Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Regenerative Agriculture and Direct Drilling
Holistic Farming
Wilding
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ollie989898" data-source="post: 5891026" data-attributes="member: 54866"><p>I'm gonna throw water on this, a family with 3500 acres can't make money so leave it to go to scrub for 10 years, claim government money and claim it is a success.</p><p></p><p>For who, exactly? If you want to be a national park ranger or work for the NT you can apply online and do your bit for the community, costing me, the tax payer, £0 in the process.</p><p></p><p>Turning 3,500 acres into scrub is not my definition of successful. Provision for landscape/conversation efforts should be an incidental by-product of farming practice as it was for decades. This is not farming, it is playing at being a national park. I have utterly no doubt it was a boon for wildlife, local ecology, water, soil and air protection but I would point out there are dozens of organisations managing land that already fits this description and they do so with minimal (if any) public money nor have they taken thousands of acres of land out of production.</p><p></p><p>Sorry to be the devils advocate but that is just the way I see it. If it relies on subsidy money, it isn't sustainable or practical.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ollie989898, post: 5891026, member: 54866"] I'm gonna throw water on this, a family with 3500 acres can't make money so leave it to go to scrub for 10 years, claim government money and claim it is a success. For who, exactly? If you want to be a national park ranger or work for the NT you can apply online and do your bit for the community, costing me, the tax payer, £0 in the process. Turning 3,500 acres into scrub is not my definition of successful. Provision for landscape/conversation efforts should be an incidental by-product of farming practice as it was for decades. This is not farming, it is playing at being a national park. I have utterly no doubt it was a boon for wildlife, local ecology, water, soil and air protection but I would point out there are dozens of organisations managing land that already fits this description and they do so with minimal (if any) public money nor have they taken thousands of acres of land out of production. Sorry to be the devils advocate but that is just the way I see it. If it relies on subsidy money, it isn't sustainable or practical. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Regenerative Agriculture and Direct Drilling
Holistic Farming
Wilding
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top