New information about local nature recovery and landscape recovery

[delilah]

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

After many thousands of posts from countless farmers - with much ranting and raving but precious few actual suggestions - I am more convinced than ever that such a payment needs to be the cornerstone of ELMS.

 

[Huno]

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?

We will win and how beautifully put as.. without our food and water they will only have their loyal ministers cake!! Thank you.. Top blog!!

 

[Huno]

We will win and how beautifully put as.. without our food and water they will only have their loyal ministers cake!! Thank you.. Top blog!!

And yes.. you and i know that combined science delivers a real knowledge

 

[Jackov Altraids]

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

I farm almost entirely in the manner that they have in their vision.

With the removal of BPS and ELMS as it stands, I won't.

That surely must indicate something is severely amiss.

 

[Huno]

There is another way without subsidies... pony..caravan... steal scrap... hare coursing cash from chinese gambling syndicates and a massive rubbish dump on the holding to get rid of townie waste should do it?? And buy a house in town and abroad with the cash... so simple.. i am suprised no one hasn't done it already my fellow cackers!!!!

 

[Huno]

With areas of land as big as the ones we manage there might be a fair bit of bare knuckle boxing to sort as our territories expand??

 

[ajcc]

Let someone call it “semi natural” and the EIA Regulations will take it away from you.
Designations are dangerous.

 

[delilah]

The head of the EA on the radio just, saying that they are going to have a role to play (ffs) in delivering Landscape Recovery and they will use it to pay farmers to store flood water. The interviewer had to point out that Landscape Recovery is for large projects over 500Ha, to which the EA replied something along the lines of "we need to look at the detail". What a complete and utter shambles this whole thing is.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I was at dad's yesterday chatting to his neighbour's son in his early 30s, a partner in their mixed farm and a working agronomist. He volunteered that some of his clients still haven't accepted that BPS is going and SFI won't replace it. He's also rightly very skeptical about carbon trading until it becomes clearer how it'll all work and who will really benefit. He's worried about their future viability despite them running 6 holiday lets and contracting for other farms.

He volunteered that the current state of ELMS is all too uncertain, too late and incompatible with planning a farm business transition.

If his age group are deeply worried then we've a big problem.

 

[onesiedale]

The head of the EA on the radio just, saying that they are going to have a role to play (ffs) in delivering Landscape Recovery and they will use it to pay farmers to store flood water. The interviewer had to point out that Landscape Recovery is for large projects over 500Ha, to which the EA replied something along the lines of "we need to look at the detail". What a complete and utter shambles this whole thing is.

@Janet Hughes Defra
I think you need to tag Emma Howard Boyd into your posts on these TFF threads
She may then understand how ELMS will need to work for everyone
That radio interview was very disappointing and demonstrates the very reason why we farmers have such little confidence in government agencies.

 

[willyorkshire]

As an SFI pilot participant, with a reasonable grasp of what's been offered so far, I share their concerns. Whilst I can see why DEFRA is trying to develop a new scheme as we go, this just isn't going to engage the majority of farmers. How can farmers engage with a new scheme when they can't see clearly the direction of travel and their own end point. It's all very well offering funding to take (more) crappy bits out of production into environmental schemes but beyond that there's so little incentive to engage. In my pilot I'm doing as much as I can without impinging on productivity. Beyond that anything on offer is barely going to cover the cost of implementation. Farms need to be profitable, first and foremost. Feeding the nation and food security comes into it somewhere. The impending war in Ukraine has already had an effect on the wheat price and fuel prices. The Govt have got it's countryside policies badly, badly wrong.
Big changes ahead for all of us. With the pilot scheme I've joined, I'll get about 25% of the old BPS payment with little scope to improve on that. Why should my diversifications prop up the remaining 75%?
The Govt have 3 choices - encourage us to join up with much better payment offers. Scrap the lot survival of the fittest. Or prepare for huge increase in food prices when markets adjust to supply issues.
The annoying thing is that I can see what they want to do and why. But it just ain't gonna work like this!

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

RThe Govt have 3 choices - encourage us to join up with much better payment offers. Scrap the lot survival of the fittest. Or prepare for huge increase in food prices when markets adjust to supply issues.

Option 2 can only work if the much promised "bonfire of the red tape" takes place, leading to us becoming just another world food producer chasing the lowest common denominator

The alternative is wholesale "offshoring" of our food system, a collapse in UK self- sufficiency.

 

[willyorkshire]

Option 2 can only work if the much promised "bonfire of the red tape" takes place, leading to us becoming just another world food producer chasing the lowest common denominator

The alternative is wholesale "offshoring" of our food system, a collapse in UK self- sufficiency.

Exactly right Sir! I'm not suggesting which option, and there will be other options, is right but tinkering about with environmental stuff without proper payment to make it profitable isn't going to sort this potential crisis. For those with only highly productive land, few of the options are remotely attractive.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

To put it succinctly, ELMS is meant to be all about sustainable farming and creating a balance between producing food and protecting the environment.
Defra is creating a situation where there is a stark choice for most to either intensify production or stop. Neither of those options achieve public good.

I'm sure most farmers would understand that they would be more sustainable if they produced less and less sustainable if they produced nothing.
For ELMS to succeed it only needs to make the middle ground viable.

 

[YorkshireTom25]

If his age group are deeply worried then we've a big problem.

Of cause that age group is deeply worried the future is far from been a good one!

 

[Hindsight]

As an SFI pilot participant, with a reasonable grasp of what's been offered so far, I share their concerns. Whilst I can see why DEFRA is trying to develop a new scheme as we go, this just isn't going to engage the majority of farmers. How can farmers engage with a new scheme when they can't see clearly the direction of travel and their own end point. It's all very well offering funding to take (more) crappy bits out of production into environmental schemes but beyond that there's so little incentive to engage. In my pilot I'm doing as much as I can without impinging on productivity. Beyond that anything on offer is barely going to cover the cost of implementation. Farms need to be profitable, first and foremost. Feeding the nation and food security comes into it somewhere. The impending war in Ukraine has already had an effect on the wheat price and fuel prices. The Govt have got it's countryside policies badly, badly wrong.
Big changes ahead for all of us. With the pilot scheme I've joined, I'll get about 25% of the old BPS payment with little scope to improve on that. Why should my diversifications prop up the remaining 75%?
The Govt have 3 choices - encourage us to join up with much better payment offers. Scrap the lot survival of the fittest. Or prepare for huge increase in food prices when markets adjust to supply issues.
The annoying thing is that I can see what they want to do and why. But it just ain't gonna work like this!

The food price is going to increase regardless. Fuel price is going to increase regardless. The government has a hell of a shock and political problem heading its way come summer and autumn when cost of living hits the ordinary man in street. Ag policy will be least of Tory worries

 

[Jackov Altraids]

The food price is going to increase regardless. Fuel price is going to increase regardless. The government has a hell of a shock and political problem heading its way come summer and autumn when cost of living hits the ordinary man in street. Ag policy will be least of Tory worries

I still can't believe that I've never heard a farming representative point out that removing £3billion /year from agriculture which largely subsidised production will mean the population will be having to pay the best part of £3 billion extra for their food.

 

[YorkshireTom25]

I still can't believe that I've never heard a farming representative point out that removing £3billion /year from agriculture which largely subsidised production will mean the population will be having to pay the best part of £3 billion extra for their food.

And they said it wasn’t ‘public money for public goods’

 

[Hindsight]

I still can't believe that I've never heard a farming representative point out that removing £3billion /year from agriculture which largely subsidised production will mean the population will be having to pay the best part of £3 billion extra for their food.

Yes, but for the period following referendum when it became possible for government to adopt own ag policy, the message has been that the subsidy was capitalised into rental and reward for land ownershus. Thus without the sub rent’s would adjust and land values reduce and reward for ownership reduce. The. Impression from any government politician civil servant being farming would continue as that was profitable. Could it be they made a judgemental error?

 

[Goweresque]

The food price is going to increase regardless. Fuel price is going to increase regardless. The government has a hell of a shock and political problem heading its way come summer and autumn when cost of living hits the ordinary man in street. Ag policy will be least of Tory worries

Talk is now that the fuel price cap will have to be adjusted up again in October to north of £3k. So from about £1200 now its going to about £1900 in April and could hit £3200 just as winter kicks in. Thats over £60/week.

Ukraine crisis: Warning UK energy bills could top £3,000 a year

The conflict in Ukraine could push the energy price cap to £3,238 a year from October, a report warns.

www.bbc.co.uk

Thats nearly tripling inside 6 months. If that happens there's going to be a lot of cold (or worse) pensioners at those prices, and a LOT of angry voters. I predict fracking will be given the green light by the end of the year and that big oil field in the North Sea that the eco-nutters put the mockers on will be back on, and any other domestic sources of energy (fossil fuel or otherwise) will all be told to maximise production. That coal mine in Cumbria better get its application resubmitted, it'll get rubber stamped in a day.