X Close

How to save British farming (and the countryside) As a farmer I've come to accept that our impact on nature is often destructive, but saving the landscape won't be cheap

Farming: not as romantic as all that. Photo: Damian Gillie/Construction Photography/Avalon/Getty Images

Farming: not as romantic as all that. Photo: Damian Gillie/Construction Photography/Avalon/Getty Images


September 3, 2020   9 mins

Farmers are taking a bashing. You can’t go on social media, turn on the TV or radio, or read a newspaper without someone telling you earnestly that farming is more or less the devil’s work and should be done away with at the earliest opportunity. We are charged with causing everything from climate change and flooding to the sixth mass extinction. We live in a society in which less than 2% of us farm, but some days it seems like the other 98% all think they know better how to do it than we do.

And, let’s be fair, there are reasonable grounds for concern. The RSPB’s State of Nature report paints a gloomy picture of disappearing wildlife in our overwhelmingly farmed landscapes. Beloved species like curlews, yellowhammers, or hedgehogs, common as recently as my childhood, are disappearing or declining. The scientific consensus is that the rapid and ongoing intensification of agriculture has made our landscapes more monocultural, and sterile, with less habitats and less food for the things that once shared it with us.

We could have a lively debate about who’s fault the intensification of farming was — and I might argue it was driven by the demand for cheap food, the overweening power of a handful of food industry corporations, poor public policy, disruptive chemical and engineering technologies that emerged in the post war period, and which are still intensifying field work, and lastly the societal belief that farming’s job was solely to produce ever cheaper food — but I’m less interested in haggling over blame, and much more interested in what I can practically do about this mess on our land.

The practical challenge on our farm is fairly simple: I have to pay my bills, and earn some kind of living for my family, by producing things to sell and try and be a good steward of this place.

Some of the solutions proposed make just about zero sense on an actual farm — like the idea that we should just step aside and let it be totally wild. My bank manager isn’t so keen on that, and neither are several of my ecologist friends who point out that abandoning land isn’t remotely the same thing as restoring an ecosystem if key species that once made it all work are now missing.

“Rewilding” is very fashionable, and I can see why it inspires — sometimes it offers ambition, scale and a sensible focus on natural processes, but that often isn’t very useful in the real world many of us live and work in. When I plant trees and they get nibbled off at the ground by roe deer, it isn’t very useful to tell me we should have wolves here to kill the deer. If millions of trees are to be planted and we want them to survive, then we need real here-and-now practical solutions.

We are the “hyper-keystone species” in our landscape, one settled a long time ago — the question is what we can do to play that role decently and sensibly to make it all as sustainable and biodiverse as we can. Here’s what the last five years of listening and learning have taught me about what we can do for nature on our farmland:

We need to change the way we see and think about farming.

We all see land through our own biases — and mine was, until recently, a traditional farming mindset. We looked at our fields and saw something made productive and good by our toil. Our land had been “improved” to produce food, which we thought of as pretty much as our sole purpose. Producing food is a noble endeavour, one that has somehow come to be taken for granted. Covid-19 ought to have taught us that British food security matters, and that our just-in-time global supply chains are too fragile and risky. We need an enormous amount of food to be produced in British fields, and for that we need some of the smartest farmers on earth.

But, and it is a big “but”, I now accept that my job is more than just producing food any which way I please — we can’t pretend farming is just an productive industry, because it takes place in a natural setting, and can do grave ecological damage. In my lifetime I have witnessed once common birds and insects vanish from our farmland — there was once a curlew in every other field of ours, and now they are vanishing.

The sensible people in farming increasingly realise that we have to reconcile two complex demands — we have to work out how to farm productively but in healthy ecosystems, which in some cases we are going to have to rebuild. I am not at the cutting edge of this “regenerative agriculture”, or a guru of it; for most of my life I thought the people talking about this stuff were cranks. I am a second wave enthusiast, and have come to realise that the “cranks” are right, and the post-war mainstream ideas are deeply flawed.

A few years ago, I began inviting ecologists to come to our farm. I was curious about how true the criticisms of our farming were; I wanted to know the truth, however painful that might be, so I asked them to tell me what state our land was in. They were very polite, but the brutal version goes like this: More or less all farmland is downgraded ecologically from the wilderness that preceded it.

I knew that bit and was ready for it. I told them we changed the world to be able to live, and it largely happened here centuries, or thousands, of years ago. And they bought and ate the food we produced. Yeah okay, they shrugged, but then pointed out that I had rose tinted spectacles about the recent past… and then highlighted the deterioration just in my lifetime, as well as the decades before that.

There was the declining plant diversity in our hay meadows caused by synthetic fertilisers between the 1960s and the 2000s, the loss of wetlands because my old man drained fields with a digger, the straightened rivers that are wrecked for fish because we dredged them every ten years, the hedgerows that had grown old, gone unmanaged, and which were now falling down, leaving a much barer landscape, and the trees, which I had always thought were everywhere, but which are mostly older than a hundred years because almost no young trees have grown up on our land in generations.

Ouch.

Turns out that this land should be a place full of multi-age trees, with everything from saplings to rotting wood in order to give all the creatures of the once wild woods a chance. Our pastures were slightly better news, because they had never been ploughed, so have pretty good soil. But we have grazed them too continuously with sheep and made them worse than they should be (a practice known as “set stocking”). The more I hung out with ecologists the more I realised how little I knew. In fact I could have written my total knowledge of soil microbiology and photosynthesis on one side of a matchbox.

So, what had seemed largely unchanging for much of my life turns out to be half-broken and getting worse — turning in to a barer, less habitat-diverse farm with much less food for insects, birds and other wild things.

The point of all this is not to add to the chorus of gloom about farming, or to confirm for you that farmers are all evil — only to see the effects of our land management through nature’s eyes. You can’t have a proper stab at nature-friendly farming unless you are willing to be this honest with yourself.

The second step for me was to get my head around what our land would once have been in its wilder form. This question is loaded with issues and debates, but let’s keep our eye on a simple truth — wild things generally want the habitats they called home before the arrival of humans, with the natural processes creating the niches they evolved to take advantage of.

So, what was it?

The short, simple answer is our valley was a swirling and dynamic dance of oak woodland (temperate Atlantic rainforest), thorny and willowy scrub, and meadow clearings either grazed by the large herbivores or created by beavers, with some other habitats scattered around like peat bogs, and ponds and lakes with reedy edges. And it is more than just having token habitats; it also had the natural processes which made those habitats “dynamic”: rivers are meant to wiggle, trees are meant to fall and lie rotting, herbivores are meant to graze and shape ecosystems, and predators are meant to move nervous herbivores around and occasionally kill them.

So, how do we, in the imperfect reality of now, create more of those key habitats, and keep them dynamic?

The good news is that some of the ways my father and grandfather farmed kind of mimicked some key natural processes. We don’t plough. We stopped using synthetic fertilisers years ago. A lot of nature still exists on our farm — we have over 200 species of wildflowers and grasses on our land. Intensive silage fields might have one or two species; our traditional hay meadows have lost maybe half a dozen species in the past century, but they are still exceptionally diverse. Our cattle-only grazed summer pastures have about 100 species of plants including wild orchids. Our soil is full of organic matter and worms, and fast improving.

Above us is a large remnant of very old oak woodland that still pulses life outwards. And our floodplain is regressing to something scruffy and wilder because no one drains it anymore. Our peat bogs are in mixed condition, after centuries of drainage and harvesting, but some areas are recovering well. Last year we did a major restoration project to make it wetter and function better, reversing two centuries of abuse. Our fell has recovering vegetation from its overgrazed state in the past, and has been un-drained and “wetted up”. And we have the remnants of lots of other good habitats that with a little help could be returned to their former glory.

It isn’t black and white; it isn’t all trashed. We are going to need a lot of very productive farmers, so some places are going to do more for nature than others. I accept that our valley ought to be at the high end of the nature-recovery scale — because it has so much good nature left and is in a National Park.

The truth is, even here, we can’t recreate the vanished past, with migration of significant herds of wild herbivores and large carnivores. But we can ensure we have a good chunk of the original habitats (even if we have to cleverly create them in the least productive bits of the farm or valley), and mimic some of the processes that made it tick. These days I’m most excited by finding ways to produce good quality food in nature-friendly ways — using planned grazing of my sheep and cattle to mimic those lost herds of wild herbivores, moved by me rather than a predator, and creating around our fields lots of hedgerows and willowy scrub, and planting thousands of native broadleaf trees we can graze beneath.

It won’t be perfect, but it can be a hell of a lot better than it is now, at least as good as it was a century ago, and probably much better if we work with ecologists, and if the rest of you back us to do it. At present I am having to try and rebuild the patchwork of habitats on our farm while being paid the lowest prices in history for wool, beef and lamb. We have asset-stripped the countryside, and it won’t be mended until we start reversing that process. We may need to devote a greater share of our GDP to food production to do it in ways that make our countryside somewhere to be proud of — it is at about 10% at present, a quarter of its value a century ago.

Of course, I have farming friends who still think our sole job is to produce things for the table, and politicians and economists love the idea of ever cheapening food, because it is their get-out-of-jail-free card for unleashing grossly unequal societies… Let the poor folks get paid minimum wage and eat KFC. That is not a recipe for a good or healthy society.

I think British farming has to ask itself a simple question: how do we regain the trust of the British public so that they believe in us and want to help us in the shops, and contribute through their taxes to supporting us?

The answer, I believe, is so simple it is staring us in the face. We need to support farmers to become the genuine stewards of our countryside. We should shift away, to the greatest possible extent, from pesticides, synthetic fertilisers and other 20th-century disasters. We should restore soils and maximise photosynthesis on our land using better techniques like rotational grazing, and on crop land by using mixed rotational farming instead of monocultures.

The good news is that I and many thousands of other farmers can do this, and many of us want to, if given half a chance. But let’s be blunt, it comes with a cost, not covered by the pitiful prices we are paid now, nor through the environmental schemes we have at present. I don’t think you owe me a living, but unless we create a new system, the current farming model is going to trash what’s left of nature in the British countryside.

We need to make being an ecologically sound farmer financially viable. That requires a new deal between farmers, government, retailers, taxpayers and the consumer — a deal that protects and supports good farming and environmental stewardship. A deal that creates viable local food economies in which everyone has access to affordable good food.

We need to sustain and encourage good farming instead of undermining it. And this means protecting us from being undermined by cheap imports produced in systems that are worse than our own, and walking away from a US trade deal if the price demanded is too high. Sorry Mr Trump, but we don’t want that race to the bottom.

Now isn’t the time to abandon faith in farmers. It is the time to back British farmers, support them, help them to learn new things, and transition to better ways.

James Rebanks’ new book English Pastoral is published by Allen Lane.


James Rebanks is a fell farmer and the best-selling author of The Shepherd’s Life. His new book, English Pastoral, came out in September 2020.

herdyshepherd1

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

63 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anthony Roe
Anthony Roe
3 years ago

Thank you for this and I wish you success. However this can only work with the restoration of local economies, market towns, de-mechanisation and a population of 30 milllion max,

Stuart McCullough
Stuart McCullough
3 years ago
Reply to  Anthony Roe

And that is the simple truth. Our population growth is imposing a massive burden on our landscape, as it is on many other aspects of our lives.

David Redfern
David Redfern
3 years ago

What population growth?

The western world’s birth rate is largely falling thanks to prosperity.

It’s people like you demanding that populations are suppressed which is stifling technological progress in the developing world and actually forcing people to procreate because they have little or nothing in the way of welfare to keep them in their old age. The dreadful child mortality rate means they are forced to have large families to care for them in their old age.

A welfare state can only be maintained within a prosperous economy. The deaths of millions of people from starvation during the Mao and Stalin years is ample evidence of that. N. Korea is a more current example of it.

How about thinking before you jump to the usual idiotic conclusion that population growth is a problem. It’s not!

perrywidhalm
perrywidhalm
3 years ago
Reply to  David Redfern

Why do you assume “technological progress” is beneficial to humanity or the other creatures who share this planet with us?

David Redfern
David Redfern
3 years ago
Reply to  perrywidhalm

Because the western world has progressed based ion it. Principally the generation of power, in all it’s forms. Global poverty has fallen dramatically thanks to mechanisation. Technology allows us to live healthier, wealthier and more productive lives. No longer do we toil for 7 days a week grubbing out a subsistence level of living.

No longer is a cut on the finger a threat to life with modern medicines. No longer is giving birth the threat to a mothers life it once was. No longer is it the threat to a child it once was.

Polio, TB, Bubonic plague, all virtually eradicated thanks to modern antibiotics, vaccinations etc. A failing hip, once the end of a life when the victim loses the ability to walk, never mind toil on the land or hunt, is now a routing and safe surgical procedure.

Electricity in your home thanks to fossil fuels now eradicates the need to cook over open hearth fires, burning timber, and being poisoned by the fumes. Yet between 2015 and 2050 120,000,000 (WHO) people in the developing world are expected to die from the inhalation of the same wood and dung smoke they are expected to burn, because ideologues like you refuse them the ability to generate safe, clean, reliable electricity you have enjoyed your entire life.

500,000 people a year die from poor, or non existent sanitation in the developing world. Many more from having to drink contaminated water they are forced to carry from a river perhaps infested with alligators.

Roman technology moved the West away from that 100’s of years ago.

So when was the last time you carried water for miles? And if not, what technology provided you with a fresh supply of clean water for you to bathe in, never mind drink?

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  David Redfern

Germ bioWarfare is A threat .SARS2…A large Number of Antibiotics are Useless,through Overuse,especially in Certain African nations. Are prepensity to kill off Animal Species is Genocidal, Giraffes,Donkeys,Lions,Tigers,Puma,Mountain Leopards,Lynx,Elephants,Rhinos could all be gone from Earth by 2040

David Redfern
David Redfern
3 years ago
Reply to  Robin Lambert

And your evidence for this fanciful nonsense is – What?

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  David Redfern

You are disingenuous about both Stalin and Mao.
Both made lunatic decisions, one about collective farming, the other to build an industrial power.
In the event, as you say, this madness cost the lives of millions.
If they had instead done nothing, none of this would have happened.

David Redfern
David Redfern
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

They might have accepted that socialism was a failed concept long before Marx popped his furry little head up, and done what humanity has successfully done since it first crawled from the primordial soup. Engaged in free trade.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  David Redfern

No chance of that I’m afraid. The elixir of power makes idiots think they are gods, and thus perpetrate unimaginable horrors.

Fortunately we are spared all that for now, although the omens are not good.

Sinclair Black
Sinclair Black
3 years ago
Reply to  David Redfern

Buy a map from the 1930s. There has been stunning population redistribution and growth in the UK. A now large town was only a village back then. England and Wales had a combined population of 40 million. Those are sustainable numbers. What we have now is not. Scotland and NI has seen almost no change for over a century. So they are unaffected.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  David Redfern

A rather ignorant Dopey post. Uk Official Population is 67 million But is Over 70 Million. Even with deaths, Births Accounted for Around 527000 Last year(2019) and 331,000 persons from outside EU settled. A city the Size of Sheffield Every year is NOT sustainable !.Plus illegals over the last thirty years is Close to 1.5million (47,000 in hotels) With Kent,Surrey,Sussex saying their Social Services at maximum ..WHAT dont you get.?.More Globalist rubbish… We already import 40% of Food &re-export 50% of that …Politicians Care More for Brownie Points Virtue Signalling than Reality.. Regenerate City centres and Cut Immigration or Social disorder beckons..

David Redfern
David Redfern
3 years ago
Reply to  Robin Lambert

Considering you didn’t read my post properly, you have exposed yourself as the dope.

I stated: “The western world’s birth rate is largely falling thanks to prosperity.”

I didn’t specify the UK, and immigration has nothing to do with Birth Rates, simpleton.

A report published in The Lancet in July 2020 provides the latest evidence and projections on global population including the UK’s where the fertility rate fell to 1.7 by 2017. Below 2.1 a nation’s population begins to decline. We are not unique in this by any means.

The world is projected to reach a peak population in 2064 at 9·73 billion people and decline to 8·79 billion in 2100.

The study is available here: https://www.thelancet.com/j

Kindly read it and inform yourself before embarking on frivolous, home grown, ill informed, and ‘dopey’ solutions.

Ralph Hulbert
Ralph Hulbert
3 years ago
Reply to  David Redfern

David, the population of England is rising, and is the highest in Europe for a ‘proper’ country. Whether by birthrate or immigration is surely irrelevant.Whilst I agree with much of what you say in the ensuing thread, is there any need for such a caustic response? ‘
>’It’s people like you demanding that populations are suppressed which is
stifling technological progress in the developing world and actually
forcing people to procreate because they have little or nothing in the
way of welfare to keep them in their old age. The dreadful child
mortality rate means they are forced to have large families to care for
them in their old age.’ How is any person ‘demanding’ population suppression stifling progress?

David Redfern
David Redfern
3 years ago
Reply to  Ralph Hulbert

If you read the study I quoted in the post above yours, you will find your assumptions are nonsense, principally because the discussion was not solely focused on ‘England’ (there are 3 other countries in our great nation that share the burden of immigration incidentally).

As for my caustic response, frankly I’m fed up fielding comments from idiots bleating about population growth as though it’s a problem when both scientific and economic evidence presents it as anything but a problem other than to the idiots devoted to the fakir Attenborough and the rabidly left wing BBC who commission or purchase much of his nonsense based on ‘climate change’.

In response to your very reasonable question on who is suppressing or stifling progress, please see my post further down which references the President of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim.

iambetsytrotwood
iambetsytrotwood
3 years ago
Reply to  David Redfern

Manners maketh man. The developing world is kept back by the western world’s food/farm subsidy. How can they possibly subside as we do? Until food prices globally reflect the true cost of production and farm subsidy is all scrapped globally your parochial and nostaligic measures are mere virtue signalling, sadly. Unfortunately consumerism is encouraged by all western governments. They’d much rather a nation of obese folk who shop every day of the week.

David Redfern
David Redfern
3 years ago

The developing world is held back because it is denied access to the very material that made the western world wealthy, fossil fuels. Without it we would not have industrialisation and mechanisation.

Which means we would not have sufficient agricultural productivity to require subsidies.

Indeed, we would still be living as we were in the early 17th Century.

And how do we know the developing world is held back by restrictions on fossil fuels? Because the last President of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim who left his post prematurely, decided not to give Africa etc. money to exploit fossil fuels and thereby industrialise and prosper because he was a green nutter who thought CO2 emissions would damage the planet.

So, in his infinite wisdom he handed much of the money to China, who claimed it was to fund renewable energy generation in the country. The problem is, China’s renewable energy production represents single digit percentages of it’s overall energy requirement and is projected to decline as a % of it’s energy production over the coming decades. Why? Because China is planning, funding and/or building some 1,200 Coal fired power stations around the world, approx. 700 in China alone. And ironically, some of them in Africa!

Thanks to Trump, the corrupt little weasel was booted out his job, replaced by David Malpass.

It may come as no surprise to you that the equally corrupt Obama selected Jim Yong Kim to head up the World bank.

So, no. Agricultural subsidies are of little consequence to most of the world, but the protectionist nature of the EU makes them a big problem in Europe and one that can be plundered at will to expand the office dwelling bureaucrats in Brussels.

Consumerism is the bedrock of civilisation since mankind began free trade with shells as currency. Anything else has proven disastrously destructive, the brutal USSR and the still brutal Communist China are sufficient evidence of that, but there are lots more. Indeed, the USSR abandoned it’s communist regime almost overnight to wholly embrace capitalism. China only maintains it’s government as a communist entity, the country is now wholly funded by Capitalism and consumerism.

And I’m amused at your ‘parochial’ and ill informed assumptions about obesity. It is predominantly a feature of the poor and worse educated members of society. Wealthy and better educated ‘consumers’ tend to understand it’s implications.

And one of the great benefits of successful Capitalism and consumerism is the availability of free time. You know, things like weekend off work, holiday entitlement and bank holidays etc. The Swedish are even experimenting with a four day week, meaning parents can enjoy more quality time with their children.

But it seems that’s bad, according to you.

Judy Johnson
Judy Johnson
3 years ago

Betsy, your words are wasted. If you read David’s posts in this thread you will see he has no concept of manners.

Kathryn Richards
Kathryn Richards
3 years ago
Reply to  Anthony Roe

My father organised a symposium on ‘The Optimum Population for Britain’ back in 1969. This took into account all aspects of modern life including the ability to provide food for the population.
We, of course, exceeded the conclusion a long time ago and politicians have ignored the conclusions ever since.
https://www.biblio.com/book
In case anyone is interested.

David Redfern
David Redfern
3 years ago
Reply to  Anthony Roe

Lets just cut out the middle man and go back to the stone age, shall we?

perrywidhalm
perrywidhalm
3 years ago
Reply to  David Redfern

Why do soft, highly-urbanized, totally dependent city folk like yourself living in extreme abundance, comfort and convenience nearly ALWAYS make this same silly comment?

David Redfern
David Redfern
3 years ago
Reply to  perrywidhalm

Because fools like you jump to stupid conclusions.

I was brought up in a farming community, I worked on our local farm, around 200yds from our house as a youth. I fished and hunted across some of the wilder parts of Scotland into my 30’s. I swam in burns in the Campsie hills where I also went bird watching and witness Golden Eagles being mobbed by Crows before spiralling beyond them, and beyond the naked eye on thermals.

I have camped and subsisted all over the west coast of Scotland, frequently living on the small game and fish we could catch and snare. I also worked as a Police Officer in some of the most deprived areas of the country.

I have also been fortunate enough to travel the world and witnessed the fall out from Communism on a fist hand basis.

What have you done with your life?

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  David Redfern

Campsie Glen waterfall and Alvain Burn perchance?

perrywidhalm
perrywidhalm
3 years ago

Thank you! for publishing this well-written essay. Being a cattle rancher from Wyoming, I could type here all day long. I’ll spare both of us. Several thoughts ….

Back in the 1980’s, we faced the reality of surviving financially coupled to the desire for long-term range improvement. How could we make the range more profitable AND improve the endemic bio-mass and bio-diversity? For us, the solution was to declare our ranch a private wildlife sanctuary, meaning, there would be no killing of wildlife for “sport” (although, since the great predators are gone, we do hunt the over-abundant pronghorn) and no longer would we use herbicides or pesticides plus there would be no more growth hormones used on the livestock. Next, we divided the range into numerous pastures / paddocks and started a rest / rotation grazing scheme. In three years time, the results became obvious and somewhat dramatic. For instance, we began seeing grazeable plants we thought were extinct on our ranch (i.e. the forbs “winter-fat” and “four-wing saltbush” appeared). We changed our cattle breeding program to reflect productivity “on-the-hoof”. In other words, our cattle had to perform on their own and in the pasture. No more coddling the cattle, i.e. over-feeding during the winter months. Economically, we reduced our expenses by purchasing most needed items second-hand or in bulk . We haven’t had a new pickup (bakkie) truck since the early 1990’s.

There is nothing to be done with soft, highly-urbanized, totally-dependent city folk who think food comes from the grocery store and it’s always priced too high and the quality is always too low. Their sense of entitlement and criticism is a result of extreme abundance and lives of comfort and convenience.

James Blott
James Blott
3 years ago

Great article, James and thank you for what you’re trying to do for the countryside. I agree with your conclusions but would say that firstly we need more aware farmers like you. It would be a good place to start to look at the use of chemicals on our land. It would seem to be a huge multiple of even 30 years ago, but I’ve been unable to locate any data. Is it because the truth would be embarrassing?

Hereburgher
Hereburgher
3 years ago
Reply to  James Blott

Quite the reverse – it’s all here, right back to 1965: https://secure.fera.defra.g

Enjoy.

In reality ‘chemical’ use is massively down on 30 years ago, both in terms of quantity and environmental impact.

Kathryn Richards
Kathryn Richards
3 years ago
Reply to  James Blott

Hi James, I think a lot of farmers are aware. Certainly the ones I know are, But as James says, they can’t live on air alone. Supermarkets and consumers also bear responsibility by demanding ever cheaper food.

David Redfern
David Redfern
3 years ago

Yea, lets allow the poor to starve. Tell you what, lets reintroduce Rickets and Scurvy so the wealthy elite like you can feel even more superior munching on your imported limes. Not difficult to do, just raise the price of food so farmers get well paid.

James Blott
James Blott
3 years ago

Thanks Kathryn, I’m not suggesting a ban on chemicals, but I do wonder whether we have to have the sheer quantity that seems to be normal today. I remember when farmers used to spray against aphids etc, because they could decimate a crop, but now spraying is almost a weekly event for many crops and some crops such as oilseed rape seem to require a massive quantity of chemicals, even after harvest, to prevent re-seeding etc. Spraying also has a substantial cost, and no-one’s suggesting extremes (well no-one other than David Redfern, anyway!)

David Redfern
David Redfern
3 years ago
Reply to  James Blott

So what’s your solution to spraying then smartarse?

James Blott
James Blott
3 years ago
Reply to  David Redfern

Sorry, Unherd, your site obviously does not have any control over comments like this, that simply reduce the debate to the cesspit. I shall not be bothering to follow your site again.

David Redfern
David Redfern
3 years ago
Reply to  James Blott

Judging by your contributions, I don’t suppose anyone will miss you.

Kathryn Richards
Kathryn Richards
3 years ago
Reply to  James Blott

Some people just like to insult others without engaging in real debate. Best to ignore them.
Spraying indeed adds substantial cost, but the aggro chemical industry has no incentive to find ways to reduce the routine use of pesticides and herbicides.
LR Taylor developed a nationwide sampling system back in the 1960’s to produce a weekly bulletin for farmers so they had advanced warning when to spray (specifically for aphids and moths). The Insect Survey at Rothamsted continues today.
His son developed a spray nozzle to reduce drift and the amount of pesticide needed to be effective. You can imagine how well that was received.

David Redfern
David Redfern
3 years ago

Photosynthesis is mentioned twice in this article, blithely.

The principle agent in photosynthesis is atmospheric CO2. The planet is enjoying levels around 400ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere, mankind’s contribution to that being ~3%, blamed for a warming planet.

During the last Ice Age, atmospheric CO2 levels fell to around 180ppm, at 150ppm every meaningful C3 plant begins to die from CO2 starvation. (C3 plants represent around 95% of all plant life on earth).

On the other hand, it is very well established scientifically that C3 plants flourish with atmospheric CO2 around 1,000 – 1,200ppm. That might be considered Mother Nature giving us a rather large hint.

We are only ~250ppm away from the certain extinction of every meaningful living thing on the planet. That’s 100% certain – No doubts whatsoever.

Being that no one in the course of human history has demonstrated by empirical, repeatable, scientific means that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm, far less mankind’s inconsequential 3%, it would seem prudent to risk the uncertain benefits/downside of increased atmospheric CO2 rather that encourage idiotic schemes to extract it from the atmosphere and sequester it in abandoned Oil wells, thereby violating the wafer thin buffer of 250ppm before extinction is certain.

As for farming, try telling millions of malnourished Africans they will be forced to pay more for their meagre food rations.

Try telling the million or so people every year who go blind, and invariably die thanks to vitamin A deficiency, they won’t be allowed the Golden Rice which easily, cheaply and simply alleviates death and blindness with a simple edited gene which harnesses the power of additional Beta Carotene to supplement meagre vitamin A provision. The inventors have surrendered their Royalties for the good of these people, and the seed producers provide the seed free to non commercial farmers.

Whilst western/British farmers are wringing their hands fretting about their ‘damage’ to 2% of the nations land, wind turbine placement is routinely destroying acres of valuable Peat Bogs, releasing tons of atmospheric CO2, which, if you fear it, you should be doing something about that ecological disaster rather than flagellating yourself over centuries of countryside stewardship which, whilst perhaps not perfect, is a work in progress, as it’s always been.

I mean, 2%. No one can convince me that farmers are to blame for the supposed loss of Bees, Curlews and innumerable other species. On the other hand, we can collect the carcasses of apex predators like Buzzards, Hawks, and Bats, left by scavengers, from beneath wind turbines. No one can count the numbers slaughtered by offshore turbines because the carcasses either sink or are swept away by the tides.

What we really, really need to do something about is relieving ‘scientists’ with no expertise in statistics and probability, of their computers and spreadsheets.

It’s dangerous having these people extrapolating their meagre studies out into the future, then prostrating ourselves at the alter of the ‘Expert’ when extrapolation is a trick to convince people it’s somehow scientifically observable phenomena, it’s not, it’s pure and utter guesswork. Do these people imagine mankind is going to technologically sit still and conform to their Vodoo science? No, of course not, they are working to fix problems they are observing right now. It is impossible to fix something that is not already happening, and guessing at a fix for something a spreadsheet tells us might happen is the pursuit of idiocy!

Stephen
Stephen
3 years ago
Reply to  David Redfern

100% agree.
Just like to add that as a hill farmer, my fields were well populated with curlews, lapwings, skylarks and other ground nesting birds. Tragically, nearly all gone now, thanks to massive increase in badger numbers.
My farming practices haven’t changed much, lots of tussocky grass,late cutting of silage etc, but birds nearly all gone. A tragedy.

David Redfern
David Redfern
3 years ago
Reply to  Stephen

Indeed. All the urbanites bemoaning the culling of cute Badgers, oblivious to the fact cuter Hedgehogs are part of their diet, much like anything else that gets in their way, including river banks!

And whilst I agree there is much that can be done by farmers to improve their lot, and that of the immediate environment, it all takes money, which must be earned.

But the realities of a rural life is well beyond the limited imagination of most of these people.

Nice to meet you by the way.

Stephen
Stephen
3 years ago
Reply to  David Redfern

I like what you said re wind farms /peat.
A big one was behind us(Harestanes).
Built on hill ground, at least 5ft of peat going to 10ft.
Thousands of tons dug out.
Not that I give a damn about CO2 emissions, but I report I read said that these farms, built on deep peat will never repay the CO2, as well as the tens of thousands of tons of stone hauled up to build the 4m wide roads between all of us 70 turbines.

Kathryn Richards
Kathryn Richards
3 years ago
Reply to  Stephen

It is interesting that you think the reduction in numbers is due to badgers. The main decline in the numbers of these birds occurred during the middle of the 20th Century with the change in Farming practices from rotation to double cropping, and loss of habitat, building for increasing population. Certainly I remember in the 1970’s the worrying decline of Curlews and lapwings being discussed. (Source RSPB who have done extensive research on this)

Stephen
Stephen
3 years ago

My farming practices haven’t really changed at all.It’s an all grass farm. But badger numbers have. Massively since they became a protected species. Unintended consequences and all that..
For a great many years, up until the 60’s there were hundreds of ‘shooting estates’
The keepers main job was to protect the holy grouse, pheasant partridge etc.
Another unintended consequence was that anything that preyed on these birds was eliminated. Badgers, foxes, crows, rooks and raptors. Result, ground nesting birds paradise.
Now I’m no fan of these hooray henries bagging huge numbers of game birds, but it did result in a huge flourishing of other bird species
These estates have been in decline since the 60’s.
QED.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  Stephen

Can’t you get a license to shoot them?

K Sheedy
K Sheedy
3 years ago
Reply to  David Redfern

Ref birds .. fact check on BBC quote RSPB and others… says other energy sources (fossils and nuclear) kill more birds.. and they are insignificant compared to domestic cats.

Sinclair Black
Sinclair Black
3 years ago

In the 1970s a 30 mile return journey in north Oxfordshire left my windscreen a mass of bugs. I had to scrub like mad to clean them off. Last summer I drove from North Yorkshire via Bristol to Chippenham and back in one day. I had two large dead bugs on the windscreen. Nothing else. Something has seriously gone wrong when that is possible. I doubt if we are in a sustainable situation.

Marianne Winfield
Marianne Winfield
3 years ago

Thank you James for such a clear and unique grasp of the realities of farming today, of public perceptions and some indicators as to how such a complex situation might move forward. .I come from a permaculture background, interest in local food producing hubs and support for rewilding plans. I have no experience of farming myself, so I am very grateful for your analysis of the contradictions and potential harmonising of these. Lets’ hope other farmers will tune into such a sensitive and common sense approach!

iambetsytrotwood
iambetsytrotwood
3 years ago

The environment and obesity would be restored almost immediately if farm subsidy was scrapped. Subsidy gives people in the developed world the false notion that there is a plentiful supply of food per person when the opposite is true. Cheap food is simply fake news. Arable farming (growing stuff from seed) has decimated our patchwork landscape of original fields, bound by hedges and pastoral farming (animals grazing) is always paying the price. It is morally wrong that a supermarket chicken costs £3. Sunday roast used to be special because it was reassuringly expensive. Rather than consult the townie ecologists or the rewilding buffoons, if food subsidy vanished, our green and pleasant land would breathe again, at last. I am fed up to the back teeth with the hypocrisy of food/farm subsidy. How can it possibly ever work with a ballooning global population? No solution will be appropriate till it acknowledges this fact. Otherwise we are simply encouraging e.g. more Amazon rain forest removal for the mass production of ever cheaper palm oil. Return the price of food instead to what it should be without protectionism’s creation of a false paradise. This would start to lead the world away from environment rape.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago

As someone who grew up in an agricultural community, and who helped local farmers with the haymaking* etc, I obviously found this to be a very interesting article.

It certainly seems to me that we need to see the consumption of more locally produced food. There is a pub in my hometown selling burgers made entirely from local produce – the meat, the bun, the garnish etc – for just a fiver.

*The last time I did any real work!

Trevor Q
Trevor Q
3 years ago

An excellent and perceptive article. Government policy obviously matters a great deal but so does the response of the public. People need to realize the benefit to themselves and the environment from buying local produce and be prepared to pay a bit more for it. I have started buying unpasteurised milk direct from the farm in my own containers and it is massively better tasting than supermarket milk. When I visited Llubjana a couple of years ago there were milk vending machines in the city centre in a similar manner so it is possible. Also grass fed meat is very superior to intensively farmed meat as well as being more ethical. Other countries market it as such and it attracts a premium price so I don’t understand why farmers here don’t do similar.
I do think that a 2 tier market is going to develop as price sells for many people – often out of necessity. I think however there is a growing market for premium local products cutting out the supermarkets. I am prepared to pay more good quality local food.

taradillard
taradillard
3 years ago

Homes across USA are pouring synthetic fertilizers and applying insecticides/herbicides/fungicides. Toxic to groundwater, soil, flora/fauna.

Those same homes add night time light pollution to the toll on pollinators.

Doug Tallamy writes beautifully about how to change direction, nurturing Nature.

Wendell Berry has been writing about the toll of modern farming upon land and communities for decades.

Ironically, after getting USA horticulture degree, ca. 1980’s, I knew it was worthless. Off to Europe I went, studying historic gardens across 2 decades. First trip, discovered wisdom of agrarian/pastoral methods They are Garden Design’s best . Hedge, meadow, wildwood, toss in a stone focal point, stone/brick path/s. Unique, new, every time. Guaranteed.

Discovering the best style was obvious. Why it is the best style took longer to learn. Do you know already? Sure, no irrigation, no synthetic fertilizers or other chemicals, less maintenance. What isn’t obvious, are the complete layers for pollinators as Nature intended.

Home landscaping, using agrarian/pastoral Garden Design methods, if neighborhoods surround farmland, can increase crop yields up to 80%. How? Increased pollinators.

More than farming needs to change direction.

Looking forward to reading your book James.

Garden & Be Well, Tara Dillard

matthewcfrost
matthewcfrost
3 years ago

Really enjoyed your article James so thanks. I read Wilding and enjoyed it, and visited Knepp. That clearly can’t apply everywhere so I will buy and read your book to see what can be done for the wider situation.
Question – what do you need to make these things happen? Specifically – money for the maintenance? Like a UK CAP based on biodiversity?
If thats covered in the book then great.

David Redfern
David Redfern
3 years ago
Reply to  matthewcfrost

Thank the lord. Someone approaching this with an open mind, unlike Betsy Trotwood above who has all the answers, like scrapping all farming subsidies.

And the Chinese are going to do that………..

Stephen
Stephen
3 years ago
Reply to  David Redfern

By the way, another all time world record grain harvest this year.

iambetsytrotwood
iambetsytrotwood
3 years ago
Reply to  David Redfern

An open mind is not a greedy mouth?

Johnny Sutherland
Johnny Sutherland
3 years ago
Reply to  matthewcfrost

How to make it work – easy – reduce our population so that we can feed ourselves or increase our dependence on imported food. I love the idea of what is being suggested but have no desire to be part of the population reduction until I’m a bit older so I need to keep eating.

chris forrest
chris forrest
3 years ago

Ever since the last war we have had a cheap food policy. this has meant farmers not recompensed properly (why are the French the biggest buyers of our lamb- because they are happy to pay for quality) and have to go for greater output to stand still. Our soils are deteriorating fast and you see that every time it rains hard with the run off from the fields. we on a couple of acres are nearly self sufficient ( I am 73 ) in veg, we use no chemicals and even on this scale the impact on wildlife birds etc is obvious. People and communities could grow more and eat in season produce and get pleasure from doing it, allotments are always in demand. a lot of farmers sadly could not give a stuff about wildlife and hence flail hedges to the bone taking all the winter berries with it, don’t leave space for wildlife etc. James is the exception not the rule. it needs people like James in the Dept of Environment etc to get a practical take on the problem. The whole idea of planting all these trees is a joke because they have to be nurtured and that takes time and labour. lets have a Land Corps of folk who would like to get into the countryside and do such work and have fun and physical exercise as a result. Government cannot do it it needs to be done at a local level. people need to care and they don’t for the most part.

Julian Flood
Julian Flood
3 years ago

An excellent review of the dilemma we have got ourselves into. If we end up trading on WTO terms with the world I believe that subsidies will be forbidden. The answer will be for HMG to pay farmers to provide recreational space for the taxpayer — lockdown has shown us how much pleasure and exercise the countryside can supply. It’s not a food subsidy so it shouldn’t break any rules.

We’ve just had a farm taken over near us — reservoir built, hedges mulched and replaced with whips, river dredged and cleared. There should be more farmers who, like Mr Rebanks, realise that it’s not just about food.

JF
A post on Independence Daily called A Fair Field Full of Folk.

shoot2scoot
shoot2scoot
3 years ago

I admire your motivation and willingness to explore solutions. I wonder what you farm because you avoid all mention but for two suggestions of possible animal agriculture? There in lies a problem. We need less animals and more crops. It takes up far too much land and resources for animals to be a serious crop of the future. As to alternatives, we need to lobby the Home Office to transfer Industrial Hemp farming to Defra and make licencing of growing Hemp much more transparent. This is a crop that most farms can grow and turn a profit on at the same time as cleaning the air and soil. It is a wonder crop that could help a wounded country after Brexit. Good Luck.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago

What is wrong with the current farm subsidies? ‘The single payment system’.
A 900 acre farm gets a hand out of about £90K from the very begrudging Tax Payer. Just enough to live on, and pay some of the school fees, and Aga repairs bills.
Plus that extra goody, no Inheritance Tax (IHT).
That IHT relief, as it is so prosaically called, is said to be the reason why Sir James Dyson recently “hoovered up” more than 30,000 acres of Lincolnshire.

Kathryn Richards
Kathryn Richards
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

How exactly do you think farming would survive if IHT was paid each time someone died?
The subsidies distort the market, and too many land owners get the subsidy, not always the farmer. It helps to do some research before writing.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago

You powers of comprehension seem to have deserted you.
I am saying we need more subsidies and the benefit of IHT is not enough, is that not clear?

Incidentally you were not suggesting that a landowner transfers his subsidy to his tenant farmer were you?

In conclusion “manners maketh woman” as well as man in these enlightened times.

Kathryn Richards
Kathryn Richards
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

My apologies Mark, I seems I did misread.
Your post appeared to suggest that you resented the IHT benefit, (‘Plus that extra goody, no Inheritance Tax (IHT).’)
and your comment on farmers receiving £90,000 being barely enough to pay for school fees and AGA’s suggested that farmers were rolling in money.

I am also confused with ‘Incidentally you were not suggesting that a landowner transfers his subsidy to his tenant farmer were you?’ I am fairly sure that I was not suggesting that.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago

No apology required just a misunderstanding, thanks.

The remark “too many landowners get the subsidy, not always the farmer”, led me think that there might be a scintilla of anti feudal bias, but I must of have misinterpreted that.

How Defra and Mr Gove react to all this, aggravated by C-19 will be very interesting.

Steve Gwynne
Steve Gwynne
3 years ago

Almost made me cry. Thank you 🏵️💮🌼🌸
I 100% support you in your endeavour to reconnect farming with ecological justice (ecocentric farming!).
I presume when we switch over to payments for environmental public goods aka payments for ecosystem services, you will be justly rewarded for your pioneering efforts. Efforts which I hope will be mimicked elsewhere.
Thank you again 🏵️🌼🌸

rod tobin
rod tobin
3 years ago

support the british farmers. always said with population of about 50 million we can feed and support this country. just a few million too many.

E E
E E
3 years ago

“Hundreds of animals were rescued from “awful conditions” during an operation involving the police and an animal charity.” That’s from a newspaper headline this week.

While I’m sure there are ‘good’ farmers out there, I get them impression you think every farmer is brilliant at his job, from the large company model to humble tenant. From my experience (and I both have extended family who are farmers and live in a rural area), They operate on the ethos of money by any means. Whether that’s disposing of dead animals in a discreet holes in the ground or operating exclusively around the grants system. Your sector need reform, not more money.