ELMS in the real world.

[farmerm]

DEFRA spokesman said last year before covid issue, farmers wont be needed and we should import all our food like japan does.

I hope that numskull got sacked. They work for DEFRA is not DERA.

 

[Widgetone]

That penny has yet to drop for many who still think ELMS is some magically BPS income replacement.

Spot on!

 

[DrWazzock]

The only thing that makes financial sense for us is to max out on the water strips and grass plots. To then rip them up again at the end of the agreement. Someone needs to explain the public good in that because i'm not seeing it.

We had grass buffer strips for 10 years under ELS. The problem we had is they gradually get weed infested despite spot spraying with the knapsack which is a devil of a job on hot summers days. Not allowed to mow till august then a heavy layer of mulch which just aggravates the problem or clatting about baling worthless rubbish. So then what? A 6m boom alongside the watercourse spraying herbicide to keep the rubbish down, and there is nothing that kills thistles and ragwort but leaves those dainty little wild flowers.
Really really glad those strips are gone on many levels. Just a metre left. It’s manageable and plenty.

 

[Badshot]

Just been reading some of the pilot scheme.
It's horribly similar to the entry level scheme, which actually started my BG problem with the overwintered stubbles!!!
I'm unsure yet if I will even bother with it, it's too prescriptive again.
Like the arable land needing large chunks putting into pollen and nectar mixes. I'd happily integrate a 3m strip round everything with pollen and nectar mixes, but they want 6m for the water body buffers as a minimum, it's way too much. Especially as you can't drive on them at all, and management of hedges/ditches needs planning to minimise impact on them.

Perhaps what they should have done was actually listen to us and let us decide what benefits the environment most, whilst still managing to farm practically.
Instead of insisting on set widths, and areas, and heights to cut to (you cant leave hedges to get taller and wider every year without occasionally knocking them back hard or you end up with ever wider and taller hedges!!!)
The rates being offered aren't attractive enough for the hassle involved IMO

Most of the standards I can easily meet partially with my current practices and just adjust things a bit, but the extra bits ruin it and make it unfeasible.

I need to read it further though, this is just based on a quick scan at coffee time.

 

[ajd132]

Just been reading some of the pilot scheme.
It's horribly similar to the entry level scheme, which actually started my BG problem with the overwintered stubbles!!!
I'm unsure yet if I will even bother with it, it's too prescriptive again.
Like the arable land needing large chunks putting into pollen and nectar mixes. I'd happily integrate a 3m strip round everything with pollen and nectar mixes, but they want 6m for the water body buffers as a minimum, it's way too much. Especially as you can't drive on them at all, and management of hedges/ditches needs planning to minimise impact on them.

Perhaps what they should have done was actually listen to us and let us decide what benefits the environment most, whilst still managing to farm practically.
Instead of insisting on set widths, and areas, and heights to cut to (you cant leave hedges to get taller and wider every year without occasionally knocking them back hard or you end up with ever wider and taller hedges!!!)
The rates being offered aren't attractive enough for the hassle involved IMO

Most of the standards I can easily meet partially with my current practices and just adjust things a bit, but the extra bits ruin it and make it unfeasible.

I need to read it further though, this is just based on a quick scan at coffee time.

I have to say now I have looked into it in much more detail yesterday I don’t think I will be applying for the pilot. It’s too prescriptive.

 

[midlandslad]

It will be interesting to see out of the 2,000 odd people that can apply, how many decide to go for it

 

[farmerm]

Just been reading some of the pilot scheme.
It's horribly similar to the entry level scheme, which actually started my BG problem with the overwintered stubbles!!!
I'm unsure yet if I will even bother with it, it's too prescriptive again.
Like the arable land needing large chunks putting into pollen and nectar mixes. I'd happily integrate a 3m strip round everything with pollen and nectar mixes, but they want 6m for the water body buffers as a minimum, it's way too much. Especially as you can't drive on them at all, and management of hedges/ditches needs planning to minimise impact on them.

Perhaps what they should have done was actually listen to us and let us decide what benefits the environment most, whilst still managing to farm practically.
Instead of insisting on set widths, and areas, and heights to cut to (you cant leave hedges to get taller and wider every year without occasionally knocking them back hard or you end up with ever wider and taller hedges!!!)
The rates being offered aren't attractive enough for the hassle involved IMO

Most of the standards I can easily meet partially with my current practices and just adjust things a bit, but the extra bits ruin it and make it unfeasible.

I need to read it further though, this is just based on a quick scan at coffee time.

"they want 6m for the water body buffers as a minimum" Now then, what if one include such item in the application in order to qualify but than doesn't actually put them in place, weather issues/seed supply issues/cant be bothered because crop price rockets up... Do agreements force agreed options to be implemented.... if one failed to put in a margin or a block of nectar pollen either because they find they are unable or perhaps just unwilling, would that be in breach of the agreement or not? (assuming of course they also don't try to submit a payment claim on it)?

 

[delilah]

Anyway, it's a beautiful day, the lambs are gamboling and the calves are sunbathing, time for a cheery tune.

 

[Red Fred]

Sorry to butt in but is there an ELMS "book" as there was with previous schemes? If so is it linkable?

Just need to understand "hobby" stuff!

Thanks muchly.

Following consultations, detecting will be subject to certain restrictions following the introduction of NDZs (no detecting zones) across England and Wales. The main points are shown on this map: Green area: no detecting, orange area: definitely no detecting. Red area: absolutely definitely no detecting. The small inset map covers newly annexed British Overseas territories of Oak Island and Amelia Earhart's aeroplane. A small 2 mile exclusion zone will be left around Ringwood as I went to school with a bloke who is something big in the Home Office and I reminded him of that "incident" with the geography teacher. Hope this helps...


)

 

[Badshot]

I have to say now I have looked into it in much more detail yesterday I don’t think I will be applying for the pilot. It’s too prescriptive.

What I need to look into further is if the buffers count as the percentage put into mixes or not.
And also how were allowed to manage them.
I've a little tiny topper I'd like to keep the strip next to the crop mown short with to prevent any seeding going on into the cropped area.

 

[Badshot]

I'm also planting, and grazing cover crops overwinter.
I don't know if that fits in or not.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I would say that there is a HUGE danger of just that. NE/RPA have form on this as we all know

Why do agents and NFU allow or even encourage us to sign up to bad legal contracts? There should be consensus within the industry that no one signs agreements to the new scheme until as an industry we are content that the terms are reasonable, that they are fair and that they protect us from having longer term restrictions being imposed which do not form part of the agreement. NE/RPA can not be allowed to move the goal posts having had us first sign up to bad agreements in good faith. There is little good faith remaining! The government want us to get on board, terms need to be negotiated not dictated.

I've made the point strongly in the additional submission following the EFRA inquiry evidence session that there is scant little trust left of DEFRA/RPA/NE in the farming industry and that ELMS/SFI need a compete change of approach towards partnership rather than regulation if they are to have any chance of success.

What is needed is clear signaling of the public goods they want delivered then for each farm to be helped to agree their own way to deliver them in a way that allows the farm flexibility to deal with natural variability (weather, seasonality etc).

 

[steveR]

I've made the point strongly in the additional submission following the EFRA inquiry evidence session that there is scant little trust left of DEFRA/RPA/NE in the farming industry and that ELMS/SFI need a compete change of approach towards partnership rather than regulation if they are to have any chance of success.

What is needed is clear signaling of the public goods they want delivered then for each farm to be helped to agree their own way to deliver them in a way that allows the farm flexibility to deal with natural variability (weather, seasonality etc).

Totally agree with all you have written and done, thank you.

I think you can add the FC to this mix as well?

Seen this today?

England Woodland Creation Offer from the Forestry Commission

Funding for trees and natural regeneration of woodland. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/england-woodland-creation-offer

thefarmingforum.co.uk

 

[steveR]

Why do agents and NFU allow or even encourage us to sign up to bad legal contracts? There should be consensus within the industry that no one signs agreements to the new scheme until as an industry we are content that the terms are reasonable, that they are fair and that they protect us from having longer term restrictions being imposed which do not form part of the agreement. NE/RPA can not be allowed to move the goal posts having had us first sign up to bad agreements in good faith. There is little good faith remaining! The government want us to get on board, terms need to be negotiated not dictated.

I have said it before, I would love to see an NFU or CLA member who has prepared an application, take one of these Agreements and have it professionally vetted and assessed, and then produce a proper report of the implication of the agreement.

Best would be to have acceptance from NE/RPA of the application, and then have it checked before signing on the dotted line, so no silly business can go on!

I am NOT signing a new CS agreement this Autumn, so not relevant to me.

 

[ajd132]

I've made the point strongly in the additional submission following the EFRA inquiry evidence session that there is scant little trust left of DEFRA/RPA/NE in the farming industry and that ELMS/SFI need a compete change of approach towards partnership rather than regulation if they are to have any chance of success.

What is needed is clear signaling of the public goods they want delivered then for each farm to be helped to agree their own way to deliver them in a way that allows the farm flexibility to deal with natural variability (weather, seasonality etc).

So much of what they are asking for in the arable section I am already doing, and have been for a while. Why do they have to add loads of ridiculous and worthless regulations to it? I don’t even care about the money but they need to make bit workable.

 

[Badshot]

So much of what they are asking for in the arable section I am already doing, and have been for a while. Why do they have to add loads of ridiculous and worthless regulations to it? I don’t even care about the money but they need to make bit workable.

I agree entirely.
If they simply said you need to get x amount of points to get to each level, and allocated a points amount to each section, then let us choose which parts suited us best it would have a much, much higher uptake.
Instead they say you must do x,y AND z, whereas it would have been much better to do e,m, and p.

I note that grazing is allowed on the covers, to prepare them for other means of destruction. I bet they wouldn't want to see any footprints though.

I currently do not like the arable land standard at all.
The soils one may be workable if I can get my head round the nonsensical rules and plans!!!!!!! The poxy soil management plan is making a comeback.
Hedgerow one possibly, including buffers ( but does that area also count for the land pollen and bird mixes if planted with the appropriate mixes)
Water buffers? Not sure yet, it's an open invitation for poachers and flytippers.

Overall I think it's poorly thought out, there's too much input from the green lobbyists who don't seem to care if they eat or not, and actually if they stopped all the runoff from towns/roads/sewage works discharging the water would be a lot healthier.

 

[Badshot]

and now I see to qualify for the advanced arable soil standard you need to convert 50% of higher risk land to PERMANENT GRASS!!!! WTF!!!!! How many arable farms want permanent pasture????

 

[steveR]

and now I see to qualify for the advanced arable soil standard you need to convert 50% of higher risk land to PERMANENT GRASS!!!! WTF!!!!! How many arable farms want permanent pasture????

And all the Upland Graziers will be coming down and living on site, managing their flying flocks!!

 

[Badshot]

the green cover section won't apply to me either, little moderate to high risk land, so the extra £114/ha won't be available. Which means the covers I plant now mean nothing in this scheme.

 

[steveR]

So much of what they are asking for in the arable section I am already doing, and have been for a while. Why do they have to add loads of ridiculous and worthless regulations to it? I don’t even care about the money but they need to make bit workable.

It's in their DNA, they just HAVE to create all the "loads of ridiculous and worthless regulations" to justify their existence to Govt.