The Relationship between SFI and CSS ?

[Humble Village Farmer]

Nope. Not at a policy level anyway.

For sure, farmers can discuss/ argue among themselves about whether they think that their system is 'good' or 'bad'. You wont find me having those discussions. Having direct experience of farming at both ends of the (supposed) eco-spectrum, combined with an understanding of the real environmental issues along all links of the food chain, I am adamant in my belief that there is no such thing as 'good' or 'bad' systems. But if farmers want to willy wave, crack on.

However, that's irrelevant to ELMS. ELMS is about Govt policy, not individual farmers views, and at a policy level there should be absolutely no attempt to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad'. Witness the pickle that trying to do so has got Defra into.

There is such a thing as bad farming practice.

 

[Clive]

Nope. Not at a policy level anyway.

For sure, farmers can discuss/ argue among themselves about whether they think that their system is 'good' or 'bad'. You wont find me having those discussions. Having direct experience of farming at both ends of the (supposed) eco-spectrum, combined with an understanding of the real environmental issues along all links of the food chain, I am adamant in my belief that there is no such thing as 'good' or 'bad' systems. But if farmers want to willy wave, crack on.

However, that's irrelevant to ELMS. ELMS is about Govt policy, not individual farmers views, and at a policy level there should be absolutely no attempt to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad'. Witness the pickle that trying to do so has got Defra into.

you honestly can say you think a USA fed-lot system beef fed on slash and burn rain forest produced soya imported from south to north America then exported half way around the world to be eaten in the UK is not "bad farming" vs beef fed on PP on a Welsh or Scottish hillside that can't produce any other food then sold in the local butcher shop or pub ?

All farming systems are NOT equal, its a special kind of stupid (usually vegan ) that assumes they are

 

[Clive]

There is such a thing as bad farming practice.

of course there is - there are farmers who have caused massive pollution in the past, maybe not always intentionally but has and still does happen

 

[delilah]

There is such a thing as bad farming practice.

Not at a land management policy level there isn't. Go back to the original SFI standards. They were written with one over-riding objective; to encourage 'good'/ discourage 'bad'. They were subsequently ripped apart by 1000's of farmers. Hence they have been rewritten, and will continue to be rewritten until they are unrecognizable from the original.

 

[delilah]

you honestly can say you think aUSA fed-lot beef system fed on slash and burn rain forest produced soya imported then exported half way around the world is not "bad farming" vs beef fed on PP on a Welsh or Scottish hillside that cant produce any other food ?

I have cattle that are reared under both systems. I can give a compelling case that one is the 'better', and I can give an equally compelling case that the other is 'better'. But I wont, because I understand that neither is better, but rather each is best suited to its individual circumstances. If I wanted to go looking for the environmental impact of either, I would follow the stock once they leave the farm gate.

 

[Clive]

I have cattle that are reared under both systems. I can give a compelling case that one is the 'better', and I can give an equally compelling case that the other is 'better'. But I wont, because I understand that neither is better, but rather each is best suited to its individual circumstances. If I wanted to go looking for the environmental impact of either, I would follow the stock once they leave the farm gate.

you have a USA feedlot ?

 

[delilah]

you have a USA feedlot ?

I said system, not location .

 

[Clive]

The likelihood of any 2 system being equal is a lot less likely than one being better or worse than another

one system WILL be better - as I said in my first reply to you the only conjecture here is which one

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Not at a land management policy level there isn't. Go back to the original SFI standards. They were written with one over-riding objective; to encourage 'good'/ discourage 'bad'. They were subsequently ripped apart by 1000's of farmers. Hence they have been rewritten, and will continue to be rewritten until they are unrecognizable from the original.

Not all farmers think the same way though. "1000's of farmers" just want to carry on doing what they've always done because it's easier, while thinking up reasons why they are right and the scientists are wrong.

Human belief is a very dangerous thing.

 

[Clive]

I said system, not location .

I cant believe for a moment that the C footprint of you beef produced using imported soya etc can get close to that of beef from permeant pasture with no other use

if you think it can let's see your numbers ?

 

[delilah]

The likelihood of any 2 system being equal is a lot less likely than one being better or worse than another

one system WILL be better - as I said in my first reply to you the only conjecture here is which one

I didn't say 'equal', I said 'different'. If you want to try and prove that one of my systems is better for the environment than the other, then fire away.

 

[delilah]

I cant believe for a moment that the C footprint of you beef produced using imported soya etc can get close to that of beef from permeant pasture with no other use

if you think it can let's see your numbers ?

Ha, crossed.
I can't finish cattle on PP that has no other use. Sorry, my bad. You will need to be a bit more specific than 'carbon footprint' if I am to help.

edit: May I insert 'economically' into the above, between 'cattle' and 'on'.

 

[delilah]

I cant believe for a moment that the C footprint of you beef produced using imported soya etc can get close to that of beef from permeant pasture with no other use

if you think it can let's see your numbers ?

Try coming at it from another direction.
My cattle wandering about outside on PP produce little direct environmental benefit, beyond the carbon sequestration differential between PP and trees.
My feedlot cattle produce a significant direct environmental benefit in various ways, most notably:
- muck to reduce artificial inputs on our arable land.
- turning food industry by-products into protein for humans.


Point being, it is way more complex than 'cow looking pretty in a field is good for planet, cow in a shed is bad for planet'. To think that would be a special kind of stupid. Now, who said that ?

All farming systems are NOT equal, its a special kind of stupid (usually vegan ) that assumes they are

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

I didn't say 'equal', I said 'different'. If you want to try and prove that one of my systems is better for the environment than the other, then fire away.

First of all you have the 3t of carbon lost annually from cultivated soils. You also have 2.68 kg of co2 emitted from every litre of diesel and 5.6kg from every kilo of N applied.

So there you have 3 systems, cereals fed to animals kept indoors, diesel burnt in the growing of the crops and everything done to them indoors including the mucking out and spreading, cattle fed grass with fertiliser and cattle grown on grass without fertiliser.

Those 3 systems are different and have 3 different environmental impacts, 4 if you add in the possibility of rainforest products in the diet.

You can't use muck as a benefit of housed stock. They all do wees and poos whether they are in or out.

 

[bobk]

First of all you have the 3t of carbon lost annually from cultivated soils. You also have 2.68 kg of co2 emitted from every litre of diesel and 5.6kg from every kilo of N applied.

So there you have 3 systems, cereals fed to animals kept indoors, diesel burnt in the growing of the crops and everything done to them indoors including the mucking out and spreading, cattle fed grass with fertiliser and cattle grown on grass without fertiliser.

Those 3 systems are different and have 3 different environmental impacts, 4 if you add in the possibility of rainforest products in the diet.

You can't use muck as a benefit of housed stock. They all do wees and poos whether they are in or out.

Frontier don't buy carbon ...

 

[delilah]

First of all you have the 3t of carbon lost annually from cultivated soils

Yeah, I stopped reading at that. You need to see the SOM results that Defra took from our fields. 35 years continuous WW. Ploughed every year.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Frontier don't buy carbon ...

I think you'll find they do

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Yeah, I stopped reading at that. You need to see the SOM results that Defra took from our fields. 35 years continuous WW. Ploughed every year.

Stop reading, you might see something you don't like.

 

[Two Tone]

Frontier don't buy carbon ...

I think they do actually, as the carbohydrate part of the grain, which is about 76% of it.
It’s cheaper than Diamonds or Graphite which is a much more pure from of Carbon.

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

I'm struggling too get my head around how these 2 schemes will work together

I'm in SFI pilot but a requirement of pilot was no existing CSS agreements so we held off purposely on CSS last year

I want to do CSS ........ there are options there that are more finically attractive than SFI and I think will enhance environment more whilst sitting alongside our food production BUT I cant get my head around haw these schemes fit together ? will more SFI option replace CSS or is CSS here to stay as part of all this ?

The scheme are run by different agencies (Natural England vs RPA). will that remain the case ? seems so much overlap in all this as both schemes ultimately aim to achieve similar result ??


In summary should I now apply for CSS or will that be outdated, superseded by SFI almost as soon as I do ?

@Janet Hughes Defra A similar question to mine above was asked in the SFI pilot Welcome zoom I did last week but I think it went unanswered, I have spoken too several farmers in wondering they same about how the schemes will work together (or not as the case maybe). Can you shed any light on this please ? (Help line had no idea when asked BTW !)

This complexity arises from the approach we're taking of gradually rolling out the new schemes, alongside the existing ones, before then turning the existing schemes off and allowing people to transfer across. (The alternative is a big bang approach where we switch everyone across from existing schemes to new ones, one day - we've found that those sorts of approaches to this sort of project don't generally work very well)

CSS will continue to accept new applications until 2023 (for agreements to start in 2024). We'd encourage anyone not already in a scheme to look again at CSS, including the improvements we've made to inspections and penalties to make them fairer and more proportionate.

From 2025, all new agreements will be through Environmental Land Management schemes, and we'll provide a smooth way for those in CSS to transfer across to ELM schemes.

For the pilot, we weren't ready to deal with overlaps between CSS and SFI, so we only took applications on parcels not already covered by CSS.

For the rollout of SFI more widely later this year, we've said you can have both CSS and SFI on the same parcel so long as we're not paying you for the same thing twice, and as long as the actions are compatible / not contradictory.

If you want the full range of options from now, the best option is to go into CSS for now and transfer across to new schemes once they're fully ready. Or, if you're already in CSS, you can start adding in SFI standards alongside your CSS agreement and then eventually transfer across. Or, if you want to start small and build from there and you like the simplicity of SFI when we launch it this year, you can start in SFI in 2022 and build up from there, avoiding the need to transfer from one scheme to another later on. It's up to you to decide which of these routes is best for your farm depending on what combination of things you want to do, and where you're starting from.