Environmental schemes; Arable Vs. Livestock

[Jackov Altraids]

I do not wish to discuss wrongs/ rights of any schemes but would be very interested to compare experiences.
I try to read a large % of all TFF content to widen my understanding of all types of farming and it seems quite clear that environmental schemes work in a completely different manner for arable compared to others yet this is rarely acknowledged or properly discussed. It would be particularly interesting to hear from mixed farmers.

As a livestock farmer, I get the impression that;

Arable; Environmental schemes offer income streams for areas that are known to be less productive/ awkward. Allowing for hedging of risk, growing a certain crop for a known payment and give paid management options to reduce weeds and pests with break crops. Lots of short term helpful options that are reasonably well paid.

Livestock; It's hard to think of any options that don't significantly impinge on the long term productivity and profitably of the business. They just don't seem to offer positive choices in the same way.

Please explain why I'm wrong.

 

[Jrp221]

I do not wish to discuss wrongs/ rights of any schemes but would be very interested to compare experiences.
I try to read a large % of all TFF content to widen my understanding of all types of farming and it seems quite clear that environmental schemes work in a completely different manner for arable compared to others yet this is rarely acknowledged or properly discussed. It would be particularly interesting to hear from mixed farmers.

As a livestock farmer, I get the impression that;

Arable; Environmental schemes offer income streams for areas that are known to be less productive/ awkward. Allowing for hedging of risk, growing a certain crop for a known payment and give paid management options to reduce weeds and pests with break crops. Lots of short term helpful options that are reasonably well paid.

Livestock; It's hard to think of any options that don't significantly impinge on the long term productivity and profitably of the business. They just don't seem to offer positive choices in the same way.

Please explain why I'm wrong.

You’re not wrong as far as I see it. There is little incentive for us as a smaller sheep/arable farm to sign up for anything unless we get rid of the sheep. Maybe that’s what they want?

 

[Yale]

That’s why as a livestock farm we have never been tempted.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Plants = lovely
Plant-eating animals = bad

unfortunately we fit that category too

 

[Jackov Altraids]

I also wonder to what extent scale might be a factor.
Most people seem to consider that schemes, especially SFI favours bigger farms. I would assume the average size of an arable farm would dwarf the size of the average livestock farm.

 

[Boydvalley]

I think it’s because arable is perceived as doing more Enviromental damage with monoculture and chemical use.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Plants = lovely
Plant-eating animals = bad

unfortunately we fit that category too

So what do you think the general public would think of many of those winter seed mixes etc. being used for game birds. .

 

[Jackov Altraids]

I think it’s because arable is perceived as doing more Enviromental damage with monoculture and chemical use.

Most of these options have been around for a long time.
So are the arable schemes hindering or helping?

 

[Kiwi Pete]

So what do you think the general public would think of many of those winter seed mixes etc. being used for game birds. .

Not alot, but they aren't hungry, yet

then it will dawn

then there will be panic and chaos and rioting

Or maybe not.

The thing is, livestock farming is naturally quite resilient if you subtract all the fluff (machines, inputs) then it just goes on.
If you don't like farmers having farms then that's problematic (re, NZ methane tax designed to finish what diseases can't)

whereas arable production is easy to collapse - pull the sub, and what that doesn't fix, banning actives will soon reduce to low levels.
Because of the absence of animals for a period they generally need the inputs from bags and cans

 

[topground]

If you look at what has happened in the Netherlands where ‘environmental policy’ CoP 26 net zero carbon or what ever the current fashion is, it is livestock farming that has come under attack and their govenment requires a significant drop in livestock numbers.
Instead of seeking to reduce livestock numbers directly as has happened in Holland with the consequent civil unrest, DEFRA have chosen to dramatically reduce funding to support small farms which survive running cattle and sheep assuming that those farms will go out of business.
That will create opportunities for tree planting and rewilding by the multi National corporations that are the major polluters but who have come up with carbon offsetting scams to green wash their activities.
All dreamt up by the World Economic Forum that meets at Davos where the mega rich come together to decide how they will get richer at the expense of the rest of us.
DEFRA vegans and animal rights staff contingent will be loving it and we all know they have considerable influence as reflected in the failure to eradicate Tb by dealing effectively with the wildlife reservoir of Tb infection.
The French know what happens when there is rural depopulation which is why Common Agricultural Policy provided support to keep the peasants on the land. Madame Guilotine sorted out the historical equivalent of Carrie Antoinette, Useless and the Goldsmith Brothers.
The Sri Lankan govenment followed the Davos line and look at the mess they are in,
No doubt a senior civil servant of our acquaintance will be along in a minute to tell me I am wrong in my analysis.

 

[livestock 1]

I do not wish to discuss wrongs/ rights of any schemes but would be very interested to compare experiences.
I try to read a large % of all TFF content to widen my understanding of all types of farming and it seems quite clear that environmental schemes work in a completely different manner for arable compared to others yet this is rarely acknowledged or properly discussed. It would be particularly interesting to hear from mixed farmers.

As a livestock farmer, I get the impression that;

Arable; Environmental schemes offer income streams for areas that are known to be less productive/ awkward. Allowing for hedging of risk, growing a certain crop for a known payment and give paid management options to reduce weeds and pests with break crops. Lots of short term helpful options that are reasonably well paid.

Livestock; It's hard to think of any options that don't significantly impinge on the long term productivity and profitably of the business. They just don't seem to offer positive choices in the same way.

Please explain why I'm wrong.

Getting back to the answer of your question

Stewardship schemes on livestock enterprises have rules such as

No supplementary feeding
No feeders
No or restricted fertiliser
No spraying
Late cutting dates of grassland
No reseeding
No cultivation
No forage crops
No silage making
No stock or reduced stocking rates

Now someone will come along and say well it’s optional well yes it is but a few of them rules apply to bps too which is also optional
Upland schemes are more restrictive than lower land schemes for livestock farms
Government can’t force you to join these things but they can contribute by making economic conditions so that you need to join
I have a lot of land in these things some in and some out

 

[livestock 1]

No slurry
FYM yes but also restricted or none
Remember one restricted application of fert or no fert now let me think what we have been told this spring??

 

[steveR]

Not alot, but they aren't hungry, yet

then it will dawn

then there will be panic and chaos and rioting

Or maybe not.

Sri Lanka yesterday should focus the minds of Politicians being tempted down the extremist "green" road.



edit. As I now see was mentioned by @topground above

 

[Henery]

I think the passing of Boris…. Who did a good job for a while …. Resulting In Princess Carrie Nut Nut disappearing from the political scene will be to the advantage of agriculture in general. She had a disproportionate influence leading to the extreme green agenda BS that’s beyond any mandate Boris and the Tory’s had.

 

[upnortheast]

Sunday paper was suggesting none of the front runners would be so keen on the green agenda as Boris & his boss

 

[Vader]

So what do you think the general public would think of many of those winter seed mixes etc. being used for game birds. .

Packham led lot go crazy.
Informed ones maybe not.

Lot of shoots dont own / farm the land they shoot.
Farmer puts in the winter seeds on the poor land. Shoots adjust round the cover.
Game.might use it, but so does wild life.
Every small shoot that has wild bird blocks on them say the numbers of finch type bird numbers increased.
Maize is still best main game cover anyway.

 

[Grass And Grain]

I do not wish to discuss wrongs/ rights of any schemes but would be very interested to compare experiences.
I try to read a large % of all TFF content to widen my understanding of all types of farming and it seems quite clear that environmental schemes work in a completely different manner for arable compared to others yet this is rarely acknowledged or properly discussed. It would be particularly interesting to hear from mixed farmers.

As a livestock farmer, I get the impression that;

Arable; Environmental schemes offer income streams for areas that are known to be less productive/ awkward. Allowing for hedging of risk, growing a certain crop for a known payment and give paid management options to reduce weeds and pests with break crops. Lots of short term helpful options that are reasonably well paid.

Livestock; It's hard to think of any options that don't significantly impinge on the long term productivity and profitably of the business. They just don't seem to offer positive choices in the same way.

Please explain why I'm wrong.

Comes down to...

Permanent pasture must remain permanent, so it always has some productive potential, albeit reduced from the stewardship option of no fert, or 1st July hay cutting, or no grazing/cutting in ground nesting season, etc.

Therefore, they only need to offer a payment to mitigate the lowered production from the stewardship option.

The choice for arable farmers is arable crop or stewardship 'crop', so to be attractive the stewardship option needs to pay equivalent of GM of the arable crop, or at least the GM of a less profitable arable break crop.

There's vast swaths of low input permanent pasture, and as DEFRA, what are you credibly going to pay farmers to do to improve its environmental impact.

As I see it post BPS, arable have a choice between cropping or a steady stewardship payment, or indeed a combination of the two, keeping potential for arable cropping windfall prices, a bread and butter CS income, and using CS options for cereal breaks. Need to be aware of fixed costs, but can probably keep them under control as stewardship spreads the workload and hrs of machinery use, so longer machinery replacement policy.

What are grassland farmers to do post BPS? We've got a fair chunk of arable stewardship, but I didn't opt for My grassland options, as the figures just didn't stack up. Any CS payment for reduced fert, July hay cutting etc didn't compensate for the lost productivity.

Conclusion. Grassland CS options don't remunerate sufficiently. DEFRA/RPA need a lecture in grass quality and effect on animal performance. The grassland CS options generally mean lower grass yield, more lignified, hay Vs silage, closed grazing periods, etc, all of which means lower animal performance and less flexibility.

Also reluctant to sign up to a standard which says X% herbs in the award. Too difficult to guarantee maintaining those proportions, and poor herbicide options.

For grassland, DEFRA seemingly want stewardship provided for less than cost of providing it.

If EIA doesn't stop the conversion, tempting to plough out any PP, convert to arable, them put in arable CS option.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Packham led lot go crazy.
Informed ones maybe not.

Lot of shoots dont own / farm the land they shoot.
Farmer puts in the winter seeds on the poor land. Shoots adjust round the cover.
Game.might use it, but so does wild life.
Every small shoot that has wild bird blocks on them say the numbers of finch type bird numbers increased.
Maize is still best main game cover anyway.

A good reply to a comment I probably shouldn't have made.
A lot of stewardship options are used around here for raising birds and I don't have an opinion on it.
I said I didn't want to get into any supposed rights or wrongs, just the practical differences in arable schemes to pasture.
The point is, it is an arable option that allows/ helps a second income stream. Most arable options have positive affects for the farms future compared to livestock options generally having a negative impact.

I think this post sums the difference up well;

Options in our old HLS easily did. We had land in Arable reversion that averaged £140 payment ( there was some of it with some old burnt mounds which upped the payment from £125). We then either grazed with dairy heifers / sheep all summer, or took a big cut of hay/ haylage after 1st July . manures were allowed up to a certain level for fertiliser , so yields weren’t compromised much . And of course still got the BPS on top.
We also had payments for overwintered stubble, brassica fodder crops, some PP , margins around all arable fields , ponds , trees and hedges.
Such a shame that when it ended they wouldn’t roll it over and wanted to re class tye reversion as PP with only £30 payment, so it all got ploughed up into wheat and maize .
very short sighted of the powers that be .

 

[Ffermer Bach]

If you look at what has happened in the Netherlands where ‘environmental policy’ CoP 26 net zero carbon or what ever the current fashion is, it is livestock farming that has come under attack and their govenment requires a significant drop in livestock numbers.
Instead of seeking to reduce livestock numbers directly as has happened in Holland with the consequent civil unrest, DEFRA have chosen to dramatically reduce funding to support small farms which survive running cattle and sheep assuming that those farms will go out of business.
That will create opportunities for tree planting and rewilding by the multi National corporations that are the major polluters but who have come up with carbon offsetting scams to green wash their activities.
All dreamt up by the World Economic Forum that meets at Davos where the mega rich come together to decide how they will get richer at the expense of the rest of us.
DEFRA vegans and animal rights staff contingent will be loving it and we all know they have considerable influence as reflected in the failure to eradicate Tb by dealing effectively with the wildlife reservoir of Tb infection.
The French know what happens when there is rural depopulation which is why Common Agricultural Policy provided support to keep the peasants on the land. Madame Guilotine sorted out the historical equivalent of Carrie Antoinette, Useless and the Goldsmith Brothers.
The Sri Lankan govenment followed the Davos line and look at the mess they are in,
No doubt a senior civil servant of our acquaintance will be along in a minute to tell me I am wrong in my analysis.

Analysis of Proposed Fertilizer Emissions Reduction Will Devastate Canadian Farmers

CALGARY, AB: The Western Canadian Wheat Growers are shocked by the depth of the impact of the federal government’s proposed […]

WHEATGROWERS.CA

A big thank you to Jeroen van Maanen one of the Dutch farmer protest leaders for sending me a video to share and to explain to you all about what is... | By Gareth Wyn JonesFacebook

A big thank you to Jeroen van Maanen one of the Dutch farmer protest leaders for sending me a video to share and to explain to you all about what is...

www.facebook.com

 

[Jackov Altraids]

If you look at what has happened in the Netherlands where ‘environmental policy’ CoP 26 net zero carbon or what ever the current fashion is, it is livestock farming that has come under attack and their govenment requires a significant drop in livestock numbers.
Instead of seeking to reduce livestock numbers directly as has happened in Holland with the consequent civil unrest, DEFRA have chosen to dramatically reduce funding to support small farms which survive running cattle and sheep assuming that those farms will go out of business.
That will create opportunities for tree planting and rewilding by the multi National corporations that are the major polluters but who have come up with carbon offsetting scams to green wash their activities.
All dreamt up by the World Economic Forum that meets at Davos where the mega rich come together to decide how they will get richer at the expense of the rest of us.
DEFRA vegans and animal rights staff contingent will be loving it and we all know they have considerable influence as reflected in the failure to eradicate Tb by dealing effectively with the wildlife reservoir of Tb infection.
The French know what happens when there is rural depopulation which is why Common Agricultural Policy provided support to keep the peasants on the land. Madame Guilotine sorted out the historical equivalent of Carrie Antoinette, Useless and the Goldsmith Brothers.
The Sri Lankan govenment followed the Davos line and look at the mess they are in,
No doubt a senior civil servant of our acquaintance will be along in a minute to tell me I am wrong in my analysis.

The evidence suggests you are right.
In the recent price changes for CS options, almost all had increases. Of those that decreased, all but 1 related to pasture.
All the statistics show that livestock farms are most reliant on BPS. It is these farms that utilise unimproved pasture. They are not going to release any options for unimproved pasture until BPS has been reduced by more than half.