of course the lowest labour/ most simple use of a tree is as a climate change prevention device ...... plant and forget
to be viable though people need to start paying for the service the tree provides .... i can see that coming maybe ?
Question: What's stopping more farmers practicing silvoarable/agroforestry?
- Thread starter IFarmers
- Start date
of course the lowest labour/ most simple use of a tree is as a climate change prevention device ...... plant and forget
to be viable though people need to start paying for the service the tree provides .... i can see that coming maybe ?
Goweresque
Member
- Location
- North Wilts
I never said it would affect yield, I said variable fitness. Who wants a field of wheat thats 50% ready to cut and 50% not? And anyway, any 'trials' that have been done so far would only be with very small trees. Wait til they get bigger and then see what its like. Trees are not a 5 minute project, they're several generations. We'll all be dead before any trial can conclude whether its any use or not.
All I know is I hate any field that got tall trees shading it, they are a pain in the @rse. Turning a nice open sunny field into a series of shaded alleys is my idea of farming hell.
Oh I have so much to say about this.... but have a limited amount of time.
And as many of you know, I'm a great tree planter/grower, and deeply involved in the forestry cycle, as well as farming extensively.
And yes, I did look carefully at this decades ago, but could not find a way of meaningfully bringing it into my farming.
It bothers me now that there's those in DEFRA - I know this for a fact from direct conversation- who swallow this half baked clap-trap.
We are where we are for very good reasons.
Lowland /tillage fields got bigger and bigger for ease of mechanisation and 'modern' farming methods.
It's not good or bad that mixed farms -with an orchard- changed, or that the culture of taking fruit from hedgerows has almost stopped, it just 'is'.
The premise that is unsaid here is that farmers today are bad people for not heeding this (pretend) new discovery.
The fact that in the video, Dartington are talking about a 50 acre arable field - in the rolling devon countryside- says enough on its own.
If the field had remained subdivided by hedges- as it almost certainly was-, many objectives would already be being filled.
Even then, the perceived outcomes are mostly fantasy bollix.
Carbon sequestration by trees with a 50 year life cycle? horse sh1t
Need to capture methane from cows? ...double horse sh1t.
Economic cropping of the fruit and nuts by earnest well meaning hippys? Triple supercharged horse sh1t.
Yeah, I'm sure Tesco will be beating a path to their door for their affordable produce. Kinda begs the question 'why aren't fruit producers already doing it?'
(or the arable men inter-cropping for that)
The unpalatable reality is that ever lower prices have forced low labour systems and specialisation on us, and try to re-diversify businesses would be rowing against that tide.
Half the country would be simply too exposed to grow more than stumpy misshapen shrubs under such spaced out conditions.
Anyone involved in sheep/cattle, or goats, or outdoor pigs knows exactly what would happen to your beloved rows of fruit trees unless they're fenced to death.
Hence the management costs are through the roof.
One tw*t in the video talks about his quince harvest. Quince!
For FECK SAKE...there is no financial security in dedicating land to growing quinces...the market is almost nil. If 10 of us did it, 9 would be throwing away the fruit.
The earth-mother bunny huggers thinking we can all do box schemes are living in fantasy land. Ironically, the most prominent locally - probably nationally- actually ships masses of produce from overseas -he's even bought a farm sur le continent to do it.
It makes me very very angry that this brand of loved up 'I know better than the whole farming industry' baloney isn't called out from the top, and that there are those who're believing it.
Do whatever you like with your own land, but don't tell me its raining when your widdling up my trouser leg.
Right. Back to work.
And as many of you know, I'm a great tree planter/grower, and deeply involved in the forestry cycle, as well as farming extensively.
And yes, I did look carefully at this decades ago, but could not find a way of meaningfully bringing it into my farming.
It bothers me now that there's those in DEFRA - I know this for a fact from direct conversation- who swallow this half baked clap-trap.
We are where we are for very good reasons.
Lowland /tillage fields got bigger and bigger for ease of mechanisation and 'modern' farming methods.
It's not good or bad that mixed farms -with an orchard- changed, or that the culture of taking fruit from hedgerows has almost stopped, it just 'is'.
The premise that is unsaid here is that farmers today are bad people for not heeding this (pretend) new discovery.
The fact that in the video, Dartington are talking about a 50 acre arable field - in the rolling devon countryside- says enough on its own.
If the field had remained subdivided by hedges- as it almost certainly was-, many objectives would already be being filled.
Even then, the perceived outcomes are mostly fantasy bollix.
Carbon sequestration by trees with a 50 year life cycle? horse sh1t
Need to capture methane from cows? ...double horse sh1t.
Economic cropping of the fruit and nuts by earnest well meaning hippys? Triple supercharged horse sh1t.
Yeah, I'm sure Tesco will be beating a path to their door for their affordable produce. Kinda begs the question 'why aren't fruit producers already doing it?'
(or the arable men inter-cropping for that)
The unpalatable reality is that ever lower prices have forced low labour systems and specialisation on us, and try to re-diversify businesses would be rowing against that tide.
Half the country would be simply too exposed to grow more than stumpy misshapen shrubs under such spaced out conditions.
Anyone involved in sheep/cattle, or goats, or outdoor pigs knows exactly what would happen to your beloved rows of fruit trees unless they're fenced to death.
Hence the management costs are through the roof.
One tw*t in the video talks about his quince harvest. Quince!
For FECK SAKE...there is no financial security in dedicating land to growing quinces...the market is almost nil. If 10 of us did it, 9 would be throwing away the fruit.
The earth-mother bunny huggers thinking we can all do box schemes are living in fantasy land. Ironically, the most prominent locally - probably nationally- actually ships masses of produce from overseas -he's even bought a farm sur le continent to do it.
It makes me very very angry that this brand of loved up 'I know better than the whole farming industry' baloney isn't called out from the top, and that there are those who're believing it.
Do whatever you like with your own land, but don't tell me its raining when your widdling up my trouser leg.
Right. Back to work.
farmerm
Member
- Location
- Shropshire
Some places still gather firewood from hedges.... I never go into the woods to get our firewood, some comes from fallen tree limbs but a lot of our firewood comes from siding hedges of hawthorn and hazel that never see a hedge cutter.
All Good stuff.
Just to reiterate on one point ...for those who arent quite so knowledgeable...or Worldly, .....just to remind of the irony...
There arent many 50 acre arable fields in Devonshire.infact they are pretty rare ..
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Wow!! what tree kills blackgrass??
farmerm
Member
- Location
- Shropshire
Nail and head I think...
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
There was a very interesting chap who died last year called Prof Martin Wolfe.
He was the chief Plant Pathologist at PBI when it was the Plant Breeding Institute at Maris Lane, Cambridge before it was privatised.
He played a huge part in the breeding of Varieties such as Beaver, Haven and Riband, for which Pan Britannica Industries, their successors took most of the benefits!
Not happy with the PBI privatisation, he left to work in Switzerland before retiring to Suffolk to start the Wakelyns Farm Agroforestry Project in the early 1990's, at Fressingfield, just behind the Landquip Crop sprayer Factory.
I helped him set it up. My 2 brothers are still heavily involved with it.
Martin had experimented with Variety blends for many years and often saw how mixing 3 varieties together, each with a specific disease weakness, the other 2 not only compensated, but even protected the weak variety from whichever disease was most prevalent each year.
His original thinking behind the Wakelyns Agroforestry project was to grow blends of trees in avenues, with 12 metre gaps between them to grow variety blended crops. The concept wasn't designed for use in this Country, but for other Countries where farmers needed to grow crops for food and to sell, as well as growing tree fruit and wood for fuel and building materials.
IMO, The Soil Association latched onto to it and offered all sorts of funding towards its sustainability in the UK and also IMO this put off an awful lot of farmers and people that could see the nonsense behind it in this Country!
But I have to say, there was an awful lot of useful stuff that was learned that does make sense if you look behind the wood to see the true trees (excuse the slight pun!).
He was the chief Plant Pathologist at PBI when it was the Plant Breeding Institute at Maris Lane, Cambridge before it was privatised.
He played a huge part in the breeding of Varieties such as Beaver, Haven and Riband, for which Pan Britannica Industries, their successors took most of the benefits!
Not happy with the PBI privatisation, he left to work in Switzerland before retiring to Suffolk to start the Wakelyns Farm Agroforestry Project in the early 1990's, at Fressingfield, just behind the Landquip Crop sprayer Factory.
I helped him set it up. My 2 brothers are still heavily involved with it.
Martin had experimented with Variety blends for many years and often saw how mixing 3 varieties together, each with a specific disease weakness, the other 2 not only compensated, but even protected the weak variety from whichever disease was most prevalent each year.
His original thinking behind the Wakelyns Agroforestry project was to grow blends of trees in avenues, with 12 metre gaps between them to grow variety blended crops. The concept wasn't designed for use in this Country, but for other Countries where farmers needed to grow crops for food and to sell, as well as growing tree fruit and wood for fuel and building materials.
IMO, The Soil Association latched onto to it and offered all sorts of funding towards its sustainability in the UK and also IMO this put off an awful lot of farmers and people that could see the nonsense behind it in this Country!
But I have to say, there was an awful lot of useful stuff that was learned that does make sense if you look behind the wood to see the true trees (excuse the slight pun!).
Last edited:
The rotation.... there's more to it all than trees.
farmerm
Member
- Location
- Shropshire
To answer the question
If you can find the labour to prune and pick the fruit trees they can fill the time between picking black grass and hoeing weeds in the ground crop..
Ok, I'm hearing lots of 'Horse sh1t', 'tw*t', 'bunny huggers' on top of a sh1t load of can't, can't, can't..... all very negative.
Being serious now, I agree that AF won't be suitable in a number of circumstances however your comment "It makes me very very angry that this brand of loved up 'I know better than the whole farming industry' baloney isn't called out from the top, and that there are those who're believing it."
So if the whole farming industry has got it right and knows what they are doing why is the industry still in the financial situation it is? See farm income figures below, figures ringed are income from the core agricultural business. An industry you infer that knows what it's doing. Doesn't it demonstrate in some circumstances there is a lot that can be done better.
Caveat: those figures are average and some farm businesses are doing well and are sustainable in many senses (financially/environmentally etc), so it's not all gloom, but clearly there are things that can be done that aren't being done now.
Obviously the price that people pay for food is an issue but what are your solutions for the future industry?
- Location
- Carmarthenshire, West Wales
The reason the incomes are so low, is not because agriculture is doing anything wrong (having said that, I believe there is a lot that need to be done better ~ a more regenerative agricultural approach, and look after soil better), there are a lot of producers of food, a lot of consumers, but a few processors/distributors (rather like a champagne glass) so the prices are dictated by the processors/distributors in the "pinch point" in the middle, as they have the critical mass to dictate the prices to the large numbers above and below. Capitalism without controls always leads to a monopoly. I don't think we can blame low incomes on lack of Agro Forestry, or even the production side of farming, rather the business environment we live in. I would say, farmers have been very good at doing what the governments and market want, they all say they want to look after wildlife etc, but when push comes to shove, buy stuff that has been produced in the cheapest possible way, so farmers produce in the cheapest possible way. I despair at times, people get excited over whether Ted Hughes's great great......... profited from the slave trade, but are happy to eat food produced with Soya (hastening the destruction of the rain forests), rather than get their fat content of their diet from Welsh lamb and Beef (which is sustainable).
insert, 'produced with Soya, grown in countries with identifiable modern slavery practises...'
So you love agroforestry, good for you.
I'm short of time, so a quick question....if it is so much better, why don't those silly old farmers all do it?
I certainly love money and all the things it can buy me, and pursue business methods that - balanced with other moral standards, rules and limitations- bring me as much of it as I can wring out of the hand of cards I'm dealt.
And all I can see in it-AF- for me would be vastly increased labour/production costs.
I'll come back to you later,
- Location
- Left in the middle of nowhere
Agree with all of the above and we have an average field size of around 12 ha where each field is surrounded by well established and maturing hedges with trees. Many of these were planted in the 90s under a Countryside Stewardship hedgerow restoration scheme. What is more aggravating than an odd branch in the crop or on the tank lids, is that Defra still uses national hedgerow data that is completely flawed by the 2018 satellite remap. Many farmers won't have sent in RLE1 forms to update this error. I have always had enough hedgerow for EFA, but I am going to have to send in RLE1 forms to remap for any mid-tier or ELMS scheme as their hedgerow data does not correspond with what's on the ground. Remarkably this was fully inspected for a week by the RPA in 2017, as well as having been drawn onto Farm Environment Record maps submitted through both mid-tier & ELS. Unbelievably the RPA didn't use the data obtained during the inspection as the basis for our hedgerows!
When the basis for future schemes relies on inaccurate data it's hardly surprising the political dialogue is that the countryside is a barren chemical dustbowl. It's an easy analogy, or snappy soundbite for city dwellers who live 100 feet up a concrete tower to associate with. Our green and pleasant land is exactly that, with many farmers who make the best of their natural resources vilified on social media for cutting a hedge every 3 years, by the likes of Goldsmith, Packham, Bonin, Avery and every other chancer out there trying to make a name for themselves whilst emptying the wallets & handbags of well meaning but ill informed cat loving pensioners!
We are putting a lot of faith in DEFRA & the RPA if we think they are going to be capable of providing a programme of support measures, including AF, when they can't measure something as simple as a hedgerow on a flat open arable field.
Last edited:
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Compare govt and media reaction to
1) cutting down rainforest to grow GM soya then shipped to the UK and fed to animals so a whole chicken can be cheaper than a salted caramel soy latte.
2) UK farmers attempting to do almost anything, from building new facilities, to daring to use tractors in the evening.
This is the problem. It's same in other industries. It's called "gold plate our sh!t, and export every problem it causes". Example - build waste incinerator in UK = bad. Out waste on boat, ship around world into their incinerator or more likely just onto a big heap = good.
You maybe overstate my enthusiasm for AF, but yes there could be a place for it in the correct situation.
Look, I'm envisaging a future where ecosystem services are valued and land management involves not only production of food but production of other things that we all need ie. stable climate, clean water, biodiversity, building materials etc etc. fashionably refered to as 'natural capital'. So my answer to your quick question is that it is highly probable that AF would deliver on all of the above and if the incentives for these non-agricultural goods were high then AF may well end up being a profitable system.
Farmers are steered by policy to a high degree so looking at what is on the horizon so let's not submit different ideas and methods to the trash pile. What may not have looked such a good idea a number of years ago may well start to make sense. Nothing ever stays the same.
Last edited:
SilliamWhale
Member
I have no idea how people think planting trees are going to even begin to ameliorate GHG emissions. I think the whole thing is not naive but actually duplicitous.
Trees are great to plant for their own sake but to pretend they will ameliorate GHG emissions is actually evil it is so misinformed. Really annoys me and I'm a tree planter anyway
Trees are great to plant for their own sake but to pretend they will ameliorate GHG emissions is actually evil it is so misinformed. Really annoys me and I'm a tree planter anyway
Agree that this is a massive issue and the farmer doesn't sit there as the root of all that is wrong. You're bang on saying that "there is a lot that need to be done better ~ a more regenerative agricultural approach, and look after soil better.." Farming is a diverse industry and as with everything else in life there are those who are good at it and some not so clued up, probably because they're just trying to keep their head above water and paddling like hell.
My point about low incomes is that the future for farming is massively different to today and there are going to be a number of opportunities to attract income from different land management - AF is just one of those system changes that could allow this. I stress one of a number of opportunities........ not saying that AF is the be all and end all but I have to stand up above the parapet and point out that it shouldn't be dismissed, as it's got some potential.
Those that dismiss opportunities don't benefit.
- Location
- Carmarthenshire, West Wales
I am also a tree planter (another 200m of hedge/trees going in this winter), and I agree with you wholeheartedly, in fact woodland planted on grassland sequests less carbon than the grassland would, and if they are planted on peat, that is even worse. Ultimately the way to stop GHG emissions, is to buy less, fly less, consume less, and have less children. Oh and eat more meat too.