- Location
- Essex
If you grow winter barley for export, you are probably feeding camels in the desert somewhere, but with no subsidy.
Are you in business to feed the world or make a living?
SFI....FUBAR
- Thread starter spin cycle
- Start date
Are you in business to feed the world or make a living?
i don't think it will save money - its just going to distribute it differently, SFI wasn't attractive enough to start taking 100% of good arable land out of food production, if you loo kat the TFF poll that started before the cap it looked unlikely that 25% would have gone anyway
SFI is an environmental scheme like CS and ESA
exactly
but now it may be 25% of lots of different farms, spreading the money and spreading the environmental benefit
all good, you want to see the money spread around don't you not just gobbled up by a few ?
- Location
- Essex
Except no-one is being forced to do anything.exactly that
All active farmer in England are being FORCED to give up their BPS but the economics of running their farm businesses has not changed... Therefore they are FORCED to volunteer to join a posh version of Countryside Stewardship which was never 100% uptake either.. We are being FORCED into considering SFI whatever you think..
but now it may be 25% of lots of different farms, spreading the money and spreading the environmental benefit
I want to see arable production continue on the best land where its economical, viable / efficient and I want to see the lower quality land that's less viable in food production provide BNG and public good in exchange to tax payers cash - that's what DEFRA also said wanted to see i thought until they introduced this cap
Henry Dimblebys national food strategy / book “Ravenous” outlines just this as the best compromise to feed people whilst being as sustainable environmentally as possible - it’s hard to argue with on that level
livestock is different however and not my subject so i’m speaking purely from a arable point of view here
- Location
- Northumberland
Your division of the best/lower quality arable land is just arbitrary, though, because it suits you. Someone else might say that best=grade 1, lower=grade 2 and all below. A third, @delilah might look at the bigger picture and decide the lowest quality of the country's land is all PP and that that should be the focus of area-based payments.
in arable terms "best" is defined by output potential - sfi not attractive on 5t wheat land but it's very attractive on sub 3t land. Sfi not attractive on land that can grow high value crops like veg etc but attractive on hard to farm, poorly drained land etc
DEFRA had this right - economics would have set the % that was lost to food production and they could have adjusted that dimply by adjusting payment rates for none food crop options
As I said i'm looking at this purely from a arable point of view and I guess DEFRA focussed there as thats where the biggest wins are re reduction of synthetic input use and BNG etc - livestock farms are victim here of being to good to start with so less room to improve ?
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
Like many things, there are pros and cons.
This Farm’s total income from His Majesty’s Government, now exceeds what BPS and CS did.
However, though we have an SFI agreement, SFI on its own is a only a very tiny proportion of it all so far.
It is the massive rise in CS payment rates and a second CS agreement specifically for AB6 that has boosted it all.
There is no doubt that this year, arable farming income is going to be a complete lash-up here.
But the extra CS and SFI income will most certainly cushion that lash-up.
Though, as I say, bugger all of it is actually from SFI yet.
The worry for me is what happens when they combine CS into SFI. Will AB6 (Enhanced Overwintered Stubble) which isn’t an SFI option yet, also be limited to 25%?
I* would think farmers will put their worst 25% in to non production options so everything is OK no worries
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
I’ve been doing so for 8 years now and you get used to it.
Morals are fine, but when you get buggered around like the way we have by the Government, I’m going to take every bit of it I can to reduce risk and turn land that nearly always lost money, into something profitable.
Without doubt, the best financial decision I have made in decades!
I started another CS agreement this year that is exclusive AB6, removing the need to grow Break crops altogether.
SFI hasn’t got that far yet. Just hoping it doesn’t restrict its AB6 equivalent when it does.
I* would think farmers will put their worst 25% in to non production options so everything is OK no worries
you miss the point - the worst 25% of a highly productive farm is likely better and more productive than the best 25% of a lower potential farm with poorer soils / rainfall / drainage etc
the cap assumes (very wrongly that all farm land is equal ............ its not
some farms should frankly not be producing food at all, its inefficient, other farms should not have a single 1% of SFI even and should be pushing hard to efficiently produce food - SFI seemed to recognise this .......... uintil last monday !
thats fine just put your worst be in
you never know with a few years not being pulled so much it may get better 
On a different subject as the payments are based on income forgone and arable is down at the moment and livestock up do you think the arable payments should be reduced and the grassland ones increased?
thats fine just put your worst be in
On a different subject as the payments are based on income forgone and arable is down at the moment and livestock up do you think the arable payments should be reduced and the grassland ones increased?
i don't know enough about livestock prices or farming to have a valid opinion but i don't believe ANY farmer should receive any sub at all unless the tax payer is getting something for that payment .......... and cheap food doesn't count as subs do not dictate food prices, imports supply / demand does
I think (know) productive arable land doesn't need any sub if farmed with skill and appropriate fixed and variable costs and SFI payments should never be more attractive than food production on such land. Less productive arable land is not so viable and best used to provide the BNG / public goods that we need to offset the damage that food production inevitably does, SFI should be attractive on that land
OK
Thankfully I don’t have any shite land so won’t have to be a glorified park keeper.
The only land use to receive an area payment should be PP.
With every passing week, with every convoluted change to the rules, with every scam conceived on here on how to milk the SFI, the validity of my view is only strengthened.