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

[sixrow]

Should be zero payments for land,and having state run farms,and money put into research and transition to more sustainable farming methods.

Monopolies on markets need to be strangled so it creates a void for smaller operators.

Your increasing your population in the uk and then putting the carbon transaction on other countries.and avoiding doing your bit, which is typical green leftist thinking, never a solution,the only word you know is stop,thank the lord your not in charge of anything significant.

The whole EU wants to place its own egotistical climate agenda onto every other nation and take zero responsibility for itself, like a small child or Africa.

Unless your going to reduce food intake or population you need to do your bit.

Why does every other country have to produce items for the uk or eu and battle with climate agendas because your too lazy to do it yourself???

Ant...

Been saying this for a while.

 

[Hill Ground]

I am not saying i would do either @Hill Ground but most smaller farmers will end up doing one or the other unless our own rules/ red tape are dropped to match inputs alongside much low farm gate input prices and higher output prices happening when subs are gone.


New Sub schemes are an utter waste of time as they stand and will not be worth entering!

I was being a bit toungue in cheek, but you raise an interesting point about small farms being subbed by off farm work.

When we had 200 ewes I spent 80% of my time chasing other folks sheep about, now we're up to 500 ewes and only off farm about 40% of the time. I would love to be full time on our own stock, but the right opertunity has to arrise first.

II wouldn't say my sheep have ever been subsidised by the other work, we just have multiple income streams in the business.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

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...

It's not lazy, its logical.

Pasture has been shown to be the best at capturing carbon. No need to waste resources on continual measurements.

Society loves meat and globally its consumption is increasing. Many repeat the false declaration that we need to eat less meat to combat climate change but it is not their wish to eat less.

It is about recognising the importance of pasture in all these matters and rewarding its good management to prevent its loss.
Society loves a good view and open farmland [pasture]
Society loves high welfare [grazing]
Society wants biodiversity [managed grazing]

With the removal of any support and ELMS as it is, there will be huge pressure on pasture to achieve a return.
The general public will not like the look of the result if something isn't done.

 

[Lothian]

One interesting thing to think about when subsidies go (either through being cut or through being inflated away) is "how did your grandad make money?" back in the "good "old days of the depression and 50s-60s.

In unsubsidised agriculture the money is made through having higher value, perishable commodities that are harder to bring in from abroad. Dairies are a really good example of this, even in the UK. 70 years ago there were dairy farms everywhere, especially near cities as the cost of transporting milk in from Dumfries or Cumbria was prohibitive, let alone abroad. As it has become easier to move milk across the country it has consolidated in areas where grass can be grown more cheaply than the dry east.

If you look at how all these largely tenant farmers bought their farms post war it was because they were involved in an intensive enterprises like dairy, potatoes, vegetables etc. Growing 200 acres of spring barley has never made anybody rich over the last century apart from when it was subsidised during the wars and by the CAP.

Try to grow grain more cheaply than the Yanks or the Russians has never really paid in this country and I doubt it will after subsidies go too. Especially when you consider the regulatory hurdles in addition to labour and the cost of land.

 

[unlacedgecko]

I was being a bit toungue in cheek, but you raise an interesting point about small farms being subbed by off farm work.

When we had 200 ewes I spent 80% of my time chasing other folks sheep about, now we're up to 500 ewes and only off farm about 40% of the time. I would love to be full time on our own stock, but the right opertunity has to arrise first.

II wouldn't say my sheep have ever been subsidised by the other work, we just have multiple income streams in the business.

I agree entirely. I think UK lamb production needs to be 2,000 ewes per labour unit. That doesn't mean you can't be a sheep farmer with less. Just that the total income from the flock would be proportional to the pro rata number of ewes.

 

[7610 super q]

One interesting thing to think about when subsidies go (either through being cut or through being inflated away) is "how did your grandad make money?" back in the "good "old days of the depression and 50s-60s.

In unsubsidised agriculture the money is made through having higher value, perishable commodities that are harder to bring in from abroad. Dairies are a really good example of this, even in the UK. 70 years ago there were dairy farms everywhere, especially near cities as the cost of transporting milk in from Dumfries or Cumbria was prohibitive, let alone abroad. As it has become easier to move milk across the country it has consolidated in areas where grass can be grown more cheaply than the dry east.

If you look at how all these largely tenant farmers bought their farms post war it was because they were involved in an intensive enterprises like dairy, potatoes, vegetables etc. Growing 200 acres of spring barley has never made anybody rich over the last century apart from when it was subsidised during the wars and by the CAP.

Try to grow grain more cheaply than the Yanks or the Russians has never really paid in this country and I doubt it will after subsidies go too. Especially when you consider the regulatory hurdles in addition to labour and the cost of land.

Good post. But...... back in grandad's day you could start up growing 5 acres of spuds ( loads of merchants / wholesale markets/ corner shops to take them ) or 12 cows ( loads of local dairies to take the milk ).
Would Greenvale / Tesco offer a contract for 5 acres of spuds ? Or is it balls deep with 500 acres ?
Arla offer a contract for 12 cows ?

 

[unlacedgecko]

Good post. But...... back in grandad's day you could start up growing 5 acres of spuds ( loads of merchants / wholesale markets/ corner shops to take them ) or 12 cows ( loads of local dairies to take the milk ).
Would Greenvale / Tesco offer a contract for 5 acres of spuds ? Or is it balls deep with 500 acres ?
Arla offer a contract for 12 cows ?

No.

But the production of either wouldn't be a full time job. Nothing to stop the producer of either retailing their produce direct to the consumer.

5ac of spuds is 50,000kg. 20kg bags retail at 62.5p/kg. That's potentially £31,250 of turnover. Not bad for a side job.

 

[Steevo]

The irony of this Government ag policy s quite amazing, the sandal wearing ramblers at the top in DEFRA are the only ones excited about ELMS ect , that I think a good number of farmers will try to make the best without it , the irony is that as they do so the Government will actively undermine their efforts to stand alone sub free by shafting them with trade deals , regulation and bureaucracy, so basically Gov will tie both your hands behind your back and for good measure kick you in the boll##ks as a thank you

Precisely.

Those that think they will be profitable and be able to survive will just be picked off in 2 years, or 5 years time as the regulation makers keep marching on.


If we think back the last 10 years, or 20 years and listed all of the things that have changes and "tools" that have been lost, that will keep happening again and again going forward.


How long will urea last?
How long will glyphosate last?
How long will red diesel last?

Our government thinks it can keep banning things in an effort of virtue signalling and there won't be any side effects. On the contrary, the public as a whole really don't care - they are more interested in being able to afford to pay their bills and buy their shopping.

 

[Steevo]

They will, but if cereals go up in price, and livestock doesn't, and livestock has to compete with Australian or USA beef, then we're still fudged, which means less livestock, which means lower cereal prices.

Only solution I can see is to get SFI rehashed.

"UK regulation support payment" would make more sense - the public might then see it for what it is, rather than a subsidy.

Surprising how many people ask me if we still do setaside - it's one of the few things that people remember being taught in geography, how farmers were paid to grow nothing.

 

[Henarar]

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...

Its not a payment for work and nor has it been for 20 years, its an environmental payment.

 

[TelesnaAg]

Its not a payment for work and nor has it been for 20 years, its an environmental payment.

Unlikely to be sustainable...as it seems.

Ant...

 

[Hilly]

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ucture-june-eng-lessfavouredareas-05jul22.ods

3,557,659 Ha in England.

Scotland wales ?

I know. I've never really understood why folks take an off farm job, and try to run the farm at weekends either.
But........I just like living here, in a nice house, in a nice location, pottering about with classic tractors. That's my excuse for subsidising a frankly pathetic food producing business form my savings account..
It is dawning on me however, that the " Industry " is being controlled/ manipulated to keep prices artificially low. I'm OK with supply and demand, peaks and troughs, but do I want to carry on producing crops for a market with a glass ceiling ?
Every hobby has it's limits......

your right about thjngs been controlled, we are all just getting fiking shafted .

 

[Hilly]

Its not a payment for work and nor has it been for 20 years, its an environmental payment.

Its nearly over ! And most on here do not understand this yet ! Fuuuukin elll

 

[Steevo]

Most dairy farmers I know of, though I've never looked at their accounts or so much as discussed finances, I would be willing put money on the fact that any subsidy cheque they ever received is virtually immaterial compared to the scope and size of the volumes of money flowing in or around their business.

People who have been using subsidy money to prop up commodity production for years are in for a hiding but this is not news. There are plenty of arable farmers out there- (I don't normally name names but lets use Clive as an example since he is quite open about his business)- who farm vast areas of land but receive no subsidy on it. If this is the case then any layperson would conclude it is obviously economic to produce arable crops without a subsidy. What then is our argument for paying arable farmers so much as 1 quid a year?

"who farm vast areas of land but receive no subsidy on it."

I'm not sure this is entirely true. Contract farming usually puts the BPS payment into the mix IIRC. Even renting indirectly includes the BPS payment because the landlord receives that as a "top up" to the rent.

If the land owner is set to only receive half the amount of income, it may change their perspective on whether they want the "farmer" to farm the land going forward or if they decide to make alternative use of it.

The only way for that not to happen would be for the "farmer" to contribute additional payment to secure the land, but how many farming operations are likely to be able to offer an increased contribution? I would suggest very few other than perhaps the intensive veg guys.

 

[Steevo]

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.

"We continue to become "more efficient" and/or bigger to reduce our costs per Ha as we have been encouraged to do for years."

This might work for a year or two, or even 5. But the route this country is taking, there becomes a point that efficiency alone is not enough to counteract the significant changes.

 

[delilah]

Scotland wales ?

Face bothered ?

 

[ollie989898]

"who farm vast areas of land but receive no subsidy on it."

I'm not sure this is entirely true. Contract farming usually puts the BPS payment into the mix IIRC. Even renting indirectly includes the BPS payment because the landlord receives that as a "top up" to the rent.

If the land owner is set to only receive half the amount of income, it may change their perspective on whether they want the "farmer" to farm the land going forward or if they decide to make alternative use of it.

The only way for that not to happen would be for the "farmer" to contribute additional payment to secure the land, but how many farming operations are likely to be able to offer an increased contribution? I would suggest very few other than perhaps the intensive veg guys.

But your argument is in effect and remains so irrespective of any subsidy money involved. If the landowner can't make farming pay, they are welcome to use the land for something else (maybe they own it and simply don't give a stuff about farming it?)- under the present system you get money whether you grow weeds, finish 3 goats off it or 10 tonne/ha of wheat and all the straw you can fit into a baler off it- the government still coughs up, makes no real difference to anyone.

I have mixed up my meaning on my post I think. People who farm other people's land surely do so because of the advantage it gives them either in reduced fixed costs or profit on a contracting charge (or perhaps both). I am not entirely in the know regarding contract farming, I think I understand stubble to stubble contracts better.

Either way, there will still be land owners who need to farm their land because of the peculiarities relating to IHT so other farmers will still be needed, subsidy or no subsidy, I think that much is clear. In fact, I would say with the rise of AD and similar ancillary industries I would say more and more opportunities are springing up all the time. There may even be another Clive out there who is that keen he will pay you an annual rent per acre because intends to grow maize or spuds on it or something and can generate a profit that will cope with that kind of cost involved, maybe not.

People who are using subsidy money to make agricultural activities pencil are nuts. I've said this before and I will do so again. That's almost as bad as people who need to produce stuff because of tax and who will do so irrespective of the value or price of the end product. Again, this is a peculiarity of the tax situation in the UK and the overseas contributors must think this is categorically insane. In either case, you have people who are continuing to produce commodities despite market signals telling them to stop doing so. I recall the days of the great Oliver Walston discussing this with a dairy farmer and the term he used for that is masochism. He was as right then, decades ago and he is still right today.

Some years ago I had an interesting chat with a guy who was finishing cattle outdoors on a very simple system and we got talking about what limitations he had in his business. To my surprise he said land. He wanted to be able to rent more of it so he could keep and finish more cattle. He pointed up at the hills outside the village which were sown edge to edge with spring barley by a neighbouring estate. In his view, he couldn't wait for subsidies to end fast enough because he believed that with the demise of that carry on, he would be able to compete with the people growing arable crops and he would sown these fields all down (being chalk downland it would probably benefit from being back to grass for a bit) and keep a shed load more finishing cattle. Now to this day I don't really know if he argument was valid or not, but it did strike me that there are probably a lot more people like him just waiting to pounce on land and farm it. In many ways the chap in question reminds me a lot of the Gecko.

 

[Huno]

But your argument is in effect and remains so irrespective of any subsidy money involved. If the landowner can't make farming pay, they are welcome to use the land for something else (maybe they own it and simply don't give a stuff about farming it?)- under the present system you get money whether you grow weeds, finish 3 goats off it or 10 tonne/ha of wheat and all the straw you can fit into a baler off it- the government still coughs up, makes no real difference to anyone.

I have mixed up my meaning on my post I think. People who farm other people's land surely do so because of the advantage it gives them either in reduced fixed costs or profit on a contracting charge (or perhaps both). I am not entirely in the know regarding contract farming, I think I understand stubble to stubble contracts better.

Either way, there will still be land owners who need to farm their land because of the peculiarities relating to IHT so other farmers will still be needed, subsidy or no subsidy, I think that much is clear. In fact, I would say with the rise of AD and similar ancillary industries I would say more and more opportunities are springing up all the time. There may even be another Clive out there who is that keen he will pay you an annual rent per acre because intends to grow maize or spuds on it or something and can generate a profit that will cope with that kind of cost involved, maybe not.

People who are using subsidy money to make agricultural activities pencil are nuts. I've said this before and I will do so again. That's almost as bad as people who need to produce stuff because of tax and who will do so irrespective of the value or price of the end product. Again, this is a peculiarity of the tax situation in the UK and the overseas contributors must think this is categorically insane. In either case, you have people who are continuing to produce commodities despite market signals telling them to stop doing so. I recall the days of the great Oliver Walston discussing this with a dairy farmer and the term he used for that is masochism. He was as right then, decades ago and he is still right today.

Some years ago I had an interesting chat with a guy who was finishing cattle outdoors on a very simple system and we got talking about what limitations he had in his business. To my surprise he said land. He wanted to be able to rent more of it so he could keep and finish more cattle. He pointed up at the hills outside the village which were sown edge to edge with spring barley by a neighbouring estate. In his view, he couldn't wait for subsidies to end fast enough because he believed that with the demise of that carry on, he would be able to compete with the people growing arable crops and he would sown these fields all down (being chalk downland it would probably benefit from being back to grass for a bit) and keep a shed load more finishing cattle. Now to this day I don't really know if he argument was valid or not, but it did strike me that there are probably a lot more people like him just waiting to pounce on land and farm it. In many ways the chap in question reminds me a lot of the Gecko.

Good point! when Labour get rid of IHT on land things will certainly change i guess??

 

[Briar]

"We continue to become "more efficient" and/or bigger to reduce our costs per Ha as we have been encouraged to do for years."

This might work for a year or two, or even 5. But the route this country is taking, there becomes a point that efficiency alone is not enough to counteract the significant changes.

I was going to add; look where that has brought us. That's why we need to think differently

 

[unlacedgecko]

But your argument is in effect and remains so irrespective of any subsidy money involved. If the landowner can't make farming pay, they are welcome to use the land for something else (maybe they own it and simply don't give a stuff about farming it?)- under the present system you get money whether you grow weeds, finish 3 goats off it or 10 tonne/ha of wheat and all the straw you can fit into a baler off it- the government still coughs up, makes no real difference to anyone.

I have mixed up my meaning on my post I think. People who farm other people's land surely do so because of the advantage it gives them either in reduced fixed costs or profit on a contracting charge (or perhaps both). I am not entirely in the know regarding contract farming, I think I understand stubble to stubble contracts better.

Either way, there will still be land owners who need to farm their land because of the peculiarities relating to IHT so other farmers will still be needed, subsidy or no subsidy, I think that much is clear. In fact, I would say with the rise of AD and similar ancillary industries I would say more and more opportunities are springing up all the time. There may even be another Clive out there who is that keen he will pay you an annual rent per acre because intends to grow maize or spuds on it or something and can generate a profit that will cope with that kind of cost involved, maybe not.

People who are using subsidy money to make agricultural activities pencil are nuts. I've said this before and I will do so again. That's almost as bad as people who need to produce stuff because of tax and who will do so irrespective of the value or price of the end product. Again, this is a peculiarity of the tax situation in the UK and the overseas contributors must think this is categorically insane. In either case, you have people who are continuing to produce commodities despite market signals telling them to stop doing so. I recall the days of the great Oliver Walston discussing this with a dairy farmer and the term he used for that is masochism. He was as right then, decades ago and he is still right today.

Some years ago I had an interesting chat with a guy who was finishing cattle outdoors on a very simple system and we got talking about what limitations he had in his business. To my surprise he said land. He wanted to be able to rent more of it so he could keep and finish more cattle. He pointed up at the hills outside the village which were sown edge to edge with spring barley by a neighbouring estate. In his view, he couldn't wait for subsidies to end fast enough because he believed that with the demise of that carry on, he would be able to compete with the people growing arable crops and he would sown these fields all down (being chalk downland it would probably benefit from being back to grass for a bit) and keep a shed load more finishing cattle. Now to this day I don't really know if he argument was valid or not, but it did strike me that there are probably a lot more people like him just waiting to pounce on land and farm it. In many ways the chap in question reminds me a lot of the Gecko.

Biggest barrier to entry is secure access to land. This is exacerbated by IHT rules, meaning landowners are inclined to only grant grazing licences.

Where longer term tenancies are avail the subsidy system, and requirement to purchase entitlements, represent another financial obstacle in what is already a capital intensive industry. Subs also prop up loss making businesses. And encourage the semi retired to land block.