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
Regenerative Agriculture and Direct Drilling
Regen Ag General Discussion
No-tillers should be paid for their services to society
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="Feldspar" data-source="post: 116365" data-attributes="member: 386"><p>So how would you work things then given free reign? Would you survey all the land that is cropped and impose some sort of fine or levy on a sliding scale depending on the condition of the soils that are found? Should the penalty fall upon the current landowner or the people who historically presided over the decline in soil quality? Not quite sure that new entrants to farming / new landowners will be very enthusiastic about paying for a problem they didn't create, in the same way that mixed farmers who may have acted more responsibly should not lose out because others have been irresponsible. Just to clarify, I've only been in farming for under a year and so it's hardly fair to say that I've been wrecking the soil for years; I therefore shouldn't be condemned as a hypocrite for wanting to act responsibly.</p><p> </p><p>I suppose my line of thought was bounded by the facts of the current situation rather than a limitless exercise in idealistic thought. The facts are, firstly, irrespective of your normative judgement, that large arable farmers in my area (including our farm) are causing a decline in soil quality and the value judgement is that this is undesirable. Second fact, which constrains the limit of debate for those wishing to discuss realistic and practical solutions, is that there will be payments to EU farmers and that part of the CAP budget will be dedicated to these so-called 'greening measures' which are designed to decrease the environmental impact of agriculture. So, in summary, you have working practices which are environmentally negative and which it is desirable to change and also you have money which will be allocated for the purpose of reducing environmentally damaging practices.</p><p> </p><p>In light of these facts my main wish was that money allocated for 'greening' should actually be used to fulfil the intended purpose rather than being spent in a counter-productive way. I don't insist that money be given to the worst offenders in the form of a carrot. It might be that money be given to best performers as a reward for good practice and which would, at the same time, persuade the offenders to do better. Or you might want to spend money on education rather than simply cash payments; a lot of this is happening at the moment through the Catchment Sensitive Farming in the areas of pesticide handling, for example.</p><p> </p><p>I think, however, that if you look at the way the British government has addressed issues like this in the past, you might find that often the former approach is adopted. Take the recent RDPE and FFIS grants for nutrient management and pesticide handling. In both cases it was the late adopters and the worst offenders who received maximum points and maximum grant funding; I know this because our farm fell into this category in both cases and I filled out the forms. In response to this behaviour you would probably say that this is the wrong approach and I don't disagree with you. I just wonder what the reasoning is for acting in the way that they have.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Feldspar, post: 116365, member: 386"] So how would you work things then given free reign? Would you survey all the land that is cropped and impose some sort of fine or levy on a sliding scale depending on the condition of the soils that are found? Should the penalty fall upon the current landowner or the people who historically presided over the decline in soil quality? Not quite sure that new entrants to farming / new landowners will be very enthusiastic about paying for a problem they didn't create, in the same way that mixed farmers who may have acted more responsibly should not lose out because others have been irresponsible. Just to clarify, I've only been in farming for under a year and so it's hardly fair to say that I've been wrecking the soil for years; I therefore shouldn't be condemned as a hypocrite for wanting to act responsibly. I suppose my line of thought was bounded by the facts of the current situation rather than a limitless exercise in idealistic thought. The facts are, firstly, irrespective of your normative judgement, that large arable farmers in my area (including our farm) are causing a decline in soil quality and the value judgement is that this is undesirable. Second fact, which constrains the limit of debate for those wishing to discuss realistic and practical solutions, is that there will be payments to EU farmers and that part of the CAP budget will be dedicated to these so-called 'greening measures' which are designed to decrease the environmental impact of agriculture. So, in summary, you have working practices which are environmentally negative and which it is desirable to change and also you have money which will be allocated for the purpose of reducing environmentally damaging practices. In light of these facts my main wish was that money allocated for 'greening' should actually be used to fulfil the intended purpose rather than being spent in a counter-productive way. I don't insist that money be given to the worst offenders in the form of a carrot. It might be that money be given to best performers as a reward for good practice and which would, at the same time, persuade the offenders to do better. Or you might want to spend money on education rather than simply cash payments; a lot of this is happening at the moment through the Catchment Sensitive Farming in the areas of pesticide handling, for example. I think, however, that if you look at the way the British government has addressed issues like this in the past, you might find that often the former approach is adopted. Take the recent RDPE and FFIS grants for nutrient management and pesticide handling. In both cases it was the late adopters and the worst offenders who received maximum points and maximum grant funding; I know this because our farm fell into this category in both cases and I filled out the forms. In response to this behaviour you would probably say that this is the wrong approach and I don't disagree with you. I just wonder what the reasoning is for acting in the way that they have. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Regenerative Agriculture and Direct Drilling
Regen Ag General Discussion
No-tillers should be paid for their services to society
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