The truth about SFI/ GFC [as I see it]

[digger64]

I entirely agree that SFI/GFC is a loose conspiracy between government and retailers.
That’s not really surprising. Such things happen all the time between government and corporate business. Some even work well.
This is different though. It’s different because it’s plain wrong.

Wrong about livestock and methane.
Wrong because less food grown here sucks in imports with a higher carbon footprint.
Wrong because the free market was working perfectly well to grow sectors such as direct drilling and precision spreading without needing market distorting grants.
Wrong because many of the SFI options will be very poor value for carbon reduction and for the taxpayer generally.
Wrong because with the GFC in particular they will create unnecessary and artificial barriers to U.K. market access for U.K. farmers while allowing in lower standard imports.
Oh yes indeed we as farmers (especially arable) could fill our boots on these Mickey Mouse options to produce next to nothing and sit in the house all day but it’s wrong at national policy level. It’s just another misguided naive system slowly busting the economy.

your comment the economy seems to be how it works now though , by putting procedures and checks in things seems to create jobs and economic actions at someone elses expense .
Watching the way an overland electric cable going in and how they work the no. of "hangers on " (the amount they could spend to remove and clear up 30 metres of hedge ) is absolutely astounding all pumping their wages into the economy .
The EA working on the river is similar , you would be amazed how much money/communication moves (and fossil fuel ) when they find a fallen willow in the 20 ft wide river 360 on site already . They deliberately leave the digger bucket behind when the low loader is here so they can be paid to return to collect it .
There is nothing "green " about it .

 

[matthew]

The use of unfamiliar acronyms rather limits understanding.
GFC.= global financial crisis? /Greener farming club?/Grocers federated consortium?
I honestly don’t know. . . nor do others hence “Dads Army” and “Some mothers do have them”
As for Mark Spencer that further confuses the grocery dimension and serves to blur everyone’s understanding further.
Wonder if that is his real name, just too coincidental really.

Say it as it is:
GFC - Green Farm Commitment - or to put it more accurately - Grab Farmers' Carbon
That is exactly what RT is being used for - using our natural capital in processing / retailing to offset the emissions of corporates further up the chain. All boxes ticked. Simples.

The grand plan is to import all the food which then shifts the carbon side of it onto the supplying country and off our own backs. Hey presto the UK becomes the first carbon neutral country in the world whilst allowing all transport, flights, industry etc to carry on as normal. The UK countryside is the scapegoat.

^ This.

 

[DrWazzock]

your comment the economy seems to be how it works now though , by putting procedures and checks in things seems to create jobs and economic actions at someone elses expense .
Watching the way an overland electric cable going in and how they work the no. of "hangers on " (the amount they could spend to remove and clear up 30 metres of hedge ) is absolutely astounding all pumping their wages into the economy .
The EA working on the river is similar , you would be amazed how much money/communication moves (and fossil fuel ) when they find a fallen willow in the 20 ft wide river 360 on site already . They deliberately leave the digger bucket behind when the low loader is here so they can be paid to return to collect it .
There is nothing "green " about it .

It does seem to be how the economy works. But as you say it’s at someone else’s expense by way of high taxation. The result is the poor stay poor, businesses can’t invest, public services suffer as public finances are drained by clipboards and newt surveys. U.K. agriculture looks like being turned into a net drawer of public funding at this rate. I can hardly believe that taxpayer funds are being used to cut home production. I could well be paid £50k to reduce my output to zero and inputs required to very little. That’s a plan to fudge the economy if there ever was one.

 

[digger64]

It does seem to be how the economy works. But as you say it’s at someone else’s expense by way of high taxation. The result is the poor stay poor, businesses can’t invest, public services suffer as public finances are drained by clipboards and newt surveys. U.K. agriculture looks like being turned into a net drawer of public funding at this rate. I can hardly believe that taxpayer funds are being used to cut home production. I could well be paid £50k to reduce my output to zero and inputs required to very little. That’s a plan to fudge the economy if there ever was one.

Its really weird the pub has closed in the village other are only open 4 days a week ect closing early even in the city -cant afford the wages , newsagent has given up , the /overheads all basically really in a profound economic depression .
Whilst those in the -non jobs are adding it all on and up as fast as they can .
Whilst you are trying to bang your head on how to grow corn for less than £150 a ton they are working out how they can maximise on your loss .

 

[DrWazzock]

I wonder if we’d be in in this mess if Liz Triss was in charge. It needs a revolution in thinking but can’t see it happening.
Meanwhile the eastern front crumbles and we are messing about with food production reducing schemes Madness.

 

[Flatland guy]

I wonder if we’d be in in this mess if Liz Triss was in charge. It needs a revolution in thinking but can’t see it happening.
Meanwhile the eastern front crumbles and we are messing about with food production reducing schemes Madness.

I think a lot of the western world is busy fiddling while Rome burns, altering an old saying.
No politician has the joined up thinking/ intelligence to what it means and do the best for their country. All there for the payday/ political party money as to what to alter and for whom.

 

[ajcc]

Say it as it is:
GFC - Green Farm Commitment - or to put it more accurately - Grab Farmers' Carbon
That is exactly what RT is being used for - using our natural capital in processing / retailing to offset the emissions of corporates further up the chain. All boxes ticked. Simples.



^ This.

Thanks for that. Never too old to learn. Just not something on small mixed farmers radar.

 

[digger64]

It does seem to be how the economy works. But as you say it’s at someone else’s expense by way of high taxation. The result is the poor stay poor, businesses can’t invest, public services suffer as public finances are drained by clipboards and newt surveys. U.K. agriculture looks like being turned into a net drawer of public funding at this rate. I can hardly believe that taxpayer funds are being used to cut home production. I could well be paid £50k to reduce my output to zero and inputs required to very little. That’s a plan to fudge the economy if there ever was one.

I think the economy is managed like tyre you use alot with a slow puncture that you don't find time to mend .
Remember money can be printed or borrowed and there is always Peter to help Paul out .

 

[Goweresque]

Wrong because less food grown here sucks in imports with a higher carbon footprint.

I'm afraid thats not necessarily true. What research that has been done suggests that many imports (to the UK) have a lower carbon footprint than UK based production, because the far lower carbon footprint of the production in the foreign country more than outweighs any extra carbon expended on transport from somewhere else in the world.

For example, tomatoes flown in from Spain may well have a lower carbon footprint than UK produced ones, if the Spanish ones are grown in natural sunshine and the UK ones in heated greenhouses. Similarly a beef animal that lives its entire life in the open in Brazil may well have a lower carbon footprint than a UK produced one which is housed in a big shed all winter, stood on concrete, may be fed grains or silage, which in turn needs Fendt tractors to be manufactured and silage clamps and grain stores to be built.

UK production is, because of our climate, quite a carbon intensive process compared to other parts of the world. And it doesn't take much of a differential in carbon production costs per tonne of grain, or per KG of meat to wipe out the carbon costs of transport, when tens of thousands of tonnes of food can be put on one ship.

Farmers should not think that by ranking food by carbon footprint will actually mean they end up being the best option, they may well not. Imports may be better.

 

[DrWazzock]

I'm afraid thats not necessarily true. What research that has been done suggests that many imports (to the UK) have a lower carbon footprint than UK based production, because the far lower carbon footprint of the production in the foreign country more than outweighs any extra carbon expended on transport from somewhere else in the world.

For example, tomatoes flown in from Spain may well have a lower carbon footprint than UK produced ones, if the Spanish ones are grown in natural sunshine and the UK ones in heated greenhouses. Similarly a beef animal that lives its entire life in the open in Brazil may well have a lower carbon footprint than a UK produced one which is housed in a big shed all winter, stood on concrete, may be fed grains or silage, which in turn needs Fendt tractors to be manufactured and silage clamps and grain stores to be built.

UK production is, because of our climate, quite a carbon intensive process compared to other parts of the world. And it doesn't take much of a differential in carbon production costs per tonne of grain, or per KG of meat to wipe out the carbon costs of transport, when tens of thousands of tonnes of food can be put on one ship.

Farmers should not think that by ranking food by carbon footprint will actually mean they end up being the best option, they may well not. Imports may be better.

Well then, what’s so wrong with leaving it to markets to sort out? We already have carbon and BNG trading independent of SFI. If it’s such a good thing then let people get on with it.
We have functioning commodity markets even if they don’t please everybody.
What would be so wrong in letting things find their level? We keep inflating the U.K. Ag bubble with taxpayer cash? It actually keeps real entrepreneurs and new entrants out of the industry by propping up bloated old slipper farmers (like me?).
We have ended up a bureaucratic pissmire. Billions spent for little gain.

 

[Simon Chiles]

I'm afraid thats not necessarily true. What research that has been done suggests that many imports (to the UK) have a lower carbon footprint than UK based production, because the far lower carbon footprint of the production in the foreign country more than outweighs any extra carbon expended on transport from somewhere else in the world.

For example, tomatoes flown in from Spain may well have a lower carbon footprint than UK produced ones, if the Spanish ones are grown in natural sunshine and the UK ones in heated greenhouses. Similarly a beef animal that lives its entire life in the open in Brazil may well have a lower carbon footprint than a UK produced one which is housed in a big shed all winter, stood on concrete, may be fed grains or silage, which in turn needs Fendt tractors to be manufactured and silage clamps and grain stores to be built.

UK production is, because of our climate, quite a carbon intensive process compared to other parts of the world. And it doesn't take much of a differential in carbon production costs per tonne of grain, or per KG of meat to wipe out the carbon costs of transport, when tens of thousands of tonnes of food can be put on one ship.

Farmers should not think that by ranking food by carbon footprint will actually mean they end up being the best option, they may well not. Imports may be better.

I had this conversation last week with someone who’d done a LCA ( life cycle analysis) on 100 tonnes of prawns comparing them between producing them in Scotland and Ecuador. Apparently the fuel used in shipping them came to a very small amount in comparison when allocated to the 100 tonnes just because the ship and cargo was so large and his conclusion was that it was better to import them from Ecuador.
I think it’s more important to think about the whole economy, we mustn’t abandon all our primary and secondary industries and rely solely on tertiary businesses. With the advent of working from home these businesses can be exported at a drop of a hat and then the economy would collapse overnight.

 

[delilah]

My word there's some tosh being talked about transportation. 40% of all freight is food. Have a think about the infrastructure that has had to be put in place to allow the global transportation of this freight; motorway capacity, deep port facilities, airport expansion etc etc. It's not all built out of unicorn sh!t. The direct fuel use in transporting any product is the thin end of a very thick wedge.

 

[DrWazzock]

I had this conversation last week with someone who’d done a LCA ( life cycle analysis) on 100 tonnes of prawns comparing them between producing them in Scotland and Ecuador. Apparently the fuel used in shipping them came to a very small amount in comparison when allocated to the 100 tonnes just because the ship and cargo was so large and his conclusion was that it was better to import them from Ecuador.
I think it’s more important to think about the whole economy, we mustn’t abandon all our primary and secondary industries and rely solely on tertiary businesses. With the advent of working from home these businesses can be exported at a drop of a hat and then the economy would collapse overnight.

Already happening. My wife’s friend is a GP at a surgery in Woodford but does the job from a flat in Madrid. She even does a night shift at a London hospital from there. If that kind of job can be done at that distance then financial services and all the other tripe our economy relies on could easily be exported en masse.

 

[DrWazzock]

And what about feeling wanted and useful? What about varied work and physical exercise? Why are we so keen to bin off the last industry that provides a reasonably balanced work environment to instead leave us sitting around watching day time TV or loafing in bookshop? No. I’m carrying on farming. Sod early retirement or working in Tescos.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

The SFI was designed by farmers. The GFC is the cartel's baby.

You are looking for a connection that isn't there. There is no grand plan. Rather than seek conspiracy theories, time would be better spent on priorities, which right now should be stopping the GFC seeing the light of day.

Red Tractor said they were working to align GFC with SFI options.
The supermarkets said they won't pay for GFC because farmers will be paid by SFI.
Therese Coffey said they were looking to label produce from SFI farms as sustainable.

I'm not saying there was a master plan but the connections are very much there.

 

[Half Pipe]

I'm afraid thats not necessarily true. What research that has been done suggests that many imports (to the UK) have a lower carbon footprint than UK based production, because the far lower carbon footprint of the production in the foreign country more than outweighs any extra carbon expended on transport from somewhere else in the world.

For example, tomatoes flown in from Spain may well have a lower carbon footprint than UK produced ones, if the Spanish ones are grown in natural sunshine and the UK ones in heated greenhouses. Similarly a beef animal that lives its entire life in the open in Brazil may well have a lower carbon footprint than a UK produced one which is housed in a big shed all winter, stood on concrete, may be fed grains or silage, which in turn needs Fendt tractors to be manufactured and silage clamps and grain stores to be built.

UK production is, because of our climate, quite a carbon intensive process compared to other parts of the world. And it doesn't take much of a differential in carbon production costs per tonne of grain, or per KG of meat to wipe out the carbon costs of transport, when tens of thousands of tonnes of food can be put on one ship.

Farmers should not think that by ranking food by carbon footprint will actually mean they end up being the best option, they may well not. Imports may be better.

You think Beef from Brazil will have lower carbon footprint when it's blamed for destruction of huge areas of rain Forrest!?
At what point does the reduction of home produced food give the countries that currently provide us with cheap imported food the power to charge what they like!?

 

[DaveGrohl]

You think Beef from Brazil will have lower carbon footprint when it's blamed for destruction of huge areas of rain Forrest!?
At what point does the reduction of home produced food give the countries that currently provide us with cheap imported food the power to charge what they like!?

Ideed, as our production falls and we suck in imports, the price of those imports will inevitably rise. How can they not? Developed countries everywhere are pursuing the same mad policy in order to satisfy one bureaucratic goal, Net Zero.

It seems territorial boundary GHG emissions is the only thing that matters now in politics. Do whatever they can to hit this nonsensical target. Each one of the underlying cards in the house of cards is slowly being taken away by reality, it’s like a slow motion car crash that we can all see happening in front of us.

The people who will (and do) ultimately suffer because of these policies aren’t in this country. Policy makers couldn’t give a damn about those people. All about targets.

 

[egbert]

You think Beef from Brazil will have lower carbon footprint when it's blamed for destruction of huge areas of rain Forrest!?
At what point does the reduction of home produced food give the countries that currently provide us with cheap imported food the power to charge what they like!?

This has to be one of the most abused 'facts' ever.

Beef is about the last thing to come off that land.
the value of the hardwood logs is a major factor initially.
Then there's untapped capacity to grow soya - which as we all know is ALL fed to cattle. none of it ever goes directly for human consumption.
And if/when the ground is unfit for cropping.... turn some floppy eared beasts on it.

S'funny really. Those methane burping floppy eared beeves are an essential part of growing soya!

On balance, trying to justify importation of foodstuffs that can easily* be produced at home is smoke and mirrors.
If you've got to push aside eleventy billions tonnes of seawater to get it here, using fossil fuels, it can't be greener.
*bananas etc exempted

 

[slackjawedyokel]

Also, what about the fact that UK consumers (apparently) want domestic Farm Assured produce ().
More seriously, who is in S. America inspecting how products are produced? I’d hazard a guess that there are all manner of things going on in ‘Out of sight, out of mind’ that would probably land you in jail here.
Eg Crop production methods (banned PPPs?)
Growth promoters in livestock?
Livestock welfare practices?
Are the abattoirs vet inspected and CCTV monitored?
…Aaand a million other things.

I think we all know that even an FA inspection is just a snapshot of what goes on on farms (*quietly records when grain bucket was cleaned summer ‘23*), and in a country where if you have a lame sheep it will probably be reported to RSPCA before breakfast time, so what on earth will be happening in these out of sight out of mind places?

 

[Against_the_grain]

I could well be paid £50k to reduce my output to zero and inputs required to very little. That’s a plan to fudge the economy if there ever was one.

When you put it like that it's really quite a stark reality check. This whole net zero is a bizarre concept