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
George Eustice's announcement "The path to sustainable farming." 2021-2024
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="DrWazzock" data-source="post: 7266408" data-attributes="member: 2119"><p>For me it comes down to either plant a wood or carry on without the sub.</p><p>We have had 20 plus years of environmental schemes: they are complex to administer and don't deliver a great deal as far as I can see, other than maybe in certain specific target landscapes that lend themselves to that kind of thing. I really can't see broad acre arable land offering much value of any kind in an "environmental scheme". Grassland, managed extensively provides considerable environmental value as does low intensity livestock but they don't like livestock so seem to have their knickers in a right old twist.</p><p>Keeping my head down and carrying on as best I see fit. If there is a simple scheme I might join but if it involves too much hassle then I'm not interested.</p><p>Really quite sick of all that. Plant a few trees, put in 5 acres of bird strips for the shooters, maybe gap up a hedge or two, maybe keep some low intensity grassland for a few cattle or sheep, keep the pesticides to the minimum. I can do that without getting bogged down in red tape or requiring payments with all the strings attached. Do I really need paying for it? Well the shooters will pay for the bird strips and the grass looks nice if there isn't too much of it so crack on.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DrWazzock, post: 7266408, member: 2119"] For me it comes down to either plant a wood or carry on without the sub. We have had 20 plus years of environmental schemes: they are complex to administer and don't deliver a great deal as far as I can see, other than maybe in certain specific target landscapes that lend themselves to that kind of thing. I really can't see broad acre arable land offering much value of any kind in an "environmental scheme". Grassland, managed extensively provides considerable environmental value as does low intensity livestock but they don't like livestock so seem to have their knickers in a right old twist. Keeping my head down and carrying on as best I see fit. If there is a simple scheme I might join but if it involves too much hassle then I'm not interested. Really quite sick of all that. Plant a few trees, put in 5 acres of bird strips for the shooters, maybe gap up a hedge or two, maybe keep some low intensity grassland for a few cattle or sheep, keep the pesticides to the minimum. I can do that without getting bogged down in red tape or requiring payments with all the strings attached. Do I really need paying for it? Well the shooters will pay for the bird strips and the grass looks nice if there isn't too much of it so crack on. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
George Eustice's announcement "The path to sustainable farming." 2021-2024
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