The CAP reforms announced by Mr. Fischler and confirmed in Brussels today, assume that the farmer is getting too much for his produce. The report on the tele this evening, gave the usual figures that the CAP costs the average household £10 per week, and that if what the farmer receives is reduced, will lower the price of food to the consumer. Farmers know that this assumption is untrue. The farmgate price for most of our produce has fallen well below the price we received 20 years ago, but the end price has risen. I noticed that bread rose in price last autumn when milling wheat roseto about £95/tonne, but has not gone down since the price fell to £70. We are being taken for suckers again, even by the NFU who apparently agree with most of the reforms. They should be publishing what we really are paid and comparing that with the end price. The NFU has failed us, so our only hope is that the French government vetos the plans.

How much of this £10.00 is spent on administration or do we get the whole tenner?

From what I have heard about the proposed CAP reform, with Margaret Beckett stating its aim of commodities at world market prices, in her view leading to lower food prices to the consumer, I think that many farmers will set aside their whole farms, because they will be paid even if they produce nothing, incurring little expense to manage the countryside. Other farmers will be forced out of business, leading to a world shortage of food.

I find your arguments a little confusing. You argue that these reforms will lead to a reduction in food production, yet you imply this is a bad thing ? Surely farmers want to see prices rise ? From what I understand of these proposals (from the summary posted on FWI) I view these proposals as a dose of nasty medicine necessary to prevent death in the near to medium term. World markets are over supplied to the extent that there is downward pressure on prices. At the moment farmers can't make money. Indeed, without subsidy, farmers are losing hand over fist. The most important element of this plan is that we will be free to produce what is most profitable in the market place as opposed to what is most efficiently supported by subsidy. Farmers will stop producing what is unprofitable. While other alternatives may include doing nothing, it will also become easier for new products to gain a foothold as they won't have to compete with the subsidy cheque. The result should be reduction in production of subsidised commodities, and prices should rise to the point where it is profitable to produce. The fly in the ointment is the US. At least the EU will have a lever to belabour the US over their farm subsidies and will, under WTO rules, be able to tax US produce. IMHO we definitely want this move to decouple subsidies from production. Reduction in subsidy will also probably benefit us in the long term. At the moment we are at the whim of the politicians. 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'. Less subsidy gives us each more individual freedom. I would welcome that. I am trapped into a combinable crop 'monoculture'. While I resent the bad effects on the environment, the worst effects are on the labour demand. We have a ridiculous peak at harvest which is, probably literally, killing us all. Certainly the effects on family life and the willingness of young people to enter the industry are devastating. Yeah, there are things I think are wrong with the proposals. The labour suggestions favour bigger units. I think labour should be supported on a more equitable basis. If a 1000 hectare cereal farm gets more subsidy for two workers, then 500 hectares should get more subsidy for one. Ultimately you need allowances for mountain versus fenland etc. Perhaps it should be % gross output spent on labour. Lets think ahead, where do we want to be in 20 years ? Retired with a nice pension, watching the boy making a fine job of the family farm ? or sold up, taxed to death, nice house, modest savings and wondering whether the kids in the rat race hundreds of miles away will be able to look after you when you need it ? And if you are not an owner occupier ??

Publishing the actual price we recieve as compared with that charged by the supermarkets would be an absolutely excellent idea, particularly if it were done on a regular basis in the Sun or the Mirror. I have been selling self pick strawberries at a special price of 41p/lb for three weeks and have been staggered at the huge number of customers who sought me out to tell me exactly how their supermarket had been stinging them for and the realisation that we that Farmers are not the ones who are conning the public. Maybe, just maybe we could persuade NFU HQ Publicity dept. to take up your idea. I will phone HQ and see if they will respond, it would of course help if we all contacted our County Delegates with this suggestion. It would create the kind of indignant news item that popular consumer programmes might find very good for their ratings, whilst at the same time getting our friends, the great British public back on our side for a change. We are often being told by the good and the great at NFU HQ., that we must have the publics interests at heart in the overall scheme of things, well ok lets tell the Taxpayer just why their food is so expensive, and just who are the villains of this scenario, that way they will not be so hostile to the subsidies we recieve. best regards. Dick Lindley.

Why not contact the Sun and the Mirror direct and tell them you are doing it because the NFU HQ appears not to care about the future of its members

Its not only supermarkets who are ripping off the consumer. 3 weeks ago I saw plain, ordinary milk in a plastic carton for sale in a M25 service station at 78p.per pint.

Hold it , right there, Mike. Without our new Farm Bill in the U.S....I could take you to hundreds of small communities that will literally starve to death. The only Saving Grace is the Farm Bill of 2002. Our farmer's average age is 58 years old. What's yours? What is apparent is this: our governments...both yours and mine continually screw around with new policies that cannot be adjusted to in a heartbeat. As I understand it now...a little better, thanks to some really nice people on this website....CAP is figured into gross income and taxed on the same basis as the gross is in the U.K. So you guys are getting taxed twice on your own efforts. So are we, here, with our deficiency payments and disaster payments. Maybe, we can all right off some insurance premiums...but it gets to be a paper game....to protect one's own income....bottom line. That's not what farming is all about, my friend. Most people I know would be quite happy to get government out of their business. Sadly, that's not being done...in fact, it's accelerating. We're not Free anymore. When you realize that, then, you might begin to make some sense out of this whole mess. Burkie in Kansas P.S. If anyone can provide some real, hard, facts...regarding taxation levels in the U.K. on one's Gross Incomes...then please send them to "brkhldr@ikansas.com"

Just in case you get fed up with my comments on subsidies - Taxation follows :-) Regarding your subsidies : Oh aye, farmers need subsidy at the moment to survive. Why ? We are producing commodities which are essential. Why has the price been driven down ? The answer is the subsidy system. We have been offered bribes to produce, reducing the cost to the middleman. In turn they have become more powerful and now that there is plenty around they can play farmers off against each other and gradually screw the price down. Subsidies have become another part of the competitive market. The EU subsidises production, so the US has to rack up its subsidies to keep it's folk in business. That means these farmers can keep on producing at ever more ridiculous prices. Whoopee :-( The Mid Term Review proposes that subsidy will be paid to the unit, rahter than for production. The unit may well find that it is more profitable to produce nowt than wheat (in the short term). Hopefully, this will bring the beginning of an improvement in prices. If my hopes are dashed - well I'm damned sure we won't be any worse off. The other important factor about the MTR is that we will continue to receive subsidies which will help to keep the rural structure going. The long term will see subsidies reduced. Frankly I can't see any other possibility - one way or the other the urban majority in UK and EU are going to say "no". I think a complete shift in the rational for subsidies away from production, plus continued subsidy (even of declining) give farmers the best chance to adapt. As I understand MTR that is the basis of what we have been offered. The Commission no doubt have set out their stall with a view to having to negotiate against intransigent opposition - not quite the same as saying "the French". I see signs of this in the specifics. For instance, the cap on payments. I think this has been cynically incorporated as a target for the UK to shoot at. The UK government will shoot, the Commission already plans to say "OK, we'll drop that". The Commission has planned a victory for the UK government to persuade UK farmers. Makes me think of Oriental systems - nobody can lose face. My hope is that we will end up with complete decoupling, and that the subsidy levels for transition will be better than what is proposed. My expectation is that the final agreement will allow national governments to provide more, the UK _won't_, almost all the others will, with the French leading the charge. I can't bear to think what will happen if we don't get decoupling. Taxation : The UK, and especially this Chancellor, has a system for making things complicated. This is probably because a high proportion of our politicians come from the likes of accountancy and legal practice. They think like that - or are they providing fat fees for their colleagues ? The amount you pay depends on a million factors. What is your business structure ? What is the level of nett income ? What personal allowances can you claim ? (if not a limited company). Gross income (before expenditure) is irrelevant in these calculations. As an example, my business is a limited company - relatively unusual in the UK. The tax rate on the first major slice of income is 10%. However that slice is banded. The lowest band is taxed at 0%. The next band is taxed at 20% or so and each band then tapers back so that when you are due tax on the full first slice, your average tax rate is 10%. Yes this is ridiculously complicated, and I can't produce the actual figures to make it clearer. My actual tax rate in the last accounting year was something like 16.7%. The situation for non-company business is just as bad. The basics are the same as for employees. There is a slice at 0% which varies, a slice at 10%, a slice at 22% and the rest at 40%. To complicate things further you can get credits for low income, children, some other dependants, disability, charitable gifts, pension contributions etc. You name it there is a rule. Then there are the rules about what constitutes an expense. A good example is the telephone - part of it is private use, part business so there are rules for those things too. You get the picture ? I hope you now understand why nobody can give you a straight answer on rates - there is no single answer. Chances are good that every farmer in the country is paying a different rate by some measure or other.

Dear Mike: Yeppers, I get the picture, all right. Thank you for your reply. It's beginning to seem that all of us are beginning to have to "farm" more paper than doing any real farming, just to keep some money in our pockets. In one of our major farm papers this week is news that the EU has "imported and esimated 8 million metric tons of wheat, making it the world's largest importer. It has been a great marketing year for U.S. wheat exports to the EU, with a total sales of 2.2 million metric tons as of May 30, 2002.....with import duties falling to zero" This paper and it's article fails to state that wheat prices (all grains in general) have been the lowest we've seen here in nearly 20 years. At the same time, since March 13...we've seen the live fat cattle market drop nearly $12.00 per cwt....and the hog market is worse....a $20.00 per cwt drop. Now we are in the midst of a terrible drought....no rains on the Plains area since mid-June...and spring-planted crops on dryland acreage are literally on their "last legs". Yield potential for most dryland corn, beans, and mile....is gone. I've been told our Farm Bill's passage was "driven" by the banking industry and the Federal Reserve....to "protect" the solvency of the whole ag banking sector. Please don't get me wrong, Mike, but without this new Farm Program, there would be a general melt-down of our farm economy here, right now. Farming's not been a very profitable industry for a long, long time. Just in my home county, here in central Kanss, we've gone from having 1600 farms and 2200 operators in 1979 to less than 1,000 farms and less than 1,200 operators today. That loss of people has only taken 20 years to happen....in spite of farm programs. Mike, I'm sorry to say, I don't have any really good answers, either. You folks in the U.K have had artificially high subsidies compared to us, here, especially over this past 22 year period....and you're right, they have caused us to produce more and more grains and livestock, resulting in lower and lower prices for our commodities...at the farmgate. Unlike you folks, we don't get subsidy payments for beef cattle, sheep or hogs. We're at the mercy of the markets on our livestock. Only the dairy industry gets any help from our government....and that doesn't really amount to that much, either. The problem now is...unwinding from them (subsidies) is going to be really painful for alot of people (producers) ...on both sides of the pond. Finally, in 1986, we adopted a CRP program here. Conservation Reserve Program allowed any individual to nominate what was deemed to be "highly erodible" acres into a 10-year retirement which was then extended another 10 years. Bids by the owner were made to our ASCS offices (USDA). Those acres had to be planted to native grasses. A large number of acres were enrolled in this program....it sounds like that is similar to what DEFRA is advocating now.....do you have any details on that? All the Best and Thanks again for your reply. Gary Burkholder Abilene, Kansas USA

Hi Gary, Paper ?? I have a full time job off farm, but am just moving to a contractor doing the farm work largely because I can't cope with the paper - he'll take a fair part of it. The new proposals like your CRP aren't coming from DEFRA, but from EU. So far the Mid Term Review we have been talking about is only a discussion paper. The EU will take aeons to actually reach an agreement. I think they hope to have it up and running for the 2003 "subsidy year", not sure if that means crop year 03-04 or sooner. Yes they have made a 10 year set-aside proposal. I don't know the detail. I hope it is not too inflexible. I love birds, and this year have two kinds of non-rotational set-aside and four kinds of rotational, including industrial cropping, _all_ of which have benefitted birds. One of the RSPB key species in particular (peewit - Vanellus vanellus) has thrived on the industrial spring crop. So have woodpigeons :-( The subsidy war between the EU and US has burned us all bad. I don't think either party is free of guilt in this. However, the damage it has done to Western farmers is nothing to the damage it has done in the developing world. For that, we should all feel ashamed. I won't be on-line again till 22nd, wishing you peace and quiet, Mike.

Dear Mike: Will be looking forward to your return....you've made some really excellent points. Personally, I think you farmers and us farmers need to trade more information amongst ourselves. Once we all begin to understand what you guys and us guys are all "up against" we can start to make some progress. Yes, you're right about the third world countries. This globalization policy has been pretty well abused...at their expense. One thing, for sure, agriculture is essential to life....but the politicians find it to be a football they can kick at their discretion. Us 'little guys' don't seem to have any recourse but to tighten our belts as a reaction. Hope you have a good trip. Burkie in Kansas P.S. And thanks again for your comments. Greatly appreciated.

Dear Patrick: Thanks for posting your comments up on this subject. As you can see, it's become a pretty popular subject at this time. Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand Fischler's plan, a result of the so-called "mid-term" review, is that it has to be discussed, debated and voted on in the EU to become official policy. Therefore, your present subsidy structure will not be affected until this occurs. So this year's production and associated subsidy will not be affected. Then, according to what I understand, there's to be a cap placed on any one producer's payment, with proposed scaled-down reduction in subsidy payments each following year. What is going to be most interesting in all this, is will we all see any appreciation in farmgate prices we receive for grains, livestock, milk, poultry and eggs? And will there be any reduction in red tape (paper)? So far, in my limited attention to EU policies...it seems to me that they have a nasty knack for increasing the paper work load of any one producer, while reducing farmgate prices. So, if this reverses that trend, wouldn't it be beneficial to you folks? Why produce anything you don't get paid for? Just asking questions...not criticising at all. And trying to make a little sense out of all this news. Burkie in Kansas

Dear Gary, Some very interesting comments have been made. Another increasing bug bear with UK farmers is the number of inspectors being employed to oversee our businesses. Farm assurance schemes are likely to become ever more difficult to comply with. My fear is if you dont meet these set standards you will receive no financial assistance. Whilst realising that bad farming practices must be stamped out, common sense is going out of the window. How are New Zealand farmers faring now. I understand that they are not paid any subsidies ?

Dear Paul: Inspectors....yep, that's a real fear I have, too. In pursuit of this EU Evolution of Agricultural Policy, it seems they are bound and determined to dictate how a person is supposed to operate a farm....right down to crossing the t's and i's on the paperwork they force you to submit. I used to be export administrator for Great Plains Mfg, maker of agricultural grain drills, which enabled me to travel to several foreign countries....to sell our equipment. When last in New Zealand, their farmers thought the world was going to come to an end, when their subsidies were cut off. That was in 1989 or 1990. They became more independently market-oriented, accepting the fact that they had to generate their own incomes without assistance and dependence from/on their own government. That policy seems to have worked through the "growth years" of the 90's. Now that there seems to be a world-wide economic down-turn, I wonder if they can be as successful. The Kewi's accomplished a mini-coup last fall when they signed agreements with Safeway stores here in the U.S. to sell them their lamb. Since that time, our producers here are having a heck of a time making any money at all. There has been enormous grass-root displeasure with our meatpackers and organizations representing producers this winter and spring. That's ongoing and continuing. Now we're in the middle of one of the worst droughts we've experienced. It hasn't reached catastrophic levels yet...but if we don't get rains soon, it will be. It sounds like things aren't so hot for you guys in the U.K...and believe me, they aren't good here, either. No one wants to spend any money they don't have to. And there are many, that just plain don't have the money to spend. Wish this was a better, more optimistic report.... All the Best, Gary Burkholder Abilene, Kansas USA P.S. Dryland corn is now being cut for silage. No hopes for a dryland corn or milo ...or soybean crop here this year.

Your not wrong about assurance inspections, we had our first inspection two days ago. Buildings past A1 but paper work was a nightmare, whilst we record most things, I see no point in keeping grain samples beyond payment. And similar with grain storage records. Once the loads have gone so should the paperwork be recycled. The questions asked were so bad each one was received by a sigh from me, and my father was so upset by the expereance that he was screwing his toes up, until one went click(dislocated or broke - v.badly bruised). And we were one of his best farms? P.S We may fail because I refused to put up a sign telling passers by my Telephone number. We've been burgled 5 times in ten years. I'm not going to give em any more help.

Dear Peter: Thanks again for your reply. Us farmers in the U.S. haven't had to put up with this, yet. And I hope we never have to. Rather than on-farm inspections, we go present our receipts to our local USDA ASCS offices...they record our numbers and calculate the yields. Nothing like you folks have to put up with. As a matter of FACT, that's what scares me most...the un-relenting powers given public servants to pry into your private business. Established there in the U.K...it is rapidly encroaching it's nemesis here, too. And not just in the ag sector, the health sector is worse. What amazes me most is that this encroachment is rapidly expanding at a time when commodity prices are nearly at historical lows. Guess we shouldn't be surprised...because that means the governments have to cough up more money to make up the difference....only thing is....government doesn't seem to want to trust our word anymore. Our governments have set their policies. They self-dictated our compliance. So, both you UK producers and us, here in the States have been forced to comply....just to make a living and pay our bills. You're in just as much the same boat as we are.....up the creek without a paddle. Burkie in Kansas P.S. Your answers as well as eveyone else on this subject have really been very concise. if i can share any info with all you guys...don't hestitate to ask....I'll do my best to provide legitimate and truthful answers.

Dear Patrick: So the price of wheat has dropped and the price of bread has risen disproportionally. Same thing here in the States. When wheat was 2.25 a bushel in 1979....a loaf of bread (1 #) could be bought for .39 cents. Now, cash wheat is $2.90 and a loaf of bread may cost as much as $2.50. Almost as much as a bushel of grain...and if you want special breads, it will cost more. Time to start using our own grain to feed our own families and sell what's left over. Look after yourself, first.... That's my new motto. Same goes for meat, and any other foods we produce. Keep thy home grown at home! Burkie in Kansas You're all people, just like me. Looking after yourselves and your own folks. Big-time common denominator. ------------------------------------

Clipped and pasted from FMD New@Smartgroups.com Subject: Suggested New Battle Cry! Created by Burkie on 13 Jul 2002 06:32:19 1 Message #1 of 1: Date Posted: 13 Jul 2002 06:32:19 by Burkie Keep thy homegrown at home! The U.K government wants change...so does America and so does Canada and so does everyone else. So let's give it to em If you produce any edible product...harvest it and process it. Trade it with your neighbors and friends....for something you want, but don't have. You work your own deal and you don't get taxed on the trade. Governments say they want Free Trade....well, let's give it to em. if you need bread, then trade some blackberry jelly for a couple bushels with your friends. We can all lick this bull-crap in the bud. Besides that, there is another benefit....you get to know your neighbors again. Burkie in Kansas P.S. The Rusky's do barter trade all the time...it's even sanctioned by the WTO.....so no worries! It's a new World. It's a new day. Let's get with it! Sure, there may have to be some negotiating done...but then , that's the fun of it all. Curry and Beckett want a "new day" for ag.....well, give it to em There are ways to help each other....this is a survival game anymore.....no doubt about it. i would not want to see any respondent to my questions on this website lose his living. There are already some super-sharp respondents addressing my questions. I appreciate that. After all, I am just a little guy in Kansas. None of you have said much about your own operations. That's ok with me. You all seem to be pretty well-informed...so that tells me you are all actively farming in the U.K. You folks have your problems with your government...as we have with ours. Our new Farm Bill...will help keep some of us viable. The attrition rate over the past 20 years is about at the 50% level. Our rural communities are in a shambles in this state of Kansas. We've got more than our share of problems...but wheat production this year is dismal and won't help the situation at all. I am trying to share with you all a situation that is untenable....and from what I've come to understand...you folks are just about in the same boat. That means we all need to trade with one another...amongst ourselves and keep our money in our own pockets....the essence of so-called "Free Trade". Let's keep our cotton-pickin governments out of our business. If they want us to produce...then pay us. If they want to screw around with our production for their political ends....then pay us again. I, for one, am totally sick of being told by some ignoramus how I have to farm. How about you? Gary Burkholder Abilene, Kansas USA

This is an excellent idea, and it shuld be done as soon as possible.

The farm assurance inspections is one of a list of things that farmers leaders have sold us out on. They are very keen to give something for nothing in the hope that buyers will accept paperwork instead of quality (quality is a little difficult in a country where summer is marked by a dark grey cloud cover). I did battle agaist such schemes with the first letter in the farmersweekly but two years later I give up. One question I have to ask, is it compulsory for everyone in the U.S. to have crop insurance against crop failure and crop price. Do you think that such an insurance company if set up world wide could help all farmers.

Dear Peter....No. That's a whole nother racket. You have your NFU....we have our Farm Bureau....both of which have easy access to our governments. Yes, their are independent companies that write insurance...especially crop/hail companies...but that still doesn't help pay one's bills. A loss is a loss. Offsetting that loss with insurance premiums may be a way for some to benefit...but it's a "luck of the draw and weather...kind-of-a-thing." Boils down to how much risk can one bear. I was told by an old-timer long time ago...."you make money raising wheat 2 years out of 20. All the rest is a wash-out. No truer words were ever spoken. When it comes to insurance schemes...you either do it every year.....or you don't at all. The insurance companies are in the business to make money....and they have....at all our expense. That goes for Farm Bureau in the Kansas or NFU in the UK....they will try to wiggle out of any claim that we make....hundreds of reasons why you haven't complied....or don't be eligible......I have no respect for them whatsoever. Burkie in Kansas