SFI - What % have or where you going to taking out of production?

[gone up the hill]

looks as if igl

weve put 7% into igl 2 ,whole fields of improved grass on a slope( off lying land) that is effectively its own round bale buncher !!. atm looks like we wont be affected as from the blurb on defra site it doesnt say got to be in strips etc so hopefully that will still be the case as strips in these small fields is a non starter . , Actually seems to be working there is plenty of wildlife around not just birds plus as we cant graze these fields in the winter due to our fellow man and their dogs and m.bikes which because the grass is longer than usual they dont go in as much as obviously dont want to get their £150 plus trainers wet. The loss of a few 3rd cut bales should be minimal and we will take 2 cuts using similar fert as on3 cuts a bit earlier than this year to ensure seeds on the ryegrass and there wont be much loss in production .The payment more than pays the rent and any likely cost of buying in some cheaper than I can grow 3rd cut for hay/haylage probably off a neighbour who has put some herbal ley in if we have to alter plans. With non insecticide ipm4 winter legumes in grass num 2plus the other stuff sampling hedges etc can get the payments around the old bps without taking any land out of production ,therefore Ireckon im still going to be producing as much food as before whilst helping the birdies so surely thats fulfilling the govt/defra aims

That is the issue, if now any new applicants can only put 25% of a field of grassland into say Winter bird seed then its a total non starter on a practical level as you would have to fence off that part of every field to graze the rest, complete non starter and unworkable!

 

[DrWazzock]

The requirement for a FACTS qualified adviser to complete the NMP to enable receipt of payment and same for IPM plan with BASIS adviser is a true demonstration of how little trust Defra has in farmers.

And do you really think we are that incompetent or reckless?
For one thing products are very expensive and so for avoidance of waste of money we tend to be careful how we apply them.
For another thing we do actually fear prosecution.
And we don’t want to damage crop quality or soils.
I was FACTS qualified maybe 15 years ago. Didn’t do the CPD as I wasn’t advising anybody. I use RB209 and I have a plan of sorts. After all how would I know how much to order without a plan?
Yet as you say, I’m not trusted.
On your travels do you find many farmers who are playing fast and loose with fertiliser or pesticide applications? Surely those days are long gone.

 

[Vader]

0% as can not join as in Cs...

 

[Hindsight]

That is the issue, if now any new applicants can only put 25% of a field of grassland into say Winter bird seed then its a total non starter on a practical level as you would have to fence off that part of every field to graze the rest, complete non starter and unworkable!

Have you read the updated Guidance booklet. I doubt it. As while IGL1 and IGL2 do come under the total limit of 25% in the six ascribed options there is not mention in the Guidance notes of a within land parcel limit / restriction. So an application made today whole parcels can be included. The only within field restriction I have seen is for IPM2 where there is an 'advisory' comment that this is not 'normally' used on whole parcels.

 

[gone up the hill]

Have you read the updated Guidance booklet. I doubt it. As while IGL1 and IGL2 do come under the total limit of 25% in the six ascribed options there is not mention in the Guidance notes of a within land parcel limit / restriction. So an application made today whole parcels can be included. The only within field restriction I have seen is for IPM2 where there is an 'advisory' comment that this is not 'normally' used on whole parcels.

Someone posted on here later on Monday the updated guidance and it stated that only part fields could be used for the above options but i stand to be corrected.

Can you post the updated version you saw that said the above is not included?

 

[L P]

I wonder if there are any arable farmers in the no section , I'm thinking the payments are totally tilted to the arable sector , apart from the odd herbal ley

Sam3 and num2 far outpay companion cropping on the arable side and only need establishing once, management options are the same and anything else means reducing productive acreage either way, what do you think is biased?

 

[Hindsight]

Someone posted on here later on Monday the updated guidance and it stated that only part fields could be used for the above options but i stand to be corrected.

Can you post the updated version you saw that said the above is not included?

March 26th version. Scroll to pages 86 - 96 for specific guidance for IGL1 and IGL2. I did not see any reference to limiting those options to 25% of an individual land parcel.

 

[DrWazzock]

Getting complicated isn’t it?

 

[farmer92]

0% as can not join as in Cs...

We’re in both. Depends on the options/actions

 

[4course]

March 26th version. Scroll to pages 86 - 96 for specific guidance for IGL1 and IGL2. I did not see any reference to limiting those options to 25% of an individual land parcel.

page 14 is also worth looking at as it doesnt say anything about igl2 having to be in blocks or strips as it does for ahl1 & ahl2 so am I right in assuming full parcels are still ok albeit restricted in total farm area by the 25% new rules .Page 91 says whole parcels can be used albeit restricted by the 25% rules .

 

[Rossymons]

Yes but how much will doing these things cost you in ££ to start with??

I already have the hedges for a start - they don't cost anything.

My fields are due soil sampling.

The Sam3 and bird seed ground used to grow brassicas which has finished and need reseeding with something.

I'm FACTS qualified.

A good friend of mine is BASIS qualified.

 

[Hindsight]

page 14 is also worth looking at as it doesnt say anything about igl2 having to be in blocks or strips as it does for ahl1 & ahl2 so am I right in assuming full parcels are still ok albeit restricted in total farm area by the 25% new rules

The wording and interpretation of 'blocks' will be interesting. The assumption you make (I assume for the purpose of this conversation) is that AHL1 and AHL2 cannot occupy a whole land parcel. But is that correct? If the guidance stated 'strips' only then yes I think so, possibly!. But is a whole parcel not a block? I think Defra are trying to prevent whole 'large' land parcels going into AHL1 and AHL2 but they and the environmentalists would probably (!?) like small and parcels placing in those options - say the one to three hectare awkward shaped parcel so suited for bird cover. So we see Defra staff contorted with there own scheme. Of course in CS AB9 was limited to 5 hectares within a land parcel. So simple for the applicant to understand, so simple for the RPA computer system to action and so simple for the RPA Inspectorate to inspect. I have on these threads been critical of the senior Defra staff for failing to provide clearer guidance than this woolly 'Aims cra.p' and for not providing the RPA Inspectorate policing inspection guidance. And with this example I rest my case 4 Course. Cheers.

And for an example - lets say a 7 hectare field versus a 3 hectare field - all I am going to do now in the former is place 5 hectares into AHL2 and 2 hectares into IPM2 to take that parcel out of production, same as in a CS scheme before. While the 3 hectare field is all AHL2. My explanation to the RPA Inspectorate Inspector is I am following CS guidelines. As I continually say RPA Inspectorate intended inspection Guidelines are required immediately.

 

[4course]

The wording and interpretation of 'blocks' will be interesting. The assumption you make (I assume for the purpose of this conversation) is that AHL1 and AHL2 cannot occupy a whole land parcel. But is that correct? If the guidance stated 'strips' only then yes I think so, possibly!. But is a whole parcel not a block? I think Defra are trying to prevent whole 'large' land parcels going into AHL1 and AHL2 but they and the environmentalists would probably (!?) like small and parcels placing in those options - say the one to three hectare awkward shaped parcel so suited for bird cover. So we see Defra staff contorted with there own scheme. Of course in CS AB9 was limited to 5 hectares within a land parcel. So simple for the applicant to understand, so simple for the RPA computer system to action and so simple for the RPA Inspectorate to inspect. I have on these threads been critical of the senior Defra staff for failing to provide clearer guidance than this woolly 'Aims cra.p' and for not providing the RPA Inspectorate policing inspection guidance. And with this example I rest my case 4 Course. Cheers.

And for an example - lets say a 7 hectare field versus a 3 hectare field - all I am going to do now in the former is place 5 hectares into AHL2 and 2 hectares into IPM2 to take that parcel out of production, same as in a CS scheme before. While the 3 hectare field is all AHL2. My explanation to the RPA Inspectorate Inspector is I am following CS guidelines. As I continually say RPA Inspectorate intended inspection Guidelines are required immediately.

The plot thickens . In the updated guidance notes the phrase (however this action is normally intended to be done on part of a land parcel as a block or strip ) in both ahl 1 and ahl 2. begs the question what is normal and leaves room for interpretation or at least it isnt black or white . However there is no update in relation to igl2 re blocks or strips so do we presume whole fields are still ok for now re igl2 ?

 

[willyorkshire]

The plot thickens . In the updated guidance notes the phrase (however this action is normally intended to be done on part of a land parcel as a block or strip ) in both ahl 1 and ahl 2. begs the question what is normal and leaves room for interpretation or at least it isnt black or white . However there is no update in relation to igl2 re blocks or strips so do we presume whole fields are still ok for now re igl2 ?

On their email about new restrictions there's a Q&A section. I've asked the Q about restriction within land parcels. Will post reply, if I get one.

 

[Vader]

We’re in both. Depends on the options/actions

Only ones really available are stuff like soil testing and hedges. Both I think anyone is crazy to do as your giving them to much data for little reward.

 

[Bury the Trash]

Also why haven’t you applied yet?

Has it been wise to have applied or not yet could be the question

 

[Bury the Trash]

That is the issue, if now any new applicants can only put 25% of a field of grassland into say Winter bird seed then its a total non starter on a practical level as you would have to fence off that part of every field to graze the rest, complete non starter and unworkable!

Modern electric fencing is easy to put up and effective .
Can be part of your existing system

Quite few fields have a very heavy / wetter bit/ steep bit stonybit which don't really warrant a lot of inputs .
Same as set aside, deslite it's bad rep it was a another tool in the box if used shrewdly

 

[Phil P]

Has it been wise to have applied or not yet could be the question

I suppose that would depend in whether you wanted to take more than 25% of your land out of production or not

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

That is the issue, if now any new applicants can only put 25% of a field of grassland into say Winter bird seed then its a total non starter on a practical level as you would have to fence off that part of every field to graze the rest, complete non starter and unworkable!

You only have to limit it to 25% of the area, not each field.

 

[Huno]

W

You only have to limit it to 25% of the area, not each field.

Who told DEFRA that a 4 year (25%) rotation was a good idea anyway? Many have pushed to 5 or 6 yrs now in arable or more... geniuses