Which farming organisations do “DEFRA” liaise with?

[holwellcourtfarm]

Saw the same here with 2 breeding pairs of Peewits, one pair raised 4 that I saw, but they got them into the longer cover and then into the neighbouring Bumblebird.

However, I got the marauding Carrion crows... at last! Rifle, because as soon as they saw a shotgun.... whoosh, Gone!

Not trying to be awkward but would shooting crows be within the general licence if done to protect wildlife? To me it would make sense.

 

[steveR]

Not trying to be awkward but would shooting crows be within the general licence if done to protect wildlife? To me it would make sense.

From my reading, it is perfectly acceptable. Got nesting Curlew ,One field away also...

 

[Clive]

What Defra need to understand is that things like no till don’t suit every farm. I plough which in my opinion gives me better crops ( more food for the public), but I have a good rotation including grass and turnips for livestock , and use manures responsibly ( negating the need for as much synthetic fertiliser). We have mikes of hedges, ponds etc.
But, I feel demonised because I use a plough, whereas I’ve seen plenty of no till farms that have poor crops and are now trying to take the moral high ground despite the fact their way of farming in many cases has led to black grass and poor rotation.

no till doesn’t suit every FARMER I agree

I can suit ALMOST any farm however

problems are 99.9% of the time due to a skill gap, If DEFRA really want widespread change they need to recognise and address this in radical ways

I can not see any situation where a scheme aimed at improving environment is going to pay to support environmental damage, that would be pretty unreasonable use of tax payers money surely ? no one is banning ploughing / deep cultivation as far as I can see, it remains individual choice to do and if you think your business structure/ skill set is more viable continuIng to do it then it would makes sense that you did surely………… otherwise, use capital grants on offer and learn new skill sets to make changes that will be subsidised

I think some are going to take a long time for the Penney to drop that food production is no longer going to be subsidised, environmental gain however is

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I think some are going to take a long time for the Penney to drop that food production is no longer going to be subsidised, environmental gain however is

It seems quite a few of us still don't accept that change is here. It could be a bumpy ride.

 

[DRC]

no till doesn’t suit every FARMER I agree

I can suit ALMOST any farm however

problems are 99.9% of the time due to a skill gap, If DEFRA really want widespread change they need to recognise and address this in radical ways

I can not see any situation where a scheme aimed at improving environment is going to pay to support environmental damage, that would be pretty unreasonable use of tax payers money surely ? no one is banning ploughing / deep cultivation as far as I can see, it remains individual choice to do and if you think your business structure/ skill set is more viable continuIng to do it then it would makes sense that you did surely………… otherwise, use capital grants on offer and learn new skill sets to make changes that will be subsidised

I think some are going to take a long time for the Penney to drop that food production is no longer going to be subsidised, environmental gain however is

In an area that grows a lot of root crops, maize and potatoes , the plough is still the preferred option. It’s not that we are POOR farmers with no skill sets. We do what’s profitable for our businesses .

 

[Clive]

In an area that grows a lot of root crops, maize and potatoes , the plough is still the preferred option. It’s not that we are POOR farmers with no skill sets. We do what’s profitable for our businesses .

so continue to do just that. nothing in SFI is stopping you and maybe there are a few standards that can fit in around the edges of that high value food production system making more profitable use of any unproductive areas etc

do not expect any tax payers money however, subsidies for food production are history

 

[DRC]

It seems quite a few of us still don't accept that change is here. It could be a bumpy ride.

My worry is that Ag will end up the same as just about every other industry . Exported abroad in the name of saving the planet and / or just in time efficacy . Look at energy in this country . Why aren’t all new houses and buildings made to have solar panels .

 

[DRC]

so continue to do just that. nothing in SFI is stopping you and maybe there are a few standards that can fit in around the edges of that high value food production system making more profitable use of any unproductive areas etc

do not expect any tax payers money however, subsidies for food production are history

I understand that and have never said otherwise . I bet the literally miles of hedgerows and numerous ponds , in field trees, bits of woodland , catch crops for sheep, perm pasture , rotational grass leys and the up to 8 different crops here, will outweigh a vast East counties farm that grows crops of wheat and rape , even though they might no till.

 

[Clive]

I understand that and have never said otherwise . I bet the literally miles of hedgerows and numerous ponds , in field trees, bits of woodland , catch crops for sheep, perm pasture , rotational grass leys and the up to 8 different crops here, will outweigh a vast East counties farm that grows crops of wheat and rape , even though they might no till.

great, sounds like you can benefit from SFI to me more than most then with all those features

SFI really is not all about notill, not sure why some think it is ? It’s just a small part of it as far as I can see

 

[DRC]

great, sounds like you can benefit from SFI to me more than most then with all those features

SFI really is not all about notill, not sure why some think it is ? It’s just a small part of it as far as I can see

I’m waiting on a wildlife offer that will see poor headlands grassed again and some AB15, a field of AB9, 10 acres of wild bird food and a few other things.
We did 10 years of HLS which worked well and paid well, but at the end Defra decided our arable reversion was now P pasture if we wanted to carry on. Reducing a payment of £140 acre to £30. So it all got ploughed up again for maize and cereals .
This is what worries me dealing with these people.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I’m waiting on a wildlife offer that will see poor headlands grassed again and some AB15, a field of AB9, 10 acres of wild bird food and a few other things.
We did 10 years of HLS which worked well and paid well, but at the end Defra decided our arable reversion was now P pasture if we wanted to carry on. Reducing a payment of £140 acre to £30. So it all got ploughed up again for maize and cereals .
This is what worries me dealing with these people.

Janet Hughes said quite clearly in the latest Q&A that they are procuring permanent, not temporary, change in these new schemes. That's why I believe the payment rates on offer are derisory.

 

[Clive]

I’m waiting on a wildlife offer that will see poor headlands grassed again and some AB15, a field of AB9, 10 acres of wild bird food and a few other things.
We did 10 years of HLS which worked well and paid well, but at the end Defra decided our arable reversion was now P pasture if we wanted to carry on. Reducing a payment of £140 acre to £30. So it all got ploughed up again for maize and cereals .
This is what worries me dealing with these people.

I agree they certainly have a lot of work to do at defra to gain and earn the trust of farmers

i do think they are trying though, I’m mean when was the last time top defra employees interacted directly like Janet and her team are doing

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

In an area that grows a lot of root crops, maize and potatoes , the plough is still the preferred option. It’s not that we are POOR farmers with no skill sets. We do what’s profitable for our businesses .

The current mainstream production methods of those crops are amongst the worst of all in their climate, soil health and biological impacts. It's going to be hard to change that without either drastically reducing productivity or (stupidly) just offshoring the industry and its effects. That is somewhere that research money could really be well spent imho.

 

[DRC]

The current mainstream production methods of those crops are amongst the worst of all in their climate, soil health and biological impacts. It's going to be hard to change that without either drastically reducing productivity or (stupidly) just offshoring the industry and its effects. That is somewhere that research money could really be well spent imho.

Ironically a lot of the crops I mentioned go to feed AD to produce green energy . Untangle that one of you can

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Ironically a lot of the crops I mentioned go to feed AD to produce green energy . Untangle that one of you can

#Unintendedconsequences

 

[Dave645]

Hello

We work with the ELM engagement group members as others have said. We also work closely with the farming membership organisations (NFU, TFA, CLA), and directly with farmers through our tests and trials, SFI pilot, co-design groups on specific policies and questions, and user research where we show farmers our developing services and schemes, get their feedback and then improve them.

If anyone would like to get involved, please get in touch, especially if you think we're not hearing your point of view through our existing work - we need as many critical farming eyes on what we're doing as possible.

The Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) will be open to all farmers and will pay them for actions to manage their land in an environmentally sustainable way.

ok this is a broad goal, one not clear in the scheme
Take arable

Level	Payment per hectare (ha)
Introductory	£28
Intermediate	£54
Advanced	£74

You want 5% of land in the scheme to be in non crop costs to establish things for £28/Ha so 100ha farm that puts 5ha to the scheme goals, so for £2,800 I have to establish and maintain the required items, and lose 5ha 12.5acres of cropping?
First the cost of establishing those items is not free, neither is maintaining and recording, them, then I have lost income from the land, if I just rented it out in my area I would get £500/Ha so if my sums are right, if .I take spring cropping into the mix if enhanced stubbles works for me I can lose £1500 income, risk a lower yielding spring crop, on 2ha meet all the standards and jump through hoops yet to show there face, for at the max on a 100ha farm of £1300 before establishment and maintenance costs.
Zero chance of that.
The next level up, you get more ominous more land out, more expensive establishments and red tape, while it’s more money it’s to complex what if the flowers fail, what, if I am found in breach even after my best efforts?
Whole farm nutrient budget, omg, why? What possible gain have I to earn from extra paper work? Detailed soil nutrient mapping, again why? Yield mapping if available tells the tail, if not available then the farmer can tell when he is combining nutrient maps have little to do with yield, soil structure, and type have more to do with yield, the cost of all this is again not free, even at your rates, 99% would not want the hassle, and yield mapping is not available to all.
And not in all crops,
My guess is Precision applications is the goal for this rule, but how many farmers can even deliver this even if the results and mapping are know? Not many, and the equipment is expensive as is all the mapping tech, so why?

your goal is sustainable envoiremnal farming,
fertiliser buffer zones for water ways, easy to do, easy to check, it’s visible in a crop.
This ticks rivers and pollution, from Agro chemicals, fertilisers.
Over winter stubbles, again simple and can be part of a farms rotation.

Field corner management. Optional
Level one natural regeneration x/Ha this is the farmer just let’s grow what does.
Level two, they encourage something to grow for wild birds,
level three in field extras. From your list.

Your level 3, even more land out of production, and even more rules, the fact you pond option has pages of rules is all I needed to see. The fact the pond again is not free, to build one with even small machines cost £45/hr and then it has to be scrutinised and judged to if it has any other purpose.
The net gain £74/ Ha so £7,400 before loses of 10ha of land not fully in my control, and setup and management costs, and reams of paper work that has zero value, if I am lucky I net £3000 if I can keep reseed costs down (not likely) all for the chance I can make £30/Ha if I am lucky, omg.

this scheme is terribly setup terribly implemented I would need to devote hours to planning just an application, then many more to implementation, for what?
My farm is a good farm and has good environmental credentials already and I haven’t been in any scheme but the old ELS.
I have margins next to water courses, I have wild hedgerow I let get tall above the tractors roof that carries wild berries for birds

scrap the whole lots go to a simple points based ELS type scheme, points based so farmers can
Select options for arable.
Over winter stubbles, plus enhanced.
Buffers,
In field Hedge row buffers.
Ditch buffers.
Field corner management. (Yes this is badly named)
In field strips. Bird areas etc.
Wild regeneration on year long fallow.
Cropping for wildlife, options including bees etc, (capital grants for the seed) if the option is taken. If you want to encourage it that’s a good way, not the forced too do it option.
nitrogen fixing/ pollination crops on year long fallow, again capital Grants, on seed. Has to have a % of other nature benefits in the seed mix.

Cultivation, options, drilling options, min till, no till, and others.
Hedgerows and water courses, all under one scheme with arable, same for grass etc all under one application.
All give points if points totals are reached the set payment per HA is reached.
If your capping the system then have larger growers have smaller points per /ha totals to reach.
That sounds wrong but if the max reward is lower per ha so should be the pointsgoal.

I could see from your posts that you saw how the old system rewarding large land owners with large just area based payments, distorted the system, as I am assuming you plan to not repeat this, what is the thinking?
Max application size max money per applicant, or a scale so the larger the farm the smaller the per HA max they can get so say 1000 Ha farm gets a max of £100,000 so the max they can ever get under this scheme is £100/Ha
But a smaller farm may get a larger max/ha say £200/ha, then let the points reflect that so if the max of £100/Ha is used on anyone over 1000 Ha so even if they are 2000ha they still only getting £100,000 max under this scheme, then the points per Ha total they aim for needs fixing lower.

simple is mix and match, points make it mix and match, points totals that are clear and simple to total up.

ponds as far as I can say should be optional, they should be high points totals.
The capital grant is the old way, to fund these, this scheme can change that with the scheme paying out in the first year as if it’s built, so the prepayment is built into the scheme funding, if the work is not done then clawback in the following scheme years is possible.

the fact you lock options into 3 levels means that the mix and match is lost what if a farmer wanted to do a pond but hated the rest of your management requirement junk?

last but not least points let the scheme evolve, and the farmer make year to year changes as weather and equipment change the farms options.
I personally would like to see a sliding scale of payments based on scheme points per/ha this again is simple and avoids penalties, if the farms points total varies year to year.
If I make a weather Based decision to change my drilling practice and void my no till agreement, then while that deducts from my points total if I don’t take extra options like fallow to keep up my points total, that would be my choice and transparent up front.
I would note, when the weather blocks best practice, then flexibility in the scheme makes it farmer friendly.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Ironically a lot of the crops I mentioned go to feed AD to produce green energy . Untangle that one of you can

I don't know why more grass isn't put through the ad plants?

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

The Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) will be open to all farmers and will pay them for actions to manage their land in an environmentally sustainable way.

ok this is a broad goal, one not clear in the scheme
Take arable

Level	Payment per hectare (ha)
Introductory	£28
Intermediate	£54
Advanced	£74

You want 5% of land in the scheme to be in non crop costs to establish things for £28/Ha so 100ha farm that puts 5ha to the scheme goals, so for £2,800 I have to establish and maintain the required items, and lose 5ha 12.5acres of cropping?
First the cost of establishing those items is not free, neither is maintaining and recording, them, then I have lost income from the land, if I just rented it out in my area I would get £500/Ha so if my sums are right, if .I take spring cropping into the mix if enhanced stubbles works for me I can lose £1500 income, risk a lower yielding spring crop, on 2ha meet all the standards and jump through hoops yet to show there face, for at the max on a 100ha farm of £1300 before establishment and maintenance costs.
Zero chance of that.
The next level up, you get more ominous more land out, more expensive establishments and red tape, while it’s more money it’s to complex what if the flowers fail, what, if I am found in breach even after my best efforts?
Whole farm nutrient budget, omg, why? What possible gain have I to earn from extra paper work? Detailed soil nutrient mapping, again why? Yield mapping if available tells the tail, if not available then the farmer can tell when he is combining nutrient maps have little to do with yield, soil structure, and type have more to do with yield, the cost of all this is again not free, even at your rates, 99% would not want the hassle, and yield mapping is not available to all.
And not in all crops,
My guess is Precision applications is the goal for this rule, but how many farmers can even deliver this even if the results and mapping are know? Not many, and the equipment is expensive as is all the mapping tech, so why?

your goal is sustainable envoiremnal farming,
fertiliser buffer zones for water ways, easy to do, easy to check, it’s visible in a crop.
This ticks rivers and pollution, from Agro chemicals, fertilisers.
Over winter stubbles, again simple and can be part of a farms rotation.

Field corner management. Optional
Level one natural regeneration x/Ha this is the farmer just let’s grow what does.
Level two, they encourage something to grow for wild birds,
level three in field extras. From your list.

Your level 3, even more land out of production, and even more rules, the fact you pond option has pages of rules is all I needed to see. The fact the pond again is not free, to build one with even small machines cost £45/hr and then it has to be scrutinised and judged to if it has any other purpose.
The net gain £74/ Ha so £7,400 before loses of 10ha of land not fully in my control, and setup and management costs, and reams of paper work that has zero value, if I am lucky I net £3000 if I can keep reseed costs down (not likely) all for the chance I can make £30/Ha if I am lucky, omg.

this scheme is terribly setup terribly implemented I would need to devote hours to planning just an application, then many more to implementation, for what?
My farm is a good farm and has good environmental credentials already and I haven’t been in any scheme but the old ELS.
I have margins next to water courses, I have wild hedgerow I let get tall above the tractors roof that carries wild berries for birds

scrap the whole lots go to a simple points based ELS type scheme, points based so farmers can
Select options for arable.
Over winter stubbles, plus enhanced.
Buffers,
In field Hedge row buffers.
Ditch buffers.
Field corner management. (Yes this is badly named)
In field strips. Bird areas etc.
Wild regeneration on year long fallow.
Cropping for wildlife, options including bees etc, (capital grants for the seed) if the option is taken. If you want to encourage it that’s a good way, not the forced too do it option.
nitrogen fixing/ pollination crops on year long fallow, again capital Grants, on seed. Has to have a % of other nature benefits in the seed mix.

Cultivation, options, drilling options, min till, no till, and others.
Hedgerows and water courses, all under one scheme with arable, same for grass etc all under one application.
All give points if points totals are reached the set payment per HA is reached.
If your capping the system then have larger growers have smaller points per /ha totals to reach.
That sounds wrong but if the max reward is lower per ha so should be the pointsgoal.

I could see from your posts that you saw how the old system rewarding large land owners with large just area based payments, distorted the system, as I am assuming you plan to not repeat this, what is the thinking?
Max application size max money per applicant, or a scale so the larger the farm the smaller the per HA max they can get so say 1000 Ha farm gets a max of £100,000 so the max they can ever get under this scheme is £100/Ha
But a smaller farm may get a larger max/ha say £200/ha, then let the points reflect that so if the max of £100/Ha is used on anyone over 1000 Ha so even if they are 2000ha they still only getting £100,000 max under this scheme, then the points per Ha total they aim for needs fixing lower.

simple is mix and match, points make it mix and match, points totals that are clear and simple to total up.

ponds as far as I can say should be optional, they should be high points totals.
The capital grant is the old way, to fund these, this scheme can change that with the scheme paying out in the first year as if it’s built, so the prepayment is built into the scheme funding, if the work is not done then clawback in the following scheme years is possible.

the fact you lock options into 3 levels means that the mix and match is lost what if a farmer wanted to do a pond but hated the rest of your management requirement junk?

last but not least points let the scheme evolve, and the farmer make year to year changes as weather and equipment change the farms options.
I personally would like to see a sliding scale of payments based on scheme points per/ha this again is simple and avoids penalties, if the farms points total varies year to year.
If I make a weather Based decision to change my drilling practice and void my no till agreement, then while that deducts from my points total if I don’t take extra options like fallow to keep up my points total, that would be my choice and transparent up front.
I would note, when the weather blocks best practice, then flexibility in the scheme makes it farmer friendly.

Good summary and points made.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

The Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) will be open to all farmers and will pay them for actions to manage their land in an environmentally sustainable way.

ok this is a broad goal, one not clear in the scheme
Take arable

Level	Payment per hectare (ha)
Introductory	£28
Intermediate	£54
Advanced	£74

You want 5% of land in the scheme to be in non crop costs to establish things for £28/Ha so 100ha farm that puts 5ha to the scheme goals, so for £2,800 I have to establish and maintain the required items, and lose 5ha 12.5acres of cropping?
First the cost of establishing those items is not free, neither is maintaining and recording, them, then I have lost income from the land, if I just rented it out in my area I would get £500/Ha so if my sums are right, if .I take spring cropping into the mix if enhanced stubbles works for me I can lose £1500 income, risk a lower yielding spring crop, on 2ha meet all the standards and jump through hoops yet to show there face, for at the max on a 100ha farm of £1300 before establishment and maintenance costs.
Zero chance of that.
The next level up, you get more ominous more land out, more expensive establishments and red tape, while it’s more money it’s to complex what if the flowers fail, what, if I am found in breach even after my best efforts?
Whole farm nutrient budget, omg, why? What possible gain have I to earn from extra paper work? Detailed soil nutrient mapping, again why? Yield mapping if available tells the tail, if not available then the farmer can tell when he is combining nutrient maps have little to do with yield, soil structure, and type have more to do with yield, the cost of all this is again not free, even at your rates, 99% would not want the hassle, and yield mapping is not available to all.
And not in all crops,
My guess is Precision applications is the goal for this rule, but how many farmers can even deliver this even if the results and mapping are know? Not many, and the equipment is expensive as is all the mapping tech, so why?

your goal is sustainable envoiremnal farming,
fertiliser buffer zones for water ways, easy to do, easy to check, it’s visible in a crop.
This ticks rivers and pollution, from Agro chemicals, fertilisers.
Over winter stubbles, again simple and can be part of a farms rotation.

Field corner management. Optional
Level one natural regeneration x/Ha this is the farmer just let’s grow what does.
Level two, they encourage something to grow for wild birds,
level three in field extras. From your list.

Your level 3, even more land out of production, and even more rules, the fact you pond option has pages of rules is all I needed to see. The fact the pond again is not free, to build one with even small machines cost £45/hr and then it has to be scrutinised and judged to if it has any other purpose.
The net gain £74/ Ha so £7,400 before loses of 10ha of land not fully in my control, and setup and management costs, and reams of paper work that has zero value, if I am lucky I net £3000 if I can keep reseed costs down (not likely) all for the chance I can make £30/Ha if I am lucky, omg.

this scheme is terribly setup terribly implemented I would need to devote hours to planning just an application, then many more to implementation, for what?
My farm is a good farm and has good environmental credentials already and I haven’t been in any scheme but the old ELS.
I have margins next to water courses, I have wild hedgerow I let get tall above the tractors roof that carries wild berries for birds

scrap the whole lots go to a simple points based ELS type scheme, points based so farmers can
Select options for arable.
Over winter stubbles, plus enhanced.
Buffers,
In field Hedge row buffers.
Ditch buffers.
Field corner management. (Yes this is badly named)
In field strips. Bird areas etc.
Wild regeneration on year long fallow.
Cropping for wildlife, options including bees etc, (capital grants for the seed) if the option is taken. If you want to encourage it that’s a good way, not the forced too do it option.
nitrogen fixing/ pollination crops on year long fallow, again capital Grants, on seed. Has to have a % of other nature benefits in the seed mix.

Cultivation, options, drilling options, min till, no till, and others.
Hedgerows and water courses, all under one scheme with arable, same for grass etc all under one application.
All give points if points totals are reached the set payment per HA is reached.
If your capping the system then have larger growers have smaller points per /ha totals to reach.
That sounds wrong but if the max reward is lower per ha so should be the pointsgoal.

I could see from your posts that you saw how the old system rewarding large land owners with large just area based payments, distorted the system, as I am assuming you plan to not repeat this, what is the thinking?
Max application size max money per applicant, or a scale so the larger the farm the smaller the per HA max they can get so say 1000 Ha farm gets a max of £100,000 so the max they can ever get under this scheme is £100/Ha
But a smaller farm may get a larger max/ha say £200/ha, then let the points reflect that so if the max of £100/Ha is used on anyone over 1000 Ha so even if they are 2000ha they still only getting £100,000 max under this scheme, then the points per Ha total they aim for needs fixing lower.

simple is mix and match, points make it mix and match, points totals that are clear and simple to total up.

ponds as far as I can say should be optional, they should be high points totals.
The capital grant is the old way, to fund these, this scheme can change that with the scheme paying out in the first year as if it’s built, so the prepayment is built into the scheme funding, if the work is not done then clawback in the following scheme years is possible.

the fact you lock options into 3 levels means that the mix and match is lost what if a farmer wanted to do a pond but hated the rest of your management requirement junk?

last but not least points let the scheme evolve, and the farmer make year to year changes as weather and equipment change the farms options.
I personally would like to see a sliding scale of payments based on scheme points per/ha this again is simple and avoids penalties, if the farms points total varies year to year.
If I make a weather Based decision to change my drilling practice and void my no till agreement, then while that deducts from my points total if I don’t take extra options like fallow to keep up my points total, that would be my choice and transparent up front.
I would note, when the weather blocks best practice, then flexibility in the scheme makes it farmer friendly.

TLDR

 

[ollie989898]

I still think all these payments are ridiculously complex and will be difficult to manage, setup or enforce. If farms want to voluntarily enter into any agreement it should be for setaside only and a fixed sum per ha. Farmers may cut/flail or roundup said land entered into such a scheme once per year between a set number of dates. Land so entered may be stubble, cover cropped or grass/herbage type crops. Job done. Value of payments on said land will be on a sliding scale according to the local area and the nature of the land involved. I.e upland etc.