- Location
- Mendips Somerset
surely they incorporate OM ,Ploughs damage soils , apparently
surely they incorporate OM ,Ploughs damage soils , apparently
You will make more selling strawI'm going to give all 3 schemes to my agent on a no win no fee basis , with all due respect to DEFRA I've got more important things to do
Indeed ,You will make more selling straw
Thanks - I'll take advantage of your research and add my support/ideas too.I did, apart from the one on that list i've been unable to find an email address for. Had three responses to varying degrees of support. One observation was that they feel they are a box ticking exercise for Defra rather than genuinely having input, we can only hope that isn't true.
I would agree with all of this .The problem with scientific evidence in farming, is that quite often is agenda based.
Farmers are seen as unqualified peasants and so their years of practice knowledge and experience in real world is ignored in favour of a officially qualified person , often doing research to prove a result they wish to see.
Data and info can be manipulated how they want. Real life results can not.
Example from a environmental side.
Early HLS i was having problems getting flower mixs to grow well. Did well enough to pass inspections, but thought could be better.
I did a couple of small blokes of my own outside the scheme my own way.
Worked great and inspector/ case manager was very impressed with them.
When I said it was my own method and asked if I could do it on the official HLS , o was told no, as its not best/proper way to do it as quantified by the experts...
You probably seen with many of my posts, I am deeply sceptical of defra/rpa.
To many times I have knocked back for wanting to do better than the official way.
Experts won't take note of farmers as if they do, it shows they not really experts and don't know their stuff.
So we end up with schemes that don't work great as made up by non farming folk who are trying to justify their job.
What more can we reasonably do than put forward considered thought out suggestions - to as many people as possible who may have some influence?If we can get the SFI amended such that we were looking at that level of detail then I would be delighted.
I have a similar issue regarding end or start of tenancies September or April and January end of stewardshipWe're aware of this, we're looking at it now to work out what we can do for people in this situation
As with capital grants, the supplier of goods to fulfil the grant or scheme will put the price up accordingly. For farm assurance i have to do now a vet review which depending on the years problems takes a hour so to do with the vet, even at their £130/hr charge. It will not reach the £522 of which the animal health and welfare scheme will be paying, You sure as hell it will be charged a lot nearer that for all whether in the scheme or not.Net result we will will probably be worse off for the scheme. With the capital grants the price of goods now whether claiming on scheme or not is now a lot higher. Distortion in the market by all this , will costs us all more in long run. We need more market share of our products we sell .So we buy what we need when we need. As far as animal welfare is concerned i stop at nothing to look after our stock to the highest standard as the vast majority do to. They get treated before and better than myself.And at least 95% of that will be needed to pay the vet’s costs …
Not in the eastYou will make more selling straw
On a no win-no fee basisYou'll be surprised
Haven't mentioned that bit yetOn a no win-no fee basis
This whole thing appears to be trying to be all things to all people & is in real danger of becoming a miss mash that suits nobody, it has so many different strands all of which seem totally unquantifiable & has simply been set up to try & impress the general public rather than do any actual good for farmers or the enviroment.What more can we reasonably do than put forward considered thought out suggestions - to as many people as possible who may have some influence?
It is a disappointing reflection of the farming group to see how many negative comments are posted, without countering suggestions. And a number of posts from people who are feeding off other comments and clearly have never read the original documents. Trying to restore a relationship of trust between the body of farmers and the body of Defra works both ways. And we all have to try or we'll all lose out.
So when the results show that Mr D Driller has increased his OM levels, but Ms P Pasture has made no net gain or loss , and Mr Root Crop Grower has reduced them slightly, all really through no fault or cleverness of their own but because that is just the nature of the beast, what happens then?thats why i asked for defra to fund the testing and keep the results , they then have data to put to whatever committee in future to show their method works , i dont see what we have to fear from collected data excepting the ones that damage soils
Spot on docMake no mistake. OM testing is paving the way towards reward/punishment based on your OM levels or the Ponzi scheme that is carbon offset trading. The biggest beneficiary’s will be large arable farmers who switch to woke conservation agriculture as they have most potential to increase OM levels or so they hope. Poor old permanent pasture farmers can’t really store any more carbon than they do now, which is why they are being ignored. Root crop farmers like myself who “damage the soil” for kicks, well, we’ve no hope at all really.
Wonder if that’s cynical enough?
This government will slowly grind UK manufacturing into the ground by simply exporting pollution abroad & then claiming the moral high ground, I really believe Johnson is the worst thing that has happened to this country in over half a century & it's not us but our children & grandchildren that will be the ones who will suffer the consequences.The fundamental problem I find with carbon offset trading is that often you have very little choice in how much carbon your business uses. So for example the steelworks or cement works cannot avoid the charge. It’s inherent in the nature of their business. So the only way they can avoid having to buy carbon credits other than a few minor tweaks, is to stop trading. Which makes slapping a charge on them rather unfair and pointless. If they can’t pass the charge on to their customers they go bust and we end up buying imports. That’s why I disagree with the entire thing. It’s unjust. It’s about as stupid and arbitrary as fining people because they are over 6 foot tall.
Er which Johnson? The one with the trousers or Boris?This government will slowly grind UK manufacturing into the ground by simply exporting pollution abroad & then claiming the moral high ground, I really believe Johnson is the worst thing that has happened to this country in over half a century & it's not us but our children & grandchildren that will be the ones who will suffer the consequences.