|
|
Discussion Forum
Started by alauda26 at 02 Nov 2009 12:47 PM. Topic has 7 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 02 Nov 2009, 12:47 PM
|
alauda26
Joined on 10 Jan 2006
Oxfordshire
Posts 81
|
EK2 Low input grassland - topping restriction
|
|
|
|
|
|
I admit I hadn't been particularly aware of the change to the prescription for ELS option EK2 - Permanent grassland with low inputs (lowland). The first edition (blue) ELS handbook said nothing about topping (apart from the requirement not to cut 1/4-31/5), but the second edition (green) ELS handbook bans topping completely, except in patches for injurious weed control.
Feedback from local advisors suggests that in some parts of the West Midlands at least this is being perceived as a serious impediment to maintaining grass quality by the livestock farmers.
From a wildlife perspective I understand it's encouraging greater structural heterogeneity in the sward and hence should boost foliar invertebrate numbers in particular, but from the agricultural perspective is there is a significant cost incurred in this that wasn't present under the previous prescription?
What are other's experiences and views on this one?
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
03 Nov 2009, 11:27 AM
|
Peter Tierney
Joined on 17 Dec 2006
Longtown, Herefordshire
Posts 1
|
Re: EK2 Low input grassland - topping restriction
|
|
|
|
|
|
It’s not so much the cost involved as not topping would actually save money. But farmers see it as allowing their grassland to become too course and tussocky and unpalatable to sheep in particular. I can see where NE are coming from but this will prevent several from joining in ELS. A far better compromise would be to only allow half of the pasture to be topped in any one year. This would allay farmer’s fears and would still provide the benefits to grassland structure and invertebrate numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05 Nov 2009, 10:01 PM
|
JoulesH
Joined on 06 Jan 2007
Posts 28
|
Re: EK2 Low input grassland - topping restriction
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is crazy. We are in the lowlands and have a 40 acre field of pp on floodplain under this option and I hadn't been aware of the change to topping rules. We currently top no earlier than the end of July to give ground nesters a chance to get away. There is no way we can agree to not topping at all as it is dominated now by assorted wetland grasses which grow about 2ft tall and it is impossible to shepherd sheep in these conditions, you just can't see if you have an animal lying sick. It is also by far the most environmentally friendly way to stop thistles seeding. So that will be 40 acres less ELS land in a critical area adjacent to an SSSI. There IS an agricultural cost as well because your sward is not 'refreshed' and sheep will not eat long grass but will eat topped 'hay' and will also eat the fresh stuff coming through. On another 50 acres of land under CSS lowland grazing (not wet land) we manage it the same way and have fantastic uneven sward and it is a super nesting site for skylarks and meadow pipits so they're obviously finding plenty to eat.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05 Nov 2009, 10:15 PM
|
JoulesH
Joined on 06 Jan 2007
Posts 28
|
Re: EK2 Low input grassland - topping restriction
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now I'm confused. I've looked at the OCt 08 2nd edition handbook and although it says do not top at any time it also says you can manage by cutting (after 31 May, remove the cuttings) so other than the fact that nutrients are removed, how is that different to topping?
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
17 Nov 2009, 1:57 PM
|
Ian Gould
Joined on 20 Dec 2005
Huntingdon
Posts 68
|
Re: EK2 Low input grassland - topping restriction
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joules,
You are completely right as this wording is madness, but it is clearly meant in a constructive way. My interpretation is that the difference between "Cutting" and "Topping" is the purpose and end-result for the cuttings. I suggest that "cutting" involves using a forage harvester (or something similar) to harvest the grass, "topping" just cuts the grass and leaves the residue in-situ. However, rules should be written in a way that doesn't need too much interpretation and in this respect the handbook has failed here.
The EK2 option is trying to create a diverse habitat, whilst compensating the farmer for the lower productivity. It isn't just trying to create a slightly less productive version of what you have now. We all have to get our heads around the Environmental Goods that we are attempting to produce, often more profitably than those outputs that we have been used to.
Ian Gould
www.oakbankgc.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
17 Nov 2009, 6:32 PM
|
JoulesH
Joined on 06 Jan 2007
Posts 28
|
Re: EK2 Low input grassland - topping restriction
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ian, sorry I am quoting you but it hasn't come out right! "
It isn't just trying to create a slightly less productive version of what you have now. We all have to get our heads around the Environmental Goods that we are attempting to produce, often more profitably than those outputs that we have been used to." As you can't see what we have now, how can you say whether it is what NE are after?
We have a diverse habitat which has always been topped. What we have is flood plain grazed grassland that has received no inputs not even FYM for over 40 years and is stocked lightly with sheep from April - October. It is a diverse sward with good populations of breeding ground nesters, some quite wet areas, some areas more tightly grazed with bents and fescues interspersed with small areas dominated by rushes and more widespread Deschampsia. We get good winter wildfowl and wader populations as well as the breeding birds. I don't think it could be made less productive than it is now! In our case, if we can't top it then we probably can't farm it as we won't even be able to see the sheep by the end of the summer (much of it is ridge and furrow, just to make things even harder). As stated above, the sheep eat most of the topping residue but they will not normally eat it if it is left standing and as we top late, then there is a chance for species to flower. Due to the varied sward, topping does exactly as its name suggests - it just takes the top off the taller bits, so we still have a varied sward height after topping. There are not enough rushes for it to qualify under EK4, which does allow cutting and does not mention removal. NE are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater with this change in prescription as I know a lot of grassland farmers - many farming alongside rivers etc (as this is) who will not be prepared to 'not top' and this will be sufficient to drop them out of ELS. The other area is under exactly the same management, ie grazed and topped, other than it is mixed cattle and sheep grazing and grazed longer in the year, and it looks remarkably like the picture on P72 in the ELS handbook, other than it is ridge and furrow. NE advisers came on a team meeting farm walk here and were very impressed with what we have achieved and as we are now moving from CSS to HLS have stated that they want us to carry on with current management as it is obviously 'working.'
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
17 Nov 2009, 7:56 PM
|
Ian Gould
Joined on 20 Dec 2005
Huntingdon
Posts 68
|
Re: EK2 Low input grassland - topping restriction
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joules,
You are clearly an excellent example of someone that should be allowed to write their own plan for a particular scenario, just like the old Habitat management plans that were possible under set aside. I have a well-known local farmer that has a ditch with beautiful wild flowers in it, but none of the management prescriptions in ELS allow him to manage it as it needs to be done. It is only his good will and genuine interest that maintains this excellent resource in such magnificent condition.
Natural England have a very difficult job in trying to write a "one size fits all" handbook, I think they have done a fair job in many respects. They are beginning to trust farmers to be results orientated and I am sure that this will be a positive thing. Unfortunately not all large conservation bodies are of the same opinion about farmers, so we must work hard to keep our house in order.
I believe, well I certainly hope that in most cases RPA Inspectors et al will be suitably qualified to spot the skill with which you manage your land, in the spirit of the rules rather than to the letter of them. Unfortunately there appears to be no lattitude allowed under ELS, no matter how worthy the project is. I would suggest that successful historic management should take precedence over any central handbook.
Every success with your work!
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
18 Nov 2009, 3:19 PM
|
gethin
Joined on 06 Dec 2005
Posts 32
|
Re: EK2 Low input grassland - topping restriction
|
|
|
|
|
|
These points are replies to various aspects of this thread!
There is no doubt that the new requirements in the ELS grassland options to encourage greater structural diversity will have some impact on grass quality. Once plants become tall, “stemmy” and flower (“go to head” as farmers tend to say), growth and palatability tend to decline. Efficient grassland management necessitates keeping as much of the sward as possible in a short vegetative state, but this obviously has consequences for wildlife associated with grasslands. Vegetation structure is key for many wildlife, and grasslands rich in seeds and insects have become ever scarcer with grassland management that ensures few plants are free from grazing or cutting for long enough to set seed or allow insects to complete their life cycles.
The new requirements in the ELS grassland options for “at least 20 per cent of the sward should be more than 7 cm” and precluding topping except for the control of weeds should provide significant benefits, but I can sympathise that this will raise issues for some. In particular, it is likely that many of the grasslands entered in the original grassland options (when these requirements were not present) were relatively productive low-input fields e.g. ryegrass/clover fields that could meet the 50Kg or 0Kg nitrogen restrictions, but still had very efficient grassland utilisation. Leaving taller grass around will be a step too far for some of these, and particularly where sheep are the only grazing animal – maybe something that adds to the problems for JoulesH?. Optimum sward heights for sheep are typically 4-7cm, and being highly selective grazing animals they generally select the most nutritious and palatable vegetation available to them, increasingly avoiding taller vegetation. Getting these taller/rank areas grazed again may be difficult unless cattle are available – or you occasionally cut them. Cattle are generally much more willing than sheep to consume taller, more mature vegetation in the sward - a particular benefit from this for biodiversity is that taller vegetation will generally be more finely distributed across the area, rather than be in the large patches of unbroken rank sward that tends to develop with more selective grazers such as sheep/horses.
If cattle are not an option JoulesH, then I think it is understandable that you will have to occassionally resort to some form of cutting – though ideally over as small an area as possible. Hopefully, as Ian says, inspections will be more focussed on whether farmers are creating the right type of end result, rather than the details of how they got there. If you've got nesting meadow pipit, then it must be offereing quite a lot as this is now a very rare breeding bird on lowland grasslands. Personally would like to see some even taller bits than the picture on pg 72 shows, but then it’s a lot better than the “mixed grazing picture” on pg 75 which is meant to illustrate how mixed grazing encourages diversity of structure and species, but has a sward more akin to a cricket pitch!
As for those farmers with more productive grasslands that cannot move to these new requirements, I think the main issue is the very limited choice of alternative options in ELS appropriate to such grasslands. Many ways have been developed to “tweak” productive arable land to provide benefits for farmland wildlife (conservation headlands, beetle banks etc), and allow arable farmers the flexibility of different options to fit in and around crops. Hopefully we will see the development of some new grassland options over the coming years - but I think any discussions on that should be kept for a different thread!
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|