kevinjohnsonmbe

Jon, it's possible in one of the DEFRA links above to search by trading name, family name, location for every registered farm and see exactly what subsidy is drawn. If you look closely, you'll see some "double entries" as well - I found some where the same person was listed by first initial, then again on first and second initial and then again in trading name. Quite interesting to look up all our local farms and see what they actually receive (no one is more secretive that a farmer) and one of the consequences of "transparency" is that the data has to be published. No more secrets!

I do feel for you mate. The system is deeply flawed and not at all suited to supporting the working farmer - in my view / limited understanding of the system. The outstanding question I can't understand though, is why grass roots farmers don't get a grip of their union - the NFU. I can't see how they are doing anything other than supporting the very rich / very big businesses and the quangos. Look at the top recipients of subsidy - the likes of county councils, LANTRA, National Trust, Duchy of Cornwall, Duchy college, RSPB etc. Then there are the investors buying the subsidy rights without any interest in farming. It's not helping grass roots farmers so why aren't they holding the NFU to account? It's unbelievably bloody wrong and it's the man/woman at the end of the food chain that's feeling the most pain.

Doesn't happen often, but I've had a full and complete polar reversal of my position on agricultural subsidies! Provided there is one teeny amendment to the current system....... As soon as the original purchase price of the agri business (including all land, buildings, machinery and other assets) have been received in subsidy, the entire business then transfers to state ownership and the incumbent draws a salary commensurate with experience and qualification. Can't say fairer than that? Some of these subsidies must add up to many times the original value of the business over the years of drawing. Everyones a winner!

Maximum 3 working days a week, excluding rain, hang over, apathy, lethargy or lack of interesting tasks!

Where are you based fella? Would you say which dealer you bought from? PM if discretion required.

And this one: Defra, UK - CAP Payments Search will show exactly how much subsidy each UK farm receives..... Now lets have a sensible discussion.....

I've had to come out of premature retirement from the thread Just spent a bit of time analysing the data available at the link: Explore European Common Agricultural Policy farm subsidy payments | FarmSubsidy.org I've got myself so raged up I wish I hadn't done it. Look at how many government , Quango, Monarchy, colleges, Trusts, councils (to name just a few) that are drawing down the millions. It's no wonder there's FA left for the man at the bottom shovelling sht and pulling udders. When this info hits the streets (it's all there, it's just that Joe Public doesn't really care or perhaps want to know) I think the NFU and DEFRA are going to be hoisted by their own petard.

This will be my last post in the thread because it's just going round in circles. Not wishing to cause offence, but it seems to me that trying to take a macro view of the problem with people that have micro self-interest is never going to work - like asking a benefit claimant if they're happy with a cap on benefits at 20-23k. Er, no! Ask a working taxpayer if they're happy with a benefit cap at 20-23k - er, that much? To address your points above in reverse order.... Agricultural subsidy is NOT a price subsidy for the product. See para 5 of the attachment: EUR-Lex - 32011R1368 - EN - EUR-Lex It is an area related support decoupled from production. So the subsidy is payable based upon the area of land owned (regardless of what it's used for.) Therein lies the problem - billions are being paid to landowners (who may, or may not, be the farmer) that is of great benefit to large land owners but may or may not be of any benefit to smaller or tenant farmers if it's not passed on by the landowner to the farmer (). That's the problem, we have a subsidy that doesn't always reach the grass roots that it's meant to support. This notion that farm subsidy is a product price subsidy is out-dated and incorrect. Subsidies (in general) are made to encourage, implement or accelerate behavioural change in line with government policy. As such, there are compliance criteria attached to receipt of the subsidy, for example, environmental / biodiversity enhancement. I've had more than enough arguments (good natured but animated) with good friends in farming that seem to think it's "so unfair" that they have to jump through so many hoops to get the subsidy. Nobody says any farmer has to claim the subsidy, if they don't like the hoops, don't jump through them but don't expect the free cash handout. That kind of brings us onto your second point - "let the countryside go to ruin as they will not want to farm" Again, no good trying to discuss what the countryside should look like with someone that makes their living from it - it's not like they are going to have an objective, altruistic motivation really is it? How would you define ruin? Great swathes of chemically controlled, GM, sterile, mono crops as far as the eye can see.... Hedgerows smashed out and trees felled to allow access for bigger machinery.... Fields full of cows that have been intensively bred for over production of milk..... Hills and moors grubbed out to improve grazing Or is that my perception of "ruined?" Getting the subsidy to smaller farmers is exactly what should be happening. The man/woman on the tools, the one getting up early and finishing late doing the job 7 days a week. Look at the table of subsidies in the attachment: United Kingdom | FarmSubsidy.org then try and tell me dairy farming (or any form of agriculture) needs MORE public money to subsidise it and I'll fall off my chair in despair. I totally agree, it's hard graft and I totally agree we need UK producers, but instead of whining about how tough it is in farming, the NFU should be doing what it's meant to and support the workers not the V big landowners at the expense of the workers.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/farm-subsidies-blatant-transfer-of-cash-to-rich

A small inconvenience in the grand scheme of things but I think the timber can be embargoed also - so no firewood from that endeavour!

(1) Bloody hell! 837a, six years, £8.5m. I reckon I'd have a good punt at those odds single handed! I wonder what the cost/tree was? (2) Shame the lessons didn't extent to criminal squandering of public money and lack of accountability for attaining VfM for the taxpayer which continues at pace.

You're right Jon, it ain't going to tenant farmers, it's going to land owners. That's the travesty!

Witnessed with my own eyes this very evening.... Our neighbour who leases Cornwall council fields adjacent to our place, walking the fields hand pulling Rag. I walk the dogs 30mins after he's left and there's the pile he pulled cast on the verge where his car was parked. Words fail me...,

That's exactly what grips me. Never mind "Benefit Street" if Joe Public knew how much grant funding went into agriculture there'd be an uproar. Furthermore, if they knew how much was pointlessly wasted there'd be even more! Heard a quote from a Cornish dairy farmer bemoaning that PROFIT was down 96k this year.... That's PROFIT down 96k! There must have been some bloody fat years before then.

Value v Worth.......

I'm not 'validating' it, was just a pic I saw on FB and thought I'd throw it open here.

Like that factoid!

Chemical herbicide in the vicinity of a watercourse = very bad advice (stem injection for JKW may be acceptable however) LA webpage usually has reasonable advice on invasive species control

👍🏻 I hear that!

Apol's for putting my text inside the quote but wanted to take each point in turn and limited to iPhone at mo. Not looking to lock horns Sue, just trying to take a look through both ends of the telescope.

"Doesn't belong near livestock or grazing". That's an interesting perspective and unfortunately it seems quite stereotypical of the modern mainstream agricultural sector where the cost of intensive agriculture is to decimate all that stands in its way regardless of the unintended consequences? Could it be argued that grazing "doesn't belong" where nature would otherwise find an equilibrium? Or, as has been suggested in the thread, that animals have an inherent "knowledge" of what should be avoided? Or is there a middle ground?

I haven't done a count but been thinking for weeks the numbers seem considerably lower than previous years. (SE Cornwall)

That's about right Mr Egg! Anyone can be a busy fool but it doesn't jam your toast! There are more than enough threads on here about the "race to the bottom" and price cutting to secure the job. All ultimately self defeating. If your head hurts when you bang it against the wall, stop banging your head against the wall..... It's not magic, the pain will just stop. Enough of this! I'm on the cider in Falmouth! 🍻