lloyd
Member
- Location
- Herefordshire
Milk quota was a massive payout for the few at the expense of
the majority .What was your view on selling that free government
handout ?
Petition to reform the new landscape schemes
- Thread starter warksfarmer
- Start date
the majority .What was your view on selling that free government
handout ?
before my time and not my sector so don't have a clue
History should never dictate the future IMO or repeat mistakes
I have no issues with Farmers being subsidised IF there is good reason to do so - to be clear that is farming however, ie the income derived from growing food or creating natural capital NOT a reward for simply owning land - which if you are wealthy enough to be in a position of owning land there is absolutely no good argument that you need a subsidy to repay that (optional) investment ........ regardless of how you came to own that investment, ie inheritance, earnings form farming or other trades or even if you have chosen t borrow tom fund the investment, it remains an investment and not a trade like farming is
Just about every Sub scheme I have lived through to date has gone wrong because it fails to address this vital difference, the results being that one way or another the sub ends up in. the landowners pocket not the farmers - farmers are not landowners and landowners are not farmers ........ but you can be both (as I am)
Last edited:
This thread is about a petition to change the Landscape recovery part of the new system which many feel is aimed at large, inactive (in regards to agriculture) organisations and landowners. Many tenant farmers feel threatened by this scheme. Many active farmers are frustrated that one third of the budget will be unavailable to them. Is it wrong to question that? Are you happy that you may lose land to landscape recovery?
I'm a tenant (predominantly in fact) as well as a landowner
the land I rent / contract farm isn't mine so I don't feel what its owner chooses to do with it is my decision frankly
I understand the concerns (and have my own) but equally I accept I can't expect to control what is not mine. I will have to adapt my business to fit with what my landlords decide to do I guess
As a tax payer I see no reason to subsidise landowners in any shape of form ........ its VERY wrong to do so, immoral frankly, I say that as a landowner and farmer so am a turkey voting for Christmas !
If there was ever going to be a DD sub it would have been pittance, the only person who cares about a DD sub is you. Change the record you are boring.Not read all the posts so I imagine someone has already pointed this out; @Clive is only fecked off because the DD sub has been binned. Good job too, what a load of bollox that was going to be. Defra are getting there. Slowly.
To scrap all subsidies would surely require a level of protection from imports produced in countries with lower environmental ambitions? Is that something you would advocate?
lol. Thousands of posts from hundreds of posters. Added to that the on-farm research into SOM they did. Janet and co did their job properly on that one.
edit: Praise for @Janet Hughes Defra best copy her in
.lloyd
Member
- Location
- Herefordshire
Yeah about as boring as you telling everyone that the uplands
should be rewilded to suit your own agenda.
How about featureless Suffolk being rewilded instead as large chunks
were reclaimed wetlands which are best suited for bird sanctuaries .
These areas should be forced to repair previous enviromental damage before places that already achieve a positive contribution to the countryside.
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
There is some merit in what you say re farming = trade, land = investment.
However, under your premise, BPS was (or should have been) for the farming trade, not the land owner. But Stewardship is debatable as to whether it more so the farming trade than the land owner or the other way round, depending on circumstances.
So how does ELMs square with the fact that apart from SFI, both LR and LNR are seen as more beneficial to the the land owners, particularly when it comes to organisations such as NT and RSPB?
My point being that out of the combined BPS and Countryside Stewardship pot, far more of it was paid in BPS claims as compared to CS claims. But under ELMs, in effect it will be by far the other way round!
How can that be right? Don’t people need to eat any more?
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
I’m sure @Clive isn’t that bothered whether or not DD is supported or subbed under ELMs.Not read all the posts so I imagine someone has already pointed this out; @Clive is only fecked off because the DD sub has been binned
Financial support for DD has been around for ages in grants to buy the equipment and all the water companies are falling over backwards to financially support and educate us about it!
Where exactly does it say that ELMs won’t support DD anyway?
I never said I wanted to the uplands re wilded . I suggest a solution if that were to be forced to happen which looks incredibly likely. I was trying to think of something positive in a worst case scenario for those farmers that could help everyone.
Not that I care but the money for DD was In the third tier original proposal of SFI, they have not yet to release the revised 3rd tier like they have tier 1 and 2 so it could well still be in there.lol. Thousands of posts from hundreds of posters. Added to that the on-farm research into SOM they did. Janet and co did their job properly on that one.
edit: Praise for @Janet Hughes Defra best copy her in
Edit: it was in the second tier but said min till or no till so pretty open ended.
pgk
Member
- Location
- south warwickshire
Signed, only 244 signatures so far, any thoughts on further publicising this to a bigger audience?
Petition: Review and reform the Landscape Recovery scheme
The Government should review and reform the Landscape Recovery, which will provide grants for 'rewilding' of land, to ensure this does not reduce the UK's self-sufficiency in food, or the viability of the agricultural sector.petition.parliament.uk
We all know these need proposals are rubbish and all the money will go to large landowners and estates, so let’s get it reformed so it gets onto normal sized farms.
lloyd
Member
- Location
- Herefordshire
Well that's not how it read on David Handleys piece post 40.
You suggested rewilding the hill land and moving the livestock to
the east .First of all most hill farmers are not soley dependant on subsidies and are well diversified into tourism ,poultry ,renewables etc and already make a major contribution to the diversity of the countryside through a carefully maintained landscape.
Would it not be better to rewild areas on reclaimed wet arable which are dependant
on large amounts of synthetic inputs and present a mostly sterile landscape with
little contribution to biodiversity?
I also wrote in another post how aware I am on arable farmings reliance on synthetic inputs.
Maybe you read it wrong but I wasn’t insinuating I supported wholesale re wilding of the uplands.
and yes I cannot argue with some wetland reclaimed areas being a place to support nature.
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Wouldnt it be fair to say when you bid to get contracts you factored in the bps as part of the income and offered to give at least some of that to the landlord? if you didnt someone else would have and they would be farming it now.
And the rspb and national trust. Wealthy big organisations with immense power and strong lobbying. Neither fit to run a bath never mind a farm. They should be excluded. (Unless defra have amended this but in which case I apologise).
Petition: Review and reform the Landscape Recovery scheme
The Government should review and reform the Landscape Recovery, which will provide grants for 'rewilding' of land, to ensure this does not reduce the UK's self-sufficiency in food, or the viability of the agricultural sector.
We all know these need proposals are rubbish and all the money will go to large landowners and estates, so let’s get it reformed so it gets onto normal sized farms.