green, bucolic country scenes, with world leading welfare and environmental rules. On the other, the market, the consumer when their hand is their pocket, and different parts of the govts say they want cheap and efficient.

UK Ag is constantly trying to square that circle. This is all the industry needs to put to the govts. Decide what you want. Then get out of the way. Most of the industry will be able to operate under either system, but not some amalgam of the two.

This dilemma underpins nearly all the discussions, troubles, difficulties we face as an industry. And it really is that simple. We all know that you cannot build anything, house, buildings, society on two opposing principles. And yet we have being increasingly trying to do this since the necessity of food production has dimmed from public consciousness.

It is important for the industry to pose this question to society with clarity and simplicity. Obviously this requires skillful representation. Not wanting to turn this thread into an anti-NFU rant. But until we start to resolve this contradiction the industry will stagnate. Any organisation needs a clear direction to be successful. Presently UK Ag can't even agree on the question.

 

[ollie989898]

The thing I’ve noticed is that “letting farmland go” is easy. But getting it back into production is much harder. Pernicious weeds that had more or less died out here by the late seventies are now back with a vengeance. Ragwort, Buck thistles, docks, creeping thistles seem more resilient than ever. Every corner taken out of production becomes a way in for them and a beach head for spread across cultivated land. And with no labour we’d be stuffed without chemical control. Do I really want to encourage this kind of pestilence? This year I’m blitzing them. I’ve had enough. They can become a serious and expensive problem very quickly.

I would disagree. I have helped farmers bring land back into what I would term actual proper production a myriad of times. In some ways it may be easier to farm this stuff than deal with something that has been totally obliterated by say a tenant who didn't give a fudge.

 

[B'o'B]

I would disagree. I have helped farmers bring land back into what I would term actual proper production a myriad of times. In some ways it may be easier to farm this stuff than deal with something that has been totally obliterated by say a tenant who didn't give a fudge.

How about land oblterated by a tenant (due to repeated short term FBTs which the LL chose to let it on) and then let go (and potentially without using glyphosate)

 

[TelesnaAg]

I don't think you have properly considered @delilah 's suggestion.
Permanent pasture requires a lot of management to maximise it's potential for sequestrating carbon, producing food, maintaining biodiversity and meeting requirements regarding water.
Recognising and supporting this important asset would achieve almost everything on societies wish list.

Its lazy.

Will they pay you for x carbon and measure it yearly and pay for any increase?

How much foid will you produce off it, given it will be 100% meat and thats not on socities wish list.

Will they pay for the biodiversity level?

Will they pay you for the water qaulity running of it?

If not then it wont and does not require intensive management.

Its wanting to be state paid for doing the least amount of work.

Ant...

 

[ollie989898]

How about land oblterated by a tenant (due to repeated short term FBTs which the LL chose to let it on) and then let go (and potentially without using glyphosate)

Graze it down hard and plough it. How did people manage without glyphosate before?

 

[B'o'B]

Graze it down hard and plough it. How did people manage without glyphosate before?

I don’t think they thought of breaking land to bring it back into production as “easy” before, just saying.

 

[delilah]

Should be zero payments for land

We are where we are.
If Defra had said post Brexit that they were going to scrap payments to farmers, then we would have debated that. They didn't say that, rather they said that payments were to be reallocated so that they deliver 'public good'.
I said on Day 1 that in order to best deliver public good, the only land use to get an area payment should be permanent pasture.
The issue has been debated to death since, and nothing has been said to make me change my mind. Rather, the longer it has been thrashed about the more convinced I am that I am right.

 

[sixrow]

Machinery dealers will do well once everyones tractors/kit is 10-15yr old theyll be flat out repairing things

Be no mechanics left to fix it all.