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

What is the source on my information.

I look around me, I talk to farmers, urban dwellers dont have a clue they just read the rubbish in the Guardian and take it as
gospel.
My brother has half his acreage in environmental crops, as I said the neighbouring estate put all theirs, everything looks cosy, it’s all nice and green but no food is being produced.

The environment activists have won the battle now consumers are going to pay the cost of lower production, just the same as climate change. Had you noticed supermarkets are selling “Wonky” veg, - they cant get enough of the top grade.

David49

What is the source on my information.

I look around me, I talk to farmers, urban dwellers dont have a clue they just read the rubbish in the Guardian and take it as
gospel.
My brother has half his acreage in environmental crops, as I said the neighbouring estate put all theirs, everything looks cosy, it’s all nice and green but no food is being produced.

The environment activists have won the battle now consumers are going to pay the cost of lower production, just the same as climate change. Had you noticed supermarkets are selling “Wonky” veg, - they cant get enough of the top grade.

Farmers are well aware of environmental issues and farming can be productive as well as environmentally friendly. Some farmers are advocating regenerative farming and claim these methods can be even more productive.

What is needed is encouragement, not government interference by Ministers who know little or nothing about food production.

Sago

Wyllow3

The O/P appears to have come out of a DM article today which when you read the detail you realise isnt at all what the O/P claims.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14344721/british-farmland-threat-net-zero-labour-plans.html

The 10% includes land already used for non food production use and the whole ranch of suggestions are for discussion not legislation.

The OP read this in the Telegraph not the DM.

I looked up the stats in the O/P to see which newspaper they were in and it gave both the DM and the DT.

Given that we can't access full Telegraph articles I gave a reference to the DM saying "it appeared that it had come out of.....

Perhaps a simple way around this is to give the source of statistical information in the O/P so confusions dont arise?

Allira

David49

What is the source on my information.

I look around me, I talk to farmers, urban dwellers dont have a clue they just read the rubbish in the Guardian and take it as
gospel.
My brother has half his acreage in environmental crops, as I said the neighbouring estate put all theirs, everything looks cosy, it’s all nice and green but no food is being produced.

The environment activists have won the battle now consumers are going to pay the cost of lower production, just the same as climate change. Had you noticed supermarkets are selling “Wonky” veg, - they cant get enough of the top grade.

Farmers are well aware of environmental issues and farming can be productive as well as environmentally friendly. Some farmers are advocating regenerative farming and claim these methods can be even more productive.

What is needed is encouragement, not government interference by Ministers who know little or nothing about food production.

Believe what you will, it hasn’t been proved that a living can be made out of organic or regenerative growing. Those that promote the dream are already wealthy, King Charles, Duchess of Devonshire, Lady Bamford, lots of others have tried and failed. The fact is that most organic produce is imported, that produced in the UK is very expensive and usually poor quality.

I didn't say organic, did I?

Regenerative.

Yes, I will believe some of the old methods are being rediscovered as if they are something new and they work.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

by the sound of it, not ousted.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.