English farmers exit industry

More English farms are up for sale than at any time in the past two decades, as rising costs, falling incomes and inheritance tax reforms hit small farms, accelerating consolidation of the sector.  In the first half of the year the number of farms put up for sale rose to 177, the highest number in any six-month period since 2007 and 16 per cent higher than the five-year average, according to land agent Strutt & Parker. 

“It’s generally smaller farms coming to the market,” Sam Holt, head of estates at the firm told the Financial Times. “It’s been a really challenging few years for the farming industry.” Rising fuel, fertiliser and machinery costs, heavy rain and drought, and tapering subsidies for farmers had slashed income.  Downward pressure on farm incomes and rising input costs make you start to question how sustainable it is to run a [small] farm,” he added.

Arable farmers have been particularly hard hit by high fertiliser costs, as well as weak wheat prices. This was reflected in land values, with arable land priced 6 per cent lower in the first half of the year compared with last year. Pasture land values also fell, down 3 per cent. The average size of farms put up for sale so far this year was 330 acres.

Strutt & Parker categorises anything under 500 acres as a small farm. The number of farms in the UK has been falling steadily for decades, as large farms swallow smaller farms in financial difficulty. According to farm consultancy the Anderson Centre, the number of full-time farms has fallen from 66,510 in 2000 to 55,980 in 2010 and 51,350 in 2025.

The direct payments farmers received under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy were replaced from 2021 by a new scheme that made farmers apply for funds in exchange for environmentally friendly practices, such as reducing pesticide use and planting diverse crops to improve soil health.

A government-commissioned review of the farming sector last year found that food production was no longer profitable for the average English farm, and that nearly a third of farms in Great Britain were lossmaking, in part due to the transition to the new subsidy scheme.

Changes to inheritance tax rules for farmers have also weighed on sentiment. The government announced in 2024 it was scrapping inheritance tax relief for farmers with assets of more than £1mn from April 2026. After intense lobbying by the industry, the government raised the threshold to £2.5mn. 

As a result, fewer non-farmers have been buying agricultural land. The proportion of farms bought by farmers rose to a seven-year high, or 59 per cent, in 2025, according to Strutt & Parker. The proportion of “lifestyle buyers” — people buying farms to live on, rather than farm — fell to 11 per cent last year, down from 20 per cent five years ago. “There’s obviously less tax advantages to owning land now,” Holt told the FT, adding that returns from farmland were “so poor” that buyers were better off leaving their money in the bank.

Farm chief slams post-Brexit subsidy regime

The post-Brexit farming subsidy scheme in England has failed to improve on the old EU system and large landowners are still benefiting disproportionately, according to the president of the National Farmers Union. In an interview with the Financial Times, Minette Batters, who is due to step down as president of the NFU in February, slammed post-Brexit agricultural policy, which has been overseen by seven different environment secretaries since the UK voted to leave the EU in 2016. 

One of the biggest criticisms of the EU subsidy scheme run as part of the Common Agricultural Policy was that it unfairly benefited large landowners. Brexit was seen as an opportunity for the payment system to be overhauled. But the replacements in England, the Environmental Land Management schemes (ELMs), have been slow to be implemented and criticised for placing too much emphasis on the environment at the expense of food production. “The focus at the moment is on growing a crop for the environment and not producing food . . . I think that’s going to be really hard with the cost of living crisis,” said Batters, adding that consumers cared more than ever about food security.   [Not sure about the evidence for that claim].

She went on to criticise the government for failing to build a more equitable system. “Large landowners effectively living off the state is not going to wash going forward,” said Batters.  While the new scheme differs from the EU system in that funding is awarded in exchange for environmental actions — “public money for public goods” — the system is still area based. Access to land is a pre-requisite to access the scheme and the more land a farmer has the more funds they will be able to secure. 

The phaseout of the EU Basic Payment Scheme has left many farmers who were reliant on the subsidies with lower payments than they had previously. Meanwhile, take up of the flagship payment under ELMs — the Sustainable Farming Incentive — has been low, with only a fraction of the 82,000 farmers who are eligible having signed up.

Farmers find life without subsidies difficult

Farmers, particularly those in England, are find it difficult to adjust to life with reducing subsidies.  

A Farmers Weekly of 500 farmers survey showed farmers across the UK continue to rely heavily on support scheme money, with almost 90% receiving some funding.

On average, BPS revenue accounted for 29.3% of farm incomes in the 12 months up to spring 2023, only slightly down on the 31.7% recorded for the same period a year earlier.   For more than two in five (41%), BPS money made up one-quarter of incomes.  But for 16%, BPS funding still accounted for three-quarters or more of total revenue, a slight increase on the figure for spring 2022 when it stood at 14%.  

Dwindling support levels continue to cause widespread concern.  A growing number of farmers (49% – up from 45% last year) are now “very concerned” about how they will replace lost revenue from support.

Overall, eight out of 10 farmers registered some level of concern.  Concerns ran so deeply that 87.5% said they were uncertain whether their farms would even survive without BPS support.  More than half (55%) forecast it would be difficult to survive and one-quarter went further, saying survival would only be secured with great difficulty.

More than one-third (37%) are looking to an off-farm revenue to bolster incomes.  Almost two-thirds already have a source of off-farm income, with 22% in outside employment while 19% own another business and 15% hold investments unrelated to agriculture.

Regrets? I have a few.

The voting behaviour of UK farmers in the Brexit referendum mirrored that of the population as a whole, but quite a few are now regretting their choice according to a Farmers' Weekly survey of 950 farmers and those in ancillary industries. 

Three-quarters of respondents said that Brexit had been negative for the UK economy and 69 per cent said that it had been very or fairly negative for their own businesses.   If the vote could be held again, there would be an eight per cent swing from leave to remain.   65 per cent said that it made it less likely they would vote Conservative.

Both arable and livestock farmers seemed equally disappointed   Even more negative were those growing vegetables (81 per cent) or keeping pigs  (79 per cent).

A clear majority said that despite pre-Brexit promises of 'a bonfire of red tape' once Britain left the EU, the reverse had been true.   My talks to farmers around the north of England convinced me that some had a very surprising view of the regulations that could be discarded.

The phasing out of the Basic Payment Scheme in England attracted a lot of criticism, it being claimed that farming could not survive without support.    Arguably this shows an industry that had become too reliant on subsidies not tied to outcomes.

Two-thirds of those surveyed thought that the UK was better off when the EU devised policy, ironically a view strongest among those growing non-supported crops such as potatoes, sugar beet and fruit.

How has UK agricultural policy changed since Brexit?

Some thoughts here: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2023/05/24/how-has-uk-agricultural-policy-changed-since-brexit/

Farm policies a Brexit success?

Responding to Nigel Farage, Downing Street yesterday said that Brexit has been a success, citing the ability of the UK to shape its own farm policies as a benefit.

Really?  A hollowed out Defra has found this a challenging task.   The new policies have been rolled out slowly.  The ELMS scheme is complicated and the relationship between policy instruments and desired outcomes is uncertain, albeit that is not an unfamiliar problem.  Measures to tackle the farm productivity problem are limited in scope and funding.

Downing Street also held its much vaunted food summit yesterday.   The farming press dismissed it as a 'talking shop' and admittedly my heart sinks when I hear the phrase 'breakout groups'.  All too often this means poorly focused discussions and brief feedbacks lacking clarity.   However, one needs to talk to identify feasible policies, although acting on ideas is another matter.

Rishi Sunak did offer an extra 10,000 visas for seasonal workers next year on top of the 45,000 already available.  It is estimated that £60m of produce remained unpicked last year.

The National Farmers' Union would like a minimum five year rolling scheme.   This would allow greater certainty to plan forward production.

Meat processors have struggled to recruit butchers because of the language requirements posed by immigration rules.  The sector has become reliant on butchers from the Philippines (also a source of labour for the dairy sector) but each work costs £12,000 to bring to the UK.

Why subsidy phase out is unlikely to be halted

The National Farmers' Union have asked for a two year halt in the phasing out of support payments to farmers in the form of what was the EU's Basic Payment.   In this article for South-East Farmer I explain why this is unlikely to succeed.

The war in Ukraine has strengthened concerns about food security.  The Ukraine and parts of Russia are regarded as the bread basket of Europe.  Ukrainian farmers would normally be planting crops at this time of year.   Admittedly, a large proportion of their output goes to the Middle East and North Africa, but the threat of shortages of supply has already pushed up wheat and other global commodity prices. 

These developments have led to hopes by farmers and their representatives that there may be more support for them from Defra.   Although the terms of the debate in Europe have changed, I think that it is unlikely that there will be any major changes in UK policy.

Farmers are facing a perfect storm in terms of input prices.   Red diesel prices have increased substantially despite the lower level of taxation on them.   Electricity costs for businesses are increasing significantly, a major concern for dairy farmers or those with on farm processing businesses. According to the US Department of Agriculture fertiliser prices have doubled in the past year and in some cases supplies have been difficult to obtain.  Russia and Belarus are leading producers.  

For fruit and vegetable producers there are serious concerns about the availability and cost of labour.  Ukrainians have formed a key part of the harvesting force since Brexit.  67 per cent of the almost 30,000 people recruited in 2021 under the seasonal workers' scheme came from the Ukraine.  They are now fighting in the army or are unable to obtain visas.  

A spokesman for Kent salad grower LJ Betts told the Financial Times that he had managed to recruit 38 Romanians to replace 40 Ukrainians but these workers would require training and would be less productive than experienced workers, pushing up costs.

All these factors are contributing to what is expected to be substantial food price inflation which particularly affects less well -off families as food forms a greater proportion of their budgets.  There have been some signs of a shift of emphasis in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), urged on by President Macron who faces a presidential and then a legislative election.  Green transition and farm to fork objectives may be modified, but this is only indirectly relevant to Britain.

There are a number of reasons why, for example, there is unlikely to be a reduction in the phasing out of the UK’s continuation of the basic payment which for many farms represents the difference between a profit and a loss.  Defra seems disinclined to change its policies, in particular to place less emphasis on a still ill-defined environmental support scheme.   

However, even if there was a change of heart at Defra, it is questionable how much influence it has on broader government policy.  It was particularly hollowed out as a department under the austerity policies of the coalition years and lost many experienced and knowledgeable staff.   In any case many farmers would doubt its commitment to their concerns and, of course, the main purpose of replacing the Ministry of Agriculture by Defra was to give it a wider remit and change its perspective and emphasis.

What is evident is that the Treasury has long been opposed to the farm support payments that were provided under the CAP.  Its reasoning would be that they were a blunt instrument which could be used for consumption rather than production, or even if they were used for production support might not be invested in a way that boosted productivity.   

If there is a food poverty problem, then one should increase payments to poorer consumers rather than to producers.   If world commodity prices increase, this will offset rising input costs, although livestock and dairy farmers will be hit by rising animal feed prices.

It also has to be realised that there are substantial expenditure pressures on government.  The NHS and social care is not far short of accounting for nearly half of day-to-day expenditure.   Although the Chancellor has so far resisted pleas to increase defence expenditure, these are not going to go away.  The cost of servicing government debt has rocketed as interest rates have gone up (about a quarter of it is inflation linked).

So how can farmers secure better support to help them through the costs cisis?  After the Brexit referendum, but before the conclusion of the negotiations, I was invited to give a presentation at the Foreign Office on the future of agriculture to civil servants from a range of departments.   It must have gone down reasonably well as I was invited to meet the Foreign Office cat afterwards!

One good question was how would I convince the Treasury to support British farming?  My answer was that the industry was on the verge of a digital revolution with opportunities to improve efficiency and productivity.    However, farmers needed support for capital investment and training. There are some grants available to boost investment and productivity, but they amount to at best toonly 10 per cent of total funding.   A convincing argument could be made boost this type of funding and hence improve domestic resilience.

Farmers not ready for withdrawal of support

Some 36 per cent of farm income depends on the Basic Payment Scheme, but one in three farmers are yet to start preparing for its withdrawal according to a survey for Farmers Weekly.   79 per cent of farmers have no clear idea how their farm business will survive without it.   Lowland livestock enterprises are particularly reliant on the basic payment.

Just 15 per cent of farmers say they are interested in taking a lump sum to retire from farming.

53 per cent of farm businesses say they have already diversified.   Of these 51 per cent have a renewable energy scheme, including solar panels (76 per cent), biomass boilers (26 per cent), wind power (22 per cent) and anaerobic digestion (7 per cent).

The next most popular diversification is holiday accommodation (24 per cent), followed by offices and workspace (10 per cent), leisure activities (7 per cent) and farm shops, cafés and restaurants (5 per cent).

Cabinet row over Australian trade deal

A battle royal is in progress in Cabinet on whether Britain should agree a tariff free trade deal with Australia.  Brexiteers think that if a trade deal cannot be concluded with Australia no deals will be possible for the new 'Global Britain'.

However, farmers - already reeling from the phasing out of support payments - are concerned that it could hit their markets and be a precedent for future deals, particularly those with the US and New Zealand.

On one side of the argument is international trade secretary Liz Truss.   On the other side is Defra secretary of state George Eustice, backed up by Michael Gove.   Gove is concerned that rural areas in Wales and Scotland would be hard hit, further undermining the union.   Reports are suggesting that Boris Johnson may come down in favour of the deal.

Beef and sheep meat would be the main commodities affected, although Australia is also interested in exporting more cheese.   There is a 20 per cent tariff on beef at present which would be phased out over 15 years.   

Australian farmers benefit from greater economies of scale, allowing them to undercut on price.  The writer well remembers visiting a huge drylot beef farm in New South Wales.

The RSPCA said Australia had lower standards on chlorinated chickens, sow stalls that confine pregnant pigs and growth hormone treatment for beef.

How farmers voted on Brexit

A lot of myths have grown up about how farmers voted in the referendum on leaving the EU.  Based on a self-selected Farmers Weekly survey, or simply on anecdotal evidence about posters on countryside hoardings, a view has developed that farmers voted overwhelmingly for Brexit.

Up to now we have lacked any hard evidence, but that has been rectified by a survey of farmers reported in the Journal of Rural Studies by Daniel May and his colleagues.

The headline finding is that farmer voting was not greatly out of line with the electorate as a whole.  50 per cent reported voting leave, 45 per cent remain and 5 per cent did not vote.  This implies a higher turnout than the population as a whole, although some who did not vote claim that they did in surveys.

There was a slight tendency for women farmers to be more likely to vote remain.  However, the strongest predictor of voting behaviour was level of education.  60 per cent of those with GCSE or equivalent voted to leave compared with 20 per cent of those with postgraduate education (admittedly a small N).

Dairy farmers voted leave by 58 per cent to 38 per cent and pig and poultry farmers had a 53 per cent to  34 per cent leave lead.  Pig and poultry farmers received relatively little from the CAP and dairy farmers may have seen themselves as tightly regulated by it.

There were some regional differences.   Farmers in Scotland deviated from the trend there with 67 per cent voting leave (51 per cent in Wales).  Farmers in the east and south of the country were more likely to vote remain, but in part this reflected national voting trends.

The 'bring back control' theme seems to have resonated with farmers in terms of their personal perceptions.   Farmers who state that they face too many restrictions imposed by the EU including those on agrochemicals were more likely to vote leave.   For some EU regulations were seen as preventing them making higher profits or having more market power.   Voting for Brexit is perceived as delivering more control over their businesses.

A first draft on the effects of Brexit

This article appeared in the latest issue of South-East Farmer:

Many farmers breathed a sigh of relief when a last minute trade deal was agreed between the UK and the EU, avoiding the threat of tariffs and quotas on agricultural exports.   Of course, this would have affected some sectors more than others, notably those farming sheep.  Such enterprises exist within the south-east of England, but they are more characteristic of remote hill farming areas in all the four nations of the United Kingdom.

I must admit to having a personal interest as my brother-in-law and nephew are sheep farmers in a remote part of Wales.   They have merged three farms in order to run as lean and efficient an operation as possible.   However, the whole enterprise is reliant on selling sheep for meat and the price they receive is influenced by the 40 per cent or so of total output that goes to mainland Europe.   The price received for wool scarcely covers the cost of shearing, if that, and rental income from properties and telephone masts is very much secondary.   The suggestion made by one politician that sheep farmers could shift to beef ignores the realities of production.

Farmers are generally enterprising and keen to keep input costs under control.   One farmer I know in Yorkshire produces honey with a distinctive taste from the moors, but still principally relies on his contract with a leading supermarket.   The more general point here is that the basic payment received by farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy is being replaced by a smaller domestic payment that is being phased out more quickly than some had anticipated, particularly for larger scale farms.

Other new forms of payment will be available, principally the Environmental Land Management Scheme, although that is still being developed and tested.  Along with other payments, it will fall well short of compensating farmers for the loss of the basic payment which made the difference between profit and loss for many farm enterprises.    It will also involve form filling to obtain, along with monitoring of outcomes, and is likely to be more suitable for farmers in remoter areas.   This is not necessarily a bad thing from an overall policy point of view, but it may prove challenging for, for example, larger scale arable farmers in south-east England.

In areas like the south-east there are, of course, opportunities for diversification that may not exist in remoter areas, particularly those that are less suited to tourism.   In this area as well, farmers have been very innovative in the range of ideas they have put into practice.   There can, however, come a point where one is no longer running a farm business, but a farm that enhances other projects such as wedding venues, restaurants, shops and petting zoos.

It is, of course, a personal business decision how far to go down this route.   A note of caution is necessary for late adopters.  Much of the low hanging fruit has already been taken.   The capital costs can be considerable and the skills required can be very different from decisions about what to plant, when to spray and when to harvest.   That said, many farmers manage to both farm and run complementary businesses.

Agriculture was the dog that didn’t bark in the night time in the very long legal text arrived at between the UK and the EU.   Indeed, listening to the discussions during the negotiations, one was left with the impression that fisheries were the really vital sector despite the fact that it accounts for a smaller share of the economy than agriculture.   Fish did enjoy considerable symbolic value in terms of ‘taking back control’.

There was an annex on trade in wine.   This is not really my area of expertise, apart from enjoying it and investing in one well-known business in the South-East.  As with most such agreements, the devil is in detail, but I would have thought that at first glance it was broadly acceptable to those growing grapes and producing wine in England.  [A subsequent article in the Financial Times refers to certification costs which could add £1.50 to a £12 bottle of imported wine.  This, of course, could make domestically produced wine more price competitive, although factors other than price can play a big part in purchase decisions].

In simple terms what the annex says is that EU and the UK should import and consume each other’s wine, although the flow is clearly from the EU direction.   The documentation required is limited to a certificate which can be produced electronically.   The self-certification is limited to eleven relatively straightforward questions.  The agreement will be reviewed after three years, a shorter period than for fisheries.

Biden presidency will slow down US trade deal

An article I wrote for South-East Farmer on the Biden presidency and a US-UK trade deal:

What will the Biden presidency mean for the trade deal with the United States and Brexit more generally?   One thing that is clear is that it will not proceed as quickly as it would have done in the absence of a change of administration.  

There are a number of reasons why this is the case.  First, Joe Biden has made it clear that the emphasis in the early phase of his presidency will be on domestic issues, specifically the Covid-19 pandemic.    International trade will not be a priority. Second, a new administration means a change of personnel.   A new US Trade Representative will need to be appointed to run what is in effect the US’s Department of International Trade and that will take at least two months after the inauguration.   Once that person has been approved by the Senate, they will need to work out their strategy.   Trade relations with China will be an early priority.

It is the case that there have been quite detailed technical negotiations between the UK and the US and it is understood that draft chapters of a potential agreement have been mapped out.   However, the issues have always been political rather than technical.  If there is political agreement, the legal language to fulfil it can be provided.  The biggest obstacle here is the effect of Brexit on the Good Friday agreement, about which Joe Biden has expressed concern.   Biden identifies strongly with his Irish heritage.   Asked a question by a BBC reporter, he replied: ‘BBC?  I’m Irish.’   Ireland is also a concern for the House of Representatives which would have to approve any agreement and which still has a Democrat majority.

It is unlikely that a UK–US deal will be reached before the president’s 'fast track' authority to sign trade deals (formally Trade Promotion Authority, TPA) expires on 1 July 2021. Its absence makes the congressional approval procedure much longer and more troublesome. Biden may find that he has more important things on which to use his limited capital with Congress than trying to renew TPA.

Even if an agreement was reached, there is no reason to suppose that it would be any more favourable to UK agriculture than one reached under President Trump.    Nick Clegg claims that Joe Biden said to him ‘very unsentimentally – in that folksy way he does – “‘We are not going to sign anything that the chicken farmers of Delaware don’t like!”’   Delaware is one of the largest chicken producing states in the US and the product is washed with chlorine.

Joe Biden’s personal links with chicken farmers’ aside, there are more fundamental reasons why any agreement is likely to favour US agricultural interests.    Unlike the UK, where Defra has a multitude of tasks and does not necessarily treat farming as a priority, the US Department of Agriculture is a powerful department with a focus on farming that has the lead on the agricultural dimension of trade negotiations.   It is not yet known who the new Agriculture Secretary will be, but they are likely to have some kind of farm industry background.    

They will be backed up by the agriculture committees in each house of the Congress that usually have a preponderance of members from areas that have significant agricultural businesses, while the agribusiness lobby remains strong.   In summary, any agreement that is reached will reflect US agricultural interests, particularly given the willingness of the UK to make sacrifices on agriculture to make gains elsewhere.

As far as Brexit more generally is considered, Biden has made it clear that he thinks it was an historic mistake and he would have voted against it if he could have done.   There is wider disappointment in the US because the UK could be relied upon to bring a perspective to EU discussions that took account of American viewpoints.    However, Brexit will be completed one way or another before Joe Biden is inaugurated and his views are likely to be peripheral to any subsequent discussions between the UK and the EU.

Farming's brave new world

Defra secretary of state George Eustice has set out government plans for the future of farming after Brexit: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/path-to-sustainable-farming

There is a lot of detail to absorb, but the key question is whether farms will be able to stay in profit.

NFU president Minette Batters commented on the agricultural transition roadmap: 'The rate at which direct support reductions will take place, which we understand will not be applied in other parts of the UK, leaves English farmers with significant questions. These payments have been a lifeline for many farmers especially when prices or growing conditions have been volatile and will be very difficult to replace in the first four years of this transition. Can Ministers be sure that new schemes will be available at scale to deliver redirected BPS payments?'

Farmers leaving is not necessarily bad news

Economist Sean Rickard has warned that one in three farms could be driven out of business in five years in the event of a no deal Brexit.   Those most at risk were smaller, full time producers.

One has to be careful about the distinction between farmers and farms going out of business.  Some farmers could switch to part-time farming by taking on off farm work, although the way in which they farmed might change.

Other farmers might decide to leave farming.  Their farms might be taken on by new entrants or absorbed into larger existing farms.

Individual farmer decisions will be influenced by such factors as their debt load and whether they have a successor.   However, there is a case for enhancing early retirement schemes for an ageing farmer population.

Replacing older farmers by younger ones could boost innovation and productivity.

Pesticide protections should not be given away in trade talks

UK consumers are likely to be exposed to larger amounts of more toxic chemicals in their food if trade negotiators from the US have their way, warns a new report out from the Pesticide Action Network (UK).  You can read the key findings here: https://www.pan-uk.org/toxic-trade/#key_findings 

The warning comes alongside new YouGov polling which reveals that almost three quarters (71%) of the British public want the UK Government to resist US attempts to overturn bans on pesticides, even if this means the “best” trade deal cannot be reached.  

Authored by Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK), Sustain and trade expert Dr Emily Lydgate, Toxic Trade highlights that a rise in exposure to hazardous chemicals could be unavoidable for UK consumers because pesticides are not mentioned on food labels.   

While far from perfect, the UK currently has some of the most stringent pesticide regulations in the world, meaning that many agricultural products produced elsewhere can’t be sold here.  However, concern is mounting that in the wake of the UK’s exit from the EU, trade deals currently under negotiation with the USA, and planned imminently for Australia and India, will drive down UK pesticide standards.  This not only risks damaging public health but also the environment as trade negotiators push the UK government to allow currently banned hazardous pesticides to be used in UK farms and gardens.

  

The YouGov poll reveals high levels of concern among consumers, with 71% of those surveyed concerned that a US trade deal will mean larger amounts of pesticides in their food; 79% concerned about impacts to health if UK Government caves to US pressure to lower pesticide standards; and 77% worried about negative impacts on the environment.  

Josie Cohen, Head of Policy and Campaigns at Pesticide Action Network, said: 

“Much attention has been paid to the dangers of ‘chlorinated chicken’, but the UK public is equally concerned about weakening pesticide protections. We know that US negotiators have our pesticide standards firmly in their sights, and with the talks happening behind closed doors the public has no way of knowing if health and environmental protections are being traded away.”  

Vicki Hind, farm campaign coordinator at Sustain said 'If UK farmers are forced into using pesticides to compete with a flood of cheap food imports, their exports will no longer meet EU standards and they'll lose one of their key markets.'

Battle of the lightweights

One of the big concerns of UK farmers is that at the same time as farm subsidies are reduced, the UK Government will lower tariff barriers to agriculture and food products in order to conclude trade deals that are beneficial to other sectors.

Earlier in the month the usually reliable Financial Times learned from government officials that the Department of International Trade was preparing to offer a 'big concession package' to US negotiators in the coming months to reduce the cost of some agricultural imports. 

It was hoped that this would ease the path to a deal with the US.   The aim was to secure a deal while the Trump administration was still securely in office as it was felt that an incoming Democratic administration would take a tougher stance.

Defra officials were reported by the Pink 'Un to be concerned that reducing tariffs could be 'the thin end of the wedge' leading to concessions on animal welfare standards.  UK farmers generally adhere to high standards and can be undercut by countries with lower standards.

A long-standing complaint of the US is that its beef, chicken and pork has been shut out of European markets because of high tariffs and restrictive regulations.   These are, of course, sectors that are already in some jeopardy in the UK.

Not all Conservatives are enthusiastic about selling out to the Americans, although deteriorating relations with China have shut off one strategic option available to 'Global Britain', i.e., cosying up to the PRC in the manner of Dave Cameron and George Osborne.

A battle of the lightweights has been taking place between Defra secretary George 'Useless' Eustice and Liz Truss, the international trade secretary.   Someone has been feeding stories to the Daily Mail and the Daily Express claiming that she was set to betray UK farmers despite being a Norfolk MP.

However, it now appears that Boris Johnson has come down on George Eustice's side in what had become a Cabinet split. The intervention of 'Mr Fixit' Michael Gove on Eustice's side may have been decisive.     Johnson may have been fearing another dagger in his back, but his partner's interest in animal welfare issues may have played its part.

It was alleged in court that Carrie Symonds intervened to stop an extension of a badger cull to Derbyshire, but the NFU lost its attempt to secure a judicial review.

Life was much simpler for Boris Johnson when he simply had to worry about traffic problems in London rather than badger culls and 'Hilton beef'.

Bozza declared 'We must not let our farmers down.   One of the reasons for leaving the EU is we can do things differently and better on things like animal welfare.'

German farmers want a soft trade deal

The German Farmers' Association (DBV) are pressing for a generous post Brexit trade deal for the UK: Give UK a good deal

The UK is a key customer for German agriculture, importing €4.5bn of goods a year, while sending just €1.3bn in the other direction. No other country gives Germany such a big surplus in food and drink. Of course, the EU has a trade surplus on goods with the UK, but not on services.

The DBV is concerned that if there is no agreement in place by the end of 2020, the surplus could be halved. Even if there is a mutually beneficial deal, the surplus will fall by one fifth. For analysis by the Johann Heinrich von Thunen Institute of two different scenarios, go here: Implications for the German agro-food sector

Britain imports more than a third of the food and drink it consumes from the EU, more than it buys from the rest of the world put together. Its biggest source is the Netherlands, followed by Germany, Ireland and France.

There is a debate within the Government about whether parallel trade talks should be held with the US, some arguing that this would put pressure on EU negotiators. The US is likely to want looser rules on GM crops and livestock products which could well be controversial.

Post Brexit tariff regime angers farmers

The NFU is annoyed about the removal of tariff safeguards for a number of agricultural sectors in the event of a no deal Brexit: Tariff review

Government policy appears to be driven by a desire to keep food prices low. Minette Batters, NFU president, said that the Government had 'betrayed' the industry.

Dairy sector also faces Brexit challenges

Much of the discussion of the impact of Brexit on agriculture has focused for understandable reasons on the livestock sector, particularly sheep farming. However, the dairy sector also faces challenges.

Rising production and static demand is currently creating an over supply problem in the liquid market. Muller has blamed its recent price cut to farmers on a 37 per cent reduction in the cream price.

Cross-border cream sales have been relieving pressure on the liquid market, but would face a tariff of £972/t in the event of a no deal exit, ruling out export sales.

Kite Consulting, a leading dairy consultancy, are advising farmers to ensure that feed stores are full on October 31st to lock in prices. That should include minerals and fats that come in by EU trades. They should also hold back on investing in new machinery until after Christmas: Kite's advice

Farmers back no deal Brexit

A surprising number of farmers back a no deal Brexit given that many of them would suffer financially as a result. At least that is the case if one believes polls from Farmers Weekly. A health warning is always necessary about these polls as respondents select themselves and the Ns are often small. A poll which purported to show that a majority of farmers backed Brexit in the referendum has nevertheless embedded itself in the public mind.

43 per cent of 'about 300' farmers said they would be happy with a no deal Brexit while 57 per cent said they would not. Concern about leaving without a deal was strongest in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Yorkshire and Humberside. Optimism about farm business prospects is at its lowest level since the survey started a year ago.

A snapshot 24 hour poll found that 53 per cent would choose to leave the EU with no deal if they could vote again. 38 per cent said they would vote remain and just 9 per cent said they would back the withdrawal agreement backed by Theresa May.

It is interesting that the first poll is below a story about the impact of a no deal Brexit on the sheepmeat sector. About one-third of the UK's production of lamb is exported and 95 per cent of this goes to the EU. 40 per cent tariffs and regulatory barriers would almost wipe out exports.

The Government has ruled out culling as a response to such a crisis. It looks as if they favour a combination of a headage payment on breeding ewes and a slaughterhouse premium. The UK breeding flock already reduced by about 30 per cent in the 2017-18 breeding season as farmers responded to an uncertain future.

Mike Gooding, director of Farmers' First, one of Britain's biggest lamb exporters, told Farmers Weekly: 'Essentially, Brexit risks excluding UK produce from the EU market. A no-deal Brexit would result in the same outcome - but with that risk greatly increased.'

He predicted a substantial fall in sheep farming in the UK. 'My own personal view is that there will be far fewer farmers managing what sheep there are in larger flocks - possibly across multiple holdings.'