ELMs. Use it or lose it?

[ajcc]

The TFA appears to be suggesting this is the choice and that the Treasury will reallocate funding elsewhere.
This is an interesting take on the possible consequences of farming rejecting sfi and elms.

 

[gone up the hill]

The TFA appears to be suggesting this is the choice and that the Treasury will reallocate funding elsewhere.
This is an interesting take on the possible consequences of farming rejecting sfi and elms.

They want 80% of land in SFI..

Quite frankly they do not have a hope in hell of achieving anything like that as thing stand!

And trying to bully farmers/ landowners into signing up to SFI like this with its pathetic low payment rates and highly complex rules etc will just badly backfire and not encourage farmers/ landowners to sign up.

 

[Spencer]

Well the sceptic in me watching Volodymyr Zelensky address parliament thinks they’ll be plenty of food coming our way in the future....

 

[gone up the hill]

Well the sceptic in me watching Volodymyr Zelensky address parliament thinks they’ll be plenty of food coming our way in the future....

That will not happen as Sunack etc will drag us into the phoney war by giving Ukraine planes etc but will demand nothing in return to pay for them..

Cue all the grain/ food etc going to America etc...

 

[alomy75]

Gov needs to be seen to be protecting/enhancing the environment. To achieve this they need farmers. If anything if we don’t engage with sfi there will be an enhanced offer. It’s already started with sfi 23 being a very different animal to sfi 22

 

[Muddyroads]

The TFA appears to be suggesting this is the choice and that the Treasury will reallocate funding elsewhere.
This is an interesting take on the possible consequences of farming rejecting sfi and elms.

I can understand the perspective and see where they’re coming from, but unless a scheme has positive financial benefits it’s not going to be taken up. I’m not sure that the army of DEFRA and RPA civil servants will want to see their jobs and pensions disappear either.

 

[Goweresque]

I think farmings future in the UK is laid out rather starkly in this article:

The UK is much further from net zero than the Government would have you believe

When I first heard that the House of Commons had passed a measure legally committing Britain to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, I sat down to ask the questions which MPs should have asked, but failed to do so, before they nodded it through (there wasn’t even a formal vote). It...

capx.co

Basically Net Zero is a con - it doesn't include the emissions associated with things we import from elsewhere. Thus if the UK can offshore all its food and manufactured goods requirements, all the CO2 emissions associated with them don't count towards the UK's tally.

If all political parties are committed to Net Zero then they are also committed to reducing the UK's own food production as much as possible. Net Zero will not be possible in any terms if anything other than a rump remains here.

 

[Farma Parma]

i was at a meeting yesterday in fact & this was the very last slide...
Oh dear.....

 

[Steevo]

I can understand the perspective and see where they’re coming from, but unless a scheme has positive financial benefits it’s not going to be taken up. I’m not sure that the army of DEFRA and RPA civil servants will want to see their jobs and pensions disappear either.

I was thinking this yesterday when out fertiliser spreading. My poorer areas of direct drilled crop (and with greater amounts of blackgrass!) were where I have drainage issues. My (farming) alternatives are to:

1) Continue as I am direct drilling all fields and end up with wasted inputs on these areas meaning a greater carbon footprint per kg of food produced
2) Plough/cultivate a greater area in order to improve the drainage and mineralise some N meaning a greater carbon footprint per kg of food produced
3) Spend tens of thousands draining fields (money I don't really have the budget for, nor can I justify when farming isn't profitable enough) to install drainage in these fields. This would enable me to continue direct drilling, using less carbon emissions to plant the crop, as well as much reduced pesticide usage (using drainage as part of IPM) and a better utilisation of all inputs including the nitrogen fertiliser that seems to be so vilified. Result: a reduced carbon footprint per kg of food produced.

As things stand, 1) and 2) are far far more likely to happen than 3). How's that for government logic.

 

[teslacoils]

Tbh, just like metal detectorists, if they want our land in a scheme they need to pay for it. Rates don't really interest me at all.

 

[teslacoils]

I put "payment from the govt" in the same category as "conventional bales to horsey folk who want credit".

 

[texelburger]

I think farmings future in the UK is laid out rather starkly in this article:

The UK is much further from net zero than the Government would have you believe

When I first heard that the House of Commons had passed a measure legally committing Britain to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, I sat down to ask the questions which MPs should have asked, but failed to do so, before they nodded it through (there wasn’t even a formal vote). It...

capx.co

Basically Net Zero is a con - it doesn't include the emissions associated with things we import from elsewhere. Thus if the UK can offshore all its food and manufactured goods requirements, all the CO2 emissions associated with them don't count towards the UK's tally.

If all political parties are committed to Net Zero then they are also committed to reducing the UK's own food production as much as possible. Net Zero will not be possible in any terms if anything other than a rump remains here.

So increase World emissions just to attain UK net zero.
Surely anyone with an ounce of common sense can see this is bad for the planet.
Basically politicians don't care ,it's all about egos.

 

[Steevo]

I put "payment from the govt" in the same category as "conventional bales to horsey folk who want credit".

You'd honestly rate the government THAT highly?!

 

[Macsky]

i was at a meeting yesterday in fact & this was the very last slide...
Oh dear..... View attachment 1093005

Sounds doable

 

[teslacoils]

You'd honestly rate the government THAT highly?!

Equally likely to complain. Less likely to look good in jhodpurs.

 

[Macsky]

So increase World emissions just to attain UK net zero.
Surely anyone with an ounce of common sense can see this is bad for the planet.
Basically politicians don't care ,it's all about egos.

Basically it’s a scam

 

[Muddyroads]

i was at a meeting yesterday in fact & this was the very last slide...
Oh dear..... View attachment 1093005

I saw something similar at a meeting last week. No wonder they want to import all our food!

 

[Steevo]

Equally likely to complain. Less likely to look good in jhodpurs.

Horsey folk will still pay you sooner than the government, are much less likely to take you to court for any reason and once they have left are unlikely to come back several years later and tell you that you cannot do as you like with the horse paddock of yours that they once used.

 

[Macsky]

I saw something similar at a meeting last week. No wonder they want to import all our food!
View attachment 1093010

In other words….a land grab

 

[Steevo]

I saw something similar at a meeting last week. No wonder they want to import all our food!
View attachment 1093010

That looks a bit like my Christmas lists when I was a child! Wildly unrealistic and total folly!