Would anybody consider planting trees on their land?

[Dry Rot]

I went into the scheme to plant 30 acres when it was operating. I was one of the first entrants. Forestry guy came out and approved an additional long strip of birch woodland for "enrichment". The 'inspector' couldn't check the acreage because he hadn't got the gizmo on his laptop to measure it. He seemed utterly clueless on pretty much everything! I had to show him how to measure areas off the plan!

Then they came back and said I wouldn't get the grant on the 30 acres because they'd run out of money. But they approved the long strip -- with the addition of rabbit fencing all round that hadn't been mentioned. That made it totally uneconomic. There were no rabbits anyway.

I didn't go ahead and bureaucrats are no longer welcome here. I've planted a lot of trees in odd corners at my own expense which provides much needed shelter and firewood. I don't need to be paid to farm properly and the clip board wielding bureaucrats even less.

 

[andybk]

This has to be a joke , encouraging planting habitat , i had chunks taken off my bsp because i left trees / scrub in corners , (and mature trees on an old railway line ) and ground underneath was in shade (there was full cover of grass ) , and was told to take a chainsaw to it by inspector if i wanted to claim in future ,
so simply no, i wont plant trees ,to facilitate another funding clawback by dfra on tree planting schemes . obviously no joined up thinking from the shiney arsed desk jockeys on where wildlife lives ,
What confidence does that give me for future changes in policy ?

 

[Optimus]

if a tree was worth £75/t per year i bet that would change our view ?

I hope it is , got a few acres of them

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Prettier than Solar panels to looks at if the money was as good possibly!

but at the end of the contract you can remove solar panels, where as woodland once planted is there for ever, I am pretty sure a felling licence means that replanting is part of it. I can see the point of planting trees in wet or steep corners etc but never in good land (what is grazing land £4000/5000 and acre and woodland £1000/2000, so a no brainer really).

Also grassland (or regenerativly farmed arable land) sequests carbon, woodland stores the same amount of carbon from the atmosphere, BUT above ground in the wood, and in 30 years what happens to the wood? If it goes to a wood fired generator all that carbon is back in the atmosphere.

Planting on peat areas is even worse for carbon release, but all these big companies are "offsetting" by planting trees which is the biggest lie ever (Rather like Harry & Megan, we are flying in a private jet but it's ok because we are planting trees to offset!!!).

Lots of posts on facebook from New Zealand about the government of Mary Poppins there encouraging woodland planting and making farming out to be worst of the worst.

 

[Right-arm fast]

£75/t was the price our chancellor put on a carbon tax last week in a Time article .......... basically getting us used to what he will announce next time we have a budget !!!

Will we be able to claim on existing woodland, or just new planting?

 

[Right-arm fast]

half of one estate we farm was fruit trees 15 yrs ago it’s arable now and the areas that were trees is by FAR the best soils on that farm

They must have realised the land would be worth something as arable at £150/ac and probably double it’s capital value. Dont know what the Forestry Commision think about ripping up fruit trees, they certainly wouldn’t let you pull out 20 year old woodland trees in that volume.

 

[teslacoils]

It's very easy for urbanites to say "plant more trees". Seemingly impossible to tell them to consume fewer international flights - covid aside.

 

[TheTallGuy]

They must have realised the land would be worth something as arable at £150/ac. Dont know what the Forestry Commision think about ripping up fruit trees, they certainly wouldn’t let you pull out 20 year old woodland trees in that volume.

Orchards are exempt from felling licenses.

 

[Sid]

£75 per tree, what value do the put on grassland thats sequestrating carbon?
£230/ha?

 

[Adeptandy]

Yes, but I doubt my Landlord would be happy

 

[Tarw Coch]

£75 per tree, what value do the put on grassland thats sequestrating carbon?
£230/ha?

Think he said £75/ton, a mature tree would weigh a good few tons.
If it was an annual payment the amounts of money could be mind boggling..............not sure where it’s going to come from.
Think I’ll believe it when I see it and what strings are attached.

 

[7610 super q]

This has to be a joke , encouraging planting habitat , i had chunks taken off my bsp because i left trees / scrub in corners , (and mature trees on an old railway line ) and ground underneath was in shade (there was full cover of grass ) , and was told to take a chainsaw to it by inspector if i wanted to claim in future ,
so simply no, i wont plant trees ,to facilitate another funding clawback by dfra on tree planting schemes . obviously no joined up thinking from the shiney arsed desk jockeys on where wildlife lives ,
What confidence does that give me for future changes in policy ?

This. Get involved in a scheme where the goalposts are moved every 5 years ? NFL.
Something to do on awkward corners when the subs end maybe.

 

[teslacoils]

The money from the old fwgs is dwarfed by the loss in value of the land, and the hoops in doing anything practical with the trees. No way you can revert it to arable.

We will be offered or coerced into a bs scheme to allow big companies to avoid the "real " cost of carbon to them.

 

[Clive]

They must have realised the land would be worth something as arable at £150/ac and probably double it’s capital value. Dont know what the Forestry Commision think about ripping up fruit trees, they certainly wouldn’t let you pull out 20 year old woodland trees in that volume.

i think they were removed as the fruit enterprise was not paying well

 

[Clive]

£75 per tree, what value do the put on grassland thats sequestrating carbon?
£230/ha?

£75/ tonne was the tax level suggested companies would pay for carbon emissions in the future

so anything (including grassland). that you can prove is sequestering will have value if offset is allowed (expect it will be).

some of us have been saying this will bevinew more valuable than food production for farmers for some time - its now looking very likely

 

[Clive]

Will we be able to claim on existing woodland, or just new planting?

wont be just a woodland thing, trees are just easy to quantify

anything that can be proven to sequester carbon could be sold to offset and reduce tax bills I expect

ploughing is going to get expensive !

 

[egbert]

It's ironic, within this thread are nearly all the answers.

We (UK farmers) tend not to want to grow trees as a crop, whereas many countries on the continent regard it as part of their operation.
Some of it is historic, and a lot of it is about tenure.
Tenants seldom have any interest. (I have an agreement within my AHA that trees in enclosure XYZ are a tenants crop)
Some is State attitude, which has alternately fuelled mass production forestry oft beyond the scope of farmers - and impacting tenants/hill communities negatively,
...then loads of stupid amenity bollix, which are of no use to anyone.

the 'forever woodland' rules aren't insurmountable, but stupid and restrictive.

the BPS rules are equally stupid and counterproductive

@Clive worries rightly about fiscal output... it's historically a big gamble, with seesawing markets, disease and pest issues.
That said, a commercial scale mixed age/species softwood plantation on lowland UK should be yielding an average of 12-15 tonnes per hect/annually.
Current trade is pretty good, fuelled by subsidised woodboilers for low grade material. £30/tonne standing average of the annual increment*?
£450/hect should be easy enough with any scale....with no ploughing, no fert, no sprays, oft using 2nd grade ground. Enlightened management sees most restocking by volunteers.

*a lot depends on where it is in rotation, species/grade/size. I'm paying £100/tonne delivered for modest sized cedar and larch and doug fir. that represents about £75T standing value. There would be estates seriously cashing it.

The claimed tax benefits/dodges from output are rather more complex than the land agents sing.

Carbon? We need to stop pretending that grassland continually builds and stores carbon. there is clearly an upper limit at which it isn't holding any more than it captures annually -which is exactly the same with woodland. Active peat is the exception, but that catches less than good sitka.

Farming carbon for misguided stupid future subsidies might be a goer, but lets not fool ourselves.

As Clive and others state, there are benefits to farming beyond the obvious and immediate.
The value of shelter I've gained from some plantings has been beyond calculation on a raw blasting spring morning when we're lambing.

Those that are enlightened, and have been for decades, often sit very pretty.
And this would be a good time for gov to unravel what the issues are, stake out realistic goals, and help others of us to become enlightened.

Ag colleges shouldn't be permitted to exclude silviculture from any broadbased course. It is criminal to deny giving the young the information.

Oh, and the firm/bloke that buys commercialwoodland up, splits it into non-viable sized units and flogs it to lifestylers...he needs taking out and shooting.

 

[ollie989898]

I knew a few farmers who had planted a few trees over time. Just to improve the place for the next generation as much as anything. I would be happy to do that, but it's quite another to agree to suddenly planting entire fields of the things and taking them out of production.

 

[steveR]

We had about 10 huge poplar trees leaning toward a house on the edge of our ground. The house owner asked if we would remove them as dangerous.
Due to the volume of wood involved we had to get a felling licence. Which was a bit of a nightmare. blah blah...
But when the forestry commision guy came to check the sitaution, he said:
yes fine, you can take them down.
What you going to plant?
I said, given the location, nothing.
We basically never (except in exceptional cases) allow clear fell without restocking.
So you can't remove the trees.
I said, OK I'll plant something then.

So I said: Once a tree, always a tree then?
"Basically yes" he said.

Since that day, any planting ideas I've had, have been binned.

should be the response.... Ridiculous. Fair enough for good BL trees, but poplar?

Or plant.... and then an accident with a Roundup can!

 

[Longlowdog]

This is where I live. The trees provide shelter, firewood, snowbreaks, stalking, walking, hacking, wildlife watching, camping for friends, pest control, wild pheasant shooting, an oasis of nature in an arable/pasture dominated landscape and so much more.
The local community use it and in turn I've never had planning issues, they appreciate work as well as amenity must happen on the land because they meet me and talk to me.
I bought the place heavily planted and even then proceeded to double fence and plant fruiting hedges and more corners. I can stand my ground in any argument with eco-nutters as none that I've encountered have actually done anything/sacrificed anything for their cause other than shouting or typing rubbish. I've devalued land and know with current policy I can never expect to revert to nice high value fields.
I'm only a little tiny fish in a huge pond but the ripples my place makes in the community are large. If others went even a little way towards removing the monoculture image of their farms just how much goodwill could be generated to counter the continual bombardment of farming at home and abroad by a mostly ignorant urban population (who may have a point).