Who decides how to actually define an active farmer?

I ended by saying "don't let me start on 'Active Farmer' definitions – perhaps another time".

So a week or so ago, I tried again. But as I am not involved any more and found it really difficult, I showed it to an arable farmer friend. She promptly made it worse by talking about crop rotations and so on, so I shelved it. Then that evening this column provided some of the answers, but used terms like "multi-layered and complex" which didn't help me.

Obviously it doesn't really matter if I do or don't understand the changes or their consequences. Or does it? An important part of relating to farming these days, as we are constantly being told, is that we the consumer (and I'm wearing both hats now) understand how the industry works, and this should include how the rules that govern it affect the final outcome – the food on our plates.

The definition of "Active Farmer" seems clearer too. It's someone who provides food from their land, rather than using it for leisure. So they will get the majority of the payments, with additional money for caring for wildlife and habitats.

That sounds fair to me.

Complications pop up when the regulations state that "greening" means rotating arable crops and pasture, which could be difficult for farmers who only grow a single crop, like a cereal to feed their stock.

How will they comply – with difficulty. At least I think that's what she said!

Having defined an active farmer, Defra believes that there must be an acreage below which it is impossible to produce food. And that is going to be 12 acres.

Who makes these decisions? Do they think them through? For example, in the 1970s we owned 10 acres here in Shropshire.

Admittedly we had two ponies, but we also reared calves and lambed ewes and worked really hard to make a profit, however small. We could do this because we also rented "winter keep" from a dairy farmer.

When we sold calves as yearlings, we would buy more and I'd get "something" for myself – wages if you like.

The lambs that went to the butcher paid for feed, fertiliser, fencing and the vet and so on.

By Defra's definition we were "active farmers", but because we were less than 12 acres, we wouldn't have qualified. So we would lose what little payment we might be entitled to (or need) because of a line they have arbitrarily drawn.

The law is an ass, apologies to asses. Rather the law makers are ill-informed and blinkered, I think.

That's more polite, isn't it?

Surely size is not relevant.

If you contribute to the economy you should be eligible for payments.

Has Defra understood this or is it really just a cost-cutting exercise? Its website doesn't fill me with confidence.

Clearly the reforms are going to be "multi-layered and complex". Isn't everything with Defra!

* Rosemary Allen is a retired livestock farmer now living near Ellesmere and, with her husband Peter, is part of CowCash-UK.