New SFI Capital grants on used machinery etc

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
In the recent DEFRA q&a with Janet Hughes we discussed a members question that asked why capital grants were only available on new equipment when most farmer bought used

Reason given was it was very difficult to set a mechanism that wasn’t potential open to abuse from dealers etc (or how do you determine true value etc ).

TFF members were asked for suggestions for a mechanism that could potentially make capital grants for used equipment a reality

so …….. suggestions please ! ( they call this “co- design” apparently)

q&a video here, this question at 10.20 mins

 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
As @Clive said in the video, someone may have already purchased autosteer, direct drill etc. Neighbouring farmer might get grant for both.

Also, only a short list of eligible machinery. Veg grower might want a plough press, to make ploughing operation more efficient - not on the list of allowable items.

Better and fairer to have same capital expenditure grant available to each farm? E.g. we all get up to £4k each, only to be spent on capital items. Invoices to be provided, could be either new or second hand. Grant could still be set at 40%. Need to spend minimum £10k to get your £4k grant, keeping money and income tax flowing.

Not sure how you stop everyone using it to subsidise a new pickup!

I think DEFRA need to stop thinking they know what we want/need. Let the individual businesses decide themselves what they want, and make it fair by offering same amount to everyone.

Current system doesn't work for most, but works very generously for the few, whilst lining the pockets of machinery manufacturers and distorting second hand values. It's a lottery, and can be vastly improved. A large grant used by one farm can make him more efficient, and makes the neighbour who didn't receive any grant less competitive.

Needs to be fairer, accessible to everyone equally.
 

Still Farming

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
South Wales UK
Smaller farmers often go for used or second hand as cheaper in the first place than bothering with the rigmeroll of place an expression of interest, paperwork, permissions if applicable ,buy ,claim and get paid back in stages over years performance?
Often the people who need these the most are the people that are put off ,don't bother or can't afford whatever.
Where there is a scheme there are schemers sadly? :(
 
Dealer price has sod all to do with value-it's set according to what the customer will pay. Lots of new kit is cheaper on mainland Europe.

And has a dealer never invoiced full price for grant purposes then given the farmer a discount?
I had a machine from a dealer in England who hadn't heard about the Welsh grant,two neighbours had the same machine six months later and they were three grand more. Grant finished and they went back down
 

Goweresque

Member
Location
North Wilts
The obvious solution to the grants for second hand items would be to to a) have a list of approved dealers (to which any machinery dealer could apply), b) to have rules for what second hand machinery would qualify, such as must be less than 5 years old, must be in good working order etc etc and c) pay a % of the cost.

I'm not sure why Janet Whatshername said there was an issue with pricing, because aren't capital grants paid on a % basis anyway? So it doesn't really matter what the price is, you always get the same % back?

The only real issues with grants for second hand kit are whether the item is up to the job and the State is getting value for money for what they are paying for. Given the farmer is going to have to pay the majority of the purchase price anyway, I really don't see what issues could arise - who is going to spend £10k of their own money on a clapped out machine worth scrap value thats been artificially priced at £10k just to get £4k back? Obviously there could be criminal fraud involving collusion between dealer and farmer, but that could happen with new stuff just as easily as second hand.

It could have a very good cascade effect down the industry - those at the top can get a grant on a new one and trade their old one in, which provides a supply of used equipment for those further down the food chain to buy and still get some grant money.
 
Last edited:

DRC

Member
The grant in question for this thread are the capital grants planned under the new SFI scheme

currently they will only be for new machinery - in the video Janet says if we can come up with a robust mechanism to prevent fraud etc they could maybe be extended to used machinery
The best thing would be do away with any grants for machinery . It’s like @Kevtherev said, proper contractors can’t get them, but then have to compete with a farmers son going round with his new direct drill or whatever .
That surely is distorting the market .
 

Wombat

Member
BASIS
Location
East yorks
As @Clive said in the video, someone may have already purchased autosteer, direct drill etc. Neighbouring farmer might get grant for both.

Also, only a short list of eligible machinery. Veg grower might want a plough press, to make ploughing operation more efficient - not on the list of allowable items.

Better and fairer to have same capital expenditure grant available to each farm? E.g. we all get up to £4k each, only to be spent on capital items. Invoices to be provided, could be either new or second hand. Grant could still be set at 40%. Need to spend minimum £10k to get your £4k grant, keeping money and income tax flowing.

Not sure how you stop everyone using it to subsidise a new pickup!

I think DEFRA need to stop thinking they know what we want/need. Let the individual businesses decide themselves what they want, and make it fair by offering same amount to everyone.

Current system doesn't work for most, but works very generously for the few, whilst lining the pockets of machinery manufacturers and distorting second hand values. It's a lottery, and can be vastly improved. A large grant used by one farm can make him more efficient, and makes the neighbour who didn't receive any grant less competitive.

Needs to be fairer, accessible to everyone equally.
It’s like cattle crushes you cannot get a basic one on grant you need an all singing all dancing one that cost 5k or so and when you ask if you can get a basic one it’s like no sorry we are full up building grant ones ffs
 

renewablejohn

Member
Location
lancs
Well 2 pages in and no suggestions its not looking good. Its a very simple problem with an easy solution. Just give every farmer a fair basic fixed sum say 20k for looking after the environment no strings attached just common sense rules on the does and dont's to improve the environment. Then allow for capital grant to be claimed on any machinery upto the value of 20k on the production of a valid invoice. Just scrap all the nonsense and paperwork of the proposed SFI system and put in a sliding scale per acre for environment management payment to show how much the government supports farmers in making the countryside a sustainable green and environmentally friendly pleasant land. Then all you need do is to revamp the Environment Agency into the supportive role of working with farmers to gain the best possible environmental outcomes. Without this climate change is going to bite hard due to the existing Environment agency non existant policies or worse the hinderance of farmers carrying out work which the Environment Agency should actually have done themselves.
 

Suffolksucklers

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
North Suffolk
On the latest round of countryside productivity they had a figure which they had assessed you could buy it for and then paid a percentage based on this. If you got it cheaper or had to pay more you still only got this assessed figure. Cant see why this approach wouldn't work for second hand items aswell, seems a fairly simple approach to me
 

mo!

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
York
The whole point of the grant is to distort the market. Its government's way of nudging you into doing what they want, so the current fashion of DD or crushes for improved safety and animal welfare. Contractors don't get grant money stolen from BPS because they don't get BPS directly. The failings of the English productivity grant were that the period was too short, the figures were too low (the mythical 40% was more like 30%), the specifications too tight and the arbitrary limits too high and too low. Small farms struggled to make up the 7K and large farms could only get the top figure (I can't remember as it wasn't relevant to us).
 

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
Ok, here's my answer;

Defra have a choice. They have a simple scheme that doesn't try to be perfect but any money 'wasted' is much less than the cost of running a more complicated scheme and you have a much higher proportion of uptake.

or;

You have a very complicated scheme with precise aims and achievements.

The current proposals fall squarely between the 2. A complicated scheme that doesn't even know what it is trying to achieve therefore has confused aims.

If the scheme had precise aims, all the money being thrown at 'advice' should actually be for any land owner/manager to make a proposal of how they will meet those aims and how/ what funding that it requires. Those millions being spent on advisors is a complete waste of time unless you can formulate a plan together. If you are going to take the time and expense of formulating a plan, why the hell shouldn't it be bespoke?

Edited to add;

Your bespoke plan could include buying a second hand plough, cutting your own fencing stakes or anything that led to the desired outcome of reducing carbon footprint, increasing sustainability or improving the environment.
Bespoke plans should be able to combine all 3.
 
Last edited:

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
The whole point of the grant is to distort the market. Its government's way of nudging you into doing what they want, so the current fashion of DD or crushes for improved safety and animal welfare. Contractors don't get grant money stolen from BPS because they don't get BPS directly. The failings of the English productivity grant were that the period was too short, the figures were too low (the mythical 40% was more like 30%), the specifications too tight and the arbitrary limits too high and too low. Small farms struggled to make up the 7K and large farms could only get the top figure (I can't remember as it wasn't relevant to us).
The scheme(s) were clearly unfairly targeted at larger farms. For a small farm with an annual turnover under £100k funding the 60% share to buy new kit makes it unrealistic.

As an example: the SFI soils standards (arable and grassland) all base their advanced level on using rtk steering kit to achieve the "restricted traffic". Adding that to a 20 year old tractor costs as much as the tractor itself if you have to buy new. What's wrong with buying used, for half the price, to achieve the same result? In fact, what's wrong with going down the AgOpenGPS route and doing it DIY for under £2k? Why shouldn't that still get 40% grant if it does the job? In fact even that option wasn't available under the CSPGS as the guidance systems funded under that had to deliver variable rate or section control as well which then means changing your 15 year old spreader and sprayer at unaffordable cost.
 

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
Why is that?

It's just a guess but I feel that continual use of trailing shoes could well have a considerable impact on soils. It isn't a natural thing to happen and it could affect soil structure and its biology, its water retentive properties, worms/larvae/invertebrates and roots.

By far and away the greatest benefit of letting every farmer having his own plan for achieving Defra's aims would be the enormous amount of data that would be collected on the effectiveness of different methods in different conditions. There would be real evidence as to the impacts and benefits of farming in every way.
 

Hampton

Member
BASIS
Location
Shropshire
It’s like cattle crushes you cannot get a basic one on grant you need an all singing all dancing one that cost 5k or so and when you ask if you can get a basic one it’s like no sorry we are full up building grant ones ffs
And for some bizarre reason, the width of the crush has to be the exact width of a standard IAE crush?!
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.7%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 64 34.6%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.2%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 6 3.2%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,287
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top