Australian Beef - A huge threat to U.K. farmers

We know all about James Dyson, believe me!

And he’s not the only big business buying up farming land for investment (PersimmonHomes), personal tax havens and other enterprises that have nothing to do with long term farming.

This started a long time ago though when farms were given financial aid under EU Agricultural policy and owners of large holdings could scoop both rebates and tax advantages.

Things must change now and the Sustainable Grants should help the smaller farmer.

Peasblossom

No, I think you misread Deeda, There will need to be big changes in agricultural over in the future.

The grant is to persuade older farmers to retire for two reasons.

Firstly EU subsidies meant older farmers could sit on largely unproductive land and use the subsidies as a kind of pension rather than work for maximum profit in order to keep a family and maintain a business.

Secondly it’s thought, possibly erroneously, that older farmers are less amenable to change, particularly to greener policies, since most of them began farming in times where farming relied heavily on chemicals.

I certainly saw farming change dramatically in the sixties and again when we joined the EU. M hopeful we can change again to a greener, kinder way of farming.

But it’s definitely not a winding down of business. Quite the reverse!

Yes, I believe this is happening- but certainly not to satisfy your dream (and mine) of a greener, kinder way of farming. They want to destroy high quality traditional farming- to replace with those planned farms, including cow towers, where animals will never see the sun or green fields.

UK’s richest man Sir James Dyson has big plans for this Lincolnshire farm - this ...

Tthe best way to reduce meat consumption, which I think we are all agreed is a good thing, is to increase the price of it, making it financially viable for UK farmers to supply the market and make a decent living as well.

That means no trade agreements with countries with low welfare standards. There were pictures in the papers today, showing in Australia, those dreadful de-animalising breeding lots that we are accustomed to seeing from America. No space, no grass and fed soya and rapeseed into hoppers.

Food that is not good for cattle and causes ill health and regular dosing with antibiotics, therapeutically and to hasten growth. How anyone could want to eat meat raised that way defeats me. I would rather do without meat raised that way

The only consolation is that the cows probably see slaughter, if they were capable of the thought, as a sweet relief from a life of misery.

Having a bit of a ramble and hopefully some of it makes sense.

Yes, your post does make sense, JumblyGran

Simon Reeve also produced a series of programmes about Europe; one particularly shocking one showed the production of vegetables and salads in acres and acres of polytunnels in Spain - harvested by slave labour from Africa, destined for the UK.
The redundant plastic from these polytunnels was just left to degrade and pollute the earth in deep layers.

As for the fishing industry - children are being advised in schools not to eat fish as they will be eating plastic.

Peasblossom

Yes, I probably should have said “because” rather than “if’.

I know I cherish a bit of a pipe dream. But I do think the Susaiable Initiative and it’s grants are a move in the right direction, for small farmers at least.

The conglomerates won’t change how they work until things become unprofitable. But maybe when things become unprofitable the vast, short-term-profits conglomerates will become a thing of the past.

We all need a dream as well as a practical side. ?

If food is not produced in the U.K., it will be produced elsewhere by intensive methods, commercial producers in every country do so by the most economic methods available to them. In most countries with very little regulation of environment, welfare or traceability.

I’m not sure where the conglomerates you write about fit in, production is mostly done by farmers and growers, many small businesses, that sell to the large conglomerates, the processors, traders and retailers. The reality these days is that the retailers contract with a processor, who in turn buys from the farmer, in most cases it’s the retailer that sets the price, they make the most profit.

"It’s not easy, farming,” said Huntley. “But we’ve been here a long time, made a living, and want to pass it on to the next generation.”
The government’s post-Brexit trade negotiations come as it is deciding its domestic farming policy, including what subsidies will replace the EU’s common agricultural policy.
Huntley worries about the global competition his son Tom could face in years to come. He warns that if domestic producers are undermined by the Brexit Government.'

He's right - farming is not easy. What is omitted, however, is that so many UK farmers went under as a result of our membership of the EU.

Also omitted is the fact that large supermarket chains have pushed so many farmers to the limits by the pressure they have put on growers to produce 'perfect' goods and also to keep down prices. Many farmers have gone under due to this, way before Brexit.

Farming is a tough life both here and in other countries and farmers everywhere deserve better from their governments, from the supermarket chains and from the general public.

Peasblossom

Quite a lot of pasture has been rented out to horse owners. It brings in a steady income without labour. It still gives that rural look that weekend city dwellers love?

Some crops are easier on labour than others and only need maximum tending for a few weeks a year. Some are just left to reseed the fields. It’s there if you know what you’re looking for, though maybe not to the immediate eye.

It still gives that rural look that weekend city dwellers love ?
But still expect the shops to be stocked with their foods of choice!

Peasblossom

Yes, I probably should have said “because” rather than “if’.

I know I cherish a bit of a pipe dream. But I do think the Susaiable Initiative and it’s grants are a move in the right direction, for small farmers at least.

The conglomerates won’t change how they work until things become unprofitable. But maybe when things become unprofitable the vast, short-term-profits conglomerates will become a thing of the past.

We all need a dream as well as a practical side. ?

I wasn't arguing with you. I agree. The whole world is never going to return to a life of subsistence farming. One way or the other, farmers have to produce more than they or their families and communities need. Farming has to be integrated into the needs of current societies. It's a hugely complex issue.

Even the awful Isabel Oakeshott is very concerned. Now I have never ever agreed with her about anything at all, but this time, she is spot on.

I wonder what her fancy man thinks of it all?

“The grant is to persuade older farmers to retire for two reasons.”
Although the older generation nominally are the head of the business, in a great many cases it’s the younger generation that actually run the business. So the average age of farmers is totally misleading, those with no family to carry on, often already lease the land to neighbours.

The new payment scheme revolves around environmental payments where land is taken out of production, some for 2 yrs, some longer periods, the rules are not yet set but the aim is to be less complex - we will see.

Sustainable

Obviously

Yes, I probably should have said “because” rather than “if’.

I know I cherish a bit of a pipe dream. But I do think the Susaiable Initiative and it’s grants are a move in the right direction, for small farmers at least.

The conglomerates won’t change how they work until things become unprofitable. But maybe when things become unprofitable the vast, short-term-profits conglomerates will become a thing of the past.

We all need a dream as well as a practical side. ?

GrannyGravy13

I have already posted this but I will do so again in the hope of putting some perspective on the situation.

I have googled several sites and the consensus seems to be that we (U.K.) currently import between 0.5-1.0% of our meat from Australia, this deal (currently not agreed or signed) would/could triple this amount to between 1.5-3.0% .

Making a mountain out of a molehill?

I think one of the biggest problems with this government - and some of its supporters - is a lack of honesty.

You are right this is a small area - rather as fishing was. But both the fishing and farming communities had been promised that things would be better for them and it appears, to them and others, that this is not the case.

The government does not want this agreement with Australia for the sake of the UK. It wants to prove that the CPTPP would do well in having an agreement with us and to do that Australia must do well out of us first.

So why aren't they honest about this? This was their intention from the start but I don't remember discussions on here, where those wanting to leave the EU put over the plusses of "giving our country" to the CPTPP. I just remember all those people wanting "their country back" - as if it wasn't everyone's country. We were lied to and manipulated to where we are now.

Will we be better for giving some of our sovereignty to the CPTPP? The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is a market of around 500 million people. This includes Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Now I know that "Australian" is now an adjective for "must have" as in the "Australian" points system (usually said by those who know little about it) but what about the influence on what we chose to do by some of those other countries. And what about any sort of climate change message as we ship backwards and forwards over these distances. Were we asked to vote on "giving our country to the CPTPP" - not once as far as I remember.

Interesting post Peasblosson and I agree wholeheartedly with the principles.

I think there are two significant words: "if" and "we".

"If" is important because I don't know if everybody really does bother that mush about sustainability and animal welfare.

"We" is important because food production and consumption and all the underlying politics have to be a collective responsibility.

If we want a greener, more sustainable farming industry then we have to farm in harmony with our land and climate. We can’t produce it all and we can’t produce it cheaply without resorting to intensive farming.

Other countries with more land and a different climate can produce some food cheaply, even with transport costs.

If we want cheap meat it has to be sourced from somewhere. We can’t produce it and pursue a sustainable agenda. We don’t have the means.

My preference is for sustainable, ecologically sound farming here.
I’d like to see our eating habits brought to a more ecologically friendly pattern too that supports sustainable farming. But that’s a whole other matter.

“Winding down” in the sense of a move from intensive, specialised farming ; as part of the Sustainable Farming Initiative.

Personally I would rejoice in a move to more organic, sustainable farming, rather than slating it.

I do hope you can work out a way of prospering in your farming. I guess as I live in a country that hasn’t had the advantages of a huge trading block right next door I see things a bit differently and maybe more globally. One thing to consider with shipping is that a ship upon the ocean is actually relatively sustainable compared to trucking or airfreight.

Kali2

Figures given by Emily Maitliss on Newsnight last night. Predictions of benefits of Deal with Australia.

7% for us, and 83% for them. Not very balanced- what do you think?

just to make it clear.

So am I growstuff - really. However does not seem probable at the moment due to GFA and Irish border. But yes.

Quite a lot of pasture has been rented out to horse owners. It brings in a steady income without labour. It still gives that rural look that weekend city dwellers love?

Some crops are easier on labour than others and only need maximum tending for a few weeks a year. Some are just left to reseed the fields. It’s there if you know what you’re looking for, though maybe not to the immediate eye.

Peasblossom The words "winding down" were definitely used. The suggestion being that we are all going to be so happy with our imported meat by then - a bit like all our happy British fish swimming around.

I have already posted this but I will do so again in the hope of putting some perspective on the situation.

I have googled several sites and the consensus seems to be that we (U.K.) currently import between 0.5-1.0% of our meat from Australia, this deal (currently not agreed or signed) would/could triple this amount to between 1.5-3.0% .

Making a mountain out of a molehill?

I'm wondering where all that unproductive land is/was. I've lived in a rural area for the past 30 years and I can't say that I've seen any. Apart from set-aside. Which was phased out years ago.

I really don't understand why Brexit supporters are cheering this on when it is throwing UK farmers under the (Brexit) bus.

No, I think you misread Deeda, There will need to be big changes in agricultural over in the future.

The grant is to persuade older farmers to retire for two reasons.

Firstly EU subsidies meant older farmers could sit on largely unproductive land and use the subsidies as a kind of pension rather than work for maximum profit in order to keep a family and maintain a business.

Secondly it’s thought, possibly erroneously, that older farmers are less amenable to change, particularly to greener policies, since most of them began farming in times where farming relied heavily on chemicals.

I certainly saw farming change dramatically in the sixties and again when we joined the EU. M hopeful we can change again to a greener, kinder way of farming.

But it’s definitely not a winding down of business. Quite the reverse!

Haven't ploughed through all 7 pages so I don't know if it's been brought up but I have read that the government intend to have farmers "winding down" their business over the next 10 to 15 years while the amount of imported meat grows. They will also be offered a grant to encourage them to retire. How this supports British agriculture is unclear!

And why are we importing meat from thousands of miles away instead of growing it here? What ever happened to worrying about carbon footprints?