Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Environmental schemes; Arable Vs. Livestock
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Grass And Grain" data-source="post: 8274992" data-attributes="member: 23184"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Not saying it's right, but guess that's how DEFRA think.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Glad converted as much of the PP as I did.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>We're quite well diversified with a big proportion coming from outside of market price commodity production agriculture, so we'll survive.</p><p></p><p>Feeling for all grass farms, because they're going to struggle.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Grass And Grain, post: 8274992, member: 23184"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Environmental schemes; Arable Vs. Livestock
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top