NFU claiming credit for 25% SFI cap

[Hindsight]

it will do the soil some good i expect but wont pay the bills here I'm afraid if theres a lot of it

Yes, not for a farm with attendant overhead costs. But a CFA farm receiving circa £450 combined first charge and divisible surplus might consider differently. This SFI debacle concerning quality of land and yield potential is only part of an individual business position. Far,s vary more differently in financial and personal objectives than inherent yield potential. Thank you for the reply. Interesting debate point.

 

[J 1177]

We have the worst period of wether for generations, fields are waterlogged, crops look sh!t, only a small percentage of spring crops sown. Osr none existent because of fleabeatle. Bps is about gone. Now the NFU have hampered means of getting some of it back. YOU f**kING MORONS!!!!!

 

[Muddyroads]

SFI was always based on the premise of income forgone. The income referred to was always going from production, and ministers have been told this. So my question is, how are they going to distribute the budgeted money to farmers now? They’ve finally realised the premise is flawed and have a surplus from the last two years.
How does a basic area payment idea sound?

 

[David.]

Frankly, I'm more concerned about their reverse ferret on GFC, claiming to have got that stopped.

 

[Grass And Grain]

I'd argue that food production should not be the aim. More profit, or the same profit for less hassle. By any means necessary. Using the fewest and simplest words to articulate it.

That's a better way of putting it! Most profit for least hassle.

 

[Hindsight]

SFI was always based on the premise of income forgone. The income referred to was always going from production, and ministers have been told this. So my question is, how are they going to distribute the budgeted money to farmers now? They’ve finally realised the premise is flawed and have a surplus from the last two years.
How does a basic area payment idea sound?

They won’t have a surplus if some farmers pile into bird cover etc. and remember they have a whole host of future actions coming through. And many have not applied yet. Defra problem is some hefty per hectare claims in the initial 15000 applicants. And with no limits on applicants no way of forecasting budgetary requirements other than when the cash is spent that is it. I have a few farms i visit who will be submitting applications, so the money will go, I suggest.

 

[BrianV]

NFU taking the credit, don't make me laugh!

 

[Grass And Grain]

Frankly, I'm more concerned about their reverse ferret on GFC, claiming to have got that stopped.

Yes, apparently NFU are blowing smoke saying they got the GFC stopped.

They seem to have short memories. They were in agreement with the GFC for the past 2 years. 2 years!

It's just they didn't think to ask their members about it over those 2 years, arrogantly decided they knew what was best for members by going ahead with development of GFC, then realised farmers got to know about it and hit the roof.

Same goes for AHDB staff. They knew about it for 2 years. Didn't tell levy payers. Didn't tell sector councils.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Why the suddenly change ?

It doesn't suit their corporate members to see farmers reducing inputs. They want us to spend big and overproduce so there's plenty of cheap commodities sloshing around.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Tom Bradshaw said "it sets out to achieve a greater balance between supporting food production alongside protecting and enhancing the environment"

Where is this support for food production? I haven't seen much evidence of it.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Or reduce supply, greatly increase imports ... which do not have the same checks & balances that UK production has.
Which then puts the UK at the mercy of exporting countries

Let's be honest. It was a clusterf*** by Defra from the off.

It was a chance for the industry to be more commercial and less of a prey species to the corporate food system.

I don't see how a cut in SFI could be seen as pro farmer, but then what would you expect from the non farmers union?

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

It should be, imo.

Most SFI options are intended to improve soil health, fertility and water and air quality, including num3.

If you cannot accept growing a crop to improve soil health alone, num3 can be sown annually and cut for forage in the first year of establishment. Win win win

It's about making the rules work for you.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

the 25% limit makes clear is that it will be impossible to get anywhere near BPS level of funding

Have you talked to anyone about this, because some of the options pay well in excess of bps?

 

[curlietailz]

If it does turn out to be the NFUs doing then perhaps NFU members should reduce the amount they pay to NFU by 25%
after all if the NFU can cap and limit a farmers income then it should be reciprocated?

 

[milkloss]

If it does turn out to be the NFUs doing then perhaps NFU members should reduce the amount they pay to NFU by 25%
after all if the NFU can cap and limit a farmers income then it should be reciprocated?

75% reduction would be more fair. But then again it’s the members facilitating this farce so they deserve to pay through the nose for it.

 

[willyorkshire]

Have you talked to anyone about this, because some of the options pay well in excess of bps?

I agree, is possible but not without taking land out of production. In the pilot, we could claim for strip till but this is not to be included in any of the main scheme - we did this before we knew what SFI was thought about, to drive down cost of production with compromising yield. Even then, we only got to around 25% BPS recovery. We can still grow osr successfully (stressful). Could elaborate more in pm.

 

[Henarar]

But tell me of one option that really supports farmers that are producing.

I don't know to much about the arable payments but the legumes payment for grassland would fit that bill

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

I agree, is possible but not without taking land out of production. In the pilot, we could claim for strip till but this is not to be included in any of the main scheme - we did this before we knew what SFI was thought about, to drive down cost of production with compromising yield. Even then, we only got to around 25% BPS recovery. We can still grow osr successfully (stressful). Could elaborate more in pm.

Who cares about taking land out of production? I thought we were running a business?

If it reduces risk, improves soil health and the environment while paying better than most break crops, it's a bad decision not to do it.

 

[Henarar]

1. Seems sensible to ensure each farm has equal opportunities for the SFI payments.
2. Food production/profit is a reasonable desire of a farming union. Food security isn't. That's government's domain.
3. Farming unions should be aware that large areas of SFI means less food production... which could mean higher prices and higher margins. So no bad thing.
4. Number "3" above. e.g. for grain gives us a ££ boost if we become net importers Vs net exporters, but means higher grain prices for livestock producers. But generally speaking, lower food production should mean higher prices.
5. Although I stand by the line in number "1" above, DEFRA are now running a two tier SFI system for next 3 years. The opportunities for SFI support payments are unequal. This is unfair and wrong. It's totally DEFRA's mess up. Many grassland farms could have been waiting for the Autumn SFI updates before applying. DEFRA schoolboy incompetence. There was never any way they could manage their budget without a % or ££ cap. We told them. They didn't listen. Now it's a mess and has created an unequal playing field within England for SFI cash.

There is only so much money in the pot, two tier system is nothing new

with only so much money Do you support farmers or do you support environment slipper farmers
that said I will get my tin hat

 

[Grass And Grain]

It doesn't suit their corporate members to see farmers reducing inputs. They want us to spend big and overproduce so there's plenty of cheap commodities sloshing around.

I saw AIC have been getting in on the action.

I don't suppose they want much environmental land cover, they want their merchants to have plentiful seed, fert, grain and fert sales.

They don't seem to care about our support payments, just their sales. Not exactly farmer friendly.

Only positive is it might mean our suppliers and grain buyers don't go bankrupt and we lose infrastructure.

Just not sure if much cropping will be profitable without BPS (although technically BPS was delinked, I imagine most of us used it to prop up our net profits).