ELMS co-design submissions.
- Thread starter delilah
- Start date
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I have come to the conclusion it’s going to be much quicker and easier to put a few features in at my own expense for my own satisfaction how and when I like. A bit of bird mix, a bit of pollinator mix, maybe some tussocky grass. It will be in awkward corners that don’t yield much anyway. Not a huge amount, but a bit and I can manage it exactly how I like. No logging on, no waiting, no silly rules, no inspectors, bye bye DEFRA and the RPA in 2025.
- Location
- People's Republic of South Yorkshire
@DrWazzock
Thing is mate, you will probably get better results.
Defra default setting is that farmers are chemical mad nature destroyers.
So anything we do is wrong and must be changed.
Couple more stupid stuff.
Supplementary feeding. They don't like many feeders to be used and these must be rotated about.
Seed should be scattered on ground.
We have some shelters with food on under for the shoot.
Guess where all the small birds are normally..?
All data shows shoots have more wild birds than even rspb run land, but as most at defra don't like shooting they ignore the fact and waste money trying to make their way work.
Worst year for lapwings rearing chicks was when d**kh**d Packham got shooting crows stopped. Bloody things had a party eating all the chicks.
Hedges.
They want cutting every 3 years so get berry growth. But we all know the hedge looks a right bollox when cut after 3 years.
I suggested to cut the top every year as that's where most growth is and leave the sides for 3 years. Did it on a section of hedge to try it. Worked OK.
Hls inspector was impressed.
Asked if could do all the farm . No....
Said they were running a trial on best way to cut Hedges, but my way was not in the trial.
I mean how many ways can their be and how could you not think to try just the top if your doing a trial...? And how much would that trial have cost and how much would the so called expert running it been paid.?
Thing is mate, you will probably get better results.
Defra default setting is that farmers are chemical mad nature destroyers.
So anything we do is wrong and must be changed.
Couple more stupid stuff.
Supplementary feeding. They don't like many feeders to be used and these must be rotated about.
Seed should be scattered on ground.
We have some shelters with food on under for the shoot.
Guess where all the small birds are normally..?
All data shows shoots have more wild birds than even rspb run land, but as most at defra don't like shooting they ignore the fact and waste money trying to make their way work.
Worst year for lapwings rearing chicks was when d**kh**d Packham got shooting crows stopped. Bloody things had a party eating all the chicks.
Hedges.
They want cutting every 3 years so get berry growth. But we all know the hedge looks a right bollox when cut after 3 years.
I suggested to cut the top every year as that's where most growth is and leave the sides for 3 years. Did it on a section of hedge to try it. Worked OK.
Hls inspector was impressed.
Asked if could do all the farm . No....
Said they were running a trial on best way to cut Hedges, but my way was not in the trial.
I mean how many ways can their be and how could you not think to try just the top if your doing a trial...? And how much would that trial have cost and how much would the so called expert running it been paid.?
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Had a walk round this morning. I am going to do an acre of nectar mix and an acre of floral hay meadow late cut for horses. If the shoot want to walk the nectar mix if there is still enough cover before I top it next spring they can for a small fee.
Every ones a winner.
Toying with the idea of Timothy on the heavy land next to watercourses. Horse hay. Small bales. A few tweaks and adjustments can make things more wildlife friendly, reduce erosion, buffer watercourses etc.
Dunno about the sheep. They graze absolutely every flat like a bowling green. Cattle better in that respect but I just don’t want the work or hassle anymore or blame.
Every ones a winner.
Toying with the idea of Timothy on the heavy land next to watercourses. Horse hay. Small bales. A few tweaks and adjustments can make things more wildlife friendly, reduce erosion, buffer watercourses etc.
Dunno about the sheep. They graze absolutely every flat like a bowling green. Cattle better in that respect but I just don’t want the work or hassle anymore or blame.
- Location
- Cirencester
The same with all ours sadly, all eaten/killed
- Location
- East Sussex
We farm several hundred acres of PP that has been an SSSI since the 1980's.
Over the years we have been in lots of different schemes where "Natural England who knows best" have made suggested management changes.
None of which have achieved any environmental gain and actually increased the flood risk to the local area as they wished to raise water levels.
When we first were designated the financial compensation was significant and since then has decreased in real terms every new scheme.
Unfortunately as far as ELMS is concerned we cannot change anything now as we are locked into "Preservation Not Conservation"!
We already have the ability to store winter water and use the land as a reservoir in the summer.
In the winter we have thousands of birds as the sheep are all taken off the land. There are loads of Water Voles. Medicinal Leeches and hundreds of other rare and endangered species which are still being discovered.
Now I have tried to explain this to many people involved in the direction of ELMS but we do not have a category, as you could argue that we already tick all the boxes so should receive the highest payments. What we do is what everyone should try to achieve.
On land that is not in SSSI we plant hedges and trees, and have pollen and nectar plus wild bird seed areas. We wanted to add supplementary feeding for the birds but NE would not give us the option for that.
The payments have reduced to such an extent that now they hardly cover the wintering costs of the sheep which is what makes the Schemes of interest to us. However the payments for wintering waders are now at a pitifully low level.
Much of the land is Grade 1 and 2 and could be cropped, yes it fattens sheep well but it could be ploughed up as much of it is drained.
Over the years we have been in lots of different schemes where "Natural England who knows best" have made suggested management changes.
None of which have achieved any environmental gain and actually increased the flood risk to the local area as they wished to raise water levels.
When we first were designated the financial compensation was significant and since then has decreased in real terms every new scheme.
Unfortunately as far as ELMS is concerned we cannot change anything now as we are locked into "Preservation Not Conservation"!
We already have the ability to store winter water and use the land as a reservoir in the summer.
In the winter we have thousands of birds as the sheep are all taken off the land. There are loads of Water Voles. Medicinal Leeches and hundreds of other rare and endangered species which are still being discovered.
Now I have tried to explain this to many people involved in the direction of ELMS but we do not have a category, as you could argue that we already tick all the boxes so should receive the highest payments. What we do is what everyone should try to achieve.
On land that is not in SSSI we plant hedges and trees, and have pollen and nectar plus wild bird seed areas. We wanted to add supplementary feeding for the birds but NE would not give us the option for that.
The payments have reduced to such an extent that now they hardly cover the wintering costs of the sheep which is what makes the Schemes of interest to us. However the payments for wintering waders are now at a pitifully low level.
Much of the land is Grade 1 and 2 and could be cropped, yes it fattens sheep well but it could be ploughed up as much of it is drained.
Could you send that to [email protected] as a co-design submission ?
I know you say you have made these points to them already, but if we are to take Defra at their word, that co-design is genuine, then it is still possible to influence what ELMS will look like.
- Location
- East Sussex
Have done.
wanton dwarf
Member
Already done this kind of thing for over 25 years.
But DEFRA isn't going to pay retrospectively nor even for the environmental parts of the farm you already have. 5% of our farm is already "Wildlife" and that's without including hedges, corners or anything else.
Neighbouring farms have no hedges, no trees, nothing.
Guess who will benefit the most out of ELMS ? We'd be better off bulldozering the lot and starting from scratch.
Update on this after communications with Defra:
You can make your submission on what you would like to see ELMS look like to the co-design team:
[email protected]
You can register to receive email alerts on specific co-design consultations via this blog:
https://defrafarming.blog.gov.uk/
You can make your submission on what you would like to see ELMS look like to the co-design team:
[email protected]
You can register to receive email alerts on specific co-design consultations via this blog:
https://defrafarming.blog.gov.uk/
kfpben
Member
- Location
- Mid Hampshire
They need to offer an ELMS grant to pick up the plastic tree/hedge guards mess left by previous schemes.
My father went on a hedge/tree planting spree 20 years ago. 20 acres of woodland planted on some rough ground and c.3miles of hedge. Now I have thousands of guards to collect up which I don’t have the time, or frankly the energy to do for zero financial return.
My father went on a hedge/tree planting spree 20 years ago. 20 acres of woodland planted on some rough ground and c.3miles of hedge. Now I have thousands of guards to collect up which I don’t have the time, or frankly the energy to do for zero financial return.
I have submitted a couple of minor points/ideas using the Janet Hughes e-mail address. They have got back to me and am booked to speak to them next Thursday.
Nothing huge, one point was about Skylark plots and the other about cutting hedges, specifically about timings, frequency and the style of the cut. We had come to the same conclusion as @Vader , him thinking the same and writing about it made me make the submission.
Not sure what will come of it, but the people on the e-mail chain seem interested. If we don't get involved and try to influence its tone and direction then we are always likely to be on the backfoot with these sorts of things.
Nothing huge, one point was about Skylark plots and the other about cutting hedges, specifically about timings, frequency and the style of the cut. We had come to the same conclusion as @Vader , him thinking the same and writing about it made me make the submission.
Not sure what will come of it, but the people on the e-mail chain seem interested. If we don't get involved and try to influence its tone and direction then we are always likely to be on the backfoot with these sorts of things.
how-a-sussex-arable-farmer-is-preparing-for-the-elm-scheme
It is pretty obvious that these schemes will hugely benefit the large arable estates which have caused the problem at the expense of traditional family farms who will likely go to the wall, as always money talks especially in the case of the NFU!
It is pretty obvious that these schemes will hugely benefit the large arable estates which have caused the problem at the expense of traditional family farms who will likely go to the wall, as always money talks especially in the case of the NFU!
Defra have acknowledged that they are lacking in SFI pilot applications from 'small farms, grazing livestock farms, horticulture farms'.
A situation that is hardly surprising given that:
1) The SFI as it stands is so heavily skewed towards large arable enterprises.
2) They have picked the busiest month of the year for livestock farms.
On the positive side, Defra have openly acknowledged the lack of applications from these sectors - it would have been easy for them not to do so.
Applications to be a pilot are open until 11 April. It only takes 5 minutes to express an interest. If you think that the SFI needs to be amended, then being a pilot offers the opportunity to say so.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sustainable-farming-incentive-expression-of-interest
A situation that is hardly surprising given that:
1) The SFI as it stands is so heavily skewed towards large arable enterprises.
2) They have picked the busiest month of the year for livestock farms.
On the positive side, Defra have openly acknowledged the lack of applications from these sectors - it would have been easy for them not to do so.
Applications to be a pilot are open until 11 April. It only takes 5 minutes to express an interest. If you think that the SFI needs to be amended, then being a pilot offers the opportunity to say so.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sustainable-farming-incentive-expression-of-interest
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
I would have applied were we not fully intending to sell and move farm this year, possibly to Scotland. It would have been quite interesting to see how it evolves.
- Location
- North Somerset.
On that basis no reason why they shouldn’t seize on my expression of interest when I made my BPS claim, small PP livestock farm. I won’t hold my breath.
I would imagine that the only way to submit an expression of interest is by following the link, I doubt the system is joined up enough for comments made in other ways to be forwarded.