WHATEVER the final Brexit deal, farmers will be under pressure to become more efficient. Support will fall, the only question being how long the transitional period will be and the model to ensure farming continues to deliver for the environment.

The drive for greater efficiency is inevitable, because prices are not going to rise to make up for lost support funding. Indeed trade deals with some major food producing countries could drive prices lower, forcing farmers to produce more for less.

This is probably a greater challenge for beef and sheep, which have fitted in well with the single payment era. However a report from the Rabobank suggests that across all enterprises there is scope for livestock farmers to become more efficient.

It is advocating precision livestock farming or PLF. This is based around better use of data and ways of collecting and analysing that information. It claims this will reduce labour costs and drive production efficiency, and the bigger the enterprise the greater the potential impact. Extensions include machinery controlled by satellite to allow more efficient use of inputs.

However one essential for all of these to work is better rural broadband, since without fast access to the internet data collection and analysis devices are of little benefit. This raises questions about how efficient the government will allow farming to become after Brexit.

While PLF techniques are already used they tend to be in enterprises outside the scope of the CAP. This suggests the end of the CAP in the UK will drive technology. But the government needs to be more willing to debate a future for agriculture based around global competitiveness. That can go hand in hand with delivering for the environment. Indeed, the more efficient use of inputs offers real environmental benefits.

However technology alone will not drive efficiency. Brexit will bring about a realisation that there will no longer be the safety net of direct payments. Farms that produce stock not in line with specification, or which lag behind on benchmarking, will not be able to avoid the rude shock that is coming in 2019.

There is a growing view in Brussels that while 2019 is the formal date when Brexit will happen, it is unlikely the detail will be finalised.

The EU trade commissioner, Cecilia Malmstrom, said this week she was confident a trade deal will be done between the UK and the EU 27, but made clear that there were likely to be transitional arrangements from

2019 to when the deal can actually be in place. This is no surprise, but farmers still need to see transitional arrangements as a shock absorbers against sudden change, and not as a reason to ignore the Brexit realities.

There is no question that the industry will have to become more efficient. There is also no doubt that some now in the industry will decide to call it a day. That is a trend that has been around a long time, and it is one that might help more young people get the start in agriculture they want. It is interesting that in the priorities for the new CAP generational renewal – European Commission speak for supporting young farmers – is near the top of the list.

While there is a lot in the CAP farmers will be glad to escape, hopefully this is one piece of Brussels thinking the UK government will make part of its new post-Brexit agricultural policy.

The Brexit outcome is a long term frustration for farmers, but more immediate frustration is an apparently well funded campaign by Go Vegan World, using billboards to denigrate farming. These have angered dairy farmers in particular, and one of their criticisms is of the use of the word 'milk' to describe white liquids made from plants.

Now the organisation that represents EU meat processors is urging the European Commission to act against businesses producing vegetarian food using 'meat' terms to describe their products. Examples cited include vegetarian meat, vegetarian hamburgers or salami and even 'chiken' as a substitute for chicken.

Industry body, Clitravi, says this breaks an EU regulation that protects consumers from misleading information about food. It says this is not an attack on vegetarians or an attempt to criticise their lifestyle choice, but an issue of consumers knowing what they are buying. A fair point this might be, but it is difficult to envisage Brussels tackling such a sensitive issue – and even less likely from Westminster.