Brexit and Farming.

[pwa]

......... Maintaining public footpaths is something farmers could do...........

Maintaining public rights of way is something farmers are already supposed to do....https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-rights-of-way-landowner-responsibilities
.....Anybody ever seen a bridlepath across an arable field re-instated at a width of 2 metres after cultivation?

.....more likely to see surface water or slurry effluent directed onto rights of way, in my experience.

They could be replacing stiles, gates and bridges as necessary, and with a financial interest in having their PROWs in good order we would all have more confidence when we venture into the countryside.

[landsurfer]

ever seen a bridlepath across an arable field re-instated at a width of 2 metres after cultivation?

.....more likely to see surface water or slurry effluent directed onto rights of way, in my experience.

Well actually all over South York's and the Derbyshire areas ..... Bridlepaths, cycle routes etc etc all restored during the planting / growing seasons .... Any one in the Bolsover area want to comment ...

[Flinders]

Maintaining public rights of way is something farmers are already supposed to do....https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-rights-of-way-landowner-responsibilities
.....Anybody ever seen a bridlepath across an arable field re-instated at a width of 2 metres after cultivation?

One bridleway I used to ride on yes. More than 2m, in fact. But just the one. Out of hundreds I rode or walked/walk.

The landowner was a keen horse owner. Riding on bridleways on his land was brilliant. Wide enough to ride two horses abreast, excellent surface always higher up than the field either side so it drained therefore never a muddy mess, gates set back from roads so you could stand your horse in the gateway safely to 'do' the gates', gates you could open from on horseback which opened so easy you could do it with no force or lifting, just wonderful.

[Boyd]

Failing to subsidise farming means they won't be able to survive at least in some markets. We would subsidise using the same money we are paying the EU. The difference is WE can choose what to subsidise or put another way what not to subsidise. EU continuing subsidises is no different to dumping. Why some people think we can compete with countries dumping agricultural products and not steel is beyond me.
When we had a free market in agriculture pre 1st world War and between the Wars it lead to to farming depression. The exceptions were dairy and a new farming industry , market gardening. All of this was a product of the transport revolution (both the depression in arable and rise of dairy and market gardening).
After the second world war it was decided to protect agricultural ie to be less dependent on imports. It was done by introducing tarrifs. The ministry of agricultural would go round the fields making an estimate of the coming years crop and a tariff would be set on that basis. Maybe the latter would be a good idea??

[Boyd]

Speaking to a farmer I know here in Lincs he says he wouldn't mind subsidies going as long as they're phased out over say 5 years. He thinks they'll just be fewer farmers farming more land. He currently farms 3000 acres, all arable and reckons he could double that within a few years if subsidies went.

Basically he expects the price of land to collapse (correct) and lots of smaller farmers to go out of business (correct) but a bit selfish?
I disagree with his belief that he would be able to compete as I have stated continued subsides in the EU is akin to dumping. He has no idea wherever the subsidies will rise. His expectation of cheap capital costs will offset subsidies is foolish or in my opinion greedy.
I have belief that for most people the more land they own the more powerful or superior they feel.....like owning a new jag although in the case a Hummer!!

[pete75]

Speaking to a farmer I know here in Lincs he says he wouldn't mind subsidies going as long as they're phased out over say 5 years. He thinks they'll just be fewer farmers farming more land. He currently farms 3000 acres, all arable and reckons he could double that within a few years if subsidies went.

Basically he expects the price of land to collapse (correct) and lots of smaller farmers to go out of business (correct) but a bit selfish?
I disagree with his belief that he would be able to compete as I have stated continued subsides in the EU is akin to dumping. He has no idea wherever the subsidies will rise. His expectation of cheap capital costs will offset subsidies is foolish or in my opinion greedy.
I have belief that for most people the more land they own the more powerful or superior they feel.....like owning a new jag although in the case a Hummer!!

Somehow I suspect he knows more about farming, impacts of subsidies, costs etc than you do. I'd take his word for it. He's certainly not foolish or the sort of person who wants to make himslef feel powerful or superior. DO you always make these sweeping assumptions about people you've never met.

[Paulatic]

Failing to subsidise farming means they won't be able to survive at least in some markets. We would subsidise using the same money we are paying the EU. The difference is WE can choose what to subsidise or put another way what not to subsidise. EU continuing subsidises is no different to dumping. Why some people think we can compete with countries dumping agricultural products and not steel is beyond me.
When we had a free market in agriculture pre 1st world War and between the Wars it lead to to farming depression. The exceptions were dairy and a new farming industry , market gardening. All of this was a product of the transport revolution (both the depression in arable and rise of dairy and market gardening).
After the second world war it was decided to protect agricultural ie to be less dependent on imports. It was done by introducing tarrifs. The ministry of agricultural would go round the fields making an estimate of the coming years crop and a tariff would be set on that basis. Maybe the latter would be a good idea??

I wasn't aware of this. I thought after the 2nd world war the Agricultural Act of 1947 was introduced. It initiated Guaranteed prices later becoming Deficiency Payments. The Guaranteed Pices were set annually by a group of producer representatives and farming union representatives, not including the workers union of course. They were set for eleven main farming products.
I think tariffs were seasonal to help Horticultural products.
I read the other day our big agrochemical companies are promoting Brexit as a chance to get rid of regulations in use of some chemicals so we can be inline with America and China. Wonderful examples of environmental consciousness no doubt

[Boyd]

Speaking to a farmer I know here in Lincs he says he wouldn't mind subsidies going as long as they're phased out over say 5 years. He thinks they'll just be fewer farmers farming more land. He currently farms 3000 acres, all arable and reckons he could double that within a few years if subsidies went.

Basically he expects the price of land to collapse (correct) and lots of smaller farmers to go out of business (correct) but a bit selfish?
I disagree with his belief that he would be able to compete as I have stated continued subsides in the EU is akin to dumping. He has no idea wherever the subsidies will rise. His expectation of cheap capital costs will offset subsidies is foolish or in my opinion greedy.
I have belief that for most people the more land they own the more powerful or superior they feel.....like owning a new jag although in the case a Hummer!!

Somehow I suspect he knows more about farming, impacts of subsidies, costs etc than you do. I'd take his word for it. He's certainly not foolish or the sort of person who wants to make himslef feel powerful or superior. DO you always make these sweeping assumptions about people you've never met.

He doesn't know more than me because he can't predict the future just like me.
Have you any idea just how many times the experts in there fields get it wrong? Your argument works this way...my mates an expert so you have no right to opinion...wrong.
It was meant to be sweeping statement like all statistics. I was not specifically talking about your mate. I would also suggest you have no idea how about the psychology behind his hope that his neighbours will be forced out of business so he can get there land cheap.

[Boyd]

"The Guaranteed Pices were set annually by a group of producer representatives and farming union representatives, "

[Boyd]

Sorry couldn't get my tablet to type.
You are suggesting that producers set prices without input from the goverment ? I would suggest a little unlikely.

[pete75]

Basically he expects the price of land to collapse (correct) and lots of smaller farmers to go out of business (correct) but a bit selfish?
I disagree with his belief that he would be able to compete as I have stated continued subsides in the EU is akin to dumping. He has no idea wherever the subsidies will rise. His expectation of cheap capital costs will offset subsidies is foolish or in my opinion greedy.
I have belief that for most people the more land they own the more powerful or superior they feel.....like owning a new jag although in the case a Hummer!!

Somehow I suspect he knows more about farming, impacts of subsidies, costs etc than you do. I'd take his word for it. He's certainly not foolish or the sort of person who wants to make himslef feel powerful or superior. DO you always make these sweeping assumptions about people you've never met.

He doesn't know more than me because he can't predict the future just like me.
Have you any idea just how many times the experts in there fields get it wrong? Your argument works this way...my mates an expert so you have no right to opinion...wrong.
It was meant to be sweeping statement like all statistics. I was not specifically talking about your mate. I would also suggest you have no idea how about the psychology behind his hope that his neighbours will be forced out of business so he can get there land cheap.

I suspect someone successfully working in a line of business likely has more idea about the future of his business than you do. Yes experts sometimes get things wrong but they're more likely to be correct than a non expert.
Land prices won't fall that much that it's cheap. It's £9 -10,000 an acre round here depending on grade. I doubt it'll go much below 7 if the subsidies go. Someone selling an unviable 500 acre farm ain't exactly gonna be in the poor house. Alternatively they can do what another friend with a 600 acre farm has done - get contractors in to farm the land and get a job.

[Boyd]

I like it your it your now predicating land prices.
Do you think some 500 acre farmers may have invested money into there farms? Including buying land?
You need to check land prices I have seen them go considerably higher than that.
I heard (could be *******) that Dyson paid £13,000 an acre for a vast estate.
Sometimes get it wrong? If you predict the future and get it right it's generally luck.
Again farmers WON'T be able to deal with what amounts to dumping (subsidies) by the EU. Are you sure you mate doesn't expect tariffs?

[PDQ Mobile]

We seem to have moved away from a basic premise - that agriculture is what puts food on the table.
There are children in this country that think milk comes out of a plastic bottle.
If any given govt (or Federal state!) chooses to subsidize agriculture they are to some degree putting cheaper food on the plates.

Now I for one am in favour of more expensive food prices because it makes more sense to do what I do, that is produce food!
But my educated guess is that many many people would not be in favour of that!

Ever bigger production units lead without doubt to lower prices. There are IMHO significant downsides to this process though. Mostly enviromental. But arguably too, animal welfare issues.
Small is beautiful but expensive.

[pete75]

I like it your it your now predicating land prices.
Do you think some 500 acre farmers may have invested money into there farms? Including buying land?
You need to check land prices I have seen them go considerably higher than that.
I heard (could be bolocks) that Dyson paid £13,000 an acre for a vast estate.
Sometimes get it wrong? If you predict the future and get it right it's generally luck.
Again farmers WON'T be able to deal with what amounts to dumping (subsidies) by the EU. Are you sure you mate doesn't expect tariffs?

Dyson is buying masses of farmland. Estates may go for for more if they include a lot of houses and particularly a georgian mansion type place.Some land - prime silt sells for very high prices . I was talking about average arable land.

[Vorpal]

I generally think that some farm subsidies are a good thing. Farmers are business people, and they will generally grow what makes them the most money, and they will do things that improve efficiency and profitability.

If we want farmers to grow certain things, or do certain things, we either need to provide incentive (subsidies), or legislate their activity in some way (like the legislation that protects hedgerows).

The problem, IMO, with EU subsidies is that I don't agree with the approach to farming that they subsidised. Whilst I doubt that we can get everyone to agree on things like that, at the very least, the system can now be designed to suit British farming, instead of European farming.