New information about local nature recovery and landscape recovery

[Huno]

British farmers were weaned on to environmental payments by ELS. A simple scheme which gave a little bit of financial incentive to 'leave a bit for nature'.

For arable farmers, the sums are pretty simple. You can just make guesstimates on yields etc and compare to values offered by a scheme.

It is much more difficult for livestock farmers.
What I believe has happened is that the environmental schemes have been successful and reduced productivity. While schemes haven't ever kept up with inflation, they have also been reduced to reflect less income foregone as productivity continues to drop.
All these livestock farmers will now be looking at land with overgrown hedges and in good need of improvement. We are all beginning to realise just what being in these schemes has cost in earning potential.
The current finances on offer make Defra's offers by far the worst option. I expect vast swathes of permanent pasture to undergo major improvements in the coming years or disappear under hardcore.

Respect

 

[YorkshireTom25]

The point is that alot want to carry on as they are and always have.

Correct!

Plenty of farms losing money even with bps. What is the point.

It’s a way of life and part of your livelihood

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Seeing whether your farming operation stands up unsubsidised is easy enough isn't it?
Obviously, when you start digging it gets complicated....but the initial sum is 'which is greater, the sub or the profit?'
Cos if it's the profit you've got some wiggle room, and if it's the sub, you're in trouble.

But in fact i was talking about those outside farming, esp in whitehall.
As I've pointed out before, not many farmers sock their subs away in Swiss bank accounts. Many simply let it slip through the pinkies...right back into the wider economy.

I've reread your post and see your point.

I also agree, as you have suggested, that the subsidy doesn't stay long on the farm. I wonder how the supply and service sectors will fare after the subsidy disappears altogether

 

[Nearly]

I've reread your post and see your point.

I also agree, as you have suggested, that the subsidy doesn't stay long on the farm. I wonder how the supply and service sectors will fare after the subsidy disappears altogether

Badly.

 

[Huno]

I've reread your post and see your point.

I also agree, as you have suggested, that the subsidy doesn't stay long on the farm. I wonder how the supply and service sectors will fare after the subsidy disappears altogether

If you stop buying shiny kit you can keep your profits??

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

If you stop buying shiny kit you can keep your profits??

More like if you stop getting the subsidy, you can't spend it.

 

[Huno]

More like if you stop getting the subsidy, you can't spend it.

Equally true sir...

 

[Hindsight]

Seeing whether your farming operation stands up unsubsidised is easy enough isn't it?
Obviously, when you start digging it gets complicated....but the initial sum is 'which is greater, the sub or the profit?'
Cos if it's the profit you've got some wiggle room, and if it's the sub, you're in trouble.

But in fact i was talking about those outside farming, esp in whitehall.
As I've pointed out before, not many farmers sock their subs away in Swiss bank accounts. Many simply let it slip through the pinkies...right back into the wider economy.

Possibly gets to the Swiss bank account or ski chalet via the Landlords bank account.

 

[ajd132]

Correct!

It’s a way of life and part of your livelihood

Why should tax payers give you money for a way of life, especially as you have just admitted you don’t want to change anything!

 

[Henarar]

Why should tax payers give you money for a way of life, especially as you have just admitted you don’t want to change anything!

thats what most tax money is used for so nart new

 

[YorkshireTom25]

Why should tax payers give you money for a way of life, especially as you have just admitted you don’t want to change anything!

You talk odd for a farmer! could say the same about billions of tax payers money being spent on foreign aid?

 

[ajd132]

You talk odd for a farmer! could say the same about billions of tax payers money being spent on foreign aid?

Whataboutism

 

[Henarar]

Whataboutism

no idea, what about ism ?

 

[Grass And Grain]

Asking taxpayers for handouts isn't going to be popular unless they are getting something in return.

What is that something?

It could be quite simply BPS to put a bottom in farm profits and stability in a price volatile industry. Continuity of farm business survival and home produced food supply is a public good - a very important one.

It could be BPS to help UK farmers cope with cost of complying with good environmental and food regulations, and fact that many worldwide competitors are subsidised

It could be BPS to ensure we don't just offshore environmental, welfare or carbon issues.

It could be stewardship to promote carbon sequestration, healthy soils, habitats, water quality etc.

It could be some flood prevention or landscape change.

It could be grants for capital items (from the list of things THEY THINK we need ).

DEFRA need to get the mix of the above correct, and be mindful that BPS added directly to our profit/disposable spending power. There's a cost to getting SFI income, so that leaves us less cash in the bank. All from exactly the same amount of taxpayer spend.

The taxpayer probably won't think a public good is Mr Farmer buying a Range Rover from ag subsidies, but neither will they want bankrupt farmers and food shortages. Food supply won't wait for next year.

Alternatively, either insist imports meet our production standards, or let us rip out all the hedges, create mega fields, stuff the broilers in the sheds - and compete on a level playing field. Neither of those will happen, so I conclude HMG should continue to pay us subs if they want a UK agricultural industry.

They just need to get the mix and method of subsidy correct. I think DEFRA are currently on the wrong path.

 

[Jimdog1]

We are the only industry on Earth that sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere and creates food, vital to human life.

Best line in 43 pages. Should be shouting it from the rooftops. (Courtesy of Two-tone)

 

[Dave645]

what we are doing farming wise goes a long way towards it. Private carbon and natural capital markets should also help But they in their infancy.
It may all end up being a complete disaster, but we have been working studiously towards this all for a while. The fact is some land is probably not worth farming And that really doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I can see 30% of the most volatile and lower performing areas being in stewardship, giving a base of fixed income. It is then as simple as fitting the machinery to the area for economies of scale, nothing new there.

What if stewardship doesn’t exist?
Well not in the form it’s in now and not at the current levels?
With income forgone not on the table then it’s likely some lucrative options will go and taking unproductive land out of production may not be as well paid as the wording said it, unproductive unprofitable. . .
in their eyes the perfect land to turn back to nature. At break even prices, so pay you £24ha and it cost you £24/Ha to manage it in the scheme. . . That from what I have read is more the plan.

and it would not shock me if all those rushing into the outgoing stewardship schemes don’t get burned in some way that’s not saying they will but if DEFRA is struggling to get uptake into the new schemes, then they may try to tie their hands to not to let the new scheme look like a fail.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

It could be grants for capital items (from the list of things THEY THINK we need ).

I think DEFRA are currently on the wrong path.

Absolutely agree. Being pitched to us under the "improving efficiency" banner to help build profitability.

They've been drinking the inputs industry kool-aid again....

The rest of your comment is about right too.

 

[ajd132]

What if stewardship doesn’t exist?
Well not in the form it’s in now and not at the current levels?

Then you either farm it, as some of this land will still make money, just perhaps not as much as a decent stewardship selection. Or there is plenty of option on private natural capital markets.

 

[Dave645]

Then you either farm it, as some of this land will still make money, just perhaps not as much as a decent stewardship selection. Or there is plenty of option on private natural capital markets.

Nature capital markets are a scam, you only have carbon credits for sale if the farm is carbon negative, anything else is a scam and unless the government is happy with that scam, they will block it.
I would, they do more harm than good.

now if your farm is, great have at it.

 

[egbert]

If you stop buying shiny kit you can keep your profits??

Not many of us manage that trick

Possibly gets to the Swiss bank account or ski chalet via the Landlords bank account.

I've a good AHA....but those on FBTs? Hmm....how does Janet square that hole?