I thought she lived at Number 35 ?
ELMS “wish list”
- Thread starter Clive
- Start date
beardface
Member
- Location
- East Yorkshire
A couple of option I'd like to see;
Low input permanent pasture
Either fresh sown or existing grass. Lowland minimum 8 years. SDA 10 years. Option would cross over agreements. With possibly a plus version involving herbal type pasture.
2 year cover crop. Would allow farmers to weather market volatility by allowing them to put up to 50% of there acreage into cover crops. Rules would be it must be allowed to flower at least once through the year, but can be cut/mown at regular intervals to control injurious weeds. Only allowed roundup once per year to either allow resowing of cover crop or return to production. Better payment if 2 year mix is sown. Payment rate similar to basic payment or average gross margin. Easy to do and administer and similar to CRP in the States. Farmers who take this option must have a minimum area of other options when land is in full production. Benefits are regular increase in national biodiversity and support of food producers through difficult market circumstances to protect overall domestic food production. Basically subsidy support through bad years with an appropriate environmental outcome.
Basic payment is less than rent, so we’d be paying for the privilege . This is where the crunch will come as obviously at the moment you can get both payments or grow a crop plus payment . Not sure what the answer is on rented farms, other than big rent reductions .
she already pays to remove by products of her food production from her water, she already pays increased insurance premiums due to flood risk and she already pays for dredging, creation of flood defences and disaster recovery when things go wrong - all that’s ELMS changes in this respect is ultimately who she pays
She isn’t paying the true cost of her driving, heating, lighting, flights for summer holidays and high consumerism of cheap imported electronics, cars or food. She has children and maybe would like grandchildren so will have a desire that our environment should be more sustainable and as a realist will know that will not happen without cost
production of food, environment, wildlife, public health, education, welfare, crime etc are ALL connected and should never be considered in isolation - if you want to unburden the NHS it starts with good diet for example ......... Henry Dimbelby will hopefully pull all this together in his upcoming report
Last edited:
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
A good coherent reply. Some reasonable arguments. I just have a couple of things Mrs Brown would like to know.
1 she already pays to remove by products of her food production from her water, she already pays increased insurance premiums due to flood risk and she already pays for dredging, creation of flood defences and disaster recovery when things go wrong - all that’s ELMS changes in this respect is ultimately who she pays
Will she actually see a true reduction in her insurance premiums and local rates etc. Starting in 2024 as she understands that is when ELMS is going to start paying you to grow a cover crop.
2 She isn’t paying the true cost of her driving, heating, lighting, flights for summer holidays and high consumerism of cheap imported electronics, cars or food. She has children and maybe would like grandchildren so will have a desire that our environment should be more sustainable and as a realist will know that will not happen without cost
Can you explain and convince her she isn't paying the true cost. It seems to her the true cost when she has to pay her credit card bill each month. She does indeed concur with your view about the environment but is just unclear and uncertain why she has extra cost paid to a farmer for a cover crop (whatever that is). She would prefer to have smaller class sizes at her Grandchildrens school.
3 production of food, environment, wildlife, public health, education, welfare, crime etc are ALL connected and should never be considered in isolation - if you want to unburden the NHS it starts with good diet for example ......... Henry Dimbelby will hopefully pull all this together in his upcoming report
This sounds somewhat complex and goes a bit above her head. Not a lot more I can say. She understands the diet comment and she and her family are trying to eat more healthily. Buying more fresh fruit and vegetables as proportion of there weekly shop and reducing sugary things. But she was told leaving the EU would reduce food prices and not totally sure how paying a farmer to grow this cover crop thingy will lead to her getting better value food. But sure you are right!
- Location
- Yorks
A good ELMS payment for 100% cropping and farming under the UK's cross compliance and regulatory framework.
I think that DEFRA should remember that we import foodstuffs from areas of the world that do not have the same regadd to their environment.
Every acre not cropped in the UK is potentially another acre of rainforest destroyed to supply our UK food requirements.
100% of UK land cropped could well be the best thing for the world's environment. That's a public good which should be encouraged and paid for by ELMS.
I think that DEFRA should remember that we import foodstuffs from areas of the world that do not have the same regadd to their environment.
Every acre not cropped in the UK is potentially another acre of rainforest destroyed to supply our UK food requirements.
100% of UK land cropped could well be the best thing for the world's environment. That's a public good which should be encouraged and paid for by ELMS.
- Location
- Northumberland
I find it intriguing that Clive is proposing a paid-for cover crop option ilo a break crop in the year that he has ripped up all his osr and concluded that its days are done.
Store cattle have got very dear - I reckon elms should pay me to rear dairy calves instead.
Store cattle have got very dear - I reckon elms should pay me to rear dairy calves instead.
But have you seen all the gumph this week (again) on how Cows burping is destroying the world, yet another biased "report"? And a small footnote on how air travel needs to be reduced....
Devil's advocate
Member
- Location
- Posh side of Barnsley
I'd like to be paid to s tore water that floods local village & then goes onto flood dearne valley, sheffield, doncaster & then fishlake.
Ideally use it with non powered gravity pipe to supply renewable irrigation but would accept leaky dams
- Location
- Mendips Somerset
maybe we should also explain to mrs brown why up until this march she has had so much money left after her shopping trip to tesco to go on 2 or 3 holidays a year ,and buy her grand kids a mobile phone , she also has sky tv , and drives a (2nd) car , compare to what her grandmother had in the 60s .Then also explain that retail food has not kept pace with inflation for at least 40 years because farmers received a subsidy to allow tesco to keep it low to produce at below the cost of production ,so she could afford the luxuries she enjoyed as her family grew up , that drive for cheap food has led to the loss of the wildlife she likes to see on her walk when she takes her dog to pollute the local environment and disturb ground nesting birds . Then there is the weekly trip to primark to buy her disposable petro chemical one use clothing sewn up by children and adults on a slave labour wage , when the local farmers are having to burn or bury their sustainable wool .
edit: and by the way , remember when she or her husband is watching eastenders or match of the day the BBC recieves huge subsidies no different to farmers .
I wont shed a tear for mrs brown or her family , they have had it coming for decades ,and should have put something aside .
Last edited:
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Good points. Although does come over as chip on shoulder!!
As an aside, but pertinent to your reply:
Earlier in the week I sat in on a meeting between a contract farming business and an elderly farmer (age73) who has retired recently from 'active' farming but retained a tenancy on 200 acres so he can retain an interest in farming arable crops and the various tax advantages of running a farm business. Range Rover was parked outside.
We were discussing the contract arrangement and potential returns. Of course the issues were to ensure he could pay the landowner rent and continue to take the BPS as his share.
So as far as I could see 'your subsidy' did not really assist Mrs Brown that much but did support the lifestyle of two elderly farmers. And this is a situation not atypical in the lands of Lincolnshire.
Fascinating times. Appreciate you will consider I am being anti farmer - maybe comes over that way but the movement of cash into farming and then back out as payment to the provider of land is quite interesting. By the way the owner of this land has a few houses and a yacht in the Med - good luck to him. I am sure Mrs Brown would not hold that against the landowner as she enjoys here third holiday and second car.
Best wishes,
Last edited:
This is not just the case in Lincolnshire ---it's the norm all over the country
Farming is not subsidised at the moment---land ownership is---i hope this stops but fear it will continue in another name ''ELMS'' or whatever you like to call it
These payments have very little to do with the cost of food in the shops, this is governed by international markets
Basic sum is that farmers in other parts of the world are able/prepared to produce for less than the UK farmer, either by using different standards/scale or wanting less profit
(We obviously want a better world and as such should be pushing for higher production standards which is very difficult when everyone wants cheap food)
It is not subsidy/obligation for land ownership but subsidy/obligations for “property right” which in a great many cases is tenant right.
These longer term management initiatives are set to clash with tenant rights.
These longer term management initiatives are set to clash with tenant rights.
- Location
- Scottish Borders
To true and this is becoming increasingly well known. Following from the contribution of others I wonder - Would one option be to have a simple rule which stated that to receive BSP all eligible fields must be less than a given area (maybe 10 ha 25 acre). This would allow farmers control, as they will not need to alter fields if they do not want BSP. Landowners would need to consider if they wish to alter the natural infrastructure of the farm by planting hedges (or invest in some other semi-permanent form of agroforestry) or reduce the rent if they forbid ‘farmer’ from altering natural infrastructure of this type.
Easy to administrate and pay for public good but don’t pay to restore natural infrastructure which previous generation was paid to remove (that was their economic choice) and would still allow ‘large farmers with economy of scale’ to carry as currently.
Goweresque
Member
- Location
- North Wilts
Jesus how many times is this argument going to go around and around before it sinks into some people brains that any money that is given to 'farmers' (ie the people who stand around in muddy fields shouting Get Orf My Land to random passersby) is always going to benefit 'landowners' (who may be the same person above, or may be the Duke of Westminster) because you can't farm without land????
The only way the money given to farmers can stop leaking over to landowners is if a) land ownership is abolished, all land becomes the property of the State and all farmers are State tenants, or b) food no longer needs land to be produced, and can be turned out of a factory. In which case farmers won't be needed either.
In the absence of either of these conditions, any money given to farmers for whatever nominal purpose will inevitably partly end up in landowners pockets, either because the farmer is himself a landowner, or he pays a higher rent to one.
The only way the money given to farmers can stop leaking over to landowners is if a) land ownership is abolished, all land becomes the property of the State and all farmers are State tenants, or b) food no longer needs land to be produced, and can be turned out of a factory. In which case farmers won't be needed either.
In the absence of either of these conditions, any money given to farmers for whatever nominal purpose will inevitably partly end up in landowners pockets, either because the farmer is himself a landowner, or he pays a higher rent to one.
ok - i will give up N fertilisers and crop protection products if you will as well .......... in fact i would love to do so IF it was made viable to do so
That’s in part exactly what ElLMS is about surely?
no one is going to farm in a way that looses them money are they ?
Exactly ---well done
So the next step (once we have accepted that money given to farmers just ends up supporting landowners ) is to realise that therefore we cannot give money directly to farmers
So from a farming point of view (this is a farming forum)
So if we (farmers) want the Govt. to invest in farming /agricultural industry we have to look at want we want to achieve ?
One of the things we want/need is good access to a decent market--this means a series of trade deals with someone with money
To achieve this we have to convince and prove that we have acceptable standards of production to whoever we are selling to
I would argue that govt. incentives to improve the ''UK Ag. Brand'' would be a good thing in what ever form this could take
With access to markets and fair competition (similar import standards) UK ag. can compete with most of the world without Govt. handouts
From a landowning point of view
This is harder to round----but the Govt. want to see better ''conservation management/greening'' (a fairly broad term that includes many ideas)
This of course means managing land in a way that is often contrary to optimum ag. output/profit (but not necessarily optimum financial output)
So if we don't want to reward landowners just for owning land we must get some pretty high returns from any payment we offer them? This i think would be easier to do with some upland/less favoured areas but difficult to achieve financially in good farming areas?
In fact i would argue that in many cases without current payments quite a bit of land will be less intensively farmed and naturally give some of the outcomes that Govt. are trying to achieve whilst at the same time potentially increasing it's tourist/visitor/recreational income potential?
Some land may be more intensively farmed without payments but this will be countered by harsher rules and regulation (that's a fact , as the world population grows and demands more there will be demands for higher production standards that will be enforced by govt. or by the market)
In short ---the farming industry is used to standing up in it's own right and has little to fear
Landowning has been rewarded for long enough and will have to accept lower returns in many cases
i’m not sure it’s as “over her head” as you imagine
demand to do something about the environment is massive - remember pre covid it was pretty much all that was in our news ! There were riots ! teenage girls sailed oceans to talk about it !
As the cost of climate change on our environment becomes more clear in coming years i think it will not just be recognised that a debt has to be repaid but it will become a poorly fit many and something huge amounts of cash are allocated to fixing
Carbon will be the “Oil” of the next generation
Regulation , economics and market demand will ensure you use less N fert & crop protection products surely ?
not true - it’s is possible to decouple payment from landownership if you really want to