A growing population in the UK but we have to lose 10% of farmland.

Sago

This is an interesting read.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/640f31988fa8f5560a0770ee/Peter_Patrick_Redacted.pdf

I notice the document was March 2023, what has happened to Pelham Farm? I'm not science wise adept enough to know whether what he says is true or not.

The planning application referred to in your link was refused, as was an appeal against the refusal. Emphasis was given to environmental harm. I suspect that with the government’s proposed planning reforms the result today would be different.

No dairy cows are housed 365 days - FACT

Of course. For their own comfort and wellbeing they are housed indoors in winter. How would they feed if the ground is frozen solid or covered in snow, and how would they fare in storms such as we've just had here?

foxie48 Have you ever seen cows being let out in early spring after spending inclement months inside? Like kids being let out of school at the end of term!

This is an interesting read.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/640f31988fa8f5560a0770ee/Peter_Patrick_Redacted.pdf

In terms of "joined up thinking" discussed above, Maizie wrote

"I suspect that should there be any ‘joined up thinking’ involved it would lay the government open to accusations of trying to implement a communist planned economy. "

This would get in the way of whats been discussed before as a possibly valuable move, which is to have a food policy that plans protection of the most productive areas so we don't drop our food production substantially. But that would mean some kind of zoning and going up against the big landowners.

foxie48

The life of the average dairy cow is horrible these days, they are treated as machines and are housed 365 days a year, but it produces cheap milk. Anyone who has tasted milk from grass fed cows bred for the quality of their milk rather than the quantity will appreciate the difference.
Land bought for investment and IHT benefits will follow the money. If it produces a better income producing energy either by growing crops for anaerobic digesters or solar panels then that's what will happen but it should be using the most unproductive land not good arable land. The only people showing a good return on agricultural land are the big landowners who buy land for reasons other than to farm it.

No dairy cows are housed 365 days - FACT

All cows are outdoor for at least part of the year, most have access to grazing for 180 days - all summer, these days they would be having supplementary feed as well as grazing.

Foxie you are talking rubbish, you need to visit a modern dairy farm with an open mind and see just how well it’s done.

Farms bought for investment are arable farms, mostly they are actually managed by family farms that that expanded to very large acreages not “company farms”. Locally there are 3 that are probably over 5000 acres each, however now many investors are not bothering with food production which pays very little, they can make just as much planting bird and butterfly food.

The few “company farms” are shrinking because the cost of agents, managers and hourly paid workers reduces any profit to zero. The family run unit will have 2 or 3 generations as partners, their wives are often working partners too, some driving tractors or tending livestock, some making sense of all the red tape that has to coped with these days.

The life of the average dairy cow is horrible these days, they are treated as machines and are housed 365 days a year, but it produces cheap milk. Anyone who has tasted milk from grass fed cows bred for the quality of their milk rather than the quantity will appreciate the difference.
Land bought for investment and IHT benefits will follow the money. If it produces a better income producing energy either by growing crops for anaerobic digesters or solar panels then that's what will happen but it should be using the most unproductive land not good arable land. The only people showing a good return on agricultural land are the big landowners who buy land for reasons other than to farm it.

escaped

Barleyfields

Which foodstuffs do you consider should be ‘better quality’, MOnica? The ‘better quality’ I would like to see is not in terms of human consumption but of animals’ lives. We have cheap eggs from battery hens and cheap meat from animals which are intensively farmed.

On the animal front, I agree that we should be doing more to improve animals' lives because this will improve the quality of the end product.
I know a vet who visits a dairy farm here, and in order to increase milk production, the cows have gone from being milked three times a day to being milked four times. The milk is poorer quality, and the poor cows are getting emaciated.

The only time cows would be milked 4 times a day is if the farm is using a robot milker when cows visit when they want to be milked. An identity tag will prevent too many visits and make sure that she is milked at least twice a day, it will also alarm a drop in yield and oestrus, even I am amazed at the technology in dairy these days.

To be productive cows need to be in a high state of health, vet visits and nutritionists are a key part of that, nutrition along with selective breeding determines milk quality, but that is only important in terms of the contract the farmer has with his dairy.

For the consumer the big market is semi skimmed milk, the extra butterfat is then sold as cream, so the quality the cows are producing has no importance to the consumer.

Nandalot

Also there is no joined up thinking it seems to me. these proposals originated from a variety of companies. It really needs an overview to decide how much space is needed in each area and then the best place to site it rather than companies taking a punt on getting approval in a load of random places.

I suspect that should there be any ‘joined up thinking’ involved it would lay the government open to accusations of trying to implement a communist planned economy.

We don’t have any central controls on the use of farmland and land prices are very high. So if a company or wealthy individual wants to buy agricultural land and take it out of production because they can make more profit from a solar farm they are more or less free to do so. In theory they may be subject to planning restraints, but with a government whose declared intention is to do away with as much planning restrictions as possible, and in thrall to GDP growth, these massive developments look set to go ahead.

Of course, there is the possibility of integrating solar panels with some agriculture, but would that be profitable for the companies and individuals involved?

Barleyfields

Which foodstuffs do you consider should be ‘better quality’, MOnica? The ‘better quality’ I would like to see is not in terms of human consumption but of animals’ lives. We have cheap eggs from battery hens and cheap meat from animals which are intensively farmed.

On the animal front, I agree that we should be doing more to improve animals' lives because this will improve the quality of the end product.
I know a vet who visits a dairy farm here, and in order to increase milk production, the cows have gone from being milked three times a day to being milked four times. The milk is poorer quality, and the poor cows are getting emaciated.

The problem is that housing is too expensive

No it isn’t, if it was too expensive houses wouldn’t sell, they would stand empty, rents would fall.

The problem is that the population wants better housing than they can afford, it’s a good vote catcher and all polititians use it

by the sound of it, not ousted.

Nandalot

Also there is no joined up thinking it seems to me. these proposals originated from a variety of companies. It really needs an overview to decide how much space is needed in each area and then the best place to site it rather than companies taking a punt on getting approval in a load of random places.

I agree, sounds like there is "big company landowners" involved in cereal areas - more overall proper planning needed by the ousted of it and even some sort of "zoning".

Also there is no joined up thinking it seems to me. these proposals originated from a variety of companies. It really needs an overview to decide how much space is needed in each area and then the best place to site it rather than companies taking a punt on getting approval in a load of random places.

I am not sure. The proposed one nearest us is located on fields that were up for sale a little while ago so I don’t know if they were purchased deliberately for that reason. I know farmers here say they can make more money from leasing to the solar companies than from farming. It is an interesting question, Wyllow3, as James Dyson has bought up hundred of acres near us.

So whose land is being used for these solar panels, big landowners? Small farmers?

Going back to solar farms and agricultural land which was the subject of the thread, the amount land for solar farms applications that have been approved and those that have been proposed in Lincolnshire is absolutely huge. I am a supporter of alternative energy and indeed, solar power, but it does seem irresponsible to use prime farmland for this. There are two proposed near us. The one a couple of fields away from us (which we can’t see because of the topography) will take 2,400 acres of prime land. About three miles away from us there is a proposal for another, I think even larger. Again good land.
I had a shock when I saw a map that showed all the proposed sites in Lincolnshire…there were dozens. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find it to share but I shall keep looking.

foxie48

I think Riverford, est 1987 and Abel and Cole, est 1988 have demonstrated that people can make a long term success out of organic food. I buy organic meat from two different local producers, It's not cheap but it is high quality and supports rarer breeds which are not used for commercial purposes (Long horn, dexter, Tamworth and Gloucester old spot). My local farm shop also sells locally produced organic fruit and veg. I know both of the farmers I buy meat from and although small producers they enjoy what they do, know most of their customers and are able to make a better living than they would by producing meat for the supermarkets. The Dexters are a very interesting breed as they are used locally to roam free on the huge common near to where I live and they do an excellent job of conservation.

Unfortunately Abel and Cole made a £1.5 million pound loss last year.

They are owned by William Jackson food group so can take the hit.

There’s no mystery about growing food without chemicals, you need an extensive rotation and lots of animals to produce the organic manure for fertility. Then after 3 yrs building fertility you can grow a crop modest crop of wheat to make bread.

What you can’t do is grow enough to feed the population we have now either on a national or global level, don’t be.ieve anyone who promotes biodynamic or organic as a way of feeding the population it’s not going to happen.

M0nica

Food in this country is dirt cheap. In 1950 we spent 30% of our income on food, in 1970 about 20%, it is now around 10%

Yet still we want cheap food to get even cheaper. Look at the results, manufacturers are chasing prices down finding ways to reduce the quality and quantity of ingredients. We consume more and more UPF foods, which for many and complex reasons, not calories alone , are driving up obesity and ill health.

What we need is better quality food, which means more expensive food. And before people comeon rabbiting on about the poor. Poverty is an entirely separate issue to be addressed by government through the minimum wage, benefits, and taxation system, so if it costs more to provide people in this country with better food, which is better for their health, then there will be less demand on the NHS for obesity and related health problems and the govenment can manipulate incomes so those most in need are not disadvantaged by eating better.

Well said, M0nica
Yes as a proportion of income, the UK's spending on food is way down the list worldwide.

The problem here is that housing is relatively expensive.

Which foodstuffs do you consider should be ‘better quality’, MOnica? The ‘better quality’ I would like to see is not in terms of human consumption but of animals’ lives. We have cheap eggs from battery hens and cheap meat from animals which are intensively farmed.

Food in this country is dirt cheap. In 1950 we spent 30% of our income on food, in 1970 about 20%, it is now around 10%

Yet still we want cheap food to get even cheaper. Look at the results, manufacturers are chasing prices down finding ways to reduce the quality and quantity of ingredients. We consume more and more UPF foods, which for many and complex reasons, not calories alone , are driving up obesity and ill health.

What we need is better quality food, which means more expensive food. And before people comeon rabbiting on about the poor. Poverty is an entirely separate issue to be addressed by government through the minimum wage, benefits, and taxation system, so if it costs more to provide people in this country with better food, which is better for their health, then there will be less demand on the NHS for obesity and related health problems and the govenment can manipulate incomes so those most in need are not disadvantaged by eating better.

My post was in reply to David 49 who seemed to think organic can't be made to pay. It can.

Yes, organic can be a success if there are enough people as customers who can buy food that “is not cheap”, like a fashion brand can be a success because it caters for the wealthier minority.

But it doesn’t solve the problem of a large population who are not in that position.

I think Riverford, est 1987 and Abel and Cole, est 1988 have demonstrated that people can make a long term success out of organic food. I buy organic meat from two different local producers, It's not cheap but it is high quality and supports rarer breeds which are not used for commercial purposes (Long horn, dexter, Tamworth and Gloucester old spot). My local farm shop also sells locally produced organic fruit and veg. I know both of the farmers I buy meat from and although small producers they enjoy what they do, know most of their customers and are able to make a better living than they would by producing meat for the supermarkets. The Dexters are a very interesting breed as they are used locally to roam free on the huge common near to where I live and they do an excellent job of conservation.