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?
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!