New information about local nature recovery and landscape recovery

[BrianV]

Over the last 80 years estates have sold off land to farmers often because they could not farm it and make a profit despite the deficiency payment system and eu cap
Plenty of farmers run bigger farms than their grand farmers
The subs helped farmers grow their business

I believe of the 28 EU countries receiving the Single Farm Payments thanks to lobbying from the CLA & the NFU England was one of the very few countries that didn't have any type of cap on these payments, this has vastly benefitted large land owners either through direct payments or through inflated rental income from let land.
The new ELMS scheme yet again is primarily being designed in the main to benefit larger land owners to the detriment of smaller farmers which for a government subsidy system cannot be right.
All subsidy payments of whatever sort should be subject to a cap on payments to prevent large land owners mopping up an unfair share of the taxpayers subsidy pot.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Good news today to see that a working group has been set up looking at how ELMS can be made to work for tenants:

How did we get THIS far in without this issue having been fully addressed?

It speaks volumes about DEFRA fundamentally lacking understanding of English farming, doesn't it?

 

[Wombat]

Good news today to see that a working group has been set up looking at how ELMS can be made to work for tenants:

How did we get THIS far in without this issue having been fully addressed?

It speaks volumes about DEFRA fundamentally lacking understanding of English farming, doesn't it?

Unfortunately yes, but do they really care that they have very little understanding? As long as everyone in defra draws their cheque and pension are they bothered?

 

[Wombat]

I wonder what defra's hourly charge out rates would be if they came out to see you for someting? Be interesting to know as i am sure it would put the SFI rates and some of these payments into context. Would the £40/ha be 30mins of their time or less do you think?

 

[Bill the Bass]

Good news today to see that a working group has been set up looking at how ELMS can be made to work for tenants:

How did we get THIS far in without this issue having been fully addressed?

It speaks volumes about DEFRA fundamentally lacking understanding of English farming, doesn't it?

Conservative ag policy has never really been favourable for farm tenants, FBT’s are good example. we shouldn’t be surprised that they are ambivalent to tenants and small scale livestock farmers as well

 

[andybk]

Good news today to see that a working group has been set up looking at how ELMS can be made to work for tenants:

How did we get THIS far in without this issue having been fully addressed?

It speaks volumes about DEFRA fundamentally lacking understanding of English farming, doesn't it?

exactly why there needs to be a cap on payments , x amount for first xx hectares , stops the big landowners gobbling all the sub , they will will need their tenants to maximise access to schemes .

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Here is a Nature Recovery Plan for grassland and arable [for North Devon] written by members of regional groups with the EA and NT;

https://www.northdevonbiosphere.org.uk/uploads/1/5/4/4/15448192/nrp__grassland_3.pdf

I think it makes an interesting read but I can't see how they think that all their good intentions can ever come to fruition. What is going to incentivise conversion of 20% of intensive grassland and arable to semi-natural habitat?

 

[Henarar]

Here is a Nature Recovery Plan for grassland and arable [for North Devon] written by members of regional groups with the EA and NT;

https://www.northdevonbiosphere.org.uk/uploads/1/5/4/4/15448192/nrp__grassland_3.pdf

I think it makes an interesting read but I can't see how they think that all their good intentions can ever come to fruition. What is going to incentivise conversion of 20% of intensive grassland and arable to semi-natural habitat?

why not just pay semi-natural habitat, in other words PP as @delilah says

 

[Jackov Altraids]

why not just pay semi-natural habitat, in other words PP as @delilah says

That document gives me the distinct impression that the plan is for their organisations to claim all the money and then bully/ prosecute farmers into doing what they want.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

why not just pay semi-natural habitat, in other words PP as @delilah says

It should be remembered that it is the options on these types of areas that are being REDUCED in countryside stewardship.
@Janet Hughes Defra has given us a stock reply that it is due to decrease in income foregone but has failed to give any kind of explanation as to how this can be the case.
The figures I found showed that income from these farms roughly doubled from 2019 to 2021 so how can they justify roughly halving the payments?

 

[stroller]

I wonder what defra's hourly charge out rates would be if they came out to see you for someting? Be interesting to know as i am sure it would put the SFI rates and some of these payments into context. Would the £40/ha be 30mins of their time or less do you think?

15mins, if that

 

[ajcc]

Here is a Nature Recovery Plan for grassland and arable [for North Devon] written by members of regional groups with the EA and NT;

https://www.northdevonbiosphere.org.uk/uploads/1/5/4/4/15448192/nrp__grassland_3.pdf

I think it makes an interesting read but I can't see how they think that all their good intentions can ever come to fruition. What is going to incentivise conversion of 20% of intensive grassland and arable to semi-natural habitat?

Thanks for that.......very interesting dreamers imo.

 

[farmerm]

Allow me to rephrase:
You cannot increase SOM in PP’s which are already in a good OM state AS EASILY OR QUICKLY as arable land that has suffered large SOM reductions.

I hope you get the gist of what I mean, being that ELMs support for arable land could be a quicker way of solving Carbon sequestration, therefore deserves support where this can take place.
It does not mean that PP should not be supported even if no further SOM improvement are made, because as is shown, PP is already in a higher SOM level and should be preserved and rewarded for it.

Where would putting FYM, digestate or sewerage sludge be more beneficial, PP that already has a good higher levels of SOM, or arable that the levels of SOM are depleting?
I wish I had enough of it to treat a third of this farm every year.

To apply imported OM to one location generally requires depleting OM somewhere else....

 

[Henarar]

It should be remembered that it is the options on these types of areas that are being REDUCED in countryside stewardship.
@Janet Hughes Defra has given us a stock reply that it is due to decrease in income foregone but has failed to give any kind of explanation as to how this can be the case.
The figures I found showed that income from these farms roughly doubled from 2019 to 2021 so how can they justify roughly halving the payments?

income forgone my arse, if something is a so called public good and its worth X amount its worth X amount.
Tell us what things are good/wanted and how much the payment is for each one and stop messing about

 

[Regenerator1]

To apply imported OM to one location generally requires depleting OM somewhere else....

Einstein stated that " matter can neither be created or destroyed and that applies to organic matter too. Leave it in the field is cheapest as every tonne you lift to 1 metre height cost £1..

 

[andybk]

why not just pay semi-natural habitat, in other words PP as @delilah says

like you said pay for whats there already and incentivise new bits as you go and defra desire , if you want to stay on the teat , it is a really simple solution , Those that have always been aware and encoraged environment will be ahead of the game . Not much in it for the advisors and brown cord brigade though lol

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Here is a Nature Recovery Plan for grassland and arable [for North Devon] written by members of regional groups with the EA and NT;

https://www.northdevonbiosphere.org.uk/uploads/1/5/4/4/15448192/nrp__grassland_3.pdf

I think it makes an interesting read but I can't see how they think that all their good intentions can ever come to fruition. What is going to incentivise conversion of 20% of intensive grassland and arable to semi-natural habitat?

I couldn't see anything in there as it paying for the large loss of land asset value when it is taken out of production

 

[WillYorkshire]

Just had email about my SFI pilot agreement, advising increase in payment rates for advanced element of soils. Gone up by £5/ha. Wow. £69/ha. That's going to make all the difference. NOT. SFI/ELMS simply isn't going to get taken up at the proposed levels of payment. Esp if you take land out of crop production. It simply does not stack up. Had letter from solar farm developer - £1000/acre index linked for 40 years. So that's income with no costs. Not that we will be doing it but that's the reality. Realistic payments would make all the difference to uptake.
Eustice is taking the p*** with his latest claims.

 

[J 1177]

Just had email about my SFI pilot agreement, advising increase in payment rates for advanced element of soils. Gone up by £5/ha. Wow. £69/ha. That's going to make all the difference. NOT. SFI/ELMS simply isn't going to get taken up at the proposed levels of payment. Esp if you take land out of crop production. It simply does not stack up. Had letter from solar farm developer - £1000/acre index linked for 40 years. So that's income with no costs. Not that we will be doing it but that's the reality. Realistic payments would make all the difference to uptake.
Eustice is taking the p*** with his latest claims.

They think we should work for penuts whilst they all take massive salarys,
The uptake of this scheme is going to be miniscule but they cant see it

 

[Two Tone]

To apply imported OM to one location generally requires depleting OM somewhere else....

Einstein stated that " matter can neither be created or destroyed and that applies to organic matter too. Leave it in the field is cheapest as every tonne you lift to 1 metre height cost £1..

Mmmmmmm......! Partially right and partially wrong.

The answer to this all rellies on all 3 sciences of Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Particularly the physicist Alberts Einstein's famous E=mc2 (where the 2 means squared). Energy = Mass x Speed of light, squared.

Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. ... Matter can change form through physical and chemical changes, but through any of these changes, matter is conserved. The same amount of matter exists before and after the change—none is created or destroyed.


The problem is confusion in the use of the word 'Matter' when used by Biologists who refer to 'Organic Matter'.
It would be easier if they renamed it as 'Organic Material', because the Matter they refer to is not the same as the Physicists mean as Matter.

What the Biologists refer to Organic Matter can be created and destroyed.
If it couldn't, then Einstein would tell you that it must have been in existence right from the very beginning of time, straight after the Big Bang, which it clearly didn't as what we know it as today when referring to Soil Organic Matter.

SOM can be created and destroyed, but like Reputations, take a long time to create, however can be quickly lost.
This is a Physical state that converts it from one thing into something else.


When it comes to creating SOM, it relies on Photosynthesis (capturing photon energy from the sun), causing plants to capture Carbon (in CO2) and grow not only what we see above ground, but the roots below ground that capture the water (also vital in the photosynthetic process) and other nutrients. The result is plant growth, SOM and Oxygen.

The problem is that having created that SOM, it can be easily lost by it turning into another Physical and Chemical state. Cultivations are particularly quick at speeding this process up! That is why SOM losses can be reduced by eliminating as many cultivations as possible. But at the same time can be created by any crop that is growing in it.

When we disturb soils by cultivating or ploughing them, we often smell that rich smell and think it is a good smell. In reality, it is decaying SOM and CO2 being released by oxidation from the soil into the atmosphere.
This reduced Organic matter within the soil, is by decay which is oxidisation.

Yes applying OM from one location can deplete it from another. But if it is muck, it is still OM. Plenty of chicken farms create muck produced from wheat. If that wheat was grown using the least most OM damaging establishment technique of Direct Drilling, surely that is a good thing and OM levels will build up faster.

All SOM comes as a result of plant life, which creates it within the soil, turning it from sands and clays into soil.


One big problem is that this is all Science which deals with facts, not opinions. This is where it becomes difficult for the likes of @Janet Hughes Defra and her colleagues, in trying to determine what is right for ELMs with regard to undisputable Scientific Facts over Political Opinions!

Which side is winning so far?