Arable farmers: For your eyes only

[delilah]

100% of (area based) ELMS money should go to permanent pasture, on the grounds that:

1) In the eyes of the taxpayer, this land provides the greatest public good as it is where they spend their high days and holidays. The National Parks, the uplands, the Stiffkey marshes. That is where the public likes to stay, and that is where they wish their money to be spent. Other than Theresa May, who ever took pleasure from a field of wheat ?

2) In the eyes of the climate scientists, this land provides the greatest public good being our most stable long term carbon store. Pay ELMS to take an acre of grade 2 out of wheat, and someone somewhere will take that as a signal from the marketplace to plough up more than an acre of grade 3 grassland to grow wheat. Carbon wise, more harm than good.

3) In the eyes of the chancellor, this option offers the greatest public good given that it would cost next to nothing to administer. No need for thousands of inspectors and hundreds of appeals. Just a few satellites and drones keeping a watchful eye on the PP.

4) In the eyes of any rational person, the greatest public good is delivered by working our most productive land to the max. Strategically, the UK should be looking to maximize food security and minimize food miles.

Aye ?

 

[robs1]

Why do they need to pay for PP it's mostly there for a reason and if this year's weather is an indication of what we can expect it wont get ploughed up.
If the reason for payments is to increase carbon capture and environmental benefits its arable land including maize ground that needs the funds to return to low input grass or pretty flowers, meanwhile in the real world thousands are starving and we continue to import food produced using lots of carbon when we could do it here. Far more sense to encourage better practice here

 

[teslacoils]

How about, just leave everything as it is? The cost of twerking and implementation of these schemes is silly, and repeated short term changes do no good for a long term industry.

 

[Sharpy]

Why do they need to pay for PP it's mostly there for a reason and if this year's weather is an indication of what we can expect it wont get ploughed up.
If the reason for payments is to increase carbon capture and environmental benefits its arable land including maize ground that needs the funds to return to low input grass or pretty flowers, meanwhile in the real world thousands are starving and we continue to import food produced using lots of carbon when we could do it here. Far more sense to encourage better practice here

Surely it is wrong to reward those who have destroyed natural capital but not reward those who haven't? Rather like giving good housing and benefits to those that won't work while taxing those that do their best, the incentive is then to get yourself into a position to get maximum benefits.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Why do they need to pay for PP it's mostly there for a reason and if this year's weather is an indication of what we can expect it wont get ploughed up.
If the reason for payments is to increase carbon capture and environmental benefits its arable land including maize ground that needs the funds to return to low input grass or pretty flowers, meanwhile in the real world thousands are starving and we continue to import food produced using lots of carbon when we could do it here. Far more sense to encourage better practice here

Well yes, but that's not woke enough. This will make these people feel better about themselves even though it's based on a load of old bollox. And besides it's because because because.......... they look busy with these ideas. You can't beat a good fiddle with the rules for the sake of it........

 

[DaveGrohl]

How about, just leave everything as it is? The cost of twerking and implementation of these schemes is silly, and repeated short term changes do no good for a long term industry.

These people don't understand what long-term is.

 

[Yale]

Livestock farmers should be rewarded for PP,we are sequestering the carbon,arable ploughmasters are unlocking it.

 

[teslacoils]

While I understand that constant change keeps agents, civil servants, it contractors dripping in gold, it's all a bit silly. Thing is, we all know that with zero sub they won't be able to resist tinkering, rather than the "no sub = no hassle". It will be all of the stick, with added stick. No carrot.

 

[Tarw Coch]

Current definition of permanent pasture is being in grass for more than 5 years, it could be reseeded annually and still meet the definition of permanent pasture.

 

[An Gof]

100% of (area based) ELMS money should go to permanent pasture, on the grounds that:

1) In the eyes of the taxpayer, this land provides the greatest public good as it is where they spend their high days and holidays. The National Parks, the uplands, the Stiffkey marshes. That is where the public likes to stay, and that is where they wish their money to be spent. Other than Theresa May, who ever took pleasure from a field of wheat ?

2) In the eyes of the climate scientists, this land provides the greatest public good being our most stable long term carbon store. Pay ELMS to take an acre of grade 2 out of wheat, and someone somewhere will take that as a signal from the marketplace to plough up more than an acre of grade 3 grassland to grow wheat. Carbon wise, more harm than good.

3) In the eyes of the chancellor, this option offers the greatest public good given that it would cost next to nothing to administer. No need for thousands of inspectors and hundreds of appeals. Just a few satellites and drones keeping a watchful eye on the PP.

4) In the eyes of any rational person, the greatest public good is delivered by working our most productive land to the max. Strategically, the UK should be looking to maximize food security and minimize food miles.

Aye ?

Gone fishing again?

 

[An Gof]

Livestock farmers should be rewarded for PP,we are sequestering the carbon,arable ploughmasters are unlocking it.

Trouble is we don’t eat grass and the meat and dairy products you produce from the grass isn’t politically correct either.

 

[7610 super q]

Should be payed £100 / acre for ploughed ground cos it's proper farming.

 

[7610 super q]

 

[delilah]

5) In the eyes of the arable farmer, much of her grain and most of her straw goes the way of the PP farmer. What the arable farmer desires above all else is a 'high floor' in the grain and straw market, and the best way to achieve that is through a buoyant livestock sector.

 

[Hindsight]

5) In the eyes of the arable farmer, much of her grain and most of her straw goes the way of the PP farmer.

You sure of that? I reckon yer back to yer chicken price thread lass, and you may as well be correct and add in pig price. Most grain abouts here ends up in a chicken a pig or a human via breakfast cereal, bread and cakes. Yer PP isn't that important - I might say inconsequential. The straw gets burnt for leccie. Or for bedding a few pigs.

 

[Midnight plough boy]

Best to leave the PP as it is, it’s PP as it isn’t / wasn’t economical to do anything else with it. Highly productive arable land should be kept as efficient food producing land. Poor arable land needs to be removed and put into environmentally beneficial uses to reduce carbon heavy inputs for no return. Be they parts of fields, whole fields or even whole farms. Don’t ask me to come up with a fair way to measure the last one. Obviously the first two can be worked out on cost of production by the farmer.

 

[Wooly]

Should be payed £100 / acre for ploughed ground cos it's proper farming.

But a real proper full time farm has animals on it......... therefore pasture ..........

Arable farmers are only part time farmers !!


I'll get my coat !!

 

[Wolds Beef]

Oi! @Hindsight You have forgotten a lot of the cattle in the County and surrounds get it in there yards for a spell in the winter. Especially the cherry red ones!!!.
@Wooly Brilliant! Iamm a full time Farmer!!
WB

 

[Hindsight]

Oi! @Hindsight You have forgotten a lot of the cattle in the County and surrounds get it in there yards for a spell in the winter. Especially the cherry red ones!!!.
@Wooly Brilliant! Iamm a full time Farmer!!
WB

I did think it would not be long before someone came along to kick my backside!! Just keeping our friend Delilah upto speed on her fishing trip. Cheers.

 

[onesiedale]

100% of (area based) ELMS money should go to permanent pasture, on the grounds that:

1) In the eyes of the taxpayer, this land provides the greatest public good as it is where they spend their high days and holidays. The National Parks, the uplands, the Stiffkey marshes. That is where the public likes to stay, and that is where they wish their money to be spent. Other than Theresa May, who ever took pleasure from a field of wheat ?

2) In the eyes of the climate scientists, this land provides the greatest public good being our most stable long term carbon store. Pay ELMS to take an acre of grade 2 out of wheat, and someone somewhere will take that as a signal from the marketplace to plough up more than an acre of grade 3 grassland to grow wheat. Carbon wise, more harm than good.

3) In the eyes of the chancellor, this option offers the greatest public good given that it would cost next to nothing to administer. No need for thousands of inspectors and hundreds of appeals. Just a few satellites and drones keeping a watchful eye on the PP.

4) In the eyes of any rational person, the greatest public good is delivered by working our most productive land to the max. Strategically, the UK should be looking to maximize food security and minimize food miles.

Aye ?

Whilst I agree about the UK's grassland providing the best opportunities for 'public goods' I guess the inevitable downside of your proposal is the fact that any area based payment on grasslands will ultimately benefit the landowner as opposed to the farmer.
Maybe the grass won't be so green on the other side