TFF's ELMS Questions time ? Number 2

[holwellcourtfarm]

How about one or both of:

Grassland and forage form around 3/4 of English managed land area with incredibly diverse soils and climates. Management options appropriate for a Thames Valley river meadow, a Cumbrian hill or a Mid Devon 5 year ley will be so different that they are virtually mutually exclusive. How will sufficient flexibility be offered in the SFI and ELM options to allow all grassland farmers to effectively engage and so deliver the ELM and SFI target outcomes profitably?

The history of English Agriculture regime change since the 1970's has been of increasing intensification of production methods accompanied by the ethos of the Agriculture Ministry changing from a support partnership to purely regulatory. If ELM and SFI are to have any chance of delivering the 25 year environment plan aims then a mindset change back to a mutual partnership by both Farmers and DEFRA appears essential. Do you agree and, if so, how do you see this being achieved?

 

[Brisel]

Another question. Assuming public access is a public good. Is there any proposal for support/ compensation for provision and maintenance of public footpaths?

This is already a legal requirement & embedded in Cross Compliance.

Also, if you allow extra public access, will there be a way to ensure that a permanent right of way is not created?

You can do this already with a Section 31(6) notice.

 

[Brisel]

we are looking at the possibility of recording each question from the members asking ? with me just as chair / introducing etc

15 mins on zoom is all that would be required?

who would be up for asking their question directly ? (if this is possible)

My broadband isn't reliable enough, so if any of my questions make the final cut, you're welcome to ask them as Chair. Will it be recorded and published on YouTube like the last session was?

 

[Two Tone]

All 3 of your points illustrate perfectly why it should all go to PP.

Man does not live off Grass - lamb, beef and dairy products alone!
He need something to spread his butter on and cheese on top of that can’t be made from PP alone, if at all.
Not to mention the celery to go with his cheese and all the other vegetables he requires too.

If we turn the whole of the U.K. over to PP, where is the other food, which is probably lower standard, going to be grown and how much environmental damage will it cause the planet to tear down even more rainforest, grow it and transport it to here?

The only advantage to PP is that it is undisturbed land.
We cannot grow vegetables on undisturbed ground.
Even though cereals can be grown with almost no soil disturbance, until they invent a perennial cereal crop, where the heck would I get my Weetabix from?

.....Or my Single Malt Whisky!

 

[Clive]

My broadband isn't reliable enough, so if any of my questions make the final cut, you're welcome to ask them as Chair. Will it be recorded and published on YouTube like the last session was?

yes, recorded and published on DEFRA's youtube channel - I will link here as soon as its released

 

[delilah]

Man does not live off Grass - lamb, beef and dairy products alone!
He need something to spread his butter on and cheese on top of that can’t be made from PP alone, if at all.
Not to mention the celery to go with his cheese and all the other vegetables he requires too.

If we turn the whole of the U.K. over to PP, where is the other food, which is probably lower standard, going to be grown and how much environmental damage will it cause the planet to tear down even more rainforest, grow it and transport it to here?

The only advantage to PP is that it is undisturbed land.
We cannot grow vegetables on undisturbed ground.
Even though cereals can be grown with almost no soil disturbance, until they invent a perennial cereal crop, where the heck would I get my Weetabix from?

.....Or my Single Malt Whisky!

Apologies, perhaps I didn't explain it very well. It should all go to land that is currently PP. Precisely for the reasons you give.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Already downloaded and read through. A good job too as Kaspersky is now telling me that link of yours is an infected file

Oh no I don't know how that's possible. Sorry

 

[Two Tone]

Apologies, perhaps I didn't explain it very well. It should all go to land that is currently PP. Precisely for the reasons you give.

Appreciate where you are coming from.
However ELMS as a Whole Country Environmental Management payment Scheme would hardly be in the least bit effective if all the money went to those who had any PP before it even got started.
There would be absolutely no point whatsoever in encouraging any other form of environmentally beneficial farm production.

Fortunately, by the sounds of what we have heard so far, it is all types of farming that will be supported if it can be demonstrate that it is of environmental benefit is some form or another.

Under your proposal, those of us that have kept our trees and hedgerows would not benefit for the environmental benefits they have provided up until now and in the future either.
Or many of the Stewardship options we have and might continue to provide.
Where do you draw the line?

Many have mentioned various issues to do with ELMS and the fact that food production doesn't feature in it.
Why?
The answer is that the UK Gov have set a CO2 target and the whole point of ELMS is nothing more than a way to help achieve it.

So the only way to do this, is that they must draw a line under what has happened so far and completely start all over again!

Nature and Farming could and will provide many of the solutions to the CO2 problems.



I just hope we don't end up as the only, tiny bit of this planet trying to do so!

Or those from the UK that continue to blatantly flout the guidelines by taking several foreign holidays each year, because they feel they self righteous and have done their bit by using battery powered cars.

Lithium Batteries are not the solution and are a tiny blip in the way we will power our transport.
It wont work for lorries, ships, planes or tractors.
Hydrogen will be and is the key.

 

[delilah]

Appreciate where you are coming from.
However ELMS as a Whole Country Environmental Management payment Scheme would hardly be in the least bit effective if all the money went to those who had any PP before it even got started.
There would be absolutely no point whatsoever in encouraging any other form of environmentally beneficial farm production.

Fortunately, by the sounds of what we have heard so far, it is all types of farming that will be supported if it can be demonstrate that it is of environmental benefit is some form or another.

Under your proposal, those of us that have kept our trees and hedgerows would not benefit for the environmental benefits they have provided up until now and in the future either.
Or many of the Stewardship options we have and might continue to provide.
Where do you draw the line?

Many have mentioned various issues to do with ELMS and the fact that food production doesn't feature in it.
Why?
The answer is that the UK Gov have set a CO2 target and the whole point of ELMS is nothing more than a way to help achieve it.

So the only way to do this, is that they must draw a line under what has happened so far and completely start all over again!

Nature and Farming could and will provide many of the solutions to the CO2 problems.



I just hope we don't end up as the only, tiny bit of this planet trying to do so!

Or those from the UK that continue to blatantly flout the guidelines by taking several foreign holidays each year, because they feel they self righteous and have done their bit by using battery powered cars.

Lithium Batteries are not the solution and are a tiny blip in the way we will power our transport.
It wont work for lorries, ships, planes or tractors.
Hydrogen will be and is the key.

I would say that the attached supports everything that you have said.

edit: re your reference to trees and hedgerows, absolutely; I am only talking about the area based element of ELMS.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Apologies, perhaps I didn't explain it very well. It should all go to land that is currently PP. Precisely for the reasons you give.

There's vast tracts of land in arable areas being intensively farmed with cultivators and chemical inputs. Everyone knows that grass into the rotation is good for the environment in lots of ways. Most arable farmers aren't going to get involved with grass or livestock unless there's some realistic incentives. I agree with you about grass, but I think rotational grass has an equal or higher value than pp.

 

[delilah]

There's vast tracts of land in arable areas being intensively farmed with cultivators and chemical inputs. Everyone knows that grass into the rotation is good for the environment in lots of ways. Most arable farmers aren't going to get involved with grass or livestock unless there's some realistic incentives.

They are doing so right now, for the reasons you refer to: loss of chemicals, improvements in machinery, awareness of soil structure benefits etc.

I agree with you about grass, but I think rotational grass has an equal or higher value than pp.

Nothing beats PP re carbon sequestration. And that is the biggy.

 

[Fake it ‘til you make it]

My question is this :-
Will the lump sum retirement fund mean a retirement from taking anymore subs or does it have to be a complete retirement from farming altogether ?

To be honest I was stunned to see any provision for retirement in there at all, it doesn’t sit quite right with me

 

[Tubbylew]

To be honest I was stunned to see any provision for retirement in there at all, it doesn’t sit quite right with me

Barking mad imv.

 

[onesiedale]

To be honest I was stunned to see any provision for retirement in there at all, it doesn’t sit quite right with me

Surely not a consideration in the ELMS?

 

[Fake it ‘til you make it]

Surely not a consideration in the ELMS?

You’re right, the lump sum is for the remainder of BPS, but I still question the value for taxpayer money that it delivers.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Oh no I don't know how that's possible. Sorry

I think it was my end, it didn't flag when I repeated it. Sorry.

 

[Farma Parma]

Surely not a consideration in the ELMS?

They want the Phase out of BPS to bring this into play & not ELMS wither thats right or wrong ive no idea

 

[Breakthru]

My broadband isn't reliable enough, so if any of my questions make the final cut, you're welcome to ask them as Chair. Will it be recorded and published on YouTube like the last session was?

Try using your phone as your router.

 

[Two Tone]

I would say that the attached supports everything that you have said.

edit: re your reference to trees and hedgerows, absolutely; I am only talking about the area based element of ELMS.

I would say completely the opposite!
I'm sorry to say that I find the attachment as nothing more than a very sick joke written by somebody with a very childish SoH. Which I really don't believe has any place whatsoever in this thread.

Either that, or I have lost the ability to read properly!

 

[The Ruminant]

Another question:

Will ELMS and SFI actively promote the reintroduction of livestock into arable rotations, particularly by supporting capital infrastructure - fencing and water - and by facilitating joint ventures between livestock keepers and arable farmers?

(Livestock-grazed herbal leys are proven to improve soil structure, increase natural soil fertility, reduce soil erosion, control problem arable weeds, improve water infiltration, enhance carbon capture and kickstart the mineral cycle, as well as being good from an ecological diversity point of view.)