Best mower for 300ac of stewardship grass

[harperfarmer]

I haven't got arsey. I'm pointing out the scheme is not fit for purpose.

My frustration is that all these schemes grants and subs are merely another form of gatekeeping.

I would have been more then happy to fence and improve the land at my expense, if I was able to obtain security of tenure. But such things aren't available as there is a chance another mug may pay an extra £5/acre.

Another grazier can pay what he likes. It won't be me.

Why is the scheme not fit for purpose?! GS4 is obviously deemed a more wildlife friendly option than say an intensive Italian silage ley. The landowner has simply ensured his land qualifies? I would hazard a bet there are infinitely more pollinators in that sward than a monocrop so ultimately is it not achieving what the goal is? The purpose of the scheme is to enhance local wildlife by providing food sources be it direct seed based or the insects that feed on the flowers. I hadn't realised the schemes' purpose was to provide more opportunities for new entrants and/or graziers .

 

[unlacedgecko]

Why is the scheme not fit for purpose?! GS4 is obviously deemed a more wildlife friendly option than say an intensive Italian silage ley. The landowner has simply ensured his land qualifies? I would hazard a bet there are infinitely more pollinators in that sward than a monocrop so ultimately is it not achieving what the goal is? The purpose of the scheme is to enhance local wildlife by providing food sources be it direct seed based or the insects that feed on the flowers. I hadn't realised the schemes' purpose was to provide more opportunities for new entrants and/or graziers .

The scheme is not too provide opportunities for new entrants or graziers. It's to provide environmental benefit, by converting arable land to a mix species pasture.

That seems somewhat at odds with ploughing pasture that hasn't been cultivated since WW2.

 

[Pilatus]

Batwing mowers are great , BUT be warned they are not that hard to tip over when folded!!
Of course that should not be a problem for those of you in the flatter Eastern arable counties.

 

[harperfarmer]

The scheme is not too provide opportunities for new entrants or graziers. It's to provide environmental benefit, by converting arable land to a mix species pasture.

That seems somewhat at odds with ploughing pasture that hasn't been cultivated since WW2.

Provided the outcome is desirable who's to question the route taken to get there.

 

[Anymulewilldo]

Thread hi-jack. Will these batwing toppers work folded up ? I'm sure I saw a pic on here of someone siding hedges with one ? Could be wrong.

Our spearhead 6m flails do, no idea on the batwings

 

[harperfarmer]

It’s not about being bitter. It’s about the lack of consistency in the message. The aim of stewardship schemes is ideally to enhance environmental benefit, to improve the world as such. I am totally in agreement with this, however, we need a certain amount of food and we are an island. So you explain to me how paying folk to fake land out of production while we import the missing food from over seas is a positive and practical step toward achieving the stated aims ?

It is merely moving the problem out of sight, without actually fixing anything.

It is largely a short sighted strategy to provide a positive sound bite, and which largely keeps the money in the same hands it has always been in.

With regard to land ownership, taxation etc. If you cannot see the issues with this, I am not sure I have the energy to go into it here.

I don’t wish to get into an argument with you but I do find it slightly mad that so many in farming are scrabbling to work out how to make as much money as they can from their ground without having to farm it and produce any food. I totally understand why, and you cannot blame the player, only the game.

But I fear one day this incredibly short sighted process will come back to haunt us. Whatever way you look at it, food security is kind of important.

There are a lot of people, myself included, who are utisilising the scheme alongside farming, not replacing it. Regarding the issues around food security etc, well frankly, ours not the reason why. Moral crusades/trying to take the high ground regarding social inequalities and why others get the money rarely helps. As you yourself said, crack on and get on with it because rightly or wrongly, it's not going to change in a hurry.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Pasture fed meat doesn't have to be grazed at lower intensity.

I wasn't thinking of grazing at lower intensity, rather not using fertliser on the the grass so the output of the forage would be a lower intensity

 

[digger64]

Provided the outcome is desirable who's to question the route taken to get there.

Those who pay for it and those who have their livelhoods taken away by it which could possibly be the same people .

 

[ajcc]

This is some of our AB8. Alive with pollinators yesterday. Last time I was in there I got collared by a local resident who I thought was going to complain about something. Told me how her row of houses all loved the field and how uplifting it was. Was spraying my best field of wheat the other day. No till and all. No one came to congratulate me about that.
View attachment 969783

Imagine what the locals will say when you start to spray it off in five years.....probably need them to approve your environmental statement....yes public consultation to approve your environmental statement!

 

[Goweresque]

This is some of our AB8. Alive with pollinators yesterday. Last time I was in there I got collared by a local resident who I thought was going to complain about something. Told me how her row of houses all loved the field and how uplifting it was. Was spraying my best field of wheat the other day. No till and all. No one came to congratulate me about that.
View attachment 969783

Are you not worried that at the end of the scheme you might fall into the whole EIA trap? 5 years uncultivated makes it permanent pasture, and with it being full of box ticking flora is there not a significant risk of it being deemed far too environmentally valuable to be allowed to be ever ploughed up again?

 

[Feldspar]

Are you not worried that at the end of the scheme you might fall into the whole EIA trap? 5 years uncultivated makes it permanent pasture, and with it being full of box ticking flora is there not a significant risk of it being deemed far too environmentally valuable to be allowed to be ever ploughed up again?

I have considered this. The rules are I believe that whilst the grass is entered into a stewardship scheme that it does not count as years toward becoming permanent pasture. I've been fine on this option in ELS and on our other Mid Tier scheme over quite a few years now. Did have the RPA trying to reclassify one, but after a few years of correcting it back to TG01 and writing them annoyed RLE1s I've not got it as it should be. Despite this I think there still is a residual risk that it somehow gets locked in in some unforeseen way.

 

[Goweresque]

To be honest I'd be very worried, especially if one did an excellent job of creating a decent wildflower habitat. The way I read the EIA regulations, they apply to a) 'uncultivated land', defined as not cultivated within 15 years or b) semi-natural land, with a far looser definition. Former arable land that's been in a CS scheme for 5 years shouldn't fall foul of (a), but I'd be far more worried about (b), it seems a definition that is open to a great deal of 'interpretation' by any clipboard wielding maniac that passes by. The EIA rules seem to be administered entirely independently of any BPS land classifications, and I would be worried that having land classed as TG1 would not necessarily protect from someone declaring that it now had semi-natural status.

It seems to me that EIA legislation could be used as a backdoor way for the environmentalists to effectively nationalise farmland without ever having to buy it. So far it hasn't been used that way to any great extent, though there have been a few cases attempting to go down that route, but my worry is that at some point some civil servant in Defra or NE is going to have a lightbulb moment and they will start using EIA rules far more widely to control land usage.

 

[Feldspar]

To be honest I'd be very worried, especially if one did an excellent job of creating a decent wildflower habitat. The way I read the EIA regulations, they apply to a) 'uncultivated land', defined as not cultivated within 15 years or b) semi-natural land, with a far looser definition. Former arable land that's been in a CS scheme for 5 years shouldn't fall foul of (a), but I'd be far more worried about (b), it seems a definition that is open to a great deal of 'interpretation' by any clipboard wielding maniac that passes by. The EIA rules seem to be administered entirely independently of any BPS land classifications, and I would be worried that having land classed as TG1 would not necessarily protect from someone declaring that it now had semi-natural status.

It seems to me that EIA legislation could be used as a backdoor way for the environmentalists to effectively nationalise farmland without ever having to buy it. So far it hasn't been used that way to any great extent, though there have been a few cases attempting to go down that route, but my worry is that at some point some civil servant in Defra or NE is going to have a lightbulb moment and they will start using EIA rules far more widely to control land usage.

Thank you for this. I was confusing sets of regulations when I answered before, and I had not considered the EIA rules. I will have to get some more detailed advice before signing anything. Having done some reading I can entirely see your concern; however, I did come across this though in the following link: http://www.magnificentmeadows.org.uk/assets/pdfs/EIA_regulations_guidance_note.pdf.

 

[harperfarmer]

Those who pay for it and those who have their livelhoods taken away by it which could possibly be the same people .

Just the way of the world.

 

[unlacedgecko]

Just the way of the world.

That's all gov subs have been for as long as I can remember, just s means of wealth transfer from the tax payer to the land owners.

 

[Brisel]

Thread hi-jack. Will these batwing toppers work folded up ? I'm sure I saw a pic on here of someone siding hedges with one ? Could be wrong.

The Spearhead I used to use wouldn’t work folded up. The angle on the universal joints on the wings was too sharp.

 

[Goweresque]

Thank you for this. I was confusing sets of regulations when I answered before, and I had not considered the EIA rules. I will have to get some more detailed advice before signing anything. Having done some reading I can entirely see your concern; however, I did come across this though in the following link: http://www.magnificentmeadows.org.uk/assets/pdfs/EIA_regulations_guidance_note.pdf.

View attachment 970186

That does seem to provide a bit of comfort, though really only for the period of the first agreement. If you had a follow on agreement to continue managing the land in the same manner then the second half of the quote could kick in - do they consider that the land at the start of agreement 2 was semi-natural or not? If you've done a great job in agreement 1 they might consider that the land had achieved semi-natural status by the end of it, and once you'd signed up to agreement 2 suddenly hit you with a ruling that EIA rules now apply.

It also says further up in the document:

Creation of semi-natural grasslands includes creating species-rich grassland on former arable land, ley grassland or set-aside. It is unlikely that a screening will be required on this land as it is unlikely to be a semi-natural habitat, unless set-aside has diversified to the extent that it contains species that one may find in semi-natural habitat, in which case a screening may be required.

Which indicates they do envisage situations whereby the 15 years rule might not apply, and the only criteria would be the conditions on the ground. I can certainly see that after a decade say, and perhaps once into one's third 5 year agreement that the eco-brigade would be itching to prevent such land ever being ploughed again.

 

[Feldspar]

That does seem to provide a bit of comfort, though really only for the period of the first agreement. If you had a follow on agreement to continue managing the land in the same manner then the second half of the quote could kick in - do they consider that the land at the start of agreement 2 was semi-natural or not? If you've done a great job in agreement 1 they might consider that the land had achieved semi-natural status by the end of it, and once you'd signed up to agreement 2 suddenly hit you with a ruling that EIA rules now apply.

It also says further up in the document:

Creation of semi-natural grasslands includes creating species-rich grassland on former arable land, ley grassland or set-aside. It is unlikely that a screening will be required on this land as it is unlikely to be a semi-natural habitat, unless set-aside has diversified to the extent that it contains species that one may find in semi-natural habitat, in which case a screening may be required.

Which indicates they do envisage situations whereby the 15 years rule might not apply, and the only criteria would be the conditions on the ground. I can certainly see that after a decade say, and perhaps once into one's third 5 year agreement that the eco-brigade would be itching to prevent such land ever being ploughed again.

Reading that quote at the bottom, it does not mention agri-environment schemes, which do seem to offer an explicit exclusion to the rule. We have some areas of grass now which were in ELS, then rolled into a Mid Tier scheme which was cancelled early to go into a Simplified Arable Scheme. They were originally planted in September 2011, so at the end of this agreement (Dec 2023) they will be getting close to the 15 years. It will mean we'll have to pull them up, even if only to resow another grass mix. How crazy.

Again, I see your point about 2nd agreements and what state they were in at the start of the 2nd. That is a concern for us as we did not roll straight from one agreement into another in the case of a few places. I suppose if it came to it, no-one is going to have any evidence of what those parcels were like when we changed schemes a number of years ago. It would be one I'd go to court over to defend if it came to it.

As you rightly say though, it's the spectre of even the slight possibility of this happening which, thinking again about risk adjusted returns, pushes the "cost" of such an option up again. One could also imagine legislation being changed so that grass having been in an agri-environment scheme does not provide an exemption. All this is making me glad for the main part of the farm that I selected AB6 rather than AB8. The way the dates work, this grass will only be down for four and a bit years. If I do go ahead, this discussion will certainly mean I will not pay extra to add expensive native wildflower seed. Keep it to the bare minimum basically and then plan to revert to arable at the end of the four and a half years.

 

[ajcc]

Well I can tell you all of my “stop notice” land came out of arable reversion css and is arable land scheduled on my tenancy, scheduled by rpa on every bps form for last 9 years, scheduled by land registry as arable buttt.....
NE are the entity we all need to be very concerned about, they are calling everything semi natural in press releases in this case!
So be very very canny with them because their agenda is likely different to what you are understanding.

 

[B R C]

It looks like the only ‘safe’ way to go is put a crop in after AB8 for at least one year. It will be in AB 8 on the forms for only 4 years and physically only just over4. Obviously not an ideal situation.