Gwyn Jones Farm diary: Keeping public support is crucial to reversing family farm tax

The talk of restricting food supplies in response to the budget has been a topic on social media, where the hot heads let off steam. Winning public support and persuading the Labour Party’s own MP’s is the only way to influence this and difficult as it is to persuade anyone that multi-million-pound businesses should not pay any tax when passed from one generation to another: it’s the only way.

I find it even more difficult to explain to intelligent people outside farming that pitiful returns on such huge capital values, means that farmers have no chance of paying the 20% tax, albeit interest free over 10 years out of profits.

They don’t understand why farmers work all hours in all weather with all the stress and worry involved, when they could cash in and do almost anything else and be far better off. I mentioned last week (tongue in cheek) that upland farmers, young enough to re-train, should consider the massive salary for less than half the hours spent on a hill farm, driving a train in the warm, with a pension and yes, days off!

However, there are some difficult people in the treasury to persuade too, and when told farmers would need to sell part of the farm in order to pay the inheritance tax, one economist said that is what often happens if a house passes from one generation to the next and inheritance tax is due.

Another commented that with that capital value, the farm could be re-mortgaged in order to pay the tax and the young farmer would still be in a stronger position than whoever first bought the farm as it has now an established profitable business in order to pay off that loan.

So, the scale of the challenge is considerable, and views vary a great deal across government. NFU President Tom Bradshaw commented that Labour MPs were never going to defy their government and vote against this measure, but believes they are now softening, and the challenge is to stiffen their resolve and political will to oppose it. He said the industry now needs to move from the ‘sprint’ mode, into a ‘marathon’ mode and remind them all again at the spring review that the industry is still angry.

Restricting food supplies as a tactic will never work, despite the keyboard jockey’s enthusiasm for it. I remember the Farmers For Action days, when David Handley wanted farmers to throw their milk away for a day and starve the processors of their raw material to supply supermarkets. A few farmers did spill some milk, the television cameras were there to capture it, and it made good television. It made no difference to those who were squeezing our price at the time though and some farmers were penalised for it.

European farmers are a different breed and thank goodness we are not like them I say. When I was at the NFU and involved in Brussels, there were proper violent protests if things were wrong. Hard core protesters would release several vacuum tanker loads of milk, gushing down streets, amid a great deal of shouting and threatening behaviour. Industry representatives from different countries would be booed, and shouted down, sometimes pelted with fruit, veg and eggs ( I had a few missiles whistle past my ears), even though we were on their side, stating their case.

No, they wanted action, and action was to have a riot if they could, having come all this way from different countries.

Most of us would move away before the action started, but it could suddenly spark at any time and riot control fencing panels would rain down on or near the police, who had no qualms about lashing out at anyone who’s head came close. Despite all this, just like in the UK, farmers are having to take some nasty medicine as they are also squeezed and view international trade deals such as the recently agreed Mercosur agreement, with fear.

The arable sector is having an interesting discussion about re-generation farming and the environment, assessing its pluses and minuses. It starts with the basic question of which is worse, disrupting soil structure and losing or releasing carbon through tillage, or using herbicides to spray and kill temporary cover crops? If the plough, which has been used for centuries is now demonised by the re-gen enthusiasts and environmentalists, they must accept the sprayer. If they do not like the sprayer, they must accept the plough; that is the nub of this debate.

Glyphosate (Roundup) is the bette noir of many environmentalists, despite it being used for decades and a godsend when launched for farmers with intractable issues such as couch grass, as it chased all the rhizomes and delivered a complete kill. Glyphosate is a key tool in no-till to spray off cover crops, the last thing you want to do is to plough up a herbal ley for instance, in order to establish the next crop.

The plough releases up to three times more nitrous oxide than no-till, and you lose so much organic matter which has been carefully built up with the herbal ley.

New technology and techniques are being tried to see if cover crops can be dealt with without a sprayer. Multi-pass shallow cultivation for instance which seems to work, but diesel consumption is eight times that of a sprayer. Rolling cover crops during a hard frost is an effective way of killing it off too but hit and miss depending on the weather.

Progressive farmers and scientists believe that we are now about to enter the biological age, leaving the chemical age behind as techniques and learning develop. Interesting how things come around with time, financial and political pressure, together with greater learning. I see that half the Gen Z generation (those born after 1996) are planning to have a ‘dry’ Christmas.

A poll of 2000 adults found that 48% of them were planning to abstain over the festivities, motivated by a desire for a healthier, more balanced lifestyle. By comparison, only 6% of us lucky, had it all, feather-bedded ‘baby-boomers’ (born between 1946 and 1964) are even considering not having a drink over the Christmas period!

Whilst we all tuck into our turkey, goose, duck, beef, or whatever meat of your choice, spare a thought for the much-maligned vegans. They are being advised that their fake meat is actually far worse for the planet than the real delicious thing, as researchers examined 24 foods used as substitutes for meat and dairy.

They were scored on environmental, nutrition, and health benefits, and they come up short on most if not all depending on product.

Almond milk for example and veggie bacon are far worse for the environment than the real thing and I’m afraid that lab-grown meat is at the very bottom of the list; with emissions high enough to make a beef burger look good. At present the lab meat costs 40,000 time more to produce and just as bad for one’s health. Stick to beans and lentils is the advice and avoid ultra processed fakes.A Merry Christmas to all our readers.