Andrew Arbuckle: This farmer went to market, that one stayed home and got EU payments

AS THIS is the school exam season, I pose the following question to those sitting their advanced farming exam.

Question: Comment on these two facts:

(1) The total sales at farmers' markets in Scotland reached 24 million last year

(2) Between them, the top 20 recipients of farm subsidies in Scotland last year were given almost 13m of public money.

Answer: With regard to food production, those supplying farmers markets win heads up. Unless they produce what the customer wants, they will require to take their produce home unsold. They only supply a small percentage of the total food bought in Scotland but they are ambitious to raise their output.

Meanwhile, those who are receiving the subsidies do not have any need to think about the market or its demands.

With regard to public benefit, those who receive the subsidy are required to comply with the code of good agricultural practice, but I fear this will be difficult for those who may not know the location of the land for which they are paying a nominal sum, and which ensures their eligibility for single farm payment.

I am sure that those trying to grow crops or raise stock to sell direct to the customer are providing a public benefit, but they will need to do more to get a wider customer base. My observations are that they have very loyal customers but they need more people buying their food.

What about personal benefit? Well, some of those attending farmers' markets can take quite a lot of money across the stall in a three- or four-hour period.

This is especially so for those with meat products, generally with a high value/low volume set-up. I have heard of some producers taking home more than 2,000 on a good Saturday morning market. By contrast, the stall holder selling vegetables has to work hard to take home more than a few hundred pounds.

For those taking the public cash, it is easier as the cheque is paid very timeously by the Scottish Government. Eyebrows may be raised at the top subsidy recipient – a farmer with 300 to 400 acres of land getting a cheque for 1.2m.

But he has, no doubt, another several thousand acres rented on some far-flung hillside and that fits the rules and thus he is eligible for the cash.

Large estates also feature highly in the top 20 list, but they have always done so. A feature of the most recent list is that it shows those who have decided buying single farm payments is a good investment.

Any problems with the weather? This may seem a strange category but over the past two months during which I have bought food at four farmers' markets, I have admired the dogged determination of those either standing knee deep in snow or leaning into the wind and rain as they try to engage potential customers. And that is without the pre-market work going out and cutting leeks, cabbages carrots or whatever in the severe weather.

Meanwhile, those who have cottoned on to the availability of public cash are cocooned in their offices working out whether it is wise to buy more SFP entitlements.

What of the future? Well, those who run farmers' markets are quite ambitious and aim to increase the number and frequency of such events.

One problem might be that the more a producer becomes a stall holder, the less time he or she will have available to keep an eye on primary production. Another issue could be the lack of range of produce we have in this northern part of Europe.

For those receiving the big cheques, the future poses quite a problem.

The best thing as far as they are concerned is to prevent change and this is achieved by attending one of Brian Pack's Inquiry into Future Agricultural Support for Scotland meetings and arguing for the status quo.

However, the longer-term option is to keep alert as to possible changes in the subsidy regime and see how it can be manipulated to their requirements.

This should be relatively easy as the EU is not going to make life difficult by requiring any production. If a percentage of the cash goes into the top-up funds, as is suggested by Pack, it will be essential to get in there quickly, but I have no doubt they have already figured this out.

Conclusion: I am sorry to report that, in answering, I foolishly tried to base my response on logic and common sense. This is apparently not allowed under the current European Union regime, where expediency apparently gains extra marks.