another farm gone

[kiwi pom]

The tosspots in government in the UK are already looking at that under the guise of a "land use strategy". IMHO that's only one step removed from being told by some clipboard-wielding mouth-breathing bureaucrat exactly what you can grow, and exactly where you will be allowed to grow it.

Good I'm glad they are waking up.
The issue no one has successfully solved is how you use land for the thing it is most suited for and adequately compensate the person who owns that land.

 

[kiwi pom]

Most land in our temperate climate is suited to agriculture. Dangerous game to start legislating who can and who cannot farm, sure pathway to the rich getting richer and everyone else can just pay up.

You can force just about any land into agriculture with enough money and inputs.
Whether that is the best use of that land is another matter.

 

[soapsud]

I dont agree with that i know of plenty of survivors who never got sucked into the at the time trendy get bigger idea

It's all degrees.
It was @Humble Village Farmer point. I was simply saying many do so.

We can all see the rising environmental payments against diminishing (delinked) production subs in England is simply Defra's way to reward socialism for the rich whilst making it harder for Farmer Joe who wants to grow crops and rear animals. If there are those who can make a living from land without thrashing hard and not squeezing it too much then that's all for the good, ain't it?

We've never been able to claim any subs (BPS or ELMS/SFI) and manage OK.

 

[Macsky]

You can force just about any land into agriculture with enough money and inputs.
Whether that is the best use of that land is another matter.

If food shortages were to bite even a little, then agriculture would soon seem like very good use of otherwise waterlogged and shrubby ground. With the world staring at the prospect of WW3, a slightly more pioneering spirit might be required sooner rather than later.

 

[Swarfmonkey]

Good I'm glad they are waking up.
The issue no one has successfully solved is how you use land for the thing it is most suited for and adequately compensate the person who owns that land.

It's not far off from being the ultimate in state control IMHO, compensation or not.

As far as i'm concerned they can take that idea, lubricate it generously, and shove it so far up their collective hoop that a dentist would get to it quicker than a proctologist would.

 

[kiwi pom]

If food shortages were to bite even a little, then agriculture would soon seem like very good use of otherwise waterlogged and shrubby ground. With the world staring at the prospect of WW3, a slightly more pioneering spirit might be required sooner rather than later.

We should control what land is used for then?
What do you do with all that agricultural output until it's needed and how do you ensure the landowner is receiving a fair return?

It's not far off from being the ultimate in state control IMHO, compensation or not.

As far as i'm concerned they can take that idea, lubricate it generously, and shove it so far up their collective hoop that a dentist would get to it quicker than a proctologist would.

Land should be used for whatever the owner wants to use it for?


You look at it as control, I see using land for its most suited use as being common sense, but again you have to compensate the owner.

 

[Swarfmonkey]

I look at it as control, because it is control.

Would you have been happy at the idea of being told what to grow, and where to grow it, by Jacinda's lot, or alternatively being told that you weren't allowed to do jack sh!t with your land because her mob had decided that your property is now to become a giant dog walking park for the locals.

 

[glasshouse]

I look at it as control, because it is control.

Would you have been happy at the idea of being told what to grow, and where to grow it, by Jacinda's lot, or alternatively being told that you weren't allowed to do jack sh!t with your land because her mob had decided that your property is now to become a giant dog walking park for the locals.

Jacinda was doing exactly that
no changes of land use allowed without council permission.

 

[Macsky]

We should control what land is used for then?
What do you do with all that agricultural output until it's needed and how do you ensure the landowner is receiving a fair return?

Land should be used for whatever the owner wants to use it for?


You look at it as control, I see using land for its most suited use as being common sense, but again you have to compensate the owner.

Who is ‘we’ exactly? Keeping land in good heart hardly means it needs to be at perpetual maximum output, just that come the need, it could be.

 

[kiwi pom]

I look at it as control, because it is control.

Would you have been happy at the idea of being told what to grow, and where to grow it, by Jacinda's lot, or alternatively being told that you weren't allowed to do jack sh!t with your land because her mob had decided that your property is now to become a giant dog walking park for the locals.

I'll ask the question again as you didn't answer it.
You think land should be used for whatever the owner wants?

Who is ‘we’ exactly? Keeping land in good heart hardly means it needs to be at perpetual maximum output, just that come the need, it could be.

We as the population of planet earth.
As a planet we need to be smart about how we use land.

You think that all land should be protected as food producing land?

Jacinda was doing exactly that
no changes of land use allowed without council permission.

Jacinda hasn't been in charge for a while, as far as I know you still need permission for various different enterprises.
Think you did long before her with resource consents but could be wrong.

 

[Swarfmonkey]

I'll ask the question again as you didn't answer it.
You think land should be used for whatever the owner wants?

Pretty much.

I'd far rather that than some cretinous civil servant telling you exactly what you must do with it (which is what the driver for a Land Use Strategy is).

 

[Macsky]

We as the population of planet earth.
As a planet we need to be smart about how we use land.

You think that all land should be protected as food producing land?

“The population of planet earth” depends very much on land being kept in agricultural production.

No I never said that all land should be protected as food producing land. I said that land that is currently producing food in this country should be kept in such a condition that this would remain the same, or to a potentially better standard, for the foreseeable future. I said it would be dangerous for the government to start outlawing the current production of food on any ground it deems suitable for ‘something better’. You’re puting words in my mouth.

 

[kiwi pom]

Pretty much.

I'd far rather that than some cretinous civil servant telling you exactly what you must do with it (which is what the driver for a Land Use Strategy is).

No issue with the owners of the farm in the OP doing what they want then?

 

[kiwi pom]

“The population of planet earth” depends very much on land being kept in agricultural production.

No I never said that all land should be protected as food producing land. I said that land that is currently producing food in this country should be kept in such a condition that this would remain the same, or to a potentially better standard, for the foreseeable future. I said it would be dangerous for the government to start outlawing the current production of food on any ground it deems suitable for ‘something better’. You’re puting words in my mouth.

Apologies, I'm trying to understand your viewpoint.

The population certainly needs to produce enough food.
It's why I'm pro using excellent food producing land for just that.
To be clear that's food, not alcohol, not AD plants, solar farms, horse hay, houses, environmental schemes, paid fallow, forestry etc.
If 'we' maximise the output of that food producing land, we will have enough food and can then turn our attention to the less suitable land. That can be used for houses, forestry, conservation, energy production etc
To do that does require some control and some rules, compensating the owner for each use is the hard part.
Perhaps I'm nuts, I'm trying to see the big picture.

For the record I only own a quarter acre section with a house on it, so I'm not just looking at things from a landowner perspective.

 

[Swarfmonkey]

No issue with the owners of the farm in the OP doing what they want then?

I have zero problems with the former owners selling to whoever they want to.
I have massive problems with the new owners financially raping Joe Public through various government-mandated programmes (BNG credits, carbon credits, phosphate offsetting etc etc)

 

[kiwi pom]

I have zero problems with the former owners selling to whoever they want to.
I have massive problems with the new owners financially raping Joe Public through various government-mandated programmes (BNG credits, carbon credits, phosphate offsetting etc etc)

I think the whole carbon trading thing is nonsense, but if they are operating within the law and taking what they can get they are no different than someone signing up to grow wildflowers or any other government money. I'd put them all in the same group.
Whether that is the best thing for that land is another matter.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

I have zero problems with the former owners selling to whoever they want to.
I have massive problems with the new owners financially raping Joe Public through various government-mandated programmes (BNG credits, carbon credits, phosphate offsetting etc etc)

Do you want all payments to landowners to be stopped then, or only the payments to people you don't like?

 

[glasshouse]

I'll ask the question again as you didn't answer it.
You think land should be used for whatever the owner wants?


We as the population of planet earth.
As a planet we need to be smart about how we use land.

You think that all land should be protected as food producing land?


Jacinda hasn't been in charge for a while, as far as I know you still need permission for various different enterprises.
Think you did long before her with resource consents but could be wrong.

You are wrong again

 

[kiwi pom]

You are wrong again

In what way?

 

[Hilly]

You can force just about any land into agriculture with enough money and inputs.
Whether that is the best use of that land is another matter.

Like they do with the rain forest you mean ?