Agents’ cheery outlook post-BPS

[farmerm]

Depends on if the landowner is savvy enough to "rent" it on a 25 year lease to a company to offset their emissions as per the "Environment Bank" model. The farmer (if he is the landowner) can then manage it. You need to think wider than tree planting, there will be financial value in all kinds of important conservation habitats such as wildflower meadows, water meadows etc etc

If a landowner has any savvy about him he will perhaps be wise not to touch such lease schemes. I fundamentally dispute the notion that it is possible to offset emissions with a 25 year lease when it takes millions, or hundreds of millions of years for carbon to be taken back out of the active carbon cycle and returned to be locked away in fossil carbon reserves. We take fossil fuels buried deep under ground, we burn it and we add 10bn tonnes of previously inactive carbon to the active carbon cycle each year. For reference 10bn tonnes of carbon is by my rather rough calculation is equivalent to the carbon held in 1 million ha of forrest..... Tell me, how does a 25 year lease have the slighted impact on how much carbon is in the active carbon cycle? Such schemes may transfer wealth between emitters, consumers, land owners and carbon traders and it may help ease the conscious of the emitters. So yes a business opportunity perhaps for sponsored wildflower meadows, water meadows and other measures to maintain and improve biodiversity but it the stated aims of such schemes refer to offsetting carbon emissions then they would be both a fraudulent and mis-selling. Such schemes of durations less than a million years can fundamentally not offset carbon emissions in any meaningful way!!

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

If a landowner has any savvy about him he will perhaps be wise not to touch such lease schemes. I fundamentally dispute the notion that it is possible to offset emissions with a 25 year lease when it takes millions, or hundreds of millions of years for carbon to be taken back out of the active carbon cycle and returned to be locked away in fossil carbon reserves. We take fossil fuels buried deep under ground, we burn it and we add 10bn tonnes of previously inactive carbon to the active carbon cycle each year. For reference 10bn tonnes of carbon is by my rather rough calculation is equivalent to the carbon held in 1 million ha of forrest..... Tell me, how does a 25 year lease have the slighted impact on how much carbon is in the active carbon cycle? Such schemes may transfer wealth between emitters, consumers, land owners and carbon traders and it may help ease the conscious of the emitters. So yes a business opportunity perhaps for sponsored wildflower meadows, water meadows and other measures to maintain and improve biodiversity but it the stated aims of such schemes refer to offsetting carbon emissions then they would be both a fraudulent and mis-selling. Such schemes of durations less than a million years can fundamentally not offset carbon emissions in any meaningful way!!

Most of these schemes are about money, not climate.

It's a shame that anyone coined the term "Net Zero" as it is at the heart of all of the clever attempts to facilitate ongoing economic growth whilst claiming to be addressing climate change. It's genuine zero warming that we need to aim for. That involves gentle reductions in methane emissions and cessation of fossil CO2 emissions.

 

[Steevo]

This is why I think ELMS is doomed to fail.

Governments make policy that sounds good but has no substance. The methods they choose often don’t work and are too awkward to implement successfully. Farmers then get the blame when these don’t work - farmland bird declines etc.

Yet....any scheme that is based on outcomes is too prone to external factors too. Farmers risk being penalised for not meeting them due to factors beyond their control.

We’ve had scheme after scheme, and yet farmers are still being bashed for hedge removal, intensive agriculture, changing agricultural practices etc.

Until the government grows a backbone and starts taking responsibility themselves nothing will ever change.

Over the past 20 years, how many km of hedge have farmers removed? And how many have been removed due to new roads, housing developments etc.? All approved by government/council departments.

How many small mammals (field mice, hedgehogs etc) have been killed by the recent flooding?!

It’s all well and good quoting how many hedges/trees have been planted, but they still take time to mature and provide habitats......assuming they actually survive more than a year after planting!

 

[Steevo]

Most of these schemes are about money, not climate.

It's a shame that anyone coined the term "Net Zero" as it is at the heart of all of the clever attempts to facilitate ongoing economic growth whilst claiming to be addressing climate change. It's genuine zero warming that we need to aim for. That involves gentle reductions in methane emissions and cessation of fossil CO2 emissions.

Agreed. “Offsetting” should be banned.

 

[Steevo]

It’s strikes me ELMS and RT both have a lot in common.

They both involve farmers bearing the cost and responsibility of a scheme that provides no benefit at all to themselves, whilst allowing others to enjoy taking zero personality responsibility for their actions or meet the associated cost of doing the right thing by their fellow citizens.

Oh, and yet those people then decide to tell farmers that what they are doing is not good enough and they need to do more!!!

 

[Hilly]

It’s strikes me ELMS and RT both have a lot in common.

They both involve farmers bearing the cost and responsibility of a scheme that provides no benefit at all to themselves, whilst allowing others to enjoy taking zero personality responsibility for their actions or meet the associated cost of doing the right thing by their fellow citizens.

Oh, and yet those people then decide to tell farmers that what they are doing is not good enough and they need to do more!!!

More fool them that sign up to theses things needs to be a bit of a untied front and tell them to fuk off ! Farmers won’t tho so they reap what they deserve .

 

[roscoe erf]

More fool them that sign up to theses things needs to be a bit of a untied front and tell them to fuk off ! Farmers won’t tho so they reap what they deserve .

this one will

 

[jendan]

Aside from working out how to mitigate loosing £25K off the bottom line and having to concentrate a bit more effort into hedges and flower margins.... what game changing aspects do you refer to?

Scale up to 10,000 acres from 5000.Replace 3 300hp tractors with 2 500hp ones and sack one man. (that 15 metre header is not far off) Feel grateful for the £10/acre net profit made on the 10,000 acres after £200/acre FBT and depreciation. (£100,000 for dad and yourself)

 

[ajd132]

Scale up to 10,000 acres from 5000.Replace 3 300hp tractors with 2 500hp ones and sack one man. (that 15 metre header is not far off) Feel grateful for the £10/acre net profit made on the 10,000 acres after £200/acre FBT and depreciation. (£100,000 for dad and yourself)

definitely not the way although im sure many think it is!

 

[4course]

Scale up to 10,000 acres from 5000.Replace 3 300hp tractors with 2 500hp ones and sack one man. (that 15 metre header is not far off) Feel grateful for the £10/acre net profit made on the 10,000 acres after £200/acre FBT and depreciation. (£100,000 for dad and yourself)

short term that, youve only got 20 years of both working together and the first 10 the lads in training -feeling his feet the last 10 the old man aint for grafting 24/7 even if he could ,. oh im the dad so its more like 10 not 20

 

[jh.]

Scale up to 10,000 acres from 5000.Replace 3 300hp tractors with 2 500hp ones and sack one man. (that 15 metre header is not far off) Feel grateful for the £10/acre net profit made on the 10,000 acres after £200/acre FBT and depreciation. (£100,000 for dad and yourself)

Haven't read all replies .

Maybe gov be better scaling all the big farm's back . More smaller kit keeping the dealers going and the staff in work rather than on the dole . How about no subs over 500acre holdings. Say a 1000 acre farmer isn't going to get sub but can split the farm between 2 kids or 3 ways and keep going himself , 3 smaller registered businesses, then why not

 

[neilo]

You would, just about 2 or 3 years later. Europe is heading the same way.

No it's not. The are just putting the finishing touches to a very similar scheme to the one that has been in place for the last 5 years. Presumably it will be another 5 years before the CAP is up for reform again.

UK is going it alone in this experiment.

 

[neilo]

Haven't read all replies .

Maybe gov be better scaling all the big farm's back . More smaller kit keeping the dealers going and the staff in work rather than on the dole . How about no subs over 500acre holdings. Say a 1000 acre farmer isn't going to get sub but can split the farm between 2 kids or 3 ways and keep going himself , 3 smaller registered businesses, then why not

I assume you have 500 acres?

How about no subs over 327ac, and double for those under that threshold?

 

[farmerm]

This is why I think ELMS is doomed to fail.

Governments make policy that sounds good but has no substance. The methods they choose often don’t work and are too awkward to implement successfully. Farmers then get the blame when these don’t work - farmland bird declines etc.

Yet....any scheme that is based on outcomes is too prone to external factors too. Farmers risk being penalised for not meeting them due to factors beyond their control.

We’ve had scheme after scheme, and yet farmers are still being bashed for hedge removal, intensive agriculture, changing agricultural practices etc.

Until the government grows a backbone and starts taking responsibility themselves nothing will ever change.

Over the past 20 years, how many km of hedge have farmers removed? And how many have been removed due to new roads, housing developments etc.? All approved by government/council departments.

How many small mammals (field mice, hedgehogs etc) have been killed by the recent flooding?!

It’s all well and good quoting how many hedges/trees have been planted, but they still take time to mature and provide habitats......assuming they actually survive more than a year after planting!

Its not only the hedge removal, I have started to realise whilst we have not removed hedges here in a generation most of us do not managed our hedges very well, and I put myself in that category. We have some shockers. Hedge cutting has always been a necessary evil, we have rather treated our hedges with less respect than they deserve! In general we have 2 types of hedge on this farm, those that have grown up to be a line of mature trees and those that are short and thin and provide little food or shelter this time of year. I am starting to see the error of our ways, the problem is hitting a hedge every year or every other at the same high is the lowest cost of maintenance, good hedge management can be expensive and time consuming excise with insufficient financial incentives for land owners to focus much time on it.

 

[Simon Chiles]

but will also drives other previously sound and productive business to the wall.

That depends on your definition of sound and productive, IMO any business depending on a handout to remain profitable isn’t in that category.

 

[shearerlad]

I think if most of us could survive without upgrading kit, buying fert, feed etc we already would?

I think there is scope to survive without (as much) of those things.
I can’t talk for all areas but about here there isn’t a stock farm where it’s main tractor is under 100hp and the majority will be less that 5 years old.
Reduce concentrate feeds and more towards a grass/forage system and within that the move away from bagged N by using more legume crops.

 

[farmerm]

Scale up to 10,000 acres from 5000.Replace 3 300hp tractors with 2 500hp ones and sack one man. (that 15 metre header is not far off) Feel grateful for the £10/acre net profit made on the 10,000 acres after £200/acre FBT and depreciation. (£100,000 for dad and yourself)

Fk that for a mugs game. That plan put you working 100 hours a week, on course to earn £50K in a good year but stand to loose £500k in harvests like 2020 and in a grave at 50.

 

[farmerm]

That depends on your definition of sound and productive, IMO any business depending on a handout to remain profitable isn’t in that category.

Arguably those businesses has developed to operating soundly and productively within the framework government has put around it. We are where we are. Look at most industries from airplanes and car manufacturing, energy production (be that renewable or otherwise) etc. many fall down without some government support somewhere in the scheme of things.

 

[farmerm]

I think if most of us could survive without upgrading kit, buying fert, feed etc we already would?

but who wants to only survive, we are worth more than that and we owe it to our children to do more than that.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I can’t talk for all areas but about here there isn’t a stock farm where it’s main tractor is under 100hp and the majority will be less that 5 years old.

Many parts of the UK are not like that at all I in my experience.

Reduce concentrate feeds and move towards a grass/forage system and within that the move away from bagged N by using more legume crops.

In many cases cut output too but cut costs much deeper leaving more profit for less work. Possibly even, shock horror, run less land too!