O/T Farmers

[KerrAvon]

�� EU CONTINUES WAR ON FARMERS | The European Parliament has dealt another blow to European rural areas and agriculture by passing the highly controversial ‘nature restoration law’ - despite the ongoing farmers’ protests.����

The plan to “restore” at least 30% of European habitats in “poor condition” by 2030, 60% by 2040, and 90% by 2050” is just a pretext to get rid of European farmers once and for all, break our economies and take further control over our lives under the “green” pretext.

Considering the pressure European farmers are already under, this law might very well be the straw that breaks the camels back.

-

I don’t know what ‘poor condition’ is. But if it’s farming land turning back to nature then it sounds idealistic.

If it is that then where’s the food coming from if they don’t have the land to grow it?

Ok – let’s take the hyperbole out of this. It will upset Brin and Grist, but agricultural economics is something that I know a bit about (although I am very out of date).

In a nutshell, the EU use to provide subsidies for production. That resulted in farmers in the EU going ‘all out’ and created the likes of ‘butter mountains’ and ‘wine lakes’ – excess production that would have crashed the price if released onto the open market. The subsidy regime was then switched to include an element of production management in which famers were paid for ‘set aside’ - receiving payments to take some of their land out of production.

I’ve not looked at the EU proposals, but have had a very quick and dirty look at the proposals that are currently upsetting some Welsh farmers and they appear to be giving land management a higher profile.

One of the consequences of the EU push for production in the past was farmers ripping out hedgerows to allow for ever bigger fields of genetically homogenous crops that could be easily serviced by large agricultural machinery. The current proposals go some way to reversing that trend by -in a sense - paying farmers to put hedgerows back as opposed to grubbing them out.

Quite apart from the ecological and aesthetic benefits of land management, it can make sense from a farming point of view. The ‘big field’ approach that was driven by the subsidy arrangements of the past increases the risk of top soil being blown and washed away. Trees and hedgerows also provide habitat for predators that can reduce the level of pests in crops.

Like most things, there is a risk of the policy going too far and a one size fits all approach wouldn’t work (a hill farmer may not be able to grow trees). The notion that ‘they’ are trying to starve ‘we the people’ because farmers won't have land to grow food on is a bit silly though.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

😆

The oracle has spoken

[frogmiller]

Ok – let’s take the hyperbole out of this. It will upset Brin and Grist, but agricultural economics is something that I know a bit about (although I am very out of date).

In a nutshell, the EU use to provide subsidies for production. That resulted in farmers in the EU going ‘all out’ and created the likes of ‘butter mountains’ and ‘wine lakes’ – excess production that would have crashed the price if released onto the open market. The subsidy regime was then switched to include an element of production management in which famers were paid for ‘set aside’ - receiving payments to take some of their land out of production.

I’ve not looked at the EU proposals, but have had a very quick and dirty look at the proposals that are currently upsetting some Welsh farmers and they appear to be giving land management a higher profile.

One of the consequences of the EU push for production in the past was farmers ripping out hedgerows to allow for ever bigger fields of genetically homogenous crops that could be easily serviced by large agricultural machinery. The current proposals go some way to reversing that trend by -in a sense - paying farmers to put hedgerows back as opposed to grubbing them out.

Quite apart from the ecological and aesthetic benefits of land management, it can make sense from a farming point of view. The ‘big field’ approach that was driven by the subsidy arrangements of the past increases the risk of top soil being blown and washed away. Trees and hedgerows also provide habitat for predators that can reduce the level of pests in crops.

Like most things, there is a risk of the policy going too far and a one size fits all approach wouldn’t work (a hill farmer may not be able to grow trees). The notion that ‘they’ are trying to starve ‘we the people’ because farmers won't have land to grow food on is a bit silly though.

Talking to neighbours in the farming community they say this.

Subsidies are paid every 3 years and often late causing extra interest payments on money taken out as loans to cover the shortfall.

They have to prove that they are following the code of conduct set out by the EU.

The removal of hedgerows has been illegal for year but cutting them down to the ground hasn't been so they've done that here until the hedges have died.

The pesticides and fertilisers can only be used to the norms set out by the EU.

The farmers have to follow a stricked protocol to satisfy the EU.

If you asked any farmer if the banking debt was removed then they would be able to operate without subsidies.

In Wales I saw that they want the Farmers to put 10% into woodland which reduces its value with no compensation.

[frogmiller]

Be careful you don't get a visit from the chicken police. The covenants on a place we are looking at over there for our daughter specify no pigeons, pigs or poultry.

There is a bird ban in France because of bird flu with many farmers unable to purchace the young foul.

[frogmiller]

In my garden, I have two chickens and a dog.
In France that would make me able to claim subsidies as a farmer.
Nice work if you can get it.

You would have to get permission for the chicken because of bird flu

[frogmiller]

Aivery not cage, jeez I could have claimed as a french poultry farmer.
With my two chickens a a dog, I could have claimed millions like frog

If you farmed frogs you could get a grant. Nothing for a dog though and nothing for 2 chickens. The rules aren't set in france but in the EU and there is a minimum number of anymals you can keep before any subsidies are given. The farmers often booster their subsidy by keeping horses. You're allowed 4. The bigger the animal the bigger the subsidy. My mate has a goats cheese farm and he gets a massive 15€ per goat but they also have horses and get a lot more for those.

[Brin]

Ok – let’s take the hyperbole out of this. It will upset Brin and Grist, but agricultural economics is something that I know a bit about (although I am very out of date).

In a nutshell, the EU use to provide subsidies for production. That resulted in farmers in the EU going ‘all out’ and created the likes of ‘butter mountains’ and ‘wine lakes’ – excess production that would have crashed the price if released onto the open market. The subsidy regime was then switched to include an element of production management in which famers were paid for ‘set aside’ - receiving payments to take some of their land out of production.

I’ve not looked at the EU proposals, but have had a very quick and dirty look at the proposals that are currently upsetting some Welsh farmers and they appear to be giving land management a higher profile.

One of the consequences of the EU push for production in the past was farmers ripping out hedgerows to allow for ever bigger fields of genetically homogenous crops that could be easily serviced by large agricultural machinery. The current proposals go some way to reversing that trend by -in a sense - paying farmers to put hedgerows back as opposed to grubbing them out.

Quite apart from the ecological and aesthetic benefits of land management, it can make sense from a farming point of view. The ‘big field’ approach that was driven by the subsidy arrangements of the past increases the risk of top soil being blown and washed away. Trees and hedgerows also provide habitat for predators that can reduce the level of pests in crops.

Like most things, there is a risk of the policy going too far and a one size fits all approach wouldn’t work (a hill farmer may not be able to grow trees). The notion that ‘they’ are trying to starve ‘we the people’ because farmers won't have land to grow food on is a bit silly though.

That's another stupid post that you seem to want to involve me in, what a silly man you are. ??????

[Brin]

��

The oracle has spoken

Grist, I can't keep up with him. One minute he'a legal eagle then next he's a Doctor. Now, he's saying, ''but agricultural economics is something that I know a bit about'' this person should be leading the United Nations and the World on everything!

NB. Almost forgot, he's also an expert on all things farming. Does this man not know anything?

[frogmiller]

Some would say that here’s the alternative to beef, lamb and pork. 😂

https://x.com/bgatesisapyscho/status...lcvxGrPcIOixGQ

[frogmiller]

Polish farmers are taking a battering from the police dressed in riot gear.

It wouldn’t be anyone previously involved with the EU hierarchy clamping down on them would it?

https://x.com/petersweden7/status/17...lcvxGrPcIOixGQ