- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
My mistake. It was the "State of our rivers" report done for The Rivers Trusts but using EA data. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/6730f10b64184200b171a57750890643?item=1
ELMS: Parliamentary call for evidence
- Thread starter delilah
- Start date
wanton dwarf
Member
Still no factual evidence there.
Where's the testing data ?
Look at who is involved, doesn't look like many factual data contributors. Even states the report does not necessarily represent the views of those who contributed.
Done.
wanton dwarf
Member
@delilah
"What an arable farmer desires, above all else, is a ‘high floor’ in the price of grain and
straw. A vibrant livestock sector ensures a competitive marketplace for grain and straw
(with this destination being far more environmentally sustainable than power plants).
Loss of chemicals and increased awareness of soil conservation are leading to arable
farmers adopting more sustainable practices already. Arable land needs no payment of
public money, and no public good would be delivered by doing so."
I really am sick to death of the Bullsh@t.
Why is it the Green Lobby ALWAYS ends up as a stich up where they want EVERYTHING.
FUDGE OFF. Best thing that could happen is all payments are banned and the Green Lobby in farming dies a natural death at your own hands.
If you lot are so "Sustainable" then stand on your own two feet ... but you cant can you. And you cant help but destroy anything you touch.
"What an arable farmer desires, above all else, is a ‘high floor’ in the price of grain and
straw. A vibrant livestock sector ensures a competitive marketplace for grain and straw
(with this destination being far more environmentally sustainable than power plants).
Loss of chemicals and increased awareness of soil conservation are leading to arable
farmers adopting more sustainable practices already. Arable land needs no payment of
public money, and no public good would be delivered by doing so."
I really am sick to death of the Bullsh@t.
Why is it the Green Lobby ALWAYS ends up as a stich up where they want EVERYTHING.
FUDGE OFF. Best thing that could happen is all payments are banned and the Green Lobby in farming dies a natural death at your own hands.
If you lot are so "Sustainable" then stand on your own two feet ... but you cant can you. And you cant help but destroy anything you touch.
Thanks for reading. If there's anything specific in there you'd like to discuss that would be good.
Also, if you have your own proposals for what ELMS should look like, be good to discuss. Or did 'all payments are banned' cover it ?
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
wanton dwarf
Member
Here's a good example of "Environmentalists" in action:
The recent "Water Crysis" - which in itself is a joke considering the pollution that used to exist in rivers - but lets actually look at what they say.
Heatwaves, sewage, pesticides: why England’s rivers need a ‘new deal’ to avert crisis
A water industry group is calling for legislation and planning controls to protect waterways from climate change and pollution
www.theguardian.com
“The risk is that billions of pounds of investment is otherwise narrowly targeted at removing nutrients from the ends of pipes, while causing other kinds of environmental harm and ignoring goals like habitat and species restoration.”
The truth is that those nutrients are not really a problem - they ARE a problem for farmers who would like to use recycled nutrients rather than paying big business.
However let's have a look at how that "Pollution" happens. We get rain water, comes in on peoples houses, pretty pure apart from a bit of smoke pollution (not much) - then immediately it's mixed with waste water from washing, sh@tting, drugs, medicine etc. So rain water which could be used for drinking from roofs is immediately polluted.
That's specifically by authorities planning, design, laws etc. Not even an attempt to seperate the pollutants from clean water in homes and industry.
Yet farmers fields are somehow to blame - it's Bullsh@t.
100%.
Just to expand on my suggestion re arable land and the SFI. As an arable farmer the greatest public good I can deliver is to produce food in a way that I consider appropriate for my land and my business.
Any offer of SFI money that is designed to influence how I farm that arable land, may divert me from optimal decision making. Hence my assertion that no payment should be made on cropped land.
As you will have read, I do suggest attractive payments be offered on water course protection and hedgerow management, being two ways in which public good can be delivered on all land, be it arable, horticultural or livestock.
(As an aside, we are mainly arable, and high input at that, so I wouldn't want my proposals being seen as coming from the lentil-knitting-anti-productivity brigade. Quite the opposite).
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Uncomfortable reading though for bureaucrats who have spent the last 40 years largely targeting agri-environment money at large arable units.....
ollie989898
Member
I don't see why farms of less than 40ha should receive any money. If you set the bar that low then you will wrap the whole thing around administrative red tape. Fruit and vegetable sectors- are these failing then?
The biggest issue the government needs to address, which would cost very little tax payer money is to address the ridiculous layout of the food chain and the way in which supermarkets stand on producers. It's not equitable, it's not sustainable and it isn't good for the environment in the long term.
The biggest issue the government needs to address, which would cost very little tax payer money is to address the ridiculous layout of the food chain and the way in which supermarkets stand on producers. It's not equitable, it's not sustainable and it isn't good for the environment in the long term.
We have been told from the outset that ELMS is to see a transformative change in agricultural policy. If it isn't uncomfortable reading, then we aren't trying hard enough.
There's 50,000 reasons. They revolve around the issue of critical mass.
100%. But outside the scope of ELMS.
ollie989898
Member
I don't see the point. Why should every landowner be included? Even wealthy folk who bought a big house with 40 acres around it? Nah, fudge them.
Much of the land being made available to new entrants these days, is that owned by wealthy folk with a big house and 40 acres. By making an attractive payment rate available for it being farmed rather than abandoned, we make available a first rung on the ladder. The SFI payment will go to the person farming the land, not the landowner.
Without a higher level of support for smaller farms we are effectively abandoning vast areas of the country to city dwellers moving to the countryside for early retirement with no hope of the next generation making a viable farming living, that is not the sort of country I want to live in!
It seems we in the UK are out of step with most other countries by failing to realise that small enterprises are the back bone & future of any country!
- Location
- Mendips Somerset
It has gone to the National Trust rep on the Defra Elms Engagement Group. They should support it, there's lots in there for their tenants.
Natural England is an interesting one, like the EA they aren't on the Engagement Group, I guess because they are part of Govt and need to be seen to be leaving it to Defra ? Will send to Tony Juniper anyway.
It probably will
To be honest if what they have come up with up to now is the best they can do when most of the money they are going to shell out will end up in the hands of parasites and the likes of nt [same thing really] I am tempted to wright to them offering them a deal, they can shove the money where they dam well like in return for them leaving us the feck alone
Goweresque
Member
- Location
- North Wilts
Have you had your eyes closed over the last 20 years as direct payments to 'the active farmer' have just inflated rents by the same amount? Any payments that are paid out on farm land, regardless of who gets the money to start with, will largely end up in the pocket of the landowner via higher rents (sometimes of course the active farmer and the landowner are the same person, but the point stands).
Rents inflated largely because there has been no cap on payments so the bigger you are the easier it is to offer a higher rent for extra land, all payments should be capped at a sensible level, why is it the UK is so out of step with most other countries, I'll tell you why it's because the NFU is totally influenced & been bought off by large land owning estates!
Last edited: