Rewilding at Knepp Castle- Daily Mail article

[ollie989898]

Sorry - Philip Hammond will be paying that cash to Brussels.

IACS/SFP/BPS helped pay your salary as an agronomist

Seriously, I do hope she gets that new hip anyway. Sorry to be flippant.

If people are using BPS cash to finance their agchem or seed spend then that is their business but they do need to recognise the money will stop soon.

 

[O'Reilly]

Would knepp actually meet good agricultural and environmental condition rules? Environmental perhaps, but the gist of the agricultural rules is that it could be ploughed up and back into production at fairly short notice I thought. Are they topping it twice in five years? If they are, its not that rewilded is it?
In short, do they actually get bps?

Its an interesting base point for discussion with those who want to see farming stopped, would also be interesting to take a chunk and try to farm it again, as in a disaster scenario where the country needs to grow its own food again, to see how long it takes to turn it around.

 

[Bill the Bass]

Oh the politics of Envy!

I'd love to live in a world without subsidy and people paying the right money for food so that subsidies weren't needed. Yes there are good farmers that can farm land without the need for subsidies. But that is good land that will reliably produce good yields each year.

There is a hell of a lot of land that cannot be farmed profitably without subsidies. It simply will not produce high enough yields to do so. Much of this land was grass for livestock that has been turned into arable for several reasons:

Lowland beef production, relying on 100% paid labour isn't very, if at all profitable. The only way to do it is by using your own or family labour whilst not drawing much cash out of the business. The average age of farmers/farm workers working in Beef production is very nearly retirement age.

Any form of livestock farming requires large amounts of capital and borrowings tied up in the livestock and every couple of years, someone invents a problem that scares the sh!t out of the public into not wanting to eat it!

In the end, farmers get fed up with it all, and plough up their grass and put it into arable, thinking that it is a lot less risky and a much easier life.

Can you blame them?

So now we have overproduction of cereals which now need exporting and former grassland that really isn't suitable for arable that keeps a profusion of agronomists in business.

On top of which we have IHT relief on farmland that over-inflates its value several fold, totally distorting its true value and preventing new, young farmers from getting a foothold into the job!

The system is the system and it is pointless being envious of those who by appearing to have been given it on a plate, have more than most of the rest of us do.

When it comes down to it, the owners of Knepp Castle Estate have every right to do with it whatever they see fit

I agree its completely their choice to do what they want, but I object to their rather sanctimonious criticism of the rest of the industry when they couldn't make a go of 3500 acres that they received buckshee. I am buggered if I am gong to 'cheer on' someone that bloody inept, regardless of how 'interesting' their little project is. Yes I am envious of their inheritance, especially in the light of them going public and saying 'we couldn't make it work' to me just makes them look dumb in my eyes. As Corrado Soprano said in the great TV series, 'They sound like the lady who had a Virginia ham under her arm but complained she had no bread'

I don't agree with your observation of the beef industry to be honest, there are lots of young people chomping at the bit wanting to get started but access to land is stopping many of them. A lot of the major beef societies have very active young members clubs, I think beef is one of the most vibrant sectors in terms of young people at present.

 

[Bill the Bass]

A much more eloquent reply, thank you.

I agree with pretty well all of that - 3500 ac isn't enough for a "proper" nature reserve but it is a great start for a private landowner. Birds and scrub don't generate cash except where there is natural capital funding available.

Not sure about the first paragraph. Perhaps your definition of biodiversity is a bit different. Knepp is doing something half a dozen farming families won't and can't afford to do. How many people does Knepp employ currently? Plenty of big estates employ more than they would otherwise do because of grants. Lots of envy in TFF about big estates doing people out of jobs without considering what other non farming employment they do generate that a few small family farms wouldn't, or at least not in the same way. Maybe it is because those workers don't necessarily live on site or within a couple of miles? Tax mitigation for rewilding? Fine in the uplands on a decent scale (sorry, hill farmers) but not on small parcels of lowland farmland. You're from Cumbria - what are the proposals for retreating from the hills there?

There's managed conservation and neglect. The two are distinctly different & Knepp seems to be "lightly managed rewilding." To see this on a bigger scale is currently in the bigger nature reserves "managed" by the RSPB, National Trust etc

Defra have been encouraging the 'retreat' of sheep numbers since at least 2001. Whilst some hard core observers still want total stoppage of sheep production/grazing,(more driven by an idealogical hatred of farmers and farming than anything else) a lot of ecologists are actually saying that to achieve the habitats and species needed, its a question of timing and stock movement and variety of stock (more cattle) and not purely numbers. This requires management and people with skills in managing livestock as they are needed for a management tool.

Its also worth noting that the Lake District is now a UNESCO world heritage site, designated in part due to its unique agro-pastoral system of management (common grazing) - its believed to be the largest area of open common in Europe. I guess in short, its simply not that simple to say 'take away the sheep' because the natural environment is no longer the trump card, there is culture, access and recreation to consider, for example if you take away the sheep you will loose a unique way of managing land that has evolved since the Viking age and is not that much different today, also if the sheep go the deer increase and they have to be controlled by high velocity rifles - not a great idea when you have 17 million over night visitors and 30 million day visitors.

In short no one has any proposals because its too complicated and controversial I would say. The market will in the end have the greatest say, if the arse falls out of sheep post brexit then all bets are on.

Doesn't affect me though, i'm on lads land!

 

[Brisel]

...and why was the Lake District designated as an UNESCO World Heritage Site? Because farmers and landowners made it look like that.

A fact that escaped George Monbiot when he moaned about it!

I know I've gone off topic, but some of this is relevant to Knepp. If the taxpayer likes these projects and the market is failing the landscape, they will be prepared to financially support it to create or maintain the habitat. Would the Burrells have done what they did without any kind of income, government or farming? I doubt it. They would have rented it all out as grazing or sold it off.

 

[Adam@Rumen]

Not what I'd do, but each to their own.

Just imagine explaining to the millions of starving & famished people around the world that instead of growing food, we are allowing a large acreage to feed middle class egos...

 

[Brisel]

Not what I'd do, but each to their own.

Just imagine explaining to the millions of starving & famished people around the world that instead of growing food, we are allowing a large acreage to feed middle class egos...

That doesn't matter any more. The middle class egos have votes and voices. Gove listens to those because they vote Tory. The starving masses aren't in Britain and don't have a vote.

I'm not sure how much food was produced at Knepp before this anyway!

 

[Bill the Bass]

...and why was the Lake District designated as an UNESCO World Heritage Site? Because farmers and landowners made it look like that.

A fact that escaped George Monbiot when he moaned about it!

I know I've gone off topic, but some of this is relevant to Knepp. If the taxpayer likes these projects and the market is failing the landscape, they will be prepared to financially support it to create or maintain the habitat. Would the Burrells have done what they did without any kind of income, government or farming? I doubt it. They would have rented it all out as grazing or sold it off.

Technically no, the designation, as I understand, centers around the Agro-pastoral system and how that creates a unique and inspirational cultural landscape. Fundamental to this is Commoning and the exercising of common grazing/usage rights and the breeds that allow this to happen - not land ownership. Landowners input is pretty minimal, much to their frustration, on commons. If landowners had their way the commoners would most likely have all been kicked off during the enclosures and the land turned over to Demesne, this would have left a very different legacy - one no different to the rest of the UK and not worthy of the World Heritage Status it has today. Off topic a bit but relevant to the post in so far as in Britain, it is the effort and toil of many ordinary people working the land that has made our landscape valued not the passive neglect of a minority of wealthy owners.

Like you I don't buy the food production argument and from my perspective the more land that comes out of production the better, it will effect commodities at some point. The argument is about what we want from our rural areas, for me I would rather see lots of family farms and young people and new entrants given a chance to farm in their own right as opposed to large scale industrial farming or silly wildlife vanity projects creating a play ground for the wealthy and the champagne socialists.

Now then, where is my Che Guevara flag it must be socialist Monday, at least it is until I run out of someone else's money to spend.

 

[Two Tone]

I agree its completely their choice to do what they want, but I object to their rather sanctimonious criticism of the rest of the industry when they couldn't make a go of 3500 acres that they received buckshee. I am buggered if I am gong to 'cheer on' someone that bloody inept, regardless of how 'interesting' their little project is. Yes I am envious of their inheritance, especially in the light of them going public and saying 'we couldn't make it work' to me just makes them look dumb in my eyes. As Corrado Soprano said in the great TV series, 'They sound like the lady who had a Virginia ham under her arm but complained she had no bread'

I don't agree with your observation of the beef industry to be honest, there are lots of young people chomping at the bit wanting to get started but access to land is stopping many of them. A lot of the major beef societies have very active young members clubs, I think beef is one of the most vibrant sectors in terms of young people at present.

I too agree about their rather sanctimonious criticism of the rest of the industry. But even though it was a Daily Mail (therefore it must be true!) article, one can imagine how this newspaper wanted to ever-hype the situation.

Is it that they are inept or that they didn't want to try farming it in a different way to try to make a profit?
Had they lost too much confidence?
There are lots of traditional estates that, but for some serious outside income, struggle to make a go of it. But many are quite happy to continue because of the IHT situation. My area is full of them!

Was this the case at Knepp, who knows? But they made a choice to do it they way they do, probably because their overdraft just kept getting bigger and bigger. Maybe to the extent that their capital gearing had exceeded 30%, which from then on, meant it would get worse and worse, spiralling out of control. In that situation, one can see why they made the choice that they did.

You and I would certainly have been less pessimistic, because we are farmers. And as Farmers, it is our nature that we take risks.

One of the problems we have and probably why they didn't want to rent it out to others, is that to be able to claim full IHT relief, they need to be seen as "the" farmers and not landlords. In HMRC terms, they need to be shown as "taking risk". Which as Landlords, they wouldn't.

I'd also agree with you that this is not good for those youngsters amongst us who want to get started. And yes, for them Beef is a good option. But only if they do all the work themselves. As soon as you start employing labour to do it, bang go all the profits. Especially if you use 100% outside labour.

 

[Paddington]

If I had done that with 35 acres instead of 3,500 I wouldn't feel happy about it. A phone call to Defra years ago about putting in some fencing under an ESA scheme, resulted in the comment "do what you like, it's your land", (which was completely wrong as it turned out), but I liked the phrase at the time.

 

[Hindsight]

Mrs Gove writes for the Daily Mail, has for several years, previously The Times. Just sayin' I was more than please when Michael Gove left The Times to forge a career in politics. He was in my opinion such a boorish columnist. Every week he seemed intent on using increasingly large and unusual words - to show off I thought. But hey. SO I was much amused when Phil Hammond rebuked him for being 'economicky'.

 

[ajcc]

Anyone who hasn’t done so mayI suggest you Iook at kneppsafaris.co.uk
Watch the rewilding video and and maybe view this thread in a new light?
I take my hat off to these folk because they have the courage of their convictions.

 

[Campani]

Does anyone know the number of staff employed and how it compares to before? All those safaris, events etc can't run themselves but is it more jobs or less jobs compared to the farm before? Better or worse paid?

 

[le bon paysan]

Oh the politics of Envy!

I'd love to live in a world without subsidy and people paying the right money for food so that subsidies weren't needed. Yes there are good farmers that can farm land without the need for subsidies. But that is good land that will reliably produce good yields each year.

There is a hell of a lot of land that cannot be farmed profitably without subsidies. It simply will not produce high enough yields to do so. Much of this land was grass for livestock that has been turned into arable for several reasons:

Lowland beef production, relying on 100% paid labour isn't very, if at all profitable. The only way to do it is by using your own or family labour whilst not drawing much cash out of the business. The average age of farmers/farm workers working in Beef production is very nearly retirement age.

Any form of livestock farming requires large amounts of capital and borrowings tied up in the livestock and every couple of years, someone invents a problem that scares the sh!t out of the public into not wanting to eat it!

In the end, farmers get fed up with it all, and plough up their grass and put it into arable, thinking that it is a lot less risky and a much easier life.

Can you blame them?

So now we have overproduction of cereals which now need exporting and former grassland that really isn't suitable for arable that keeps a profusion of agronomists in business.

On top of which we have IHT relief on farmland that over-inflates its value several fold, totally distorting its true value and preventing new, young farmers from getting a foothold into the job!

The system is the system and it is pointless being envious of those who by appearing to have been given it on a plate, have more than most of the rest of us do.

When it comes down to it, the owners of Knepp Castle Estate have every right to do with it whatever they see fit

Post of the thread.

 

[New Puritan]

What's the postcode of Knepp Castle? All these comments speculating about what subsidy they get could be answered by putting it in here: http://cap-payments.defra.gov.uk/

 

[New Puritan]

That above link seems to be knackered this evening, but this slightly out of date one indicates they get a fair bit: http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/search/?q=knepp

 

[New Puritan]

Found it, here: http://www.cap-payments.defra.gov.uk/Download.aspx

Knepp Castle Estates got:

£293,127.07 in 2015
£385,773.21 in 2016

No wonder they still need to host craft fairs, weddings etc. to make ends meet.

 

[glasshouse]

Found it, here: http://www.cap-payments.defra.gov.uk/Download.aspx

Knepp Castle Estates got:

£293,127.07 in 2015
£385,773.21 in 2016

No wonder they still need to host craft fairs, weddings etc. to make ends meet.

"Courage of their convictions"??????
A million subsidy every 3yrs gives you a lot of courage

 

[glasshouse]

Oh the politics of Envy!

I'd love to live in a world without subsidy and people paying the right money for food so that subsidies weren't needed. Yes there are good farmers that can farm land without the need for subsidies. But that is good land that will reliably produce good yields each year.

There is a hell of a lot of land that cannot be farmed profitably without subsidies. It simply will not produce high enough yields to do so. Much of this land was grass for livestock that has been turned into arable for several reasons:

Lowland beef production, relying on 100% paid labour isn't very, if at all profitable. The only way to do it is by using your own or family labour whilst not drawing much cash out of the business. The average age of farmers/farm workers working in Beef production is very nearly retirement age.

Any form of livestock farming requires large amounts of capital and borrowings tied up in the livestock and every couple of years, someone invents a problem that scares the sh!t out of the public into not wanting to eat it!

In the end, farmers get fed up with it all, and plough up their grass and put it into arable, thinking that it is a lot less risky and a much easier life.

Can you blame them?

So now we have overproduction of cereals which now need exporting and former grassland that really isn't suitable for arable that keeps a profusion of agronomists in business.

On top of which we have IHT relief on farmland that over-inflates its value several fold, totally distorting its true value and preventing new, young farmers from getting a foothold into the job!

The system is the system and it is pointless being envious of those who by appearing to have been given it on a plate, have more than most of the rest of us do.

When it comes down to it, the owners of Knepp Castle Estate have every right to do with it whatever they see fit

Not when we taxpayers are funding it!!!!

 

[Bill the Bass]

I too agree about their rather sanctimonious criticism of the rest of the industry. But even though it was a Daily Mail (therefore it must be true!) article, one can imagine how this newspaper wanted to ever-hype the situation.

Is it that they are inept or that they didn't want to try farming it in a different way to try to make a profit?
Had they lost too much confidence?
There are lots of traditional estates that, but for some serious outside income, struggle to make a go of it. But many are quite happy to continue because of the IHT situation. My area is full of them!

Was this the case at Knepp, who knows? But they made a choice to do it they way they do, probably because their overdraft just kept getting bigger and bigger. Maybe to the extent that their capital gearing had exceeded 30%, which from then on, meant it would get worse and worse, spiralling out of control. In that situation, one can see why they made the choice that they did.

You and I would certainly have been less pessimistic, because we are farmers. And as Farmers, it is our nature that we take risks.

One of the problems we have and probably why they didn't want to rent it out to others, is that to be able to claim full IHT relief, they need to be seen as "the" farmers and not landlords. In HMRC terms, they need to be shown as "taking risk". Which as Landlords, they wouldn't.

I'd also agree with you that this is not good for those youngsters amongst us who want to get started. And yes, for them Beef is a good option. But only if they do all the work themselves. As soon as you start employing labour to do it, bang go all the profits. Especially if you use 100% outside labour.

Regardless of all the nuances about beef farming (there are plenty of successful beef farms with employed labour by the way), it seems to me that in the case of Knepp, the owner of a very valuable inherited asset is receiving a large amount of government subsidy every year to manage his land in the least costly way to avoid paying inheritance tax. I think that's wrong on every level.

Politics of Envy? For me no, I'm perfectly well off, not rich but live a good and comfortable life, the only thing I covet is to be ten years younger.

As a farmer though, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the subsidies and tax reliefs we enjoy and in some cases need to survive to non farming friends, when this ostentatious and spendthrift approach by government to land management is what they read about.