New information about local nature recovery and landscape recovery

GeorgeK said:

This is a very good point.

@Janet Hughes Defra without BPS how will you ensure minimum environmental standards (cross compliance) are upheld for all those who don't sign up to the new schemes e.g hedge/water course buffers?

Seems a major issue to me and it's hard to see how it can practically be enforced. Will there be new legislation and will non compliances go through the courts?

Click to expand...

britishblue said:

Monty Don saying in the Sunday Times today that rewilding is for the large wealthy landowners with other forms of income and no good for the average farmer! Will hopefully see more of this common sense in the media!

Click to expand...

ajd132 said:

Are you making £300/ha profit selling straw by the bale after all costs including time, marketing and opportunity cost spending time baling, stacking, removing, turning etc in the middle of a very busy time?

Click to expand...

Dave645 said:

Straw is linked to yield 8t/Ha I bale rounds so no rush to clear them, and about 4-5 bales/Tonne so 8x4.5 bale per Ha and I get £20 per bale so I left plenty of meat to cover costs. That’s actual an income of £720/Ha before costs.
Costs fuel time and delivery I charge for delivery and get £20 a bale from the yard, I run my own baler, which I store in a dark shed too long life it’s belts. Sunlight is the death of rubber belts as is over feeding them, and apart from a ram seal and a hose in the last 6 years it’s run well. I run it at 170bar for straw I found it hard on seals when running it at 200bar and it just made bales to heavy to handle for customers.
Then it’s netwap and fuel my time which is neither here nor there I bale straw when I can until I have what I want and then lead them around other jobs, I often lead bales in the mornings and combine in the afternoon. Just stick with it, if I am lucky my dad (81years old) also leads bales or at least runs trailers. It’s the steady type of job he likes. An old MF 3060 with loader, and nice aircon does the job, steady away. We have 3bale trailers so when he helps the job is quicker I just load in the field until I have all 3 filled then unload at the yard rinse and repeat.

Do I make an average of £300/Ha average profit proberbly including the area I sell in the swath, in the average.
I make about 75/Ha just selling wheat straw in the swath We agree a price per bale so yield variation doesn’t effect the contractor. Rather than a fix price per HA.
So more straw, more money, less straw less money. it’s fair for us and them.

Some contractors make a living just from straw. . .

Click to expand...

Two Tone said:

PP is important and needs preserving. However, you cannot increase the SOM of it,

Click to expand...

holwellcourtfarm said:

But can legally defend themselves from "extraordinary flood" flows.

There is case law on this.

Click to expand...

Humble Village Farmer said:

But what would negatively affect the flood flows coming from upstream?

Click to expand...

J 1177 said:

The point that seems to be missed by defra is that we comply with bps because its a decent lump of money that contribites to our business. If that financial incentive is gone as it seems to be with the two thirds that are actually avalible to farmers they are not going to bother. Defra seems to think farmers do it for sh1!s and giggles.
The sec of state has said before farmers can diversify to subsidise their business, well Mr Eustace im not diversifying so the masses can have cheap food off my back.

Click to expand...

Henarar said:

this is what will happen if ELMs is not simplified and the payments are not upped, much of the land now in BPS will not go in to ELMs and will be sold or let to bigger players who will not bother with ELMs just farm it for all its worth. this whole thing is going to be an environmental own goal if DEFRA don't pull their finger out

Click to expand...

holwellcourtfarm said:

A flood bund?

A diversion channel?

Click to expand...

Humble Village Farmer said:

It's unworkable only if you have bare ground at that stage. Easier to comply with a greened up stubble or catch crop prior to DD.

Your last para; I think all those are being incentivised under sfi

Click to expand...

Humble Village Farmer said:

It's unworkable only if you have bare ground at that stage. Easier to comply with a greened up stubble or catch crop prior to DD.

Your last para; I think all those are being incentivised under sfi

Click to expand...

devonbeef said:

Read and adsorb this message government,

Click to expand...

Wombat said:

We didn’t finish cutting wheat till the 10th sept in 2019 so a catch crop wouldn’t have got drilled as it would have been pointless for autumn crops and the stubbles were pretty bare so it would have been a none compliance in 2yrs and this years cover crops are shite

Click to expand...

GeorgeK said:

This is a very good point.

@Janet Hughes Defra without BPS how will you ensure minimum environmental standards (cross compliance) are upheld for all those who don't sign up to the new schemes e.g hedge/water course buffers?

Seems a major issue to me and it's hard to see how it can practically be enforced. Will there be new legislation and will non compliances go through the courts?

Click to expand...

Raider112 said:

Logically it's your land so do what you want, if you don't sign the paper and collect the money they have no legal powers to make you do anything as you have no contract with them, that's the one big plus about going it alone.
On the other hand we can expect legislation to be put in place to prevent all that in spite of that "bonfire of red tape"

Click to expand...

Two Tone said:

That is an incredibly selfish and biased view on your behalf and does you little credit!

We all know that ELMs is an Environmental scheme as that is the 1st word of it. Yes PP is important and needs preserving. However, you cannot increase the SOM of it, whereas massive improvements can be made to arable land that has become depleted in SOM, which contain Carbon. Any Soil scientist will tell you this and show massive amounts of evidence of it
As what we need to do is to sequester Carbon from the atmosphere, surely any Environmental scheme must encourage and support this on arable fields, but at the same time not encourage the removal of PP, which would cause a depletion of SOM and therefore Carbon storage.
Therefore both PP and Arable need ELMs support to encourage the correct Environmental benefits of them each.

One fairly unique feature of farmers is that we are in competition with each other, but are also very good at helping each other.
Stop being so bloody selfish, for your own benefit!
Don’t waste your time replying that you are also an arable farmer either.

Click to expand...

onesiedale said:

you CAN increase the soil OM of PP.
Building more soil depth and allowing roots to develop deeper systems means you not only increase OM % at depth, but also more soil.
More soil under PP = more OM

Click to expand...

renewablejohn said:

Thats assuming they dont put all land into a SSSI which is the way everything is heading. Lots of land been put in SSSI around here with no justification whatsoever apart from wanting to create a nature reserve by the back door.

Click to expand...

Jackov Altraids said:

https://www.swarmhub.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-Soil-Carbon-Project-Results.pdf

Click to expand...

Jackov Altraids said:

The Results:
Soil Carbon Yield
Carbon yield 0-10cm Carbon yield 10- 30cm Carbon Yield 30- 50cm Total across all depths Project Average 39 t/ha 64 t/ha 54 t/ha 156 t/ha
Arable 35 t/ha 59 t/ha 53 t/ha 146 t/ha
Grass 39 t/ha 58 t/ha 57 t/ha 153 t/ha
Permanent Pasture 43 t/ha 69 t/ha 57 t/ha 167 t/ha
Horticultural 38 t/ha 75 t/ha 35 t/ha 148 t/ha

https://www.swarmhub.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-Soil-Carbon-Project-Results.pdf

Click to expand...