hard to disagree with this, certainly has that feel
New limits to SFI.
- Thread starter Yale
- Start date
hard to disagree with this, certainly has that feel
farmerm
Member
- Location
- Shropshire
So is paying unemployment to those for whom it is a lifestyle choice
livestock 1
Member
Not sure that’s a worthwhile comparison but I agree
SilliamWhale
Member
But did they do absolutely nothing?
SilliamWhale
Member
That honestly isn't where the vast majority of farmers in Wales spent it. It really is a lifeline for a lot beef and sheep farms and smaller family farms. It is definitely flawed but the alternatives are too.
FWIW the SFI clearly seemed mental from the start. Big money for legume fallows etc isn't a public good, there was no cost/ benefit on the potential wildlife or ecological recovery it was going to do. Don't get me wrong I'd have jumped at it too but it was clearly unsustainable
lloyd
Member
- Location
- Herefordshire
Except for you seem to not understand that farming is subsidised in the
EU and the USA which is the main setter of agricultural commodity prices.
SilliamWhale
Member
Yes but the taxpayer has decided that they don't actually want to pay you so much after all now because the perception of value for money has dwindled.
The number of farmers I spoke to last year who were able to buy the very expensive fertiliser (as a result of govt imposed sanctions) because of the SFP buffer was high. We may have been looking at a loss less production if we didn't have it, the SFP is not just about money its about keeping the flow of money
livestock 1
Member
Sfi is morally wrong. Taking the old bps pot and distributing it so arable farmers on the best land get £800 ha while the hill farmers on hard land get £10 ha is absolutely ridiculous.
- Location
- East Yorkshire
Ah but those on the good arable land probably won't go for the high payment options.
livestock 1
Member
There’s plenty of hill farmers including myself would love to have some arable land. It defies description to me what’s going on
livestock 1
Member
A certain person on here who will remain nameless told me in August that the better land should be used for production and the hill land or marginal land should be used for offset.
That is what the pension funds want to do
countries like the Ukraine set prices - absolutely no subs there
BPS was fine in principle as it helped all farmers whether large or small irrespective of their farming type, the crass mistake was not capping the payments so large landowners took the taxpayer for a ride, SFI is now far worse as it is now benefitting large landowners yet again but this time at the expense of smaller farmers!!!
And a damm sight less costs & restrictions, a level playing field is all a true farmer needs!
I have always called for a level playing field for UK farmers but alas it has become rather bumpy turf now?
Is Ukraine currently being subbed by EU intervention buying?
lloyd
Member
- Location
- Herefordshire
Ukraine is virtually unregulated so why should they need subsidies?
The American dollar is the currency most agricultural
commodities are traded in and USDA sets and readjusts accordingly
to suit.
Last edited:
livestock 1
Member
Any arable land is good compared to hill land
- Location
- Lincolnshire
The fact is that if land was just left alone with no payments at all, it would revert to natural habitat. This idea that you have to pay farmers to rave it about every year, drill non native bird seed and other stuff is just a very thin veneer of a justification to continue paying wealthy landowners public money.
There are over winter covers hereabouts about to be mullered by heavy discs. That’s just great for Skylark nests isn’t it? They are safer nesting in my winter wheat.
There are over winter covers hereabouts about to be mullered by heavy discs. That’s just great for Skylark nests isn’t it? They are safer nesting in my winter wheat.