Elms & the Livestock Farmer

[delilah]

it's simple really
£150/ha for permanent pasture up to 100 ha, then a reduced payment there after.
What's not to like?
-ALL of DEFRAs ELMS targets met in one simple scheme.
-Small family livestock farms get the rewards for their livestock 'ecosystems' .
-Public get their money spent very effectively and visually .

@Janet Hughes Defra
This has been put to you (with only slight variations in the numbers) by myself and others since the very first days of ELMS. You have steadfastly declined to comment. Given that the proposal isn't showing any signs of going away, and seeing as the SFI as it stands continues to have holes picked in it page after page on here, please could you give your thoughts on this proposal ?

 

[delilah]

The powers that be know that permanent grass will remain, they don’t need to incentivise it….. and farmers, until recently have proven their willingness to farm that land selling their produce at or below the true cost of production!

Only because they have been underpinned - for decades - by a payment from the taxpayer, either in the form of an area payment or a headage one.
If we as a society are to stick with a 'cheap food' policy, then PP needs support or the numbers simply do not stack up. If Defra don't understand that, then someone has failed in their job of explaining it to them.

 

[Henarar]

Only because they have been underpinned - for decades - by a payment from the taxpayer, either in the form of an area payment or a headage one.
If we as a society are to stick with a 'cheap food' policy, then PP needs support or the numbers simply do not stack up. If Defra don't understand that, then someone has failed in their job of explaining it to them.

Unless they sort the job out a bit better than tis now by making it less complicated and upping the payments then many smaller beef and sheep farmers will not bother with this they will either let or sell the land to these large farmers that always seem keen for more and then we will see what happens to these old PP fields and the environmental benefit of being farmed the way they are.
far from being an environmental scheme the SFI could easy turn in to the most environmentally disastrous scheme they have come up with yet if they don't buck their ideas up

 

[Raider112]

Do you really think either of them have taken more than a passing interest in this?

Do you really think when he goes everyone will go back to the bps and carry on as before?

I can't see us going back to BPS but I would hope the next PM will get rid of the likes of the Goldsmiths and a few similar minded bigots and replace them with people who have some knowledge and passion for rural affairs. If the stories are to be believed one of those brothers should be nearer a jail than Government.

 

[andybk]

Not sure why you seem to find it so difficult to comprehend, the simplest fairest solution would be to carry forward the existing SFP at the same rate of pay for the first 100 hectares for every farmer in England with any ELMS schemes separate & additional to that amount with a cap on any ELMS schemes yearly payment of I would say £50,000.
This payment would be to ensure that those first 100 hectares were farmed under the same conditions as they were with the existing SFP.

I would broadly agree with that , each identity restricted to a set amount (inc the grant schemes) of public help , that inc the other tiers of nature recovery etc . i dont feel comfortable with estates hoovering up large sums of public cash because they have clever land agents looking for the best returns , that will in turn rip any improvements out as soon as cash is stopped .

 

[delilah]

I can't see us going back to BPS

We can't. Politically. Which is why there has to be a 'radical' element to the SFI. Restricting area payments to PP ticks that box.

 

[BrianV]

We can't. Politically. Which is why there has to be a 'radical' element to the SFI. Restricting area payments to PP ticks that box.

Why the heck restrict it to PP, an awful lot of very good livestock farmers rotate their fields with catch crops, home grown corn for feed & straw rather than bought in items then back to long lays or PP, to say that only PP should qualify simply dismisses what these extremely good farmers do!

 

[Frank-the-Wool]

Only because they have been underpinned - for decades - by a payment from the taxpayer, either in the form of an area payment or a headage one.
If we as a society are to stick with a 'cheap food' policy, then PP needs support or the numbers simply do not stack up. If Defra don't understand that, then someone has failed in their job of explaining it to them.

I completely agree and the issue is the basis of how you compensate. I notice you didn't reply to my post in #32.
Probably because it is now in the too difficult to do box.
Grade 1 PP in an environmental scheme that was forced on the land owner 40 years ago should surely receive more payments than Grade 4 PP that is full of rushes and will never be very useful agriculturally or environmentally.

I don't believe there can be a one size fits all over PP and it very much depends on whether anyone wants to see this marginal land farmed or just planted with trees.
I would make a suggestion that a small group of farmers and environmentalists actually set the rates in an area that has a common type of farming. There is a bucket full of money related to the area and they put the money to the schemes in their district They receive a payment for their time.
This would have the double benefit of a "local" angle and give more confidence in the fairness of the scheme.

The numbers of these groups would probably be surprisingly few. The type of farming down the East of the country is relatively similar and arable rates easy to assess. It gets trickier in the mixed livestock areas, but in reality how many Dairy farms are going to join in?
So then we are left with the Uplands and the Mixed Livestock areas. I am sure the farmers and environmentalists in those regions would have more in common than they think and a monetary value could be agreed upon. These "committees" could meet annually at the start and review payments.
Disputes could be settled by regional assessors.
A similar scheme existed during the days of when livestock were graded for the subsidy. My Father would be the middle man between the grader and the farmer.

Perhaps all involved in this should think outside of the box?

 

[Hindsight]

Only because they have been underpinned - for decades - by a payment from the taxpayer, either in the form of an area payment or a headage one.
If we as a society are to stick with a 'cheap food' policy, then PP needs support or the numbers simply do not stack up. If Defra don't understand that, then someone has failed in their job of explaining it to them.

Unless they sort the job out a bit better than tis now by making it less complicated and upping the payments then many smaller beef and sheep farmers will not bother with this they will either let or sell the land to these large farmers that always seem keen for more and then we will see what happens to these old PP fields and the environmental benefit of being farmed the way they are.
far from being an environmental scheme the SFI could easy turn in to the most environmentally disastrous scheme they have come up with yet if they don't buck their ideas up

Will be ploughed up. Where it can be and a combinable crop grown. Simples.

 

[Hindsight]

We can't. Politically. Which is why there has to be a 'radical' element to the SFI. Restricting area payments to PP ticks that box.

Quite the Conservative Party stated as a consequence of leaving the EU it (the UK government) would have a radical different Agricultural Policy designed in Whitehall. And it would involve the removal of direct payments to land. So there we are. You really could not make it up. At end of the day this situation was created by Brexit. And thus the Brexiters on here should find the solution?!!

 

[BrianV]

I completely agree and the issue is the basis of how you compensate. I notice you didn't reply to my post in #32.
Probably because it is now in the too difficult to do box.
Grade 1 PP in an environmental scheme that was forced on the land owner 40 years ago should surely receive more payments than Grade 4 PP that is full of rushes and will never be very useful agriculturally or environmentally.

I don't believe there can be a one size fits all over PP and it very much depends on whether anyone wants to see this marginal land farmed or just planted with trees.
I would make a suggestion that a small group of farmers and environmentalists actually set the rates in an area that has a common type of farming. There is a bucket full of money related to the area and they put the money to the schemes in their district They receive a payment for their time.
This would have the double benefit of a "local" angle and give more confidence in the fairness of the scheme.

The numbers of these groups would probably be surprisingly few. The type of farming down the East of the country is relatively similar and arable rates easy to assess. It gets trickier in the mixed livestock areas, but in reality how many Dairy farms are going to join in?
So then we are left with the Uplands and the Mixed Livestock areas. I am sure the farmers and environmentalists in those regions would have more in common than they think and a monetary value could be agreed upon. These "committees" could meet annually at the start and review payments.
Disputes could be settled by regional assessors.
A similar scheme existed during the days of when livestock were graded for the subsidy. My Father would be the middle man between the grader and the farmer.

Perhaps all involved in this should think outside of the box?

It is great thinking outside the box but you have to consider that before too long prices will come under downward pressure & we will then be competing with a vast EU that believes agricultural support is a priority, there has to be a base level of support for all before ELMS schemes or we are in time going to be crucified by our EU competitors!!

 

[BrianV]

Quite the Conservative Party stated as a consequence of leaving the EU it (the UK government) would have a radical different Agricultural Policy designed in Whitehall. And it would involve the removal of direct payments to land. So there we are. You really could not make it up. At end of the day this situation was created by Brexit. And thus the Brexiters on here should find the solution?!!

The situation as you call it has been caused by the Tories & Labour's constant bickering, each trying to out do each other with demented green ideas, it is a competitive world that we live in & you cannot compete with one hand tied behind your back as many manufacturers have now discovered!

 

[Frank-the-Wool]

It is great thinking outside the box but you have to consider that before too long prices will come under downward pressure & we will then be competing with a vast EU that believes agricultural support is a priority, there has to be a base level of support for all before ELMS schemes or we are in time going to be crucified by our EU competitors!!

I am not sure what you mean by a base level of support.
I know plenty of arable farmers who will not even be interested in ELMS or SFI or any other such scheme, they can compete in production terms. The EU is forced to go down the same route and only need to keep the social aspect of agriculture.
I would also suggest that most Dairy Farms will think the same way as will the intensive beef finishers.

Its only us livestock peasants that will need some help to keep going.

 

[BrianV]

I am not sure what you mean by a base level of support.
I know plenty of arable farmers who will not even be interested in ELMS or SFI or any other such scheme, they can compete in production terms. The EU is forced to go down the same route and only need to keep the social aspect of agriculture.
I would also suggest that most Dairy Farms will think the same way as will the intensive beef finishers.

Its only us livestock peasants that will need some help to keep going.

Seems to me with the direction this is heading only the big boys will survive!
Personally I think it's pretty disgusting that a very large majority of farmers & the NFU are far more interested in themselves than the younger generation that we should have hoped would have followed us on in the future, they seem to have no interest in how the smaller starter units will survive with these schemes that are in the main being designed for bigger units.

 

[Hindsight]

I am not sure what you mean by a base level of support.
I know plenty of arable farmers who will not even be interested in ELMS or SFI or any other such scheme, they can compete in production terms. The EU is forced to go down the same route and only need to keep the social aspect of agriculture.
I would also suggest that most Dairy Farms will think the same way as will the intensive beef finishers.

Its only us livestock peasants that will need some help to keep going.

Which begs the question what price sheepmeat and beef for livestock peasants to also ignore ELMS SFI. I speak as someone involved purely in arable and field scale veg advice. And go to farms with broiler chickens. I have little to do with ruminant livestock save the hoggs grazing harvested brassica fields.

 

[delilah]

Why the heck restrict it to PP

For the reasons I have offered. If you think it should be on everything you need to set out your case to @Janet Hughes Defra
(along with numbers. There is £2.4Bn in the pot).

 

[BrianV]

For the reasons I have offered. If you think it should be on everything you need to set out your case to @Janet Hughes Defra
(along with numbers. There is £2.4Bn in the pot).

No use one person banging on about helping smaller units when the majority on here are far more interested in their own futures!

 

[delilah]

No use one person banging on about helping smaller units when the majority on here are far more interested in their own futures!

I think that's unfair on most of the posters on here, most definitely on this thread. From what I have read there is broad agreement on what needs to happen. The detail is for debate.

 

[delilah]

Will be ploughed up. Where it can be and a combinable crop grown. Simples.

You are now into a definition of PP. We should all be delighted if Defra showed a change of direction such that that detail becomes relevant.

 

[delilah]

I completely agree and the issue is the basis of how you compensate. I notice you didn't reply to my post in #32.
Probably because it is now in the too difficult to do box.
Grade 1 PP in an environmental scheme that was forced on the land owner 40 years ago should surely receive more payments than Grade 4 PP that is full of rushes and will never be very useful agriculturally or environmentally.

I don't believe there can be a one size fits all over PP and it very much depends on whether anyone wants to see this marginal land farmed or just planted with trees.
I would make a suggestion that a small group of farmers and environmentalists actually set the rates in an area that has a common type of farming. There is a bucket full of money related to the area and they put the money to the schemes in their district They receive a payment for their time.
This would have the double benefit of a "local" angle and give more confidence in the fairness of the scheme.

The numbers of these groups would probably be surprisingly few. The type of farming down the East of the country is relatively similar and arable rates easy to assess. It gets trickier in the mixed livestock areas, but in reality how many Dairy farms are going to join in?
So then we are left with the Uplands and the Mixed Livestock areas. I am sure the farmers and environmentalists in those regions would have more in common than they think and a monetary value could be agreed upon. These "committees" could meet annually at the start and review payments.
Disputes could be settled by regional assessors.
A similar scheme existed during the days of when livestock were graded for the subsidy. My Father would be the middle man between the grader and the farmer.

Perhaps all involved in this should think outside of the box?

There is a huge range in the 'types' of farming in the few miles between you and I. I can't see anything but arguments in such regional bodies tbh.