We import most of it now sadly!! There are other ways to make C02the co2 produced from fertilser is an essential ingredient to feed the uk population
without the fertiliser the uk would import more food from across the world depriving others
We import most of it now sadly!! There are other ways to make C02the co2 produced from fertilser is an essential ingredient to feed the uk population
without the fertiliser the uk would import more food from across the world depriving others
my parcel size are from .3ha to 50 haGot to be one SoM test per parcel surely? Thats what most folks do now with a W shape across the parcel. If it is per Ha £40 wont go far!!
None yet, we're thinking about this and haven't decided what to do yet - what do you think we should do?
Got to be one SoM test per parcel surely? Thats what most folks do now with a W shape across the parcel. If it is per Ha £40 wont go far!!
How does that fit with a pasture fan with average field size of 2 Ha though? 1 sample per 5 fields?If it is prescribed as a sample for each Ha, and considering it is being done solely to inform management decisions on individual farms. Then it is complete overkill and will massively discourage uptake because of costs, both monetary and time.
I hope you mean a test sample will be required every 10-25Ha and that test sample should be made up from 10-25 subsamples.
There is absolutely no need for any more detailed results than this for the stated aim of the requirement, in fact even that is probably double what is needed to inform soil management decisions.
Yep, one test sample each 5-10 fields, if they're 2Ha fields if similar soil type and back crop. Realistically are you going to change soil management practices for each 1Ha of a 2ha pasture field based on 1Ha SOM test results? No.How does that fit with a pasture fan with average field size of 2 Ha though? 1 sample per 5 fields?
Whatever system will disadvantage some over others.
@Janet Hughes Defra I have asked this question before and am still not clear.We are making the inspections more supportive and less punitive - we won't use penalties for errors, we will help you sort out the issue. Here is the relevant part of the document we published on this:
The SFI approach to agreement monitoring will be simpler, fairer and more proportionate than EU-based schemes.
We want to create an approach in which farmers acting in good faith (the vast majority) feel confident and supported – while taking effective action in the minority of instances where that’s not the case. This new approach is particularly important if something goes wrong – farmers should feel confident in explaining the situation, and confident that Defra will support them in getting back on track.
To achieve this, we are designing an approach in which:
Inevitably, there may be cases where it has not been possible for a farmer to implement part of a standard, and so a payment adjustment needs to be made. Where things go wrong, we will first seek to help farmers to fix it, on a starting assumption of good faith rather than wrongdoing. The SFI (as with the new domestic Countryside Stewardship agreements) will not involve additional ‘penalties’ being applied on top of the adjustment. This moves away from the approach taken under EU-based schemes.
- SFI standards and guidance will be clear – so farmers know what they need to do
- there is flexibility to allow farmers to take an approach that works on their farm in a way that still delivers the outcomes, rather than insisting on detailed prescriptions
- farmers are confident in how to demonstrate they have delivered the standards – they should know what evidence is needed, and not feel pressured to keep excessive evidence or worried about unfair penalties if something doesn’t work out according to plan
- self-assessment by farmers will be a key part of agreement monitoring – farmers will submit an annual declaration to confirm progress in delivering the agreement
- the self-assessment approach will be backed up by checks on eligibility and delivery of the standards – where possible, we will also use remote monitoring (such as satellites) to increase efficiency and ease for farmers and Defra
- where there is evidence of fraud or illegality, we will of course pursue that in line with the law on those issues
The SFI will also move away from the approach under previous schemes, where farmers had payments withheld on suspicion of a breach. Sometimes this led to payments being withheld for long periods when a breach had not actually occurred. Generally, under SFI (unless there are exceptional circumstances) we will wait until it is clear a breach has occurred before deciding whether action needs to be taken.
But why the need to interfere at there cost . Money far better spent elsewhere in a bulging population.Isn't that what they are doing? But carrying on with a tweaked environmental policy.
But remember that not set in stone.Every three months, starting 3 months after your contract starts.
Probably because they want to improve the environmental impact of UK farming...But why the need to interfere at there cost . Money far better spent elsewhere in a bulging population.
I have been told no by my Natural England advisor.@Janet Hughes Defra
With regards to switching from hls to cs, our hls runs out in April and I believe cs would start in January so we would have a 9month funding gap, could the rules be changed to avoid this?
Do nothing. The biomass industry has already been screwed up by the cosy arrangement between Hetas and the Woodsure scheme. All it has done is create a black market for biomas and a lot of long term log suppliers have stuck two fingers upto Woodsure and the pathetic costly assurance scheme preferring to not bother rather than operate in a police state of penalties.None yet, we're thinking about this and haven't decided what to do yet - what do you think we should do?
Fair comment to a practical situation but why the poor return. Firstly 99.9% of business would laugh them out of the room for wanting to interfere in there day to day affairs . Secondly the money been offered is 0.01% of return per unit of my family's inheritance. (The unit being an acre of land roughly valued today at £10,000 ) so why would I invest into this when I could probably get a return of 1.5- 2% elsewhere for no hassle . This bank if it was a bank would never get investment at this level.The carrot needs to grow and rapidly .Probably because they want to improve the environmental impact of UK farming...
Was same here.I have been told no by my Natural England advisor.
The pilot isn't changing, so the information you've had about that still stands - the new rules and standards are for the early rollout of the full scheme from next year. The pilot also still includes the rull range of standards, for example.They are still at the 'making it up as we go along' stage, which is fine, it still has a way to go yet, but means it's utterly pointless trying to do any budgeting on what it may look like by full roll out.
We have been accepted to be a pilot, the job for next week is to find out where that now stands given that the SFI is unrecognizable today from what it looked like when we applied to be a pilot a matter of weeks ago.
Yes, you will be able to do thatHi Janet, thanks for the reply.
Further to my earlier question, if say on 100 ha I had 15 ha of cs options and I wanted to apply the SFI to the rest of the 100 ha, would the computer cope with me moving my cs options (eg gs4 and ab9) rotationally so that the SFI automatically applied to wherever the C's options were not being grown?
The pilot isn't changing, so the information you've had about that still stands - the new rules and standards are for the early rollout of the full scheme from next year. The pilot also still includes the rull range of standards, for example.
If the land would fall within the eligibility of improved grassland for the length of the agreement (ie three years) it can be entered into the grassland Standard at the start of the agreement and not the arable land Standard.@Janet Hughes Defra Where does temporary grassland (under 5 years) sit in the soils standards, under previous schemes it has been classed as arable ?
It's not been dropped- it will be introduced in 2023 after we've done more development and testing through the pilot; in 2022 we are focusing on the introductory and intermediate levels, and they have been redesigned to make them more straightforward and practicableI'm still catching up on recent announcements but am I correct that the advanced level soil that is in the pilot has been dropped ?
There aren't any requirements in the standards relating to grazing patterns or permanent pasture - permanent pasture will be covered in a later standard. We're not dictating anything to anyone - farmers will have a range of standards to choose from, we're designing the scheme so that it will include something for all kinds, sizes and locations of farms. In all cases we base what's in the standards on scientific evidence about which actions are most likely to provide the best outcomes.@Janet Hughes Defra Why not?
No other measurable outcomes then to justify applying controls to the way my cattle graze permanent pasture on my farm in return for a laughable rate per hectare?
Has any work been done to justify dictating the standards applied to all grass farms and if so where are the measurable outcomes regarding that type of farming activity?
Any talk of nature recovery is just that, talk. Nature recovery here would be best served by amending the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to halt the inexorable increase in top end predators. Reduce the number of raptors and the Yellow Hammers might have a chance.