Dairy farming is dying – we're an endangered species
'There are some days,' Peter Gantlett says, turning into the long track to his dairy farm in a particularly isolated corner of rural Wiltshire, 'when I just think: 'Why the hell am I doing this?' Usually because I'm freezing cold. But then you get over that, and meet the challenge.' He drives on in silence for a moment. 'I mean, I've got friends who just play golf every day. I'm not about to do that…'
Gantlett is 69 years old, and like many dairy farmers, is a bit of a numbers man. So he knows off hand, for example, that he has 1,112 acres of organic farmland just south of Royal Wootton Bassett. He knows that 675 is for pasture, 296 is for growing crops, 45 is for woodland, another 45 is for solar panels and 39 is for wildflower meadows.
He also knows that Britons drink some 12 million litres of milk every day – over a litre per week per person. And while some of that milk comes from vast super-producers, much of it comes from people like him: small, dedicated family farms that have been around for generations, but are now finding life tougher and tougher.
Gantlett may have 260 beef calves, then, but the core of his family business, as it was for his father, and his father before him, is the 150 dairy cows currently sitting out the final frosts of winter in the barn across from his farmhouse. A mixture of Fleckvieh, Montbéliarde and British Friesian genetic breeds, they produce 2,000 litres of milk per day, all of which is collected by the German dairy giant Müller.
'We're as efficient as we can be,' Gantlett says. 'Twenty years ago we had a decision, and three choices: get out, get bigger, or improve the value of our product. We chose the last one, and went organic.' Today, as British dairy is under siege from various squalls – not least those driven by Westminster, including Labour's inheritance tax (IHT) changes – Gantlett is all too aware of one particular number: that one British dairy farm is going out of business every day. He's just hoping that decision not to bow out when he could was the right one.
Last month, the producer of Cathedral City Cheese, the Japanese company Saputo Dairy, axed the contracts of more than a dozen farmers in the South West. Saputo, which also makes Clover and Utterly Butterly, terminated agreements with 13 farms who supplied it with 20 million litres of milk every year. The farmers are now at risk of going bust if they do not find alternative business in 12 months.
It is a worrying trend: according to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, there are 7,200 dairy producers in Great Britain. This is down four per cent on the previous year and 19 per cent on 2019. 'We are an endangered species, our number is diminishing,' Gantlett says, in a tone that's less a portent, more a matter of fact.
Mercifully, his farm is in profit and he's happy with Müller. The decision to go organic was a good one – he gets around 56p per litre at the moment, while the average milk price paid in January was a little over 46p. Yet the vicissitudes of his industry mean it's difficult for a small dairy farmer to ever feel as if they are thriving. Optimism isn't common in Gantlett's game. Instead, you're more likely to find a sense of managing decline.
Gantlett is a tall, wiry figure who walks with a slight limp. He has kind eyes, but tends to keep a stoic po face – at least until his grandchildren appear and instantly melt him. As he potters around his yard, the calves moo at a volume that seems unmatched to their tiny stature. The youngest are just five days old.
'The story of milk starts with a calf, because if a cow doesn't produce a calf, it doesn't produce milk,' he says, scratching the back of one. His is a 'closed herd', meaning he breeds all the replacement heifers, which eventually join the milking herd. This protects against the risks new animals might bring – not least diseases like tuberculosis (TB).
We stand and gaze at the herd in their winter lodgings, where we're joined by Anita, Gantlett's wife, Sally, their daughter, plus Sally's two young children. It's a family affair, as it has always been. Sally, 37, is an architect, but she's getting more and more involved with the family business. When she was a child, she and her brother, Jon, helped milk the cows and scrape the slurry. Decades before that, Gantlett did it as a child too.
They now have two Lely robotic milking machines, each of which cost £120,000 in 2011 (plus about the same again on the building work to house them). They have transformed the business over the last 15 years. The cows decide when they want to be milked and, when they do, queue up for the robots, which assess them using lasers, then do the milking swiftly and painlessly, collecting it in containers ready for the supplier. It's now a common method for dairy farmers who can afford it, but many are working as the Gantletts used to, using rudimentary milking machines. Some are even doing it by hand, as his grandfather did.
'Before the robots, the life was getting up at three or four in the morning in the summer to get the cows in for milking, then you'd milk them at half-five in the morning, then spend an hour washing everything down, then you've got your morning tasks – bedding, feeding, taking them back out – before you do it all again in the afternoon.' And sometimes again last thing at night.
A 14-hour day would be a short one. 'It's much more sociable, much more amenable for staff this way. You're working with the cows. Robots – they also have two robotic slurry scrapers, part-funded by a grant from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) – have taken the drudgery out, so we can focus on the cows.'
Is there ever a part of him that misses the old days when… I begin asking, before Gantlett cuts me off. 'No. Being stuck at the wrong end of a cow, and you're there, in the dead of winter at five o'clock in the morning, the wind whistling through. Everything's freezing up. Or it's summer and too hot and the flies are everywhere…' He shakes his head. It's a definite no.
They're also large, unpredictable animals. Not always as docile as the image portrays. He shows me a curved scar on his hand. A cow leapt out of control at a gate once, knocking him down while his hand was trapped, badly cutting him. He reluctantly went to hospital for stitches, where the doctors and nurses didn't properly clean the wound before sewing him up.
'I could see them stitching slurry into me and thought, 'Well that's not good...'' Later that day his whole arm started to go grey. 'Blood poisoning,' he says, cheerfully. Back to the hospital he went, a little more quickly than the first time. He's fine now. A spot of septicemia's all in a day's work.
Gantlett feels lucky. He has always had a supportive family and a small enthusiastic staff to help on the farm. 'But I do get that mental health issues can be an issue in agriculture, because farming can be very challenging, and when you're on your own the pressures can be relentless.'
Technology helps, and previous governments offered grants to encourage robotics, but dairy farmers still face myriad issues. Some of these are the same blights that affect farmers of all kinds – the climate emergency, geopolitical strife, ever more powerful supermarkets, Brexit repercussions.
At the moment, 'it's Government policy that's the most depressing thing. We have a Government that doesn't seem to care, or understand, or is indifferent, or possibly even hostile to farming. And it's not a great place to be in terms of thinking about the future. But the flip side of that is the public support.'
Those members of the public seem to understand something he believes the Government does not: that 'farmers may be sitting on millions of pounds worth of land, but that is just a tool to produce food. We don't have surplus cash, the only income we get is by growing food on that land. And our return on capital is about one to one-and-a-half per cent. Well, the dragons on Dragon's Den always say they wouldn't get out of bed for one per cent...'
Labour rocked the entire farming sector with its Budget announcement that it will reform the Agricultural Property Relief (APR), which allows farmers to easily pass their businesses to the next generation, by introducing a 20 per cent tax rate on the value of all farms and businesses worth more than £1 million. The Gantletts aren't yet sure how it will affect them.
'I haven't run the sums yet…' Sally says, grimacing slightly. 'That's on my to-do list, to look at the business case of what would happen. It's really hard to plan at the moment, because there aren't a lot of guidelines, and you can't make any gift payments now. So they've sort of trapped us, and there's a lack of understanding about how that'll impact everyone.'
Farmers now feel helpless, she explains. For every other risk the Gantletts and farmers like them face, they can invest and combat it: technology can reduce labour costs and make jobs safer, for instance, and herbal leys improve soil health and biodiversity. Even the raw deal dairy farmers get from supermarkets can, to some extent, be buttressed by diversifying.
'But the IHT is a backwards step,' Sally says. 'No one is sure how to combat the risk: the business would need to be big enough to withstand selling off 20 per cent, which is a lot. If our business was sold it would be devastating for us, and for our employees. We have so many rural suppliers that benefit from our trade; each business that closes impacts so many more.'
One recent glimmer of hope for dairy farmers came in the news that dairy milk sales and consumption increased in 2024, after years of ceding market share to almond and oat – a rise that was driven by the surge in veganism. In her time in London, Sally saw lots of friends going vegan, and therefore dairy-free.
If anything it inspired her to stand up for the family business. 'I knew that what we do is right and good, and you're producing a good product, you're looking after the environment, looking after your animals, you're doing everything you can and [we] need food to eat.
'It's a very nutrient dense food we're creating. It hasn't flown halfway across the world, it's not a big monocrop that's been sprayed… There's so many issues in global agriculture, but what we do here stands up very strongly. It's a shame it's not shouted about a bit more.'
The money is still not great, despite going organic and diversifying. The relatively modest income from dairy is split among the family and five staff. For the average dairy farmer, the price paid for milk by supermarkets has been driven lower and lower over the years. It has risen over the last decade, since tensions were at breaking point – in Stafford in 2015, police were called when farmers paraded two cows through an Asda in protest – but Gantlett would still like greater regulation.
'If you don't pay farmers enough for milk, there won't be milk, because we're losing farmers all the time, and there's only a limited amount that those of us left can expand. There's a risk to milk production. It comes back to the Government, which needs to be careful with what they're doing. It's things like TB, things like regulations, and things like inheritance tax. They're going to push farmers out of business. They are the threats,' he says.
Sally would like to pass the farm on to another generation beyond her. Or at least, 'I'd like to be able to. And for them to have the option.' Gantlett would like that too, but it's not necessarily a given anymore. Asked if he would recommend the life to a newcomer, he pauses for a moment but reckons, on balance, that he would.
I wonder how many hours of work a week he does these days. 'I don't know,' he mutters. 'I'm trying to work less, but, is it Churchill who said that when you love something, you aren't working? Some weeks I do 80 hours, some days I'm just walking around checking things.'
On those bitterly cold days, though, when he's checking the farm before the sun rises, chasing cows around in the slurry, not knowing where the next challenge is coming from, retirement and a round of golf does seem appealing. As with many like him, he doesn't strictly 'need' to farm. We need farmers, but there'd be nothing stopping the Gantletts checking out and leaving it to someone else. And yet they won't.
'If we just wanted to make money, well we'd just sell up and put all the money on the stock market. But then what would we do?' he says. 'It's not an easy thing to explain: why we farm. It sort of makes no commercial sense. But we do, and we do enjoy it. And we're profitable. But if we weren't... well, it'd make no sense at all.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
At last the ‘Iron Chancellor' has turned, but the cost could be fatal
While Rachel Reeves has often invoked the soviet nickname embraced by Baroness Thatcher, she has typically struggled to live up to the 'Iron Chancellor' moniker she craved. Where Thatcher declared 'the lady's not for turning', Reeves has more frequently been found flip-flopping. We now have details of the latest volte-face, and a rough value has been ascribed to the political capital Labour burnt during its first major fiscal event. The price of all goodwill afforded to a new government? £450m, or 0.05pc of the total tax take. Since the winter fuel payment was first scrapped for all pensioners except those in receipt of pension credit, we've been patiently expecting this about-turn, which doesn't scream confidence in government policy. At midday yesterday, HM Treasury confirmed that a new arbitrary figure had been laid down to determine the deserving/undeserving old, this time set at £35,000. Those below this line of personal income will be entitled to £200 per household (up to £300 if all residents are over 80), while those above it are not entitled to keep the money. Yes, that is a personal income allowance to judge a household payment. On £35,001 and live alone? Not a penny. Two of you on £35,000 for a total household income of £70,000? The full amount. One of you above and one below? The payment will be split, and the one earning above the threshold will have to pay theirs back. Will it rise in line with the triple lock? No clue. Where does £35,000 come from as a limit? Well it's less than average earnings and nowhere near any tax bracket, so answers on a postcard please. Will the Government ensure only those entitled to the benefit receive it? No. It will be paid to all and clawed back through PAYE or self-assessment tax returns. Sound complicated? It sure does – and complicated generally means expensive administration. High street accountancy firms will leap on the confusion, but I'm not sure this is the productivity boost Reeves dreamed of. So far, nobody has cobbled together any estimates for how much this system will cost HMRC to develop and implement, but it's not zero. Don't forget, the previous eligibility criterion of being a pension credit recipient has already sparked its own costs. According to former pensions minister, Sir Steve Webb, the flurry of new applicants has already added a £200m annual cost, reducing the benefit to Treasury coffers to just £250m, not £450m, before any admin costs are factored in. That's 0.03pc of the total tax take. He explained: 'These changes wipe out most of the extra revenue which the Government was expecting to get from the winter fuel payment policy. 'Not only has the Government knocked more than a billion pounds off the expected revenue but it has also had to find more than £200m per year extra because of the surge in pension credit claims. 'Overall, the amount raised looks tiny relative to the political damage which the whole episode has caused to the Government.' But it's not just political damage – in the immediate wake of the news, gilt yields rose. Certainly, some element of this is simply factoring in the lower revenues the Government can now expect, but more critically, it is shifting perceptions. The long shadow of Liz Truss's mini-Budget continues to haunt Labour, and they are likely to be undone by their own political spin. Reeves et al oversimplified what happened in September 2022 and tied their hands in the process. Changing policy is a natural part of government and waiting for the next Budget isn't always possible, but when you tell the nation (and markets) that it's fiscally irresponsible to do so, you cannot be surprised when eyebrows are raised. Reeves's Spring Statement already effectively broke her promise of one major fiscal event per year – yesterday's revelation has broken most of the others. The policy is not accompanied by an Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast (although one is promised for the next Budget), and weren't we told the cut was necessary to fill the black hole? Before the changes, ING's James Smith, a developed market economist focused on the UK, had already predicted that Reeves would have no fiscal headroom – now she'll miss it by at least another £1.25bn. With the two-child benefit cap also likely to be axed, which will add another £3.5bn to the outgoings side of the balance sheet, not to mention the £17bn cost of boosting defence spending to 3pc, Reeves is more likely to have a sore neck than any headroom. But the Chancellor keeps painting herself into a corner – she has once again recommitted herself to not raising income tax, National Insurance or VAT. She has doubled down on her 'non-negotiable' fiscal rules and respect for the OBR, forcing her to fiddle with the margins every time the bond markets hiccup. We'll have to wait and see what happens with Wednesday's spending review, but something will have to give soon, and it's looking more likely than ever that it will be Reeves. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rolls-Royce to build Britain's first mini nuclear reactors
Rolls-Royce will build the country's first mini nuclear power plants as part of a multibillion-pound effort to make Britain a world leader in the technology. The Derby-based engineering giant was on Tuesday confirmed as the sole winner of a design competition, beating rivals GE-Hitachi and Holtec International following a two-year selection process. It will now work with the Government on a programme to initially build three the first small modular reactors (SMRs) by the 2030s, with £2.5bn of funding pledged through 2029 and billions more expected beyond that once construction begins. Ministers said the decision showed they were 'backing Britain', with the majority of the supply chain expected to be based domestically. As a 'preferred' bidder, Rolls will now hold talks to negotiate a final contract with the Government. A location has yet to be announced but sites including Wylfa, in Anglesey, and Oldbury-on-Severn, in Gloucestershire, are among those being considered. Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, said the scheme would boost energy security and create thousands of jobs, as part of a new 'golden age of nuclear' that has also seen the Government pledge £14bn of new funding to the construction of Sizewell C. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, added: 'The UK is back where it belongs, taking the lead in the technologies of tomorrow with Rolls-Royce SMR as the preferred partner for this journey. 'We're backing Britain with Great British Energy - Nuclear's ambition to ensure 70pc of supply chain products are British built, delivering our plan for change through more jobs and putting more money in people's pockets.' SMRs would in theory be faster to build than larger nuclear plants, such as Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, and come with smaller price tags – although they remain unproven commercially. Tuesday's announcement also confirmed cutbacks to the SMR programme, which The Telegraph previously revealed were being considered. The Government had earlier suggested that two or as many as three SMR manufacturers would be chosen to take designs forward, with nuclear industry insiders saying this would boost competition and ensure a 'backup' was available should the main winner run into trouble. But with the Treasury under pressure to find billions of pounds for other priorities such as the NHS and police forces, the scale of the programme now appears to have been trimmed back. Ministers also confirmed that Great British Nuclear, the quango set up to manage the new mini-nuclear programme, would be absorbed into Mr Miliband's publicly owned Great British Energy. Tufan Erginbilgic, chief executive of Rolls-Royce, said: 'This is a very significant milestone for our business. 'It is a vote of confidence in our unique nuclear capabilities, which will be recognised by governments around the world.' Rolls has also been selected by the Czech government to build some of Europe's first SMRs in a joint venture with state energy firm CEZ. The decision brings to a close a process that was first promised by George Osborne, the former chancellor, in 2015 but did not begin until 2023 under the previous Conservative government. Rolls was widely viewed as the frontrunner in the process and had already been awarded £210m of taxpayer support in 2021 towards the development costs of its SMR technology. But in the past year, ministers have faced calls from Rolls boss Erginbilgic to push forward more quickly to ensure Britain retains 'first mover advantage'. The global SMR market is projected to be worth up to £500bn by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency. Rolls is vying against companies including Westinghouse and GE-Hitachi to secure customers and set up supply chains. The company has long supplied the pressurised water reactors that power Royal Navy submarines but has more recently sought to develop SMRs and even smaller 'micro reactors' for commercial use as well. Its SMRs would be constructed from 'modules' that are built in factories and then transported to sites for assembly. The idea is meant to ensure that the plants can be produced efficiently at scale and more quickly than larger nuclear projects. As part of the SMR competition, the Government asked companies to explain how they would bring down costs over time. In the longer run, it is also hoped that the smaller price tags of SMRs will ensure they are more attractive to private investors, which have long viewed bigger plants as too expensive and risky to back without government support. Major technology companies including Google, Amazon and Facebook owner Meta are investing in potential SMR technologies, amid suggestions they could eventually be used to supply power-hungry data centres needed to develop artificial intelligence. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
After 46-day cyberattack pause, M&S resumes online orders
By James Davey and Paul Sandle LONDON (Reuters) - British retailer Marks & Spencer resumed taking online orders for clothing lines on Tuesday after a 46-day hiatus following a cyberattack. Shares in M&S, one of the best-known names in British business, were up 3% after it restarted standard home delivery in England, Scotland and Wales for the majority of its clothing range. "It's not the full range at the moment, we've focused on best sellers and newness," an M&S spokesperson said. "We'll be bringing product online everyday so customers will see that grow over the coming days." M&S said delivery to Northern Ireland will resume in the "coming weeks", as will click and collect services, next-day delivery, nominated-day delivery and international ordering. The 141-year-old M&S stopped taking clothing and home orders through its website and app on April 25 following problems with contactless pay and click and collect services over the Easter holiday weekend. It first disclosed it had been managing a "cyber incident" on April 22. M&S said last month it expected online disruption to continue into July and forecast the attack would cost it about 300 million pounds ($404 million) in lost operating profit in its 2025/26 financial year, though it hopes to halve the impact through insurance and cost control. The group said hackers broke into its systems by tricking employees at a third-party contractor, skirting its digital defences to launch a cyberattack. ($1 = 0.7429 pounds)