Shortening/simplification of supply chains

[Bury the Trash]

The meat supply chain is sewn up. EU meat hygiene regs saw to that.

Should be ok now then ...moving forward.....oh wait a minute... except that the export trade for lambs has been 'sewn' up

 

[Guleesh]

Subsidies have been an essential support for livestock farming in the highlands, but the ways they have been dished out has done very little for innovation and soil health/fertility, it could be very different if it was better targeted at these production efficiencies. Incentives for handling facilities/housing/lime/drainage/reseeds etc would make a huge difference to those who cannot access cags grant money. In fact maybe that is the solution, open up cags to small farms in LFA 2&3

Sorry but I don't think more public funds are going to help. The fact that the vast majority of usable land has been chopped up into tiny little unusable pieces doesn't warrant the general public having to pay people who enjoy having a hobby flock or herd.

The age old excuse of our climate and topography here leaving us unable to operate without continual subsidisation is not something I really believe in, Why should somebody trying to run sheep here receive a higher proportion of public money than somebody trying to run sheep on a tough hill in the lake district for example? This forum is a great eye opener of how variable the whole UK can be in terms of quality of land and climate.

I've seen enough abuse of various schemes. Doesn't matter how they are distributed, The experienced majority are very quick to shift their circumstances (often just on paper) to ensure eligibility, in fact their ability to do so is what keeps them in business.

 

[Macsky]

Sorry but I don't think more public funds are going to help. The fact that the vast majority of usable land has been chopped up into tiny little unusable pieces doesn't warrant the general public having to pay people who enjoy having a hobby flock or herd.

The age old excuse of our climate and topography here leaving us unable to operate without continual subsidisation is not something I really believe in, Why should somebody trying to run sheep here receive a higher proportion of public money than somebody trying to run sheep on a tough hill in the lake district for example? This forum is a great eye opener of how variable the whole UK can be in terms of quality of land and climate.

I've seen enough abuse of various schemes. Doesn't matter how they are distributed, The experienced majority are very quick to shift their circumstances (often just on paper) to ensure eligibility, in fact their ability to do so is what keeps them in business.

Most food production is subsidised one way or another. No subsidies in this part of the world would mean overnight collapse of farming.
Store lambs would need to be £100+, cast ewes the same, store calves £1000 minimum etc, none of which is at all realistic in the near future, so I think I’ll stick with the sub!

 

[Guleesh]

Most food production is subsidised one way or another. No subsidies in this part of the world would mean overnight collapse of farming.
Store lambs would need to be £100+, cast ewes the same, store calves £1000 minimum etc, none of which is at all realistic in the near future, so I think I’ll stick with the sub!

Truth in what you say but a large enough farm here should be able to pay its way the same as a farm elsewhere, it isn't the taxpayers fault or problem that our in-bye land parcels are so tiny and hills are neglected.

Ccags, Lfass and the like are definitely a contributing factor to the ridiculously high land values we have though -which lets be honest, is by far the biggest barrier and expense in agriculture here.

 

[Macsky]

Truth in what you say but a large enough farm here should be able to pay its way the same as a farm elsewhere, it isn't the taxpayers fault or problem that our in-bye land parcels are so tiny and hills are neglected.

Ccags, Lfass and the like are definitely a contributing factor to the ridiculously high land values we have though -which lets be honest, is by far the biggest barrier and expense in agriculture here.

A lot of hills are neglected because ill informed public pressure has left land managers too scared to manage the hills with fire as in generations for eons passed.

The price of land is indeed a barrier, but not to those that own it, and they would still struggle majorly if subsidies were removed. Can you imagine the amount of farming ground that would be lost forever to forestry if agriculture wasn’t supported, when tree planting is and looks set to be further incentivised. This would be devastating for many local businesses that exist off farming as well- merchants,hauliers,contractors etc.
There’s a lot that could be said for no subsidies, but it is blinkered idealism, and is just is not going to work, unless every other country in the world stopped subsidising their own food production as well.

 

[Guleesh]

There’s a lot that could be said for no subsidies, but it is blinkered idealism, and is just is not going to work, unless every other country in the world stopped subsidising their own food production as well

I would argue that hoping and planning for dependency on everlasting subsidies is blinkered idealism, true there's plenty of other countries that subsidise agriculture, but to varying extents, In my opinion what we need from government isn't eternal handouts to keep farmers living the privileged lifestyles they have become accustomed to - there is far harder and much less rewarding jobs that aren't subsidised, it doesn't seem very fair in my opinion to tax a bricklayer and give his hard earned money to a farmer to keep him in new double cab pickups. Life is hard for a lot of people in this country, why oh why do so many farmers think they're some kind of special case?

If as a country we care about food security (we don't seem to care) then what we need is a government that protects our interests internationally through good trade deals and tariffs- we shouldn't have to compete with NZ for lamb and South America for beef on our own supermarket shelves . all we should need to do is feed ourselves and supply countries that want to pay for our high welfare standards and quality.

 

[Macsky]

I would argue that hoping and planning for dependency on everlasting subsidies is blinkered idealism, true there's plenty of other countries that subsidise agriculture, but to varying extents, In my opinion what we need from government isn't eternal handouts to keep farmers living the privileged lifestyles they have become accustomed to - there is far harder and much less rewarding jobs that aren't subsidised, it doesn't seem very fair in my opinion to tax a bricklayer and give his hard earned money to a farmer to keep him in new double cab pickups. Life is hard for a lot of people in this country, why oh why do so many farmers think they're some kind of special case?

If as a country we care about food security (we don't seem to care) then what we need is a government that protects our interests internationally through good trade deals and tariffs- we shouldn't have to compete with NZ for lamb and South America for beef on our own supermarket shelves . all we should need to do is feed ourselves and supply countries that want to pay for our high welfare standards and quality.

I most likely agree with you on all of this, and certainly do not hope for dependency on subsidies, but in reality, I really don’t think things will change too much. Subsidies are incredibly effective tools and give governments the chance to exert a lot of control over how entire industries operate, they’re not going to give any of it up soon.

 

[HolzKopf]

I'm surprised there's any beasts left in the fields round here such has been the demand from locked-down City types and their public school kids. You would think they had invented 'buy-local' judging by the amount of 'fine-foods', veg and butchers' delivery vans flying about instead of Waitrose, Ocado, Tesco and Sainsburys.

Unless you're vulnerable - and believe me some round here have been swinging the lead by their interpretation of vulnerable - being clinically impatient and unable to queue or the Cayenne, M-Class or XC90 on its last gallon of diesel - it's been impossible to get supermarket slots for delivery or click and collect.

To be fair, a number of farmers, small butchers, bakers and veg men have stepped up and either invented a contactless payment and delivery service or have expanded on their normal farmers' market or farm-gate service.

When the normal normal as opposed to the new normal returns, I just hope that enough people stick with those who have served them well and continue to support a shortened supply chain. I'm also surprised by a number of comments of the type that 'how cheap' meat and veg is. We use supermarkets for bog rolls and beer and some other hard goods but rarely for produce that grows 'on the hill'

HK

 

[Old Tip]

Maybe there will be opportunities to ‘not let the crisis go to waste’ in this regard, in the wake of serious supply chain issues, especially the likes of this across the pond at the moment, the powers that be may be softened up to allow some leeway in the rules for smaller plants. It would need a fair bit of weight to see it through, but the idea lines up very well with all the lip service that is paid by politicians to production standards, animal welfare, reducing food miles, eating local, supporting rural communities etc etc

This is what we at the RBST are pushing for alongside the Sustainable Food Trust and others. We hope the issues shown up during the last few weeks will help us push for more straight forward common sense legislation for small none export abattoirs. And a better spread across the country, as you say the far north and the islands are very poorly catered for

 

[andybk]

it doesn't seem very fair in my opinion to tax a bricklayer and give his hard earned money to a farmer to keep him in new double cab pickups. Life is hard for a lot of people in this country, why oh why do so many farmers think they're some kind of special case?

they pay tax payers cash into the BBC , they splash money about like no tomorrow , hundreds of thousands on individual wages , even a new double cab would be basic wage in that organisation , Dont worry RSPB / NE isnt going to let subs (in some form) go without a fight .

 

[Top Tip.]

I would argue that hoping and planning for dependency on everlasting subsidies is blinkered idealism, true there's plenty of other countries that subsidise agriculture, but to varying extents, In my opinion what we need from government isn't eternal handouts to keep farmers living the privileged lifestyles they have become accustomed to - there is far harder and much less rewarding jobs that aren't subsidised, it doesn't seem very fair in my opinion to tax a bricklayer and give his hard earned money to a farmer to keep him in new double cab pickups. Life is hard for a lot of people in this country, why oh why do so many farmers think they're some kind of special case?

If as a country we care about food security (we don't seem to care) then what we need is a government that protects our interests internationally through good trade deals and tariffs- we shouldn't have to compete with NZ for lamb and South America for beef on our own supermarket shelves . all we should need to do is feed ourselves and supply countries that want to pay for our high welfare standards and quality.

I don’t think you will find very many hill farmers living privileged lifestyles and comparing them to a bricklayer is laughable. You can live without a bricklayer you can’t survive without a farmer. I think most farmers would be quite content on a bricklayers wage whereas most brickies wouldn’t get out of bed for the average take home pay of most farmers and crofters. I don’t think there are many farmers think that they are a special case as you put ,it all they want is a fair return for their work, The fact of the situation is that without support there would be no agricultural industry west of the A9 and if that industry disappears the whole social fabric of the area disappears with it. That double cab pick you speak so disparagingly of keeps the garage that sold it going and keeps the mechanic who services it in a wage as well.

 

[delilah]

Shortening/ simplification of supply chains:

I read somewhere that the primary producer, across the major foodstuffs, today gets 9p of the £1 retail price, 70 years ago it was 50p.
If I was bored enough I would do some research to produce a graph showing how the decline in the % the primary producer gets has accurately tracked the concentration of market share in food retailing (I imagine the studies are already out there). It is that concentration, above all other reasons, that has led to a lengthening of the supply chain. A chain in which each link needs their cut.

Point being: discussion about subsidy, legislation etc, is all valid, but ignores the underlying issue.

 

[Guleesh]

I don’t think you will find very many hill farmers living privileged lifestyles and comparing them to a bricklayer is laughable. You can live without a bricklayer you can’t survive without a farmer. I think most farmers would be quite content on a bricklayers wage whereas most brickies wouldn’t get out of bed for the average take home pay of most farmers and crofters. I don’t think there are many farmers think that they are a special case as you put ,it all they want is a fair return for their work, The fact of the situation is that without support there would be no agricultural industry west of the A9 and if that industry disappears the whole social fabric of the area disappears with it. That double cab pick you speak so disparagingly of keeps the garage that sold it going and keeps the mechanic who services it in a wage as well.

I appear to have touched a nerve.

So you do believe bricklaying is easier than extensive sheep keeping and bricklayers taxes should pay to keep large landowners in new pickups.

You are not alone in your thinking.

As for: 'You can live without a bricklayer you can’t survive without a farmer'
-This statement is false, and once again shows that some farmers think themselves a special case, and that their contribution to society is worth more than others.

 

[Top Tip.]

I appear to have touched a nerve.

So you do believe bricklaying is easier than extensive sheep keeping and bricklayers taxes should pay to keep large landowners in new pickups.

You are not alone in your thinking.

As for: 'You can live without a bricklayer you can’t survive without a farmer'
-This statement is false, and once again shows that some farmers think themselves a special case, and that their contribution to society is worth more than others.

Yes bricklaying is far easier than extensive sheep keeping ,the brickie gets paid for every brick If only I got paid as well for every hour I spend tending sheep and cattle to produce the cheap food for said brickie. You have a very strange constitution if you can survive without food which is what farmers produce,I have never needed a bricklayer,I need food every day. And yes I think the brickies taxes should go to help produce this cheap food which enables him to go out to work every day.

 

[Guleesh]

Yes bricklaying is far easier than extensive sheep keeping ,the brickie gets paid for every brick If only I got paid as well for every hour I spend tending sheep and cattle to produce the cheap food for said brickie. You have a very strange constitution if you can survive without food which is what farmers produce,I have never needed a bricklayer,I need food every day. And yes I think the brickies taxes should go to help produce this cheap food which enables him to go out to work every day.

Do you live in a hole in the ground?

 

[Top Tip.]

Do you live in a hole in the ground?

There were no brickies around when my house was built.

 

[Guleesh]

There were no brickies around when my house was built.

Stonemason?

 

[Top Tip.]

Stonemason?

Or joiner?

 

[Macsky]

Shortening/ simplification of supply chains:

I read somewhere that the primary producer, across the major foodstuffs, today gets 9p of the £1 retail price, 70 years ago it was 50p.
If I was bored enough I would do some research to produce a graph showing how the decline in the % the primary producer gets has accurately tracked the concentration of market share in food retailing (I imagine the studies are already out there). It is that concentration, above all other reasons, that has led to a lengthening of the supply chain. A chain in which each link needs their cut.

Point being: discussion about subsidy, legislation etc, is all valid, but ignores the underlying issue.

The supermarkets have been able to increase their slice of the pie because they have enjoyed unchallenged growth for decades. Big=powerful. Unless legal intervention is made by some form of regulator to ensure a certain share to the primary producer then this is most likely the way it is going to remain. Other than direct marketing, what else would you suggest for farmers increasing their market share?

 

[Guleesh]

Or joiner?

So you don't live in hole and maybe can comprehend humans need more than just food to survive, and they need an awful lot more than just food to live happy healthy lives.

There are many professions other than farming that contribute to our society, They enjoy your cheap food, and you enjoy cheap everything else. I don't think you realise how hard some people work to make an honest living in this country. Do you think everybody is as lucky as you and works for a love of their occupation?

Subsidies were brought in to boost food production in the interest of national food security, which seemed a reasonable thing to do at the time, what they've become in recent years and what purpose they serve today is something else altogether. It just can not work to subsidise the Highlands any higher than it is already.

What I originally said is that I don't want to see even higher Ccags and Llfass paid out to keep covering the shortcomings of farms in the Highlands. Yes subsidies and schemes have kept some farms running, but they've also kept plenty young people out of agriculture, removed any incentive for many businesses to improve their profitability and kept land values at a disproportionately high rate considering the low fertility of land.

Of course I realise stating this on a public forum doesn't make me popular, but many farmers have lived their whole lives depending on subsidy to keep them living comfortably, and I also realise they don't like this fact pointed out to them. I'd like to see a fairer system on a level playing field and one with more opportunity within agriculture for good business men and women to be able to thrive. If my kids want to work in agriculture when they grow up I want more for them than to have to live on government handouts for life.