Environmental schemes; Arable Vs. Livestock

Humble Village Farmer

Member
BASE UK Member
Location
Essex
Also, a cropping farm is already set up for sowing a bit of this and a bit of that.

A super efficient all grass farm won't have loads of semi redundant machinery lying around just for putting in the odd hectare of wildbird mix or herbal ley. So by default, you need a contractor or a big investment in machinery, both of which soon take any shine off any payment for doing it.

The more you think about it, the more the grazing livestock boys are being disadvantaged.
 
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.
People are just starting to wake up to the fact that our government wants to end animal ag .....
 

Ffermer Bach

Member
Livestock Farmer
just talking to Huw, as he is doing the silage, and he said, a lot of his customers have said that there is no way they are going to be planting 10% of their farms in trees, they would rather give up single farm payment. I hope he is right. Certainly I feel that way (but I am almost 60 so a slightly different matter really). I hope this will give Mark Drakeford and the Welsh Assembly Government a kick up the arse and their new scheme rules will fail. Note for those in England, the new Welsh Assembly Government idea is that to claim any grants 10% of the farm has to be planted in trees, as otherwise a taxi driver (from India) living in Cardiff, would say "why are we paying farmers anything".
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
I've often presumed ag sub rates might somehow be calculated by land value. So is this some explanation for differing payment rates.

E.g. Arable farmer's land is worth £10k/acre, farm is 200 acres, and whole farm in CS will provide payment of £200/acre = £40k

Hill side of unimproved pasture worth £2,000/acre. Farmer has 1,000 acres to make same profit (from production agriculture) as the 200acre arable guy. Arable and grassland farms both have equal capital value of £2 million...

So to get to same £40k payment rate (if whole farm in stewardship), would be fair if DEFRA paid £40/acre for stewardship.

Not saying that's right or wrong, but I can imagine someone coming up with that calculation, and could he argued a reasonable way of doing it.

All falls apart if some arable land is worth £7k/acre, and some grassland worth £8k/acre. That said, DEFRA differentiate between improved and unimproved pasture.
 

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
I've often presumed ag sub rates might somehow be calculated by land value. So is this some explanation for differing payment rates.

E.g. Arable farmer's land is worth £10k/acre, farm is 200 acres, and whole farm in CS will provide payment of £200/acre = £40k

Hill side of unimproved pasture worth £2,000/acre. Farmer has 1,000 acres to make same profit (from production agriculture) as the 200acre arable guy. Arable and grassland farms both have equal capital value of £2 million...

So to get to same £40k payment rate (if whole farm in stewardship), would be fair if DEFRA paid £40/acre for stewardship.

Not saying that's right or wrong, but I can imagine someone coming up with that calculation, and could he argued a reasonable way of doing it.

All falls apart if some arable land is worth £7k/acre, and some grassland worth £8k/acre. That said, DEFRA differentiate between improved and unimproved pasture.

That is how I had pretty much taken it for granted and made sense when it derived from the original IACS.

ELMS is supposed to be a fresh start, so why would a buffer on one side of a river which was registered as arable be worth so much more than pasture on the other side, which might not even be offered it as an option?
 

Vader

Member
Mixed Farmer
Ironically, many true environmentalists are waking up to the fact that livestock are integral to farming sustainably.

Hence why SFI doesn't look like it will achieve anyone's aims.
20220725_212531.jpg
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
That is how I had pretty much taken it for granted and made sense when it derived from the original IACS.

ELMS is supposed to be a fresh start, so why would a buffer on one side of a river which was registered as arable be worth so much more than pasture on the other side, which might not even be offered it as an option?
Suppose buffers on arable are more likely to do more good? Tilled soil, erosion, hillside, phosphate and nitrates carried towards river, so tax payer will pay to stop that.

Grassland. Turf holding nutrients and less/no erosion (although could be poaching), so only real advantage of buffer on grassland is keep away from water's edge with fert spinner, and the odd herbicide or two.

Not saying it's right, but guess that's how DEFRA think.

We're arable with a bit of grassland on heavy/wet bits and some ings land (winter waterlogged). We ploughed out anything with any chance of growing cereals back in 2012 while we still had the chance. Sole intention was to get land cover changed to arable so those bits could get the higher payment CS options (as grassland CS payments were lower). The rest of the grass doesn't stand a chance of being arable, so has had to stay grass.

It's looking like the grass won't be worth putting into SFI, and the grassland CS payments aren't sufficient to make up for the lowered production from low N rates, thistles ragwort docks rushes and buttercups from no herbicides, or more lignified carbohydrates from 1st July cutting dates.

Glad converted as much of the PP as I did.

But that doesn't help, grassland farms like yourselves. As far as I can see, unless there's some massive shifts in payment rates and food options under Local Nature Recovery, grassland farms are hung out to dry under ELMS. Much more so than arable, as at least with arable there's the fallback of CS/LNR options which will pay at least a bit of money.

Both arable and grassland under ELMS looks like a massive reduction in farmer profit, but same cost to taxpayer. Unless there's virtually zero uptake of ELMS, in which case the cash will be left over in the RPA bank account.

Quite simply, I think DEFRA are asking too much of farmers for too little reward. The balance is wrong, but I think they could have got the balance closer to being correct.

We're quite well diversified with a big proportion coming from outside of market price commodity production agriculture, so we'll survive.

Feeling for all grass farms, because they're going to struggle.

We'll have a £20 something thousand BPS vanishing act to try and fill, and it's £20+k I could do with. SFI isn't going to be worth bothering with. Maybe we'll do Introductory arable soils, but for £1,000 'profit' per year out of it, it's hardly worth the hassle. So £20 odd thousand hole.
 

topground

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
North Somerset.
Suppose buffers on arable are more likely to do more good? Tilled soil, erosion, hillside, phosphate and nitrates carried towards river, so tax payer will pay to stop that.

Grassland. Turf holding nutrients and less/no erosion (although could be poaching), so only real advantage of buffer on grassland is keep away from water's edge with fert spinner, and the odd herbicide or two.

Not saying it's right, but guess that's how DEFRA think.

We're arable with a bit of grassland on heavy/wet bits and some ings land (winter waterlogged). We ploughed out anything with any chance of growing cereals back in 2012 while we still had the chance. Sole intention was to get land cover changed to arable so those bits could get the higher payment CS options (as grassland CS payments were lower). The rest of the grass doesn't stand a chance of being arable, so has had to stay grass.

It's looking like the grass won't be worth putting into SFI, and the grassland CS payments aren't sufficient to make up for the lowered production from low N rates, thistles ragwort docks rushes and buttercups from no herbicides, or more lignified carbohydrates from 1st July cutting dates.

Glad converted as much of the PP as I did.

But that doesn't help, grassland farms like yourselves. As far as I can see, unless there's some massive shifts in payment rates and food options under Local Nature Recovery, grassland farms are hung out to dry under ELMS. Much more so than arable, as at least with arable there's the fallback of CS/LNR options which will pay at least a bit of money.

Both arable and grassland under ELMS looks like a massive reduction in farmer profit, but same cost to taxpayer. Unless there's virtually zero uptake of ELMS, in which case the cash will be left over in the RPA bank account.

Quite simply, I think DEFRA are asking too much of farmers for too little reward. The balance is wrong, but I think they could have got the balance closer to being correct.

We're quite well diversified with a big proportion coming from outside of market price commodity production agriculture, so we'll survive.

Feeling for all grass farms, because they're going to struggle.

We'll have a £20 something thousand BPS vanishing act to try and fill, and it's £20+k I could do with. SFI isn't going to be worth bothering with. Maybe we'll do Introductory arable soils, but for £1,000 'profit' per year out of it, it's hardly worth the hassle. So £20 odd thousand hole.
Think of the money,that will,be saved by farmers not taking up SFI leading to mass redundancies in DEFRA and the RPA because minimal take up,of SFI equals budget saving and less work for the civil service and lesson the payroll.Winner Winner.
Further evidence that SFI has been designed to fail.
 

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
Suppose buffers on arable are more likely to do more good? Tilled soil, erosion, hillside, phosphate and nitrates carried towards river, so tax payer will pay to stop that.

Grassland. Turf holding nutrients and less/no erosion (although could be poaching), so only real advantage of buffer on grassland is keep away from water's edge with fert spinner, and the odd herbicide or two.

Not saying it's right, but guess that's how DEFRA think.

We're arable with a bit of grassland on heavy/wet bits and some ings land (winter waterlogged). We ploughed out anything with any chance of growing cereals back in 2012 while we still had the chance. Sole intention was to get land cover changed to arable so those bits could get the higher payment CS options (as grassland CS payments were lower). The rest of the grass doesn't stand a chance of being arable, so has had to stay grass.

It's looking like the grass won't be worth putting into SFI, and the grassland CS payments aren't sufficient to make up for the lowered production from low N rates, thistles ragwort docks rushes and buttercups from no herbicides, or more lignified carbohydrates from 1st July cutting dates.

Glad converted as much of the PP as I did.

But that doesn't help, grassland farms like yourselves. As far as I can see, unless there's some massive shifts in payment rates and food options under Local Nature Recovery, grassland farms are hung out to dry under ELMS. Much more so than arable, as at least with arable there's the fallback of CS/LNR options which will pay at least a bit of money.

Both arable and grassland under ELMS looks like a massive reduction in farmer profit, but same cost to taxpayer. Unless there's virtually zero uptake of ELMS, in which case the cash will be left over in the RPA bank account.

Quite simply, I think DEFRA are asking too much of farmers for too little reward. The balance is wrong, but I think they could have got the balance closer to being correct.

We're quite well diversified with a big proportion coming from outside of market price commodity production agriculture, so we'll survive.

Feeling for all grass farms, because they're going to struggle.

We'll have a £20 something thousand BPS vanishing act to try and fill, and it's £20+k I could do with. SFI isn't going to be worth bothering with. Maybe we'll do Introductory arable soils, but for £1,000 'profit' per year out of it, it's hardly worth the hassle. So £20 odd thousand hole.

So I guess it boils down to a lack of a 'working market' allows for the discrepancy.

They offer more money to arable farmers because they can exercise a choice to crop or not.
They don't offer much to grassland farmers because they have the ability to deny them permission to crop so there is no choice.
A bit like Red Tractor then.
It is choice that keeps people honest.
 

gatepost

Member
Location
Cotswolds
I was thinking about this again this evening.
I thought it would be interesting to imagine that the arable schemes matched those with grass.

Firstly there would only be 2 categories of arable, ploughed and unploughed.

Crops that were established using a plough could get about 1/3 of the current rates of payment if certain requirements were met and
crops that were established without using a plough could get about 1/4 of the current payment rates if requirements were met.

Because if you plough pasture it is worth more in terms of payments than that which doesn't get ploughed.
In fact, you need to till legumes etc in PP to qualify.

And why should all the buffer zones, strips and bird mixes only apply to arable?


Please note this is in no way a criticism of arable farmers/ farming. I'm just trying to understand why we are treated so very differently.
That's an argument I used to have with any one who would listen, standing in our yard looking across the valley at nothing but arable, question, why do they get paid for every acre, I get paid for male cattle only or cows? maybe half their arable should be designated female?
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
So I guess it boils down to a lack of a 'working market' allows for the discrepancy.

They offer more money to arable farmers because they can exercise a choice to crop or not.
They don't offer much to grassland farmers because they have the ability to deny them permission to crop so there is no choice.

A bit like Red Tractor then.
It is choice that keeps people honest.
Agree. No doubt the arable buffer will be most desired with the most environmental benefits, and they need to compete with arable margins.

No surprise farmers like ploughing out grass. Like I did. I'd have left it as grass, but the government subsidy systems worked against their desire to maintain PP area.

Having worse payment rates for grassland does raise the question if fair or not.
 

delilah

Member
Yeah but its how long till get there is the problem...

ELMS is unrecognizable - largely for the better - from what it looked like 9 months ago. Maintain the pressure and it will be pretty much ok a year from now. Do need to keep pushing though.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
I fail to see that.
The Bangladeshi taxi driver stood in the river will struggle to understand how one side of the bank is paid so much less than the other when they are providing the same public good.
Personally I think an arable buffer will do more good than a grassland buffer (in average circumstances, what ever that may be).

However, suppose the arable buffer is likely to do a reasonable amount of good for phosphates and herbicide surface run off, but the arable side of the river with the buffer strip will probably be many times worse than a whole grassland field at other side of river (even without a buffer strip!).

Suggests the grassland field should get a good payment over the whole area, simply for being grassland. Arguably commands a higher payment than arable.

But maybe intensively tilled high N veg land, although probably bad for environment, provides our essential 5 a day, and cheap veg is a massive public good - so should that attract the highest or the lowest payments?
 

delilah

Member
Personally I think an arable buffer will do more good than a grassland buffer (in average circumstances, what ever that may be).

However, suppose the arable buffer is likely to do a reasonable amount of good for phosphates and herbicide surface run off, but the arable side of the river with the buffer strip will probably be many times worse than a whole grassland field at other side of river (even without a buffer strip!).

Suggests the grassland field should get a good payment over the whole area, simply for being grassland. Arguably commands a higher payment than arable.

But maybe intensively tilled high N veg land, although probably bad for environment, provides our essential 5 a day, and cheap veg is a massive public good - so should that attract the highest or the lowest payments?

One of the main criticisms leveled at ELMS is that it is unattractive. They should turn that on its head by making some options highly attractive. Offer £1000/Ha for water buffering, whatever the land use. In the event of it being over subscribed, let them allocate successful bids according to where the greatest public good will be achieved.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.0%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 35.1%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.0%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,292
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top