I'm just writing a story about Paul Temple (NFU) saying that farmers are confused about what is expected of them these days. On the one hand we've got government seemingly insistent om bring back measures like set-aside and on the other hand it is saying that it is worried by food proces and food security. I think he has a point. The environmental agenda of five years ago has changed - in those days when you heard ministers speak it was all about ElS, bird numbers, etc. There is far less of that these days - but DEFRA is still very focused on environmental issues.

Are you in environment mode or production mode? Or is it a bit of both?

“Recession will Cause Irreversible Climate Cooling.”

A well regarding think-tank today warned of the recession pushing the world into irreversible global cooling.
Hank Greenbottom of the Centre for Recession Led Climate Cooling said yesterday that the reduction in the use of fossil fuels during these recessionary times could cause irreversible global cooling.
He said “Climate cooling is the most dangerous thing the planet faces and dwarfs the current financial crisis. It will result in the re-freezing of the polar icecaps therefore reducing our capacity to increase the discovery of fossil fuels. It will also result in benign weather conditions and make everybody feel a lot better when really they should be worrying a good deal”
“Worst of all it could mean a complete turnaround in our thinking on the earths climate."

There's no good news is there? At least with global warming we were going to be warm, wet (and broke).

Under this secenario were are going to be cold and broke.

Buck the banking trend. Buy shares in a coat manufactuer.

Isabel,

        What I find fascinating with all these geeks is that they have the gawl to pronounce this utter cr ap in Public.I would be ashamed if there was not concrete evidence on either side of this argument to publish without that evidence. I always think there is a sinister angle on pronouncments like these with a book coming out soon or Sun glasses with Heaters on them.

A fly on the wall tipped me off that when Hilary Benn told his DEFRA team about the government changes last week, he emphasised loud and clear that "we will definitely NOT become a department just about food",.  Obviously Hilary is a little sensitive about the environment versus food production debate.

If ever we needed a steer about the direction the reconfigured DEFRA will be taking, we can rest assure that environmental issues look as though they will continue to dominate. Or am I just misreading his remark?  

There are alot of people living under the impression it is possible to have 6 billion plus people on this earth with no impact. When we all run naked, live in caves, and eat brush and pack rats, that will still impact the environment. It seems to me, especially with your government but to a large degree mine too, the idea continues to be we can have our civilization and have no impact. Over here, they will pave over thousands of acres of land a year, yet try to turn the screws on the farmers all the time, undoubtedly my farm is more environmentally friendly than a football stadium. 

The environmental policies of our nation are no different than the monetary ones....made up by people who told us they were smart, we took that as enough credentials and we let them run things...you can see where that got us.  More and more in the last several days you read and hear comments about picking up our guns and marching on Washington....if I don't post for a week, that is where I have gone, if you don't hear from me for a month, better take up a collection for bail money and a good lawyer.

Isabel,

I am in survival mode.

connached:

Isabel,

I am in survival mode.

For some reason I now have a vision of you as a freedom fighter.

Isabel

I dont think anyone could envision me as a freedom fighter!Not yet anyway.If the UK is heading into a deep reccession it will be back to survival mode for agricultureThere will be no money to spend on environmental exercises,but maybe a step back again from the flame of max yield farming will have spin off benefits for the environment.

It's a strange world. Traditionally, people argue that when farmers have money in their pockets they are more inclined to put something back by doing environmental stuff. At the same time you can argue that if inputs are expensive and commodity prices low then farmers will have to take a step back and farm in a less intensive manner.

Does this mean that when we're in the middle ground it is bad news for the environment?

The environment is doing just fine.Big fields are required for big machinery.The wildlife will find its own level where it can survive in the landscape available to it.

We keep hearing from RSPB etc that there are less birds going about.But there are still plenty as far as I can see.How many birds do they think we need?Why dont they put a figure on it? Then we could work out how much production we will lose to accommodate these extra birds,and work out how many people will starve worldwide as a result.

I certainly wouldnt go out of my way to encourage animals that want to eat my crops. Trees in hedges are prime candidtaes for a good pollarding - to about hedge height.

The old MAFF, and then Defra completly lost its way when ADAS was disbanded. up until then you had a very capable group of men and women visiting farms on a friendly basis who could send good inteligence back to whitehall. they could then form sensible coheirent policys for farmer and evnviromentalist alike.

now we are stuck with an organisation that seems only capable of looking back and lacks any ability to have a vision for the future agriculture, and how we intend to feed an ever growing population.

personally for me i have just got to grips with the SFP,and worked out i am a fool keeping livestock. no livestock means i do not have worrys about cross compliance, the losses/costs the livestock generate are no more. i still get the money, still got the farm, live in a nice part of the world, safe in the knowledge that DEFRA will feed us all.  

With regard to one aspect of the environmental "problems", CO2, this is fantastic stuff as it contributes to carbohydrate fixation/production in all forms of growing matter. Farmers (non orgasmic) are doing their best to use this resource. Setaside (whose current demise is mourned by the European eco greenie lefties) negates its value unless non food crops which produce energy (eg oil/methanol) are compulsorily grown on this land. The problem the world seems to have is in harnessing this wonderful product of our energy dependent lifestyle to help feed its burgeoning population.

We can have both plenty of birds animals trees etc and plenty of food just need less people!!

The great sadness in this is that Paul Temple, along with the rest of the NFU leadership, see 'efficient' food production and environmental benefits as mutually exclusive.

Whereas I would argue that truly efficient food production system not only produces safe wholesome food but also provides the farmer with a decent return on time and investment, enhances the environment and supports the rural economy - thats real efficiency and thats what farming leaders should be striving to achieve.

You can have both; sympathetically managed grassland is the best way of reducing atmospheric carbon; http://soilcarboncoalition.org has a lot of interesting information.

The problem for many people is that it relies more on management than chemicals, fertilisers or expensive factories; just farmers grazing their grass efficiently.

The answer is in our soil and those responsible for raising atmospheric carbon should be paying those of us who can reduce levels to do so.

Bill

I believe we need to change the way in which we set goals and how we plan the future landscape of our farms. In the 70's we were being told to reduce stocking rates in tropical countries due to overgrazing, the advent of rotational and mob grazing reversed this trend, and we increased our stocking rate to above that previously though to be the maximum, conventional thinking had been at fault, continuous selective grazing was causing degradation, not overgrazing. Our flora improved as did the wildlife numbers under a flexable holistic management system. Re-instating rotations of crops and livestock improved the soil health, with minimum till helping in cost reductions. Marginal areas including riperian zones were planted to long term crops such as lucerne or trees, with conservation zones of native trees and flora doubling up as windbreaks and soil protection. We can compromise and make a living with a change in mindset as far as future planning is concerned.

craman:

Farmers (non orgasmic) are doing their best

Is there a future for non orgasmic farmers?