- Location
- Northumberlandia
DD isnt the bee all & end all there ranting on about neither
Sustainable Farming Incentive - Pilot Information (including PAYMENT RATES)
- Thread starter midlandslad
- Start date
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Maybe. It can be read several ways.
Goweresque
Member
- Location
- North Wilts
Turn off javascript for that website and you can read the whole thing for free. In Chrome right click on the little padlock icon to the left of the website address, click on Site Settings and then set Javascript to Block. You might have to restart the browser for the change to work.
That's a virtual pint I owe you!
Worked nicely on the Chromebook, and no restart needed.
- Location
- West Yorkshire
Farmers set for post-Brexit subsidy boost
Agriculture sector fears proposals to replace EU subsidies could drive people out of industry and put strain on the Unionwww.telegraph.co.uk
Good piece, as you would expect from the Telegraph.
Minette still wittering on about Net Zero though...
So what ,the dd’ers are always making claims that cannot be proven especially towards carbon storage of their system and its not dd they are going to pay for its min till mainly to stop pollution!
Cutting costs by dd ing gets no arguments from me but their enviromental claims cannot be back up
Agreed. All the more reason it shouldn't be subsidized over any other crop establishment technique.
The DD poster, who says that he will be paid to do what he does anyway, also says that he is meeting with Defra this month to ensure that 'reduced tillage' means DD and DD alone.
He’s no different to a snake oil salesman! He will try and push his point just as everyone else will
There seems to be some misunderstanding of the proposed payment rates for the pilot.
£22/ha is for Low input/semi improved grassland at the basic level, there are two other levels, intermediate at £89/ha and Advanced at £110/ha. This is for land that is receiving very little in the way of inputs.
Much permanent pasture will fall under the improved grassland standard which includes any temporary grass that is likely to remain for 5 years plus. This standard pays £27/ha at basic, £62/ha at Intermediate and £97/ha at Advanced on top of that is grassland soils payment of £6 for basic and intermediate and £8 at advanced.
Note these are NOT cumulative you get paid for the standard you choose only.
Depending on the topography of the farm additional payments are on offer, so if on improved grassland you are a moderate or high risk of run off another £56/ha would be paid.
E.G Improved grassland (inc pp) at the intermediate level could if deemed at risk of run off get £62 +6 + 56/ ha = £124/ha
It works in a similar way on the arable land so at the intermediate level you get £54/ha plus £47/ha for arable soils and if deemed at risk of run off an additional £114/ha for establishing winter cover. = £215/ha.
Its very difficult to say a blanket figure because it is dependent on the individual farm types, soil, slope etc. But unlike BPS there will be costs attached to delivering the options, for example the arable payments at intermediate and advanced level require spatial soil testing and precision application of nutrients both inorganic and organic. Grassland payments require spatial soil testing at the advanced level only.
There is a lot to think about before taking up these schemes but permanent pasture will not be that far behind arable when the costs are taken into account.
Just a note on this action its only on 50% of arable soils at very high risk of run off or regularly flood under the advanced level.
Actions required: convert a proportion of it to permanent grassland
Additional payment on top of the base payment: £311 per hectare
Every farm will be different!
I have been involved with a pilot but am not pushing this either way, just thought some clarity on the numbers might help people.
You can only get enhanced payments on PP if you make hay. If you are a 100% grazing farm you are stuck at first base, £22/ Ha. If I am reading it correctly ? Good to have input to this from someone who has been a pilot
.No this applies on the semi-improved low input land- this land is likely to require an Environmental Assessment if it has a more varied sward. Its hay or haylage on the intermediate and advanced.You can only get enhanced payments on PP if you make hay. If you are a 100% grazing farm you are stuck at first base, £22/ Ha. If I am reading it correctly ? Good to have input to this from someone who has been a pilot
On most farms PP that has had muck, fert, lime in recent years will fall under the improved grassland heading so will have to follow those standards.
Hopefully next month Defra will publish the standards for the pilots that start later this year, then we will know exactly what is required. The good news is that Defra are learning as the pilots develop and are changing the standards to become more practical and achievable on the ground (from my experience).
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Is there any wonder why running a National Farmers Union is akin to herding cats?
So it's as we have been discussing; if you have low/ no input PP, that you graze, rather than take a crop off, you get £22/ Ha ?
You are quite right that every farm is different. However, there is a running theme through all of the SFI. Whatever your level of intensity, at this point in time, you are best off increasing your intensity, as ELMS will reward greatest those who de-intensify their grassland management rather than those who farm at a low intensity. If it has had no fert, get some fert on it. If you can hay it, then hay it. If you can plough it, plough it. With this last one being the most important of all, as the single most financially advantageous thing you can do to a field is get it classed as arable. Even a tree is worth more if it is an arable tree. ELMS as it stands is bonkers, completely bonkers. It needs turning on its head.
Last edited:
My overall view is that SFI will support both environmental activity as well as pushing productivity. Parts of the farm will be taken out of production delivering water protection, bird and bee feed, hedgerow management. Other parts will be supported through soil improvement, SOM, better nutrient usage, encouragement of rotational grazing to become more productive and efficient. The use of grant schemes will support the productivity theme, slurry stores, dare I say it direct drills, animal health initiatives etc.
The choice between "park keeper" and efficient farming is not as clear cut as it seems. If it's a tired old ley that needs ploughing get on with it but I don't think doing it in case it attracts payments is sensible, particularly if it is not defined as needing to be re instated under the land management plan so will not attract payments.
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
For clarity, are those rates just for participants in the pilot schemes, so on top of their current BPS? Or are they the rates that will eventually be paid under ELMS?
So it is £22/ Ha then ? For no input grazing land that you don't take a crop off ?
In the work of Guo and Gifford (2002) a meta-analysis was undertaken of data from
74 international land use change and soil carbon storage studies. It
measured the effects of land use change in 537 instances and was
used to determine the importance of land use and land use change
on soil carbon stocks. The analysis showed that there was a decline
in soil carbon stocks after land use conversion from grassland to
plantation forest (−10 percent), native forest to plantation forest
(−13 percent), native forest to cropland (−42 percent), and grassland
to cropland (−59 percent). There were significant increases in
soil carbon stocks after land use changes from native forest to grassland
(+8 percent), cropland to grassland (+19 percent), cropland to
plantation (+18 percent), and cropland to secondary forest (+53
percent). The conversion of native forest or grassland to broadleaf
deciduous tree plantation had no effect on soil carbon stocks, but
conversion to pine or conifer forest reduced soil carbon by between
12 and 15 percent. This analysis of land use change and soil carbon
data also suggested that, if a given land use change is responsible
for soil carbon losses, then the reverse change could potentially
increase soil carbon stocks. But it is important to recognise that it
can take decades if not centuries to recover to the original level of
soil carbon stocks after disturbance due to land use change (Guo
and Gifford, 2002).
74 international land use change and soil carbon storage studies. It
measured the effects of land use change in 537 instances and was
used to determine the importance of land use and land use change
on soil carbon stocks. The analysis showed that there was a decline
in soil carbon stocks after land use conversion from grassland to
plantation forest (−10 percent), native forest to plantation forest
(−13 percent), native forest to cropland (−42 percent), and grassland
to cropland (−59 percent). There were significant increases in
soil carbon stocks after land use changes from native forest to grassland
(+8 percent), cropland to grassland (+19 percent), cropland to
plantation (+18 percent), and cropland to secondary forest (+53
percent). The conversion of native forest or grassland to broadleaf
deciduous tree plantation had no effect on soil carbon stocks, but
conversion to pine or conifer forest reduced soil carbon by between
12 and 15 percent. This analysis of land use change and soil carbon
data also suggested that, if a given land use change is responsible
for soil carbon losses, then the reverse change could potentially
increase soil carbon stocks. But it is important to recognise that it
can take decades if not centuries to recover to the original level of
soil carbon stocks after disturbance due to land use change (Guo
and Gifford, 2002).