Big J on radio 4..

[ESS]

3 minutes ago, Squaredy said:

I am no expert I will admit, but farming in the UK makes more money from subsidies than selling their products.  And to be specific, don't small farms receive something called the Single Farm Payment?  A relative of mine who is a cow farmer certainly does and it is very important to him.  So as I said livestock farming is heavily subsidised.  Who do so many farmers neglect their woodlands and work their fields hard?  Because the agriculture is so much more heavily encouraged financially than the forestry.  Wales alone has around 150,000 acres of unmanaged hardwood woodland.  When did you last see a field that has not been touched for 70 years?

There is no direct headage payment for livestock, SFP is predominantly made up from environmental payments.i.e taking land out of production for the benefit of nature. Why do people think farming is subsidised? because otherwise produce in the shops would have to meet the cost of production which would result in families on low income etc. starving,..the consumer gets the benefit of subsidies also in the cost of their bread, milk, meat etc. Take subsidies away and we would have to increase the welfare payments to those that need them, ...

The main reason woodlands have been neglected was money, or lack of it, until more recent years the cost of harvesting, reinstatement etc outweighed the financial return, particularly for low grade wood. Admittedly the increased demand for woodfuels has seen a rise in prices, but often the return to landowners for low quality small blocks could amount to a few hundred quid.

[LeeGray]

I get single farm payment and thought it might be handy to have s few facts here.

 

For that I, like every other claimant has to obey the rules on animal management such as welfare, movement registrations, animal identification, keeping the farm in agricultural order, for arable crops there may be regulation on rotations that can be planted, we have to keep plenty of records and be available to be inspected every now and again by RLR, RPA, trading standards, animal health teams, etc....

but single farm payment is made related to nothing other than size of entitlements. The rate per entitlement is set for all. The entitlement you have is based on what was previously paid. No headage, no set aside etc anymore. 

 

You can buy and sell entitlements separately from the farm. Some farmers have no entitlements and do without sfp or some rent entitlement for a percentage of the sfp. Some entitlement owners don’t farm and need some land to partner there claim with in order to get paid.

 

The system is very poor value for money to the tax payer and the sooner we get rid of them the better it will be for everyone other than the farmers who’ve relied on them for decades. Farmers who can’t farm without sub will move on. New entrants and those farming without needing sub will carry on and pick up the vacant land.

 

Land prices, rents and machinery will all fall and become more affordable but I genuinely think food prices would only rise a small percentage. This would be the retailers and pack houses adding a bit of extra margin for themselves and blaming it on the subsidy for farming being taken away.

 

 

[AHPP]

Why do people think farming is subsidised? because otherwise produce in the shops would have to meet the cost of production which would result in families on low income etc. starving,..the consumer gets the benefit of subsidies also in the cost of their bread, milk, meat etc. Take subsidies away and we would have to increase the welfare payments to those that need them, ...

 

Current system:

Government taxes consumer 10p for carrot subsidy and 5p to administrate the collection of tax and distribution of subsidy. Government gives the 10p subsidy to a farmer. Farmer sells a carrot to consumer for 10p. Consumer gets a carrot for 25p. Farmer gets 20p for a carrot. Government gets 5p.

 

 

Free market:

Tax a consumer nothing. Farmer sells a carrot to a consumer for 20p. Farmer gets the same 20p. Consumer has the same carrot for 5p less. Government not necessary.

 

[AHPP]

And I was being bloody kind with the 5p.

[LeeGray]

6 minutes ago, AHPP said:

 

Current system:

Government taxes consumer 10p for carrot subsidy and 5p to administrate the collection of tax and distribution of subsidy. Government gives the 10p subsidy to a farmer. Farmer sells a carrot to consumer for 10p. Consumer gets a carrot for 25p. Farmer gets 20p for a carrot. Government gets 5p.

 

 

Free market:

Tax a consumer nothing. Farmer sells a carrot to a consumer for 20p. Farmer gets the same 20p. Consumer has the same carrot for 5p less. Government not necessary.

 

 

6 minutes ago, AHPP said:

 

Current system:

Government taxes consumer 10p for carrot subsidy and 5p to administrate the collection of tax and distribution of subsidy. Government gives the 10p subsidy to a farmer. Farmer sells a carrot to consumer for 10p. Consumer gets a carrot for 25p. Farmer gets 20p for a carrot. Government gets 5p.

 

 

Free market:

Tax a consumer nothing. Farmer sells a carrot to a consumer for 20p. Farmer gets the same 20p. Consumer has the same carrot for 5p less. Government not necessary.

 

Exactly this, obviously everyone would have to buy food direct from farmers and there’s not many avocado farmers in the uk so most of the vegan wankers would still be shipping them in from Peru where some shithead drug cartel own the plantations and take all the villages water but it is possible to get by without government intervention if the consumer supported it.

[Squaredy]

1 hour ago, ESS said:

There is no direct headage payment for livestock, SFP is predominantly made up from environmental payments.i.e taking land out of production for the benefit of nature. Why do people think farming is subsidised? because otherwise produce in the shops would have to meet the cost of production which would result in families on low income etc. starving,..the consumer gets the benefit of subsidies also in the cost of their bread, milk, meat etc. Take subsidies away and we would have to increase the welfare payments to those that need them, ...

The main reason woodlands have been neglected was money, or lack of it, until more recent years the cost of harvesting, reinstatement etc outweighed the financial return, particularly for low grade wood. Admittedly the increased demand for woodfuels has seen a rise in prices, but often the return to landowners for low quality small blocks could amount to a few hundred quid.

Why do people think farming is subsidised?  Because it is.  3 billion per year roughly in the UK.

 

Is cheap food really a benefit?  Maybe food waste and obesity might be reduced if people valued food more?

Edited August 30, 2019 by Squaredy

[AHPP]

Exactly this, obviously everyone would have to buy food direct from farmers and there’s not many avocado farmers in the uk so most of the vegan wankers would still be shipping them in from Peru where some shithead drug cartel own the plantations and take all the villages water but it is possible to get by without government intervention if the consumer supported it.

 

I didn’t bother describing every step of the delivery chain but it would make no difference anyway. Just assume that 2p of the 20p carrot cost is transport and distributor and retail margins or whatever.

 

[LeeGray]

1 minute ago, AHPP said:

 

I didn’t bother describing every step of the delivery chain but it would make no difference anyway. Just assume that 2p of the carrot cost is transport and distributor and and retail margins or whatever.

 

You genuinely think the farmer would get 80% and the retailer 20?

The subsidy at the minute just makes the material into the supply chain cheaper. The retailers sell for the maximum prices they can get. The price wouldn’t change. The tax payer would benefit from less cost in, but the retailers wouldn’t be dropping there prices.

 

Producers get shit on because most folk don’t care where or who produces there food. If they did and built a relationship with farmers they’d both have a much better deal.

[eggsarascal]

6 minutes ago, LeeGray said:

You genuinely think the farmer would get 80% and the retailer 20?

The subsidy at the minute just makes the material into the supply chain cheaper. The retailers sell for the maximum prices they can get. The price wouldn’t change. The tax payer would benefit from less cost in, but the retailers wouldn’t be dropping there prices.

 

Producers get shit on because most folk don’t care where or who produces there food. If they did and built a relationship with farmers they’d both have a much better deal.

Build a relationship with farmers! Try turning up in someone's yard in a Transit with a genuine request to work along side each other and you'll get out quicker than you went in. When I rented my yard off a local farmer ( who turned out to be a good old boy) I had to get another farmer that I happened to know from the pub in the village to vouch for me. Easier said than done!

[ESS]

22 minutes ago, LeeGray said:

You genuinely think the farmer would get 80% and the retailer 20?

The subsidy at the minute just makes the material into the supply chain cheaper. The retailers sell for the maximum prices they can get. The price wouldn’t change. The tax payer would benefit from less cost in, but the retailers wouldn’t be dropping there prices.

 

Producers get shit on because most folk don’t care where or who produces there food. If they did and built a relationship with farmers they’d both have a much better deal.

 I agree. Supermarket costings are based on profit per sq/ft, hence why they feature strongly in dictating the price of produce.

Morrisons have their own slaughter houses and some of the other supermarkets are major shareholders in meat processors, they dictate the market at livestock auctions, as well as milk prices etc etc.