I doubt it. But if the payment is miniscule it’s not worth thinking about surely?
- Thread starter Janet Hughes Defra
- Start date
- Status
That sounds like the way most small to medium farms operate, the day to day dealing hopefully keeps you solvent and the sub enables you to do the things you would like to do but otherwise couldn't afford.
That also extends to updating machinery, which isn't vital but certainly advantageous. A lot of Ag suppliers will be very worried about future prospects, farmers will find a way to survive by locking up the cheque book but the support industry has an uncertain future.
That's my point really, why try to enter the scheme?
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Hi Wombat - I appreciate your point of view. I hear it a lot. As an aside, I gather divorcee's often cut off one leg of their philanderer husbands suit jacket and trousers.
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Yes, as you say. Be interesting to see the level of uptake over next couple of years. Time will tell.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
New is not justifiable (I only have £50k in machinery in total including a tractor, telehandler and backhoe). Sound second hand are like hens teeth and don’t qualify for DEFRA grants….
I think the best thing to do in this situation is look closely at the guidance when we publish it in the new year and see how you might be able to work within the standards given the range of choices on offer.
| To clarify, the aim is to collect a good spread of samples – so you get a good indication of levels of soil organic matter across the land you’ve entered into the scheme. When I said the samples would be ‘per hectare, not per field’, I did not mean to imply that we’d require ‘one sample per hectare’. We’re trying to move away from this kind of prescriptive approach. I was saying that the number of samples would depend on the area of land being sampled. In other words, on a small field you’d need fewer sample, and on a large field you’d need more samples. We’ll explain more about how to do this in guidance we’ll issue next year. |
| SOM testing – as above - let’s answer [CT2] |
[CT1]@Hughes, Cindy let’s work out how to find them all in the morning #573 and #626 are two of them
[CT2]@Hughes, Cindy …and another
| To clarify, the aim is to collect a good spread of samples – so you get a good indication of levels of soil organic matter across the land you’ve entered into the scheme. When I said the samples would be ‘per hectare, not per field’, I did not mean to imply that we’d require ‘one sample per hectare’. We’re trying to move away from this kind of prescriptive approach. I was saying that the number of samples would depend on the area of land being sampled. In other words, on a small field you’d need fewer sample, and on a large field you’d need more samples. We’ll explain more about how to do this in guidance we’ll issue next year. |
[CT1]@Hughes, Cindy let’s work out how to find them all in the morning #573 and #626 are two of them
The grants do skew the market unfortunately and I think a second hand grant would be too open to abuse. You could collaborate? I would guess all the second hand ones have been snapped up now (I actually have an old 6m 750a for sale…!)
- Location
- Lincolnshire
The basic level is too high. Nobody will reliably get 70% green cover by leaving stubbles alone. So this means sowing is the only realistic option if you want to comply. If you are sowing, most of the cost is in the operation not the seed so you’d go for a multi species mix and be intermediate anyway.
Basic level should be chop straw, leave on the stubbles and allow natural cover to grow. If it’s doesn’t make 70% then so what, you still have the chopped straw there as added OM and a protector from erosion.
Basic level should just be leave stubbles untouched over winter with crop residue left in placed. No need to specify addition of OM as it’s there in the chopped straw. No need for 70% green cover. That’s basic level. Works well for us spring direct drilling. Minimises diesel used and unecesssry running about associated with the cover crop.
Leave intermediate level as it is but payment needs to slightly higher.
All of this assumes that people will actually be interested in going down the spring drilling route which is highly unlikely.
Basic level should be chop straw, leave on the stubbles and allow natural cover to grow. If it’s doesn’t make 70% then so what, you still have the chopped straw there as added OM and a protector from erosion.
Basic level should just be leave stubbles untouched over winter with crop residue left in placed. No need to specify addition of OM as it’s there in the chopped straw. No need for 70% green cover. That’s basic level. Works well for us spring direct drilling. Minimises diesel used and unecesssry running about associated with the cover crop.
Leave intermediate level as it is but payment needs to slightly higher.
All of this assumes that people will actually be interested in going down the spring drilling route which is highly unlikely.
All the actions included in the standards are based on scientific evidence about what actions are most likely to result in positive outcomes for biodiversity, water quality, carbon, air quality, flood risk mitigation, or other environment or climate outcomes.
We select actions / combinations of actions that provide the biggest value for money against these outcomes, and ideally actions which contribute to multiple outcomes.
Soil management is one set of actions that can result in multiple benefits (alongside potential productivity benefits) including improved water quality (by preventing runoff eg by having cover over winter); carbon sequestration and water management.
We'll be carrying out a monitoring and evaluation programme to assess the impacts of the scheme overall, and we'll publish the results of our evaluation as we go.
We're not collecting the SOM data from every participant at this stage - the point of that test is to inform the farmer so they can decide where to focus their efforts in increasing soil organic matter.
Normally, we’d expect soil organic matter test to be done in a laboratory. It could be done on the farm if you have the equipment and know how to do it. It’s important to do it accurately so you get the best understanding to base your future decisions on.
The RPA will be delivering the schemes, as I said. We'll publish terms and conditions before the scheme starts so you can see exactly what you're entering into.
We’ll explain this in guidance we’ll issue in the new year. We don’t intend to be overly prescriptive – to some extent it will depend on what you’ve found out from your soil organic matter testing.
If you have a limited supply of organic matter it would be best to target this at land that would be benefit the most.
There aren't any requirements in SFI relating to ploughing (I was just answering a question specifically on whether ploughing would be necessary to meet the requirements of the standard for improved grassland, which it isn't).
The standards for SFI in 2022 are set out here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ng-incentive-how-the-scheme-will-work-in-2022
That may well be true, but actually that spatial data is pretty helpful tbh. Even if it does swallow up the entire payment!
| Yes, precisely you will be able to add land to your agreement. You will also be able to add “new” standards to your initial 200 acres, so both the number of standards can grow as can the amount of land. |
90 acres will not sequester 1000t in a year, not even close ? Where do you have that number from ?
however if you are not selling it you only have yourself to blame. The markets and money is there
I sold the 3.32 t/ha average that I sequestered this year. Maybe this is one reason I“m less bothered about loos of subs !
- Location
- Mendips Somerset
I think at the moment we should understand the £28-58ha payment for grassland is there to make up some of the difference in what we loose in the scale down of bsp , and more payment options will be added at a later date , the soil testing (and cost) will be the sticking point for a lot of livestock farms with the levels of payment / hassle / risk of inspection to start with as i already said , Arable farms will already be up with this . Maybe the nature recovery program (rspb / ne noses in the trough ) should be scaled back until farmers are on board with the basic scheme .
- Status