I have a friend who six years ago came out of dairy and into beef.

Two years ago he went out of beef and into importing hard wood from the Ukraine and Sweden. His main business is now importing and selling timber but does some agricultural sub-contracting to keep his hand in. His land is rented out to other farmers. His building used for his timber business.

Because a lot of farmers have moved from home grown production of food to importation of products, are these changes 'Good for Britain.'  (would everyone please try to answer this question in the context of Britain rather than in the narrower context of their own location.)

Secondly. At what point does the farmer become another type of business and so should be treated by tax and local authorities in the way thy treat companies on industrial estates.?

To your first question, if you are asking whether it is good for Britain for us to be producing (some of) our own food, then surely it's doesn't matter if that is being done by landowners or their tenants?  The land is still being cultivated.

The second question is more interesting.  It seems to me there are many categories of person out there who could class as farmers.  There are landowners who actively cultivate, those who directly employ someone to work the land (i.e. a farm manager), those who use a contractor.  Then there are tenants and landlords.  Then there are all sorts of shades in between.  I know one guy who owns a smallholding, leasing a few paddocks to horse owners, running sheep over the rest and renting much larger blocks from other landowners for more sheep, while also doing farm related tasks for other people (relief milking, lambing help, etc.)

I know there are some who like to vilify 'hobby' farmers, but how many out there can honestly say their family could live off the produce of their land once they've subtracted any other income (including sfp)?

PW, Any importation of anything is bad for Britain. I could write much more, but that answers your question.

When someone ceases to attempt  to produce agricultural products from his land, by his own endeavours, then he is no longer a farmer. Any part of a holding operated for non-agricultural purposes is not agricultural land (and I would assume it already is treated as non-agricultural by local and other authorities) and should be rated as such. I understand from "news" items that some people have already discovered that running a B&B business with the farmhouse bedrooms is not an agricultural use.

Note my emphasis on attempt - a crop failure or failed enterprise is not a reason to exclude someone from being a farmer.

old mcdonald:

a crop failure or failed enterprise is not a reason to exclude someone from being a farmer.

What about a total farmer failure will that get me off

I dont get any money from elsewhere but farming and farm contracting perhaps thats why I have not got much

there are a great many farmers no farming any more. history will show that this period has been as bad as the thirties, maybe worse.

I read somewhere recently that you need 30% of your income from agricultural activities to be classified as a farmer. It may have been an NFU consultation response to the proposed CAP reform post 2014 where it is suggested that you need to define,and be, a farmer to qualify for SFP or it's replacement.

 Importing wood is clearly not an agricultural activity, nor is the letting of property which can make up a significant proportion of a business income. However letting farmland would be an agricultural activity allowing older farmers to retire but keep the tax benefits of "farmer" status.

An accountant must be able to provide a difinitive answer to this important question ? Some diversification projects will be having significant impact on incomes, for example renewable energy schemes, barn conversions and redundant buildings let for office or industrial use. 

That's a really interesting point you raise, Peter. I suppose an off-the-cuff response would be that if the person is making more than half their income from non-farm sources then perhaps they're not a farmer anymore. Although, you could argue that all the time they're earning some money from farming (however small a part) they are technically still a farmer.

I'm sure we've all met people who have long since retired from hands-on farming who are still proud to call themselves a farmer. Guess it's a bit like people who have been in the services - they'll often still use their titles even after they leave the forces.

Tim.Relf:

if the person is making more than half their income from non-farm sources then perhaps they're not a farmer anymore

So: anyone know how much Peter Kendal makes as NFU president versus his farming income?  Not a dig at him, but makes the point that trying to make these kinds of distinctions is fraught with error.  If it walks like a farmer and talks like a farmer perhaps you should just accept that's what it is ...

Actually I just read this and now have the definitive answer: an active farmer is someone who made an SPS claim in 2011.  Which counts me out, not that I'm bothered what anyone calls me!