These are obtained from the Defra publication, https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...for-piloting-and-launching-the-scheme#annex-1For clarity, are those rates just for participants in the pilot schemes, so on top of their current BPS? Or are they the rates that will eventually be paid under ELMS?
Interesting to see if they’ve had many applicants, considering you couldn’t apply if already in a scheme.Has anyone heard whether they've got onto the SFI pilot trial yet?
Interesting to see if they’ve had many applicants, considering you couldn’t apply if already in a scheme.
Interesting to see if they’ve had many applicants, considering you couldn’t apply if already in a scheme.
i was told just over 2000 for 1000 places
The analysis showed that there was a decline
in soil carbon stocks after land use conversion from grassland to
plantation forest (−10 percent), native forest to plantation forest
(−13 percent), native forest to cropland (−42 percent), and grassland
to cropland (−59 percent).
it is important to recognise that it
can take decades if not centuries to recover to the original level of
soil carbon stocks after disturbance due to land use change (Guo
and Gifford, 2002).
Is there that many people DD'ing ?
Can’t agree with that .All area based SFI money should go to existing PP. All of it.
Can’t agree with that .
I think PP should get nowt, as it’s always been PP and nothings going to change that .Be a boring old world if we all agreed .
Defra tell us that climate change is paramount. Using those land use change figures, and the time frames involved in rectifying damage, what % of area based SFI do folks think should go to protecting existing PP ?
I think PP should get nowt, as it’s always been PP and nothings going to change that
You’re probably right , but I bet they see it the way i jokingly did. I suppose they have to tempt people like me, who can just as easily grow more profitable crops for AD than bother with a few £s per ha for cover crops or such like.I would say that is Defra's reckoning of it. They need a lesson in the economics of LFA farming. (And in the central role of that grazing in the tourist economy. )
Sadly I suspect you're right.You’re probably right , but I bet they see it the way i jokingly did. I suppose they have to tempt people like me, who can just as easily grow more profitable crops for AD than bother with a few £s per ha for cover crops or such like.
You’re probably right , but I bet they see it the way i jokingly did. I suppose they have to tempt people like me, who can just as easily grow more profitable crops for AD than bother with a few £s per ha for cover crops or such like.
Sad but true.They already seem intent on ridding the country of ruminants.
Erm.....they contacted me. And I may be wrong but didn’t I say something about various grants and subsidies being absurd, for example the leader grants for direct drills and people calling a vaderstadt rapid with a subsoiler tool bar on the front a no till drill? I think the discussion was more about getting those in defra etc to actually understand the fundamental differences between these techniques, as it seems many farmers don’t know the difference either. I’m sure you were confusing min till/no till/strip till that prompted me to say that!Agreed. All the more reason it shouldn't be subsidized over any other crop establishment technique.
The DD poster, who says that he will be paid to do what he does anyway, also says that he is meeting with Defra this month to ensure that 'reduced tillage' means DD and DD alone.
are you okay? You have been ranting about this subject for weeks and weeks on here.
Why are people arguing against a lucrative income stream?
The lucrative income stream comment was in relation to selling carbon certificates onto iso accredited markets. Nothing to do with elms or whatever.I'm good, thanks. We are told, correctly, that this is the most important change in farming policy for decades. It needs to be got right. Defra have said that they are committed to 'co-design', and I take them at their word on that.
They are following this thread, I consider anyone's comments on here to be a contribution to the co-design process. You may not see it as being that important, but then again you did make the below comment, so I can see why you would be more laid back.
The lucrative income stream comment was in relation to selling carbon certificates onto iso accredited markets. Nothing to do with elms or whatever.