That’s the bit I can’t understand , as it stands at the moment farming it far out weighs what you would get from the scheme , especially when you factor in the costs , yet some big estates are planning to put a lot in ? Unless that was before the prices where releasedNope, even though we do most of it already. I think some have said they will do it as it tops them up to nearly what bps was for the next year but even if we put everything in we are still less and I will see how it pans out for a bit. It looks like it will end up a 3rd of bps and I will look for other ways to get the money back rather than trust the rpa and defra.
It will still have to go up considerably before it can beat farming it , I can’t see it going to that much , plus it’s not like bps you have costs associated with it aswellThe majority of the ELMs budget (£2.8 billion, down from £3.2 billion BPS) will be going into Tier 2 and 3, limited take-up of Tier 1 (SFI) is probably what they want as means they'll be more demand for Tier 2 and they'll be an increased budget for it.
Then it probably isn't for you, and that's fine. Public goods for public money.It will still have to go up considerably before it can beat farming it , I can’t see it going to that much , plus it’s not like bps you have costs associated with it aswell
The highest tier in the original figures laid out was quite easy to achieve about £140/ha plus £110 per hectare for cover crops but they haven’t released updated details of that yet.Yesterday on the fertiliser price tracker thread I asked;
"What I would really like to know is if anyone has done any calculations around fert/ grain prices and the subsequent value per acre for growing crops next year. It would be very interesting to compare those values with ELMS and see which paid best for buffers, margins etc."
Whichever way I look, I see productive land being rather valuable in the next few years. The high price and/or low availability of fertiliser will put a premium on forage, grains and probably everything else.
I think many people were looking to put a portion of land into ELMS as a 'safety net' but committing it for years at such low rates of return with a long list of requirements that they can change, is looking like a liability.
The highest tier in the original figures laid out was quite easy to achieve about £140/ha plus £110 per hectare for cover crops but they haven’t released updated details of that yet.
Nope just a big trough for the quangos to fill their face and that of all the consultants at.Then it probably isn't for you, and that's fine. Public goods for public money.
If that is the final price I still can’t see how that’s a better return than farming after your costs , not to mention being signed to it for 5 years with no exit or any say in what happens , the reward doesn’t seem to out way the risk in my opinionThe highest tier in the original figures laid out was quite easy to achieve about £140/ha plus £110 per hectare for cover crops but they haven’t released updated details of that yet.
That what it was supposed to be originally. the stuff on the higher level goes with growing crops its not one or the other (i think you had to take a percentage out of production though 8% i think).If that is the final price I still can’t see how that’s a better return than farming after your costs , not to mention being signed to it for 5 years with no exit or any say in what happens , the reward doesn’t seem to out way the risk in my opinion
As opposed to land owners sitting on million-pound assets inheritance tax-free?Nope just a big trough for the quangos to fill their face and that of all the consultants at.
You have inadvertently hit the nail on the head.As opposed to land owners sitting on million-pound assets inheritance tax-free?
Why should you be able to do that? My family aren't from farming stock and own a townhouse, they'll have to pay tax on it when it's passed to me. Why do you not get to do that? And on top of that you want an annual subsidy to prop up your lifestyle.That 'privilege' is to make it possible for farmers to 'roll over' the value of a business for the next generation.
Why should you be able to do that? My family aren't from farming stock and own a townhouse, they'll have to pay tax on it when it's passed to me. Why do you not get to do that? And on top of that you want an annual subsidy to prop up your lifestyle.
Do you think you would still have a socialist outlook if you were from 'farming stock' and be willing to hand over half of the family's wealth that had been grafted for over generations , just to be thrown in the black hole of governmentWhy should you be able to do that? My family aren't from farming stock and own a townhouse, they'll have to pay tax on it when it's passed to me. Why do you not get to do that? And on top of that you want an annual subsidy to prop up your lifestyle.
The proposed grassland payments were particularly derisory iirc. To get a medium or higher amount of payment, I didn't think the payments compensated sufficiently for the reduced productivity.I can't comment for arable farms, that is why I was interested in the sums.
For a livestock farm, doing plenty of public good, it really isn't worth it.