David Handleys piece today

[Bruce Almighty]

Or (and this will be incredibly unpopular but I’m saying it anyway)you re-wild all the hill land/areas completely reliant on subsidy and bring the livestock back to the east in order to bring back more mixed farming systems. You could encourage joint ventures between young livestock farmers with nowhere to go to partner up with solely arable farms to create a mutually beneficial system.
i think a lot of people are seriously questioning the viability of conventioral arable farming long term with its reliance on buying inputs, we certainly have for a while now.

Would the National Parks be so appealing to the general public if re-wilding took place?
The scenery would certainly be different and I'm sure that's one of the reasons tourists go there.
Hill farmers may be dependent on subsidy but they are creating a landscape as well as producing food.
Surely that's public goods?

Why can't Eastern Counties all arable farmers bring back livestock farming themselves?

Have they lost the skills?
Have they become lazy because we all know life is easier in a tractor seat.

No wonder direct drilling has become so popular with no FYM to plough back in

 

[Henarar]

What's better, a dozen family farms, hanging on spending nothing or Dyson buying the lot, spending millions bringing the land up to date and starting new enterprises that could employ dozens of locals?

the family farms

 

[BrianV]

Its hard to know what the right answer is. I'm not sure there are rural communities depending on Ag in some parts of the UK anymore. Where I'm from in Cheshire most of the rural houses are owned by doctors, accountants and business owners etc. Most of the local farms were dairies that once employed people, first the workers went in the name of efficiency then the cows went, barns converted, land rented out, with a few store cattle to keep them active farmers. Some of the land went to expanding dairy farms that then started hiring and spending again.
What's better, a dozen family farms, hanging on spending nothing or Dyson buying the lot, spending millions bringing the land up to date and starting new enterprises that could employ dozens of locals?

On the other hand you could ask yourself which is more likely to get a sympathetic hearing, many many dozens of small family farms keeping the rural services going or a billionaire land owner using farming as a tax loophole to safe guard his wealth!

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Or (and this will be incredibly unpopular but I’m saying it anyway)you re-wild all the hill land/areas completely reliant on subsidy and bring the livestock back to the east in order to bring back more mixed farming systems. You could encourage joint ventures between young livestock farmers with nowhere to go to partner up with solely arable farms to create a mutually beneficial system.
i think a lot of people are seriously questioning the viability of conventioral arable farming long term with its reliance on buying inputs, we certainly have for a while now.

or use the hills to produce the store cattle to be fattened in East, that seems a far better use of the countryside.

If I were to ask an environmentalist where to dig a pond, they would say don't dig it in the wetland, rushy bit of a field (which is already good habitat), dig it in the (environmentally sterile) good bit of the field, to produce far more habitat overall. Scaling up that idea, would mean keep farming the hills, and re wild the arable East!

 

[BrianV]

That idiot Hanley and his wife are still at it then I haven’t heard much from them in years I got blocked from the Facebook page for daring too disagree with them can’t even remember what i disagreed over

Think you might just find that he speaks for the majority of active farmers in England at the moment!

 

[neilo]

Or (and this will be incredibly unpopular but I’m saying it anyway)you re-wild all the hill land/areas completely reliant on subsidy and bring the livestock back to the east in order to bring back more mixed farming systems. You could encourage joint ventures between young livestock farmers with nowhere to go to partner up with solely arable farms to create a mutually beneficial system.
i think a lot of people are seriously questioning the viability of conventioral arable farming long term with its reliance on buying inputs, we certainly have for a while now.

You are advocating depopulation on a huge scale, and decimating those families’ life savings, at the same time as trashing this green and pleasant land seen especially in the West of the UK. Is that socially acceptable or responsible?

The very last thing I’d want to do is enter into any joint venture (or employed) position keeping livestock for big arable farmers, without having my own secure base business. That offers no job or capital security in what is a long term industry. I would be primarily dealing farmers that have Avery much shorter term mentality and who flit between enterprises rapidly. It would all fall out of bed as soon as livestock had a couple of lean years, as has been seen many times before. Breeding enterprises can’t operate sustainably like that, and finishing enterprises need breeders to produce their raw materials somewhere.

 

[Henarar]

Think you might just find that he speaks for the majority of active farmers in England at the moment!

some of what he said is right enough but he is a hypocrite

 

[Henarar]

or use the hills to produce the store cattle to be fattened in East, that seems a far better use of the countryside.

If I were to ask an environmentalist where to dig a pond, they would say don't dig it in the wetland, rushy bit of a field (which is already good habitat), dig it in the (environmentally sterile) good bit of the field, to produce far more habitat overall. Scaling up that idea, would mean keep farming the hills, and re wild the arable East!

much more environmentally sustainable

 

[neilo]

Think you might just find that he speaks for the majority of active farmers in England at the moment!

I think he probably does on this issue, but he does like to have rants about other issues which are less well supported, and they (Mr, and particularly Mrs) don’t tolerate any dissenting views. Like all populists, they like to surround themselves with yes men, always have.

 

[Henarar]

or use the hills to produce the store cattle to be fattened in East, that seems a far better use of the countryside.

If I were to ask an environmentalist where to dig a pond, they would say don't dig it in the wetland, rushy bit of a field (which is already good habitat), dig it in the (environmentally sterile) good bit of the field, to produce far more habitat overall. Scaling up that idea, would mean keep farming the hills, and re wild the arable East!

plus if there were some nice Simi wild areas for folk to go to over in the east then they wouldn't all come down here getting in our way where the serious farming goes on.

 

[ajd132]

Would the National Parks be so appealing to the general public if re-wilding took place?
The scenery would certainly be different and I'm sure that's one of the reasons tourists go there.
Hill farmers may be dependent on subsidy but they are creating a landscape as well as producing food.
Surely that's public goods?

Why can't Eastern Counties all arable farmers bring back livestock farming themselves?

Have they lost the skills?
Have they become lazy because we all know life is easier in a tractor seat.

No wonder direct drilling has become so popular with no FYM to plough back in

I wasn’t having a dig at anyone just suggesting a possible route if they force uplands to be re wilded or used for something other than livestock, just to clarify.
Yes the skills have been lost you are correct. I know nothing about livestock. Hence why i suggested a joint venture type agreement with someone who needs land but can’t get it.
The laziness comment is just boring now. I want to do as little work for maximum return. Direct drilling is part of this. (FYI you don’t need to plough muck down). Who wants to work themselves into an early grave for a pittance or abit of subsidy? I certainly don’t.
I am fully aware of many of the downfalls and negatives around conventional arable farming, and working to try and do something about that. Because what worked for my father doesn’t work now. Self awareness and being truthful to the hard reality is one of our biggest assets.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

I am convinced, what needs to happen, is some animal agriculture incorporated into purely arable areas, this could work with store animals being produced in the wet West, especially as I guess purely arable farmers probably don't want to be calving etc. Eat more home produced beef, use cattle to build top soil (to ameliorate the effects of arable production). Grants for a few more trees and hedges. I can't see what is not to like about that idea (unless you are a Vegan or part of the Carrie Antionette set!)

 

[ajd132]

I am convinced, what needs to happen, is some animal agriculture incorporated into purely arable areas, this could work with store animals being produced in the wet West, especially as I guess purely arable farmers probably don't want to be calving etc. Eat more home produced beef, use cattle to build top soil (to ameliorate the effects of arable production). Grants for a few more trees and hedges. I can't see what is not to like about that idea (unless you are a Vegan or part of the Carrie Antionette set!)

How does this work? As I said in a previous post my knowledge of livestock production is zero but keen to learn something!

 

[Hindsight]

I agree with you when it comes to the thousands of acres growing a bit of DD feed wheat and barley, employing hardly anyone and not really adding much to the nations food production. Better rotations, producing more food and perhaps introducing some livestock would seem a better use of the land but why would they make things complicated if wheat and barley gives them a good living. Perhaps that's the ground that should be rewilded? Keep quality livestock production local and import cheap feed?
I remember some years ago when the Tour De France started in the UK. Ariel shots showed a very diverse countryside until it got further south, where everything was either OSR or wheat, I remember Mrs KP saying "are there no cows in the UK anymore". It looked terrible.

But the Eastern counties are stuffed full of livestock! Just that it is broiler chickens in sheds. New sites being built locally. I would add pigs but there market circumstances are reducing the breeding and finishing herd. Not ruminants. Do you distinguish the two types of livestock? I struggle to reconcile that with your first sentence ‘not really adding much to nation’s food production’

 

[bluebell]

farmers who could, started packing keeping commercial farm livestock for many reasons, one was an easier life? been able to make more money without the physical work that livestock, how ever many you have will allways demand? Another reason is, and its the same in many other industries, the decline in the support services that farm livestock need? from local marts shutting, farm vets, some areas now no choice but one? cake feed, sundries, merchants, lots have gone ? Another very big reason, thats hardly ever seriously addressed on these many good life, escape to the country, start a small farm TV, lovey programmes? is the massive massive effect the TB testing, the whole tb problem has on keeping cattle, the cost of it? the worry of it? the time and the agro that comes from having to test them?

 

[7610 super q]

Its hard to know what the right answer is. I'm not sure there are rural communities depending on Ag in some parts of the UK anymore. Where I'm from in Cheshire most of the rural houses are owned by doctors, accountants and business owners etc. Most of the local farms were dairies that once employed people, first the workers went in the name of efficiency then the cows went, barns converted, land rented out, with a few store cattle to keep them active farmers. Some of the land went to expanding dairy farms that then started hiring and spending again.
What's better, a dozen family farms, hanging on spending nothing or Dyson buying the lot, spending millions bringing the land up to date and starting new enterprises that could employ dozens of locals?

When I started, there were plenty of 70 acre family dairy farmers about, probably employing 1 person each, albeit on a casual basis, new tractor every 7 years, and spending a fair amount at local firms.
Now it's 2000 cow herds, employing half a dozen Polish staff, and falling foul of the environment agency with major pollution incidents......
I know which I prefer.....

 

[Tarw Coch]

When I started, there were plenty of 70 acre family dairy farmers about, probably employing 1 person each, albeit on a casual basis, new tractor every 7 years, and spending a fair amount at local firms.
Now it's 2000 cow herds, employing half a dozen Polish staff, and falling foul of the environment agency with major pollution incidents......
I know which I prefer.....

It ain’t quite that bad yet, certainly not all by a long chalk but that’s the way it seems to be heading, it’s been my opinion for a while that the small dairy farms days are numbered, many don’t realise it yet.

 

[nonemouse]

When I started, there were plenty of 70 acre family dairy farmers about, probably employing 1 person each, albeit on a casual basis, new tractor every 7 years, and spending a fair amount at local firms.
Now it's 2000 cow herds, employing half a dozen Polish staff, and falling foul of the environment agency with major pollution incidents......
I know which I prefer.....

I grew up on one of those 70 acre dairy farms- 35 cows a few youngstock maybe 50 ewes and some hens, would keep 3 full time people busy (all family) but that was 50 years since and even then the living wasn’t great. That same farm is now 300 acres 65 cows 80 youngstock a few hundred wintering sheep, biggest half of the farm is arable. Even with me doing some contracting work it doesn’t stand employing staff and my days as a dairy farmer are numbered. Not many little dairy farms left now

 

[devonbeef]

If the government had any brain they would be encouraging farming, east/west/ north/south livestock/for meat / arable/veg,, all of it, A guaranteed home food supply and do what the rest of the world would do, become supplier of food to the rest of the world. Why is this need to reduce a industry which provides the first building block of life. Help the industry fly, try and make some money out of it for the country , All down to attitude . 7/8 billion people need food. This country's a joke.We have a good climate but need support (to make it happen)Not just money. Nope that not going to happen, we will plant trees instead. After all we have been eating leaves since time began.

 

[puppet]

I am convinced, what needs to happen, is some animal agriculture incorporated into purely arable areas, this could work with store animals being produced in the wet West, especially as I guess purely arable farmers probably don't want to be calving etc. Eat more home produced beef, use cattle to build top soil (to ameliorate the effects of arable production).

That is the system in much of Scotland with a lot of suckler stores heading to Lothians and Aberdeen for finishing. Does that not happen in Englandshire?