Brexit and Farming.

[Psamathe]

It is interesting how we are so concerned about our "energy security" being unprepared to take the risk of being dependent on our allies by importing electricity from them yet we happily make ourselves totally dependent on food imports. If other countries wanted to "strangle us" for some reason then they don't need us to be dependent on their power, just stop shipping us food.

Ian

[pwa]

Farming is a tiny industry now, about the same as hairdressing. If other countries want to subsidise their food production and sell it to us then great - cheaper food for us and we get some land back from under the plough. It should reduce land prices so we can have more room for houses, parks, horses, trails, camping, and just free space. Maybe we can import food from Africa too and do their economies some favours, instead of penalising the poorest farmers of all.


A worthless piece of junk ! : my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

I'm surprised to hear such anti-countryside stuff from a keen cyclist. Don't you like fields and hedges? Don't you like our rural landscapes? Would you really prefer it if our countryside became a combination of parks and housing estates? There would be nobody to maintain those parks. Without farmers there would be nobody to cut the hedges and they would disappear. So would the drystone walls. Park rangers are a dying industry around here. It is mostly farming that keeps the countryside in some sort of order. Yes, I know that in some of the flatter areas you get vast boring fields of cereal crops but not in most of rural Britain. How will rural Shropshire benefit from your plan? Or Cornwall? Or Wales? Do you know what happens to a field if you suddenly stop grazing animals on it? It becomes overgrown with brambles and scrub, and using public rights of way becomes impossible.

[Ben@Forest]

It is interesting how we are so concerned about our "energy security" being unprepared to take the risk of being dependent on our allies by importing electricity from them yet we happily make ourselves totally dependent on food imports. If other countries wanted to "strangle us" for some reason then they don't need us to be dependent on their power, just stop shipping us food.

Not even vaguely true. We grow about 60% of our own food, and depending on how you feed people we could do better, of course that implies rationing, more arable crops which reduces biodiversity compared to pastureland and digging up Lords to plant vegetables (as I think they did in WW2).

A lot of food imports we could do without - do we need baby asparagus spears flown in from Kenya out of season? No, but there's always another side to it. I met an M&S buyer who said that for every campaigner trying to reduce airmiles there's another who wants the retailers to support a Kenyan women's co-operative where they've built a primary school, etc, etc.

We could import far less food, but we'd be eating more brassica and potatoes and a lot less meat.

[jezer]

Farming is a tiny industry now, about the same as hairdressing. If other countries want to subsidise their food production and sell it to us then great - cheaper food for us and we get some land back from under the plough. It should reduce land prices so we can have more room for houses, parks, horses, trails, camping, and just free space. Maybe we can import food from Africa too and do their economies some favours, instead of penalising the poorest farmers of all.


A worthless piece of junk ! : my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

I'm surprised to hear such anti-countryside stuff from a keen cyclist. Don't you like fields and hedges? Don't you like our rural landscapes? Would you really prefer it if our countryside became a combination of parks and housing estates? There would be nobody to maintain those parks. Without farmers there would be nobody to cut the hedges and they would disappear. So would the drystone walls. Park rangers are a dying industry around here. It is mostly farming that keeps the countryside in some sort of order. Yes, I know that in some of the flatter areas you get vast boring fields of cereal crops but not in most of rural Britain. How will rural Shropshire benefit from your plan? Or Cornwall? Or Wales? Do you know what happens to a field if you suddenly stop grazing animals on it? It becomes overgrown with brambles and scrub, and using public rights of way becomes impossible.

I wouldn't mind hedges disappearing, having had three p******s in the last week due to thorns Happy Xmas everyone

[Psamathe]

It is interesting how we are so concerned about our "energy security" being unprepared to take the risk of being dependent on our allies by importing electricity from them yet we happily make ourselves totally dependent on food imports. If other countries wanted to "strangle us" for some reason then they don't need us to be dependent on their power, just stop shipping us food.

Not even vaguely true. We grow about 60% of our own food, and depending on how you feed people we could do better, of course that implies rationing, more arable crops which reduces biodiversity compared to pastureland and digging up Lords to plant vegetables (as I think they did in WW2).

A lot of food imports we could do without - do we need baby asparagus spears flown in from Kenya out of season? No, but there's always another side to it. I met an M&S buyer who said that for every campaigner trying to reduce airmiles there's another who wants the retailers to support a Kenyan women's co-operative where they've built a primary school, etc, etc.

We could import far less food, but we'd be eating more brassica and potatoes and a lot less meat.

But that change would take some time to implement and we are talking about our "food security" (e.g. when our allies suddenly stop sending us their food). We seem concerned that they will do this with energy so why (if they will start us of energy) would they not do the same with supplying us with food ?

Ian

[NUKe]

I'm surprised to hear such anti-countryside stuff from a keen cyclist. Don't you like fields and hedges? Don't you like our rural landscapes? Would you really prefer it if our countryside became a combination of parks and housing estates? There would be nobody to maintain those parks. Without farmers there would be nobody to cut the hedges and they would disappear. So would the drystone walls. Park rangers are a dying industry around here. It is mostly farming that keeps the countryside in some sort of order. Yes, I know that in some of the flatter areas you get vast boring fields of cereal crops but not in most of rural Britain. How will rural Shropshire benefit from your plan? Or Cornwall? Or Wales? Do you know what happens to a field if you suddenly stop grazing animals on it? It becomes overgrown with brambles and scrub, and using public rights of way becomes impossible.

You are assuming then the only way for farming to survive, after brexit is for us to keep paying for it, But as I pointed out in my original reply New Zealand stopped subsidising farming it diversified. it didn't ruin the countryside. It didn't stop farming. EU subsidies, haven't helped UK farming that much. The largest share goes to the big land owners, If farms have to compete they will adapt. Hill sheep farming may be a loser, but the money saved could be used to help these communities in other ways.

The Ideal of the Edwardian farm is already gone.

[Ben@Forest]

Not even vaguely true. We grow about 60% of our own food, and depending on how you feed people we could do better, of course that implies rationing, more arable crops which reduces biodiversity compared to pastureland and digging up Lords to plant vegetables (as I think they did in WW2).

A lot of food imports we could do without - do we need baby asparagus spears flown in from Kenya out of season? No, but there's always another side to it. I met an M&S buyer who said that for every campaigner trying to reduce airmiles there's another who wants the retailers to support a Kenyan women's co-operative where they've built a primary school, etc, etc.

We could import far less food, but we'd be eating more brassica and potatoes and a lot less meat.

But that change would take some time to implement and we are talking about our "food security" (e.g. when our allies suddenly stop sending us their food). We seem concerned that they will do this with energy so why (if they will start us of energy) would they not do the same with supplying us with food ?

But, in a global world we are dependent on so many imports. And to some extent things are better. Prior to and during WW1 we had to import more grain (per head of population) than we do now. And, if timber imports stopped tomorrow and we continued using it at the same rate as normal we'd run out of timber in 2 weeks (we are only 20% self-sufficient in timber).

Of course the real elephant in the room is population. If we really want to be a self-sufficient population the UK should (depending on how you want to live and whose figures you want to believe) should be something between 15 and 30 million people.

[Ben@Forest]

You are assuming then the only way for farming to survive, after brexit is for us to keep paying for it, But as I pointed out in my original reply New Zealand stopped subsidising farming it diversified. it didn't ruin the countryside. It didn't stop farming. EU subsidies, haven't helped UK farming that much. The largest share goes to the big land owners, If farms have to compete they will adapt. Hill sheep farming may be a loser, but the money saved could be used to help these communities in other ways.

I'm no expert on NZ but I do work in the agricultural sector.. NZ has had all sorts of issues since it removed subsidies, with a massive increase in dairy farming and a reduction in forested land to accommodate more cows. Soils have bee adversely affected by compaction (according to their last report 75% of soils under dairying are badly affected) and there has been a worsening in the quality in rivers as a result of intensely farmed land. And, if you removed subsidy from all British farming that would happen here.

As someone said earlier that does not mean I think the current situation is good, and would hope Brexit might iron some of those problems out.

[NUKe]

NZ could remove farming subsidies because it is over 2,000 miles from the nearest importing nation of any size (Australia). And that's just the nearest bit of Australia, Perth is nearer 3,500 miles away. If, in a Brexit future, we had no farming subsidies then we'd have to be highly protectionist to stop cheaper yogurt, cheese, milk and meat coming from our neighbour (Ireland) and other EU countries as little as 30 miles away.

I'm no expert on NZ but I do work in the agricultural sector.. NZ has had all sorts of issues since it removed subsidies, with a massive increase in dairy farming and a reduction in forested land to accommodate more cows. Soils have bee adversely affected by compaction (according to their last report 75% of soils under dairying are badly affected) and there has been a worsening in the quality in rivers as a result of intensely farmed land. And, if you removed subsidy from all British farming that would happen here..

you seem to be saying we will be swamped by Cheap dairy goods and we will end up with more diary farming more.
I do concede that being in the Industry, you are closer to it, and don't dispute that more dairy farming is probably not good for the land, but as dairy struggles at the minute. A less protectionist environment for the farming side should lead to diversification. The report I read put a positive spin on NZ farming. .

[Ben@Forest]

you seem to be saying we will be swamped by Cheap dairy goods and we will end up with more diary farming more.
I do concede that being in the Industry, you are closer to it, and don't dispute that more dairy farming is probably not good for the land, but as dairy struggles at the minute. A less protectionist environment for the farming side should lead to diversification. The report I read put a positive spin on NZ farming. .

I'm saying that if you remove subsidies farmers will do what it takes to make a profit. If that means making a farm a sterile pastureland of improved grassland (no indigenous grass or flower species), with no hedges or woodlands, with high fertiliser or herbicide inputs that is what they will do. NZ farmers have found that dairy for the export market does well (probably partly because South-East Asian countries with little dairy in traditional diets have started eating western diets).

Of course the positive spin is that it makes money, but you'd be blind not to see the problems with less-regulated, high-intensity farming.

[531colin]

....... If other countries want to subsidise their food production and sell it to us then great - cheaper food ........

But they want US to subsidise their farming......

[Psamathe]

Not even vaguely true. We grow about 60% of our own food, and depending on how you feed people we could do better, of course that implies rationing, more arable crops which reduces biodiversity compared to pastureland and digging up Lords to plant vegetables (as I think they did in WW2).

A lot of food imports we could do without - do we need baby asparagus spears flown in from Kenya out of season? No, but there's always another side to it. I met an M&S buyer who said that for every campaigner trying to reduce airmiles there's another who wants the retailers to support a Kenyan women's co-operative where they've built a primary school, etc, etc.

We could import far less food, but we'd be eating more brassica and potatoes and a lot less meat.

But that change would take some time to implement and we are talking about our "food security" (e.g. when our allies suddenly stop sending us their food). We seem concerned that they will do this with energy so why (if they will start us of energy) would they not do the same with supplying us with food ?

But, in a global world we are dependent on so many imports. ....

I agree. We get in a real stew about "energy security" but are unconcerned about so many other crucial dependencies. I think the perceived threat from "energy (in)security" is imagined (either that or we are in a far more vulnerable situation than our masters would have us believe).

Ian

[Paulatic]

I'm not certain of all the facts on the NZ subsidy cuts but I believe before they were cut they were in encouraging production. High fertiliser use and heavy stocking. After subsidies they've gone into a better balanced way of farming which is more in tune with the environment.
The current subsidies we have in the UK are linked more to environmental issues now than they used to be. The majority of farmers I know have always played the system. When headage payments were the thing the land was constantly overstocked. When farmers caught wind that future farm payments would be based on historical headage payments then they kept even more qualifying stock. Sheep were often referred to as 'field lice'.
Then with the Single Farm Payment you got the best payments if you took stock off. Phew that was a relief for everyone involved. My biggest worry, if the UK stopped farm subsidies, would be for the environment.
The trouble with subsidies is they are hatched up by people who, with little knowledge of farmers, believe they are clever. Before we joined the EU the farm grants and guaranteed price system for fatstock was, for any farmer with nouse, a licence to print money. The fiddles that took place were too numerous to remember even half of them.
After we joined the EU, initially we had food mountains, remember those? It was great producing anything which went into a mountain. Even better money for anyone looking after one. Worrying fact was though that grain mountain held enough wheat for 16 weeks. Where was the bread and biscuits going to come from in the rest of the year if we had a failed harvest?
My own experiences are predominantly with the livestock section. There has been some great harvests Brucellosis testing, BSE, Foot and Mouth, Tuberculosis testing and headage payments. Every single one of those schemes was open to easy,rarely detectable, fraud. It doesn't matter if they are EU rules or GB rules farmers have always been one step ahead of the guy carrying disinfectant a brush and a bucket in the boot of his car so he gets an extra 6p /mile in mileage allowance.
In my lifetime I now see the third generation of subsidy junkies. Pull away their subsidy and so many of them will not have a clue how to farm. Lessons might be learnt from New Zealand whether they will be relevent to the UK time will tell. I regularly cycle pass a large dairy farm managed on a NZ all grass outdoor system. Obviously locals say it will never work. I watch with interest.

[Cyril Haearn]

I doubt that this country will ever be self sufficient in food production, but if brexit goes a head should there be more investment in home produced food, and less reliance on imports ?

I have a beautiful picture taken on High Street in the Lake District during WW2. Two horses ploughing the fell to grow oats. Britain could grow enough food if necessary, there is enormous potential for improvement without ruining the landscape. One big problem right now is that transport is much too cheap. I wanted to buy local sprouts but they cost more than imported ones.

[i]guess this world needs its dreamers. May they never wake up [i] Prefab Sprout

[pwa]

I'm surprised to hear such anti-countryside stuff from a keen cyclist. Don't you like fields and hedges? Don't you like our rural landscapes? Would you really prefer it if our countryside became a combination of parks and housing estates? There would be nobody to maintain those parks. Without farmers there would be nobody to cut the hedges and they would disappear. So would the drystone walls. Park rangers are a dying industry around here. It is mostly farming that keeps the countryside in some sort of order. Yes, I know that in some of the flatter areas you get vast boring fields of cereal crops but not in most of rural Britain. How will rural Shropshire benefit from your plan? Or Cornwall? Or Wales? Do you know what happens to a field if you suddenly stop grazing animals on it? It becomes overgrown with brambles and scrub, and using public rights of way becomes impossible.

You are assuming then the only way for farming to survive, after brexit is for us to keep paying for it, But as I pointed out in my original reply New Zealand stopped subsidising farming it diversified. it didn't ruin the countryside. It didn't stop farming. EU subsidies, haven't helped UK farming that much. The largest share goes to the big land owners, If farms have to compete they will adapt. Hill sheep farming may be a loser, but the money saved could be used to help these communities in other ways.

The Ideal of the Edwardian farm is already gone.

Hill farming already relies on farm workers being willing, as self-employed people, to work for less than the Minimum Wage. The hill farmers I know are already diversified, with the farming as one of several streams of income. Mostly they continue the farming for the love of it. If we want to continue farming on hill farms we have to support that economy in some way. It has been suggested that hill farmers might receive payments for maintaining the countryside in ways that we like. For the promotion of wildlife, maintaining landscape features that we love, and keeping public rights of way in good order. I suspect that keeping grazing animals will still be part of it, since grazing helps meet some of those aims.

Another thing that concerns me is the environmental cost of shipping food around the planet. When I go shopping I prefer UK made stuff partly for that reason. I avoid food that has come a long way. Anyone truly concerned about Climate Change would want to minimise the need for food to be imported from distant locations.