ELMS plans unveiled.

[andybk]

Regarding grants for technology etc. for better land - I can't see the uptake of this being widespread.....few farmers will be looking to invest significant sums in technology for more efficient production if the government priorities are to drive farming out of this country with rules, regulations, assumptions farmers are guilty until proven innocent, and that we can import all the food we need. Our government don't value domestic food production at all.

solar farms and windmills ? new funding stream ?
, solar farm issue looks iffy considering parts are made out of lead and cadmium and farmer is responsible for any contaminated soil clear up left after solar contract is finished so i heard

 

[DRC]

Anyone who thinks that tenancy restructuring will open up farms and land to new tenants will be disappointed if our estate is anything to go by. The owners agents just want the minimum amount of tenants and have admitted this, giving all the FBT land to one preferred tenant and allowing farmsteads to remain empty.
The big will get bigger. I don’t see new entrants have a cat in hells chance of getting a rented farm.

 

[Goffer]

In the first year of the mcsharry reforms 2 farms around us didn’t make a claim as they were totally against set aside they soon changed there mind . In the first yr ELMS will either make it or break it . If you don’t claim there have little control over your patch and our bit well no new machinery for along time . Make do and mend and see what happens politically

 

[onthehoof]

Family farm near us has never claimed any subs be it IACS or single payment or stewardship, they do seem to be doing ok though

 

[neilo]

Anyone who thinks that tenancy restructuring will open up farms and land to new tenants will be disappointed if our estate is anything to go by. The owners agents just want the minimum amount of tenants and have admitted this, giving all the FBT land to one preferred tenant and allowing farmsteads to remain empty.
The big will get bigger. I don’t see new entrants have a cat in hells chance of getting a rented farm.

Your ex-agent told me the same here, there will be no new tenants on the estate. Land coming vacant will be let to existing tenants and the houses let out privately. It could almost come from any of the national land agency’s textbook.

 

[steveR]

I haven’t read this whole thread but get the gist of it and find it quite refreshing. We are farmers at the end of the day and if u can be savvy enough to keep things going without the annual handout I have no interest in elms whatsoever. To be honest looking at a mid tier now but find it quite restrictive.

The "simplified" Mid tier is the easier option for applying for and then carrying out.

 

[steveR]

Family farm near us has never claimed any subs be it IACS or single payment or stewardship, they do seem to be doing ok though

Well, you might well say that they would have been doing MUCH better as a business if they had claimed the support payments or utilised Stewardship.

 

[steveR]

Your ex-agent told me the same here, there will be no new tenants on the estate. Land coming vacant will be let to existing tenants and the houses let out privately. It could almost come from any of the national land agency’s textbook.

Same happened here locally. A whole village with 6 farms 20 years ago is now under one Company based near Nesscliffe...

 

[farenheit]

Just because you don’t claim your subs there are still plenty of laws that govern what you can and can’t do on your farm. I’ve never really bought into the idea of having freedom without them

 

[B'o'B]

In the first year of the mcsharry reforms 2 farms around us didn’t make a claim as they were totally against set aside they soon changed there mind .

It’s not going to be the same this time around any annual underspend will be trimmed from the next years budget. Use it or loose it.

 

[Hindsight]

It’s not going to be the same this time around any annual underspend will be trimmed from the next years budget. Use it or loose it.

I think that is the reason Minister is promoting Stewardship. Now payment control is domicile within the Treasury it will no longer be farmer friendly Brussels ensuring the cash is retained. I anticipate Treasury will be only to pleased to chop any underspend off the next year funds.

 

[honeyend]

I had never seen this, I found it on another forum.
Bigger farms will have more flexibilty and more money to find ways to milk the system.

 

[Hindsight]

I had never seen this, I found it on another forum.
Bigger farms will have more flexibilty and more money to find ways to milk the system.View attachment 860716

Which bit did you like? The 'protect farmers subsidies and even increase them like Norway and Switzerland' Couldn't see any reference to bigger farms being able to milk the system? Where does it say that. The exact opposite seems to be happening?

 

[Steevo]

Anyone who thinks that tenancy restructuring will open up farms and land to new tenants will be disappointed if our estate is anything to go by. The owners agents just want the minimum amount of tenants and have admitted this, giving all the FBT land to one preferred tenant and allowing farmsteads to remain empty.
The big will get bigger. I don’t see new entrants have a cat in hells chance of getting a rented farm.

Agreed. In the days of re-wilding and contractors, I think the value the tenant brings to the party is not visible to many in the chain.

Not just this, but with all the uncertainty around BPS disappearing, who would want to be a tenant putting in a tender now with such uncertainty.

If anyone is likely to lose out and be squeezed by all parties, it's the tenant I'm afraid.

 

[Steevo]

I also don't quite get where the government are coming from with their ELS/Mid-Tier type schemes.

I get their perceived logic of having lots of small wildlife patches all joined together by "wildlife corridors", but personally I think they'd be much better off with large chunks of agriculture, and large chunks of nature. Nature does best when left alone. Agriculture functions best when it's managed. Trying to mix the two achieves nothing and dilutes the benefits, creating an "average" that serves nobody and each are living with the negative impact of the other.

Division of labour surely makes more sense.

Put it another way - pay farmers same BPS as today, say they can only manage 50% (for example) of land for agriculture, and the other 50% must be left alone and let nature manage it as it sees fit, no farmer involvement at all meddling. (we all know Natural England's million pound badger houses aren't something badgers wish to live in etc. so why meddle with nature)

Consider allowing farmers to trade some of those "credits" between each other within reason. Some farmers can put their land 100% productive agriculture, producing 100% output efficiently. Others can specialise in the opposite, and go 0% agriculture but all nature. Some can do a bit of both if it suits their system and they have some good land and some poorer land. All can manage their environment for whatever they wish, whatever suits their particular style, interests, motivation, assets etc. Priority areas could be created to encourage farms to create 10,000ac of rewilded park all in one big lump together, or even pay farms 10% extra if they collaborate with neighbours to deliver larger chunks in one block.

You'd surely get much more effectiveness than a fudge of the two, where intensive farmers are forced to de-intensify, and less productive land elsewhere ends up being used for agriculture where environment usage seems more logical. Farms can then invest properly in their longer term aims e.g. production of farm goods, or production of natural capital. I mean what's the point in planting trees over swathes of the best farmland in the United Kingdom all in the name of carbon offsetting when the uplands of Wales where only sheep can graze might suit trees down down to the ground.

We know that giving the EA responsibility for drainage/rivers/dredging and also wildlife just doesn't work as the two can often be in conflict with one another. Specialisation is surely key for those parties to represent their own best interests (i.e. drainage boards vs. great crested newt fan club), and then work out a way of working that suits for all parties concerned.

The danger it is turns into a PR disaster like set-aside.......farmers paid for doing nothing. But at the end of the day, that's what the government are really asking of farmers it seems, and they claim it's what the public want.....so surely farmers being paid to set land aside for nature to manage in an eco-friendly way is what Greta and her crowd and the eco groups are looking for.

Clearly the neonicotinoid ban hasn't done bee keepers any favours.....and yet that's what the govt. are claiming to be the reason behind it. Let the people on the ground run it as best suits.

 

[GeorgeK]

This is shaping up to be an almighty mess, in a few years we'll all be reminiscing about the good ol days when Defra was efficient and well run

 

[DrWazzock]

I also don't quite get where the government are coming from with their ELS/Mid-Tier type schemes.

I get their perceived logic of having lots of small wildlife patches all joined together by "wildlife corridors", but personally I think they'd be much better off with large chunks of agriculture, and large chunks of nature. Nature does best when left alone. Agriculture functions best when it's managed. Trying to mix the two achieves nothing and dilutes the benefits, creating an "average" that serves nobody and each are living with the negative impact of the other.

Division of labour surely makes more sense.

Put it another way - pay farmers same BPS as today, say they can only manage 50% (for example) of land for agriculture, and the other 50% must be left alone and let nature manage it as it sees fit, no farmer involvement at all meddling. (we all know Natural England's million pound badger houses aren't something badgers wish to live in etc. so why meddle with nature)

Consider allowing farmers to trade some of those "credits" between each other within reason. Some farmers can put their land 100% productive agriculture, producing 100% output efficiently. Others can specialise in the opposite, and go 0% agriculture but all nature. Some can do a bit of both if it suits their system and they have some good land and some poorer land. All can manage their environment for whatever they wish, whatever suits their particular style, interests, motivation, assets etc. Priority areas could be created to encourage farms to create 10,000ac of rewilded park all in one big lump together, or even pay farms 10% extra if they collaborate with neighbours to deliver larger chunks in one block.

You'd surely get much more effectiveness than a fudge of the two, where intensive farmers are forced to de-intensify, and less productive land elsewhere ends up being used for agriculture where environment usage seems more logical. Farms can then invest properly in their longer term aims e.g. production of farm goods, or production of natural capital. I mean what's the point in planting trees over swathes of the best farmland in the United Kingdom all in the name of carbon offsetting when the uplands of Wales where only sheep can graze might suit trees down down to the ground.

We know that giving the EA responsibility for drainage/rivers/dredging and also wildlife just doesn't work as the two can often be in conflict with one another. Specialisation is surely key for those parties to represent their own best interests (i.e. drainage boards vs. great crested newt fan club), and then work out a way of working that suits for all parties concerned.

The danger it is turns into a PR disaster like set-aside.......farmers paid for doing nothing. But at the end of the day, that's what the government are really asking of farmers it seems, and they claim it's what the public want.....so surely farmers being paid to set land aside for nature to manage in an eco-friendly way is what Greta and her crowd and the eco groups are looking for.

Clearly the neonicotinoid ban hasn't done bee keepers any favours.....and yet that's what the govt. are claiming to be the reason behind it. Let the people on the ground run it as best suits.

Well said. Managing and monitoring little bits of this and that intertwined with trying to farm efficiently will not be cost effective and will be a real pain all round.
It would be much better value for money to just leave entire farms or estates on poorer land well alone and allow nature to take them over if that is what people really want.
In fact this could happen without any intervention whatsoever as economic reality hits when bps is witdrawn, though an out goers scheme would be a more humane way of doing it ........ where do I sign?

 

[B'o'B]

Research I saw showed that between 5%-10% of land on most arable farms could be dropped out of production with no negative effect on profitability as those areas consistently underperform and at best breakeven in a good year so are effectively a constant drain on profit.
Those are the parts of a farm to enter into mid-tier and trim machinery accordingly and you end up with a leaner more profitably farm business.

 

[Greythundercloudys]

Surly some expert would have to walk around every farm in the country from an upland place in Wales to an arable place in Kent and tell farmers you could claim this or that for that field or that piece of wood land,

 

[Northern territory]

Research I saw showed that between 5%-10% of land on most arable farms could be dropped out of production with no negative effect on profitability as those areas consistently underperform and at best breakeven in a good year so are effectively a constant drain on profit.
Those are the parts of a farm to enter into mid-tier and trim machinery accordingly and you end up with a leaner more profitably farm business.

All well and good arable farms what about predominantly grassland farms.