ELM Scheme

[Fake it ‘til you make it]

As I said a few weeks ago on one of these thread it Commodity prices - stupid - to coin that phrase from I think George Bush.

Bill Clinton, but your point is valid nonetheless

 

[farmerm]

Todays announcement of E10 fuel is relevant. BPS is going. But Government is expecting that the UK Agriculture will become price sensitive and competitive. So E10 fuel may and is expected by government to increase price of wheat and thus allow an increase income to offset reduced BPS. That is the theory. Wheat at £160 and their will be folk happy to min till Grade 3 land with dodgy wet areas. At £110 not as much. AT £200 tonne folk will be falling over themselves to farm that wet old Grade 3 farm with knackered drainage.

As I said a few weeks ago on one of these thread it Commodity prices - stupid - to coin that phrase from I think George Bush.

You will continue to rail against ELMS DrW and am sure you will be on here in a few years chuntering about that wet patch in the Winter wheat and why do you carry on.

With the very best of wishes, H

What are the biofuel plants policy on taking in farm assured grain? Presumably they don't care if it is RT assured, not assured or Ukrainian imports, just whatever is the cheapest they can get their hands on.

All very well agriculture being more price sensitive... but we know those swings between £110 and £200/t can occur in much shorter intervals than our lengthy crop and animal production cycles.

 

[Overby]

I see it as the die hard arable men will need to be bigger and more efficent, any eco negatives of that are presumably to be offset and more by those who take up ELMS with gusto. There is room for both. If ELMS is done properly it's just another option and fair play to those who make it work for them.....big 'if' mind.

 

[spin cycle]

It may of course have the opposite effect.
If you look at the "unsubsidised" countries of the world which are also the least "regulated" then the effect will be to increase production in the short term.
My thinking is that there will be significant changes in the livestock sector and less in the arable areas.
Arable farming will continue to move into very large units with full economies of scale. The best land will be put into maximum production using every tool in the box, including robots. The less productive will be assessed for planting trees or using for growing crops for wildlife. ELMS will not be a high priority for the large arable units.

Livestock will go to two extremes, the highly intensive using very little land and so not bothered by ELMS, Dairying, Pig production and feedlot beef. The extensive which will use the land as a resource for water storage and landscape enhancement which will keep livestock on as scenic benefit. There will be better management of the access routes and those farmers who provide this service for the people to go into the countryside will be well paid to maintain the footpaths and offer additional areas for horse riding and dog exercise. This will be in areas which are already grassland, such as hills and downland and some designated sites.

you may well be right but those large arable outfits often have a lot of cfa....take out bps and it begins to look a bit tight perhaps?

if you're a fortunate landowner with 1000ac of grade 3 arable....currently having everything cropped on cfa......you could switch to 250 ac wheat...then 'enhanced stubble'....then two years of legumy fallow thing....then back to a first wheat.....lot less contracting to pay for

 

[Overby]

This exactly

 

[delilah]

if you're a fortunate landowner with 1000ac of grade 3 arable....currently having everything cropped on cfa......you could switch to 250 ac wheat...then 'enhanced stubble'....then two years of legumy fallow thing....then back to a first wheat.....lot less contracting to pay for

From the landowner perspective, absolutely.
However, if the people writing ELMS think that there is any 'public good' in that, then they want sacking quick.

 

[spin cycle]

From the landowner perspective, absolutely.
However, if the people writing ELMS think that there is any 'public good' in that, then they want sacking quick.

thing is how can it be any other way .....you need the land for elms options thus the more land you have the more money you can claim

 

[delilah]

thing is how can it be any other way .....you need the land for elms options thus the more land you have the more money you can claim

go back a step. Someone needs to explain how cutting food production, thus increasing imports, food miles, co2 emissions blah blah, is a public good.

 

[delilah]

well paid to maintain the footpaths and offer additional areas for horse riding and dog exercise.

I have forcibly referred to this in a submission on the 'public engagement' element of ELMS.
If it to deliver public good, then it needs to do so for the millions of people living in the cities, who don't get into the countryside from one year to the next to see where their money is going. And that means school trips and the like for inner city kids. The dog walkers and horse riders of Middle England can damned well pay for their own entertainment.

 

[Overby]

From the landowner perspective, absolutely.
However, if the people writing ELMS think that there is any 'public good' in that, then they want sacking quick.

In my eyes a lot of the confusion comes from the broad definition, or apparent lack of definition of, "the public good".

I've read numerous times that 'public goods' are 'non excludable' and as such the atmosphere is classed as a 'public good' and being for 'the public good', therefore anything seen to be driving down intensive, input heavy, arable activity is therefore in/for the 'public good'.

Leaving stubble and banging in grass/flowers/legumes etc are all classed as in/for the 'public good' due to the associated reduction in 'bad' arable practise .

I think.

 

[delilah]

I've read numerous times that 'public goods' are 'non excludable' and as such the atmosphere is classed as a 'public good' and being for 'the public good', therefore anything seen to be driving down intensive, input heavy, arable activity is therefore in/for the 'public good'.

For sure. And if Defra have got peer reviewed scientific studies to show that not producing 1t of wheat in the UK (to our standards) and instead producing 1t of wheat in Russia (to their standards) and shipping it in is better for the atmosphere, then crack on.

 

[digger64]

you may well be right but those large arable outfits often have a lot of cfa....take out bps and it begins to look a bit tight perhaps?

if you're a fortunate landowner with 1000ac of grade 3 arable....currently having everything cropped on cfa......you could switch to 250 ac wheat...then 'enhanced stubble'....then two years of legumy fallow thing....then back to a first wheat.....lot less contracting to pay for

I think that would apply to large estates in hand operations to , subject to yield and price , all the tax benefits of farming low overheads/risk &more attractive than the risk of letting . With the ability to do a "hand brake turn " should it come good again .

 

[The Seeker]

Here's one argument that nerfs most comments on being told to stop producing food. Who's going to feed all these people? where will the protein come from?
World Population Projections

Year	World Population​	Yearly Change	Net Change	Density (P/Km²)	Urban Pop	Urban Pop %
2020	7,794,798,739	1.05 %	81,330,639	52	4,378,993,944	56 %
2021	7,874,965,825	1.03 %	80,167,086	53	4,458,417,153	57 %
2022	7,953,952,567	1.00 %	78,986,742	53	4,537,671,317	57 %
2023	8,031,800,429	0.98 %	77,847,862	54	4,616,769,941	57 %
2024	8,108,605,388	0.96 %	76,804,959	54	4,695,752,643	58 %
2025	8,184,437,460	0.94 %	75,832,072	55	4,774,646,303	58 %
2026	8,259,276,737	0.91 %	74,839,277	55	4,853,440,042	59 %
2027	8,333,078,316	0.89 %	73,801,579	56	4,932,106,155	59 %
2028	8,405,863,295	0.87 %	72,784,979	56	5,010,636,794	60 %
2029	8,477,660,693	0.85 %	71,797,398	57	5,089,023,789	60 %
2030	8,548,487,400	0.84 %	70,826,707	57	5,167,257,546	60 %
2031	8,618,349,489	0.82 %	69,862,089	58	5,245,333,711	61 %
2032	8,687,227,850	0.80 %	68,878,361	58	5,323,244,862	61 %
2033	8,755,083,431	0.78 %	67,855,581	59	5,400,979,916	62 %
2034	8,821,862,661	0.76 %	66,779,230	59	5,478,518,637	62 %
2035	8,887,524,213	0.74 %	65,661,552	60	5,555,833,477	63 %
2036	8,952,048,940	0.73 %	64,524,727	60	5,632,877,620	63 %
2037	9,015,437,653	0.71 %	63,388,713	61	5,709,649,218	63 %
2038	9,077,693,676	0.69 %	62,256,023	61	5,786,163,111	64 %
2039	9,138,828,468	0.67 %	61,134,792	61	5,862,368,105	64 %
2040	9,198,847,240	0.66 %	60,018,772	62	5,938,249,026	65 %
2041	9,257,745,535	0.64 %	58,898,295	62	6,013,773,230	65 %
2042	9,315,508,050	0.62 %	57,762,515	63	6,088,940,515	65 %
2043	9,372,118,186	0.61 %	56,610,136	63	6,163,655,296	66 %
2044	9,427,555,367	0.59 %	55,437,181	63	6,238,212,209	66 %
2045	9,481,803,274	0.58 %	54,247,907	64	6,312,544,819	67 %
2046	9,534,854,828	0.56 %	53,051,554	64	6,386,625,322	67 %
2047	9,586,707,986	0.54 %	51,853,158	64	6,460,427,625	67 %
2048	9,637,357,637	0.53 %	50,649,651	65	6,533,911,569	68 %
2049	9,686,800,357	0.51 %	49,442,720	65	6,607,033,749	68 %
2050	9,735,033,990	0.50 %	48,233,633	65	6,679,756,162	69 %

 

[digger64]

going to be a disaster i think.....food production is going to plummet as it'll have to compete with env. options just as lower standard imports turn up....you can't suck £3billion out of an industry without consequences

we have got a couple who walk round here , always watching/counting birds etc ,I think its all they do, they are very pleasant and polite to talk to and give a different perspective ,but they are certainly into reporting, interfering ,criticising most land/river management and not specifically mine . Talking to them food has no value ,the new scheme is going to be wonderful from their point of view - they are obviously being fed info about this" great new dawn" from some NGO or other . They seem to like our meadows cattle etc but they cant their heads around it when I told them that if the ELMS is attractive the landlord will take the land back and we will be finished .

 

[delilah]

They seem to like our meadows cattle etc but they cant their heads around it when I told them that if the ELMS is attractive the landlord will take the land back and we will be finished .

If the landlord gets an ELMS payment on the meadows wont he let you carry on grazing them ? He wont get the money if he doesn't graze it.

 

[digger64]

If the landlord gets an ELMS payment on the meadows wont he let you carry on grazing them ? He wont get the money if he doesn't graze it.

what will there be to graze ? mud rushes alder duckweed ? they dont want it farming and i wouldnt want it either they wouldnt do any good on it .
the winter would be to long , there will be less straw/forage availiable or poorer dry land to put them on either elsewhere

 

[delilah]

what will there be to graze ? mud rushes alder duckweed ? they dont want it farming and i wouldnt want it either they wouldnt do any good on it .
the winter would be to long , there will be less straw/forage availiable or poorer dry land to put them on either elsewhere

sorry, I read your post to mean you had cattle on some meadows ?

 

[digger64]

sorry, I read your post to mean you had cattle on some meadows ?

I think you read the post correctly , but I mean that elms will be perhaps be more attractive to the landowners financially than the present use .Particularly as the tenant will not have bps to pass on to counteract the new funny money . If the new system comes in it will be like setaside it will put a bottom in all short term rents , land and crops availiability will be reduced particularly on marginal less productive more challenging land .Having a tenant or having to take entrepreneurial risks , do work will not perhaps be necessary.
If you can work in a self sufficient way without going into the market place for some farm /land/ crop based inputs then you will perhaps be unaffected or able to use it to your advantage .
Spin's grim pediction of imports getting established at the same time as this policy does appear to look a likely scenario .

 

[egbert]

So the answer is plant a few token trees, grow far less of our own food & import more from the rest of the world whilst half the world is starving. If as the environmentalists claim the Earth's temperatures are going to rise then a whole lot of the Earth will not be able to feed it's self in which case as our country is one of the lucky few not quite so badly affected then surely we should be producing more to make up the earth's shortfall or is it a just case of sod the rest & each country to it's own

er, i think it's the scientific community whose claims are relevant.

 

[BrianV]

Funny how farmers get the blame for our countryside being ruined, in my relatively short lifetime we first had simple farm subsidies where farmers were paid when animals were sold at the fat market, then that changed to headage payments where a chap turned up once a year to count your stock, then those bloody enviros got involved & we had SFP with endless paper forms, maps, satellites, god knows how many inspectors, backroom staff & all other manner of things all supposedly in the cause of saving our countryside. Now we have the latest wheeze with you can bet even more of the already mentioned.
Now look at our countryside, the farmland has changed so very little in 50 years, then compare that with the disgusting tragedy of our cities, towns, industrial estates etc from an ever increasing population needing feeding & ask yourself who is it that really is ruining our country!!