Piling on binding restrictions and pledges...one at a time

[oneoff]

Anyone else heard of a line elevator companies interest in verifying that less than one hectare of "bulldozing" had been undertaken by farmers in the last 5 years. The incentive reported to be potential premiums by European buyers.

In principle; who would be interested in dealing with anyone who arbitrarily can add to their list of their pet causes (which could/would no doubt extend to whatever is additionally added to the contract) ...and is it really worth restricting ones operation...and where might this scenario ever end.

[farmaholic]

This trial balloon was flown afew years ago. I never signed on.

[dalek]

I've seen the requirements but I forget which international standards it's part of. Think somebody needs to get out of their little corner of Europe

[hobbyfrmr]

Lets just say it works out. 100 farmers sign up. To whom does the premium goto? Not those farmers methinks.

[farmaholic]

....never thought of it that way.

[oneoff]

I'm thinking those 100 farmers just set the baseline; and its not just premiums at stake...its access to what will be new standard expected of all markets in future.

And that will impaCT EVERYONE WITH NEXT TO NO GAIN

[Oliver88]

Sounds ridiculous........but it wouldn't surprise me if it comes up again due to a "climate change/enviro-loon" policy.

I definitely wouldn't sign up.

[dalek]

I think it was originally a South America - save the rainforest provision but it became part of their standards worldwide even though it makes no sense in some areas

[chuckChuck]

Consumers have power. There is a long and growing list of restrictions and regulations for food production depending on the market.

There has been a recent big shift in the fast food market with hormone and antibiotic free products,cage free etc.

Farmers often seem to forget that consumers have a big say in how food is produced.

Farmers often like to think they know everything and shouldn't be told how to farm.

I am reminded of a story from a reliable source i heard several years ago. A farmer had some left over aldrin or dieldrin I can't remember which. Both are a very persistent and toxic insecticides. They have been long banned in North America. Anyway this must have been before pesticide collection programs started. So the farmer didn't know what to do with the dieldrin so they poured it down a well on the farm!

99% of farmers would know that this is the worst thing that they could have done. But there are still examples of farmers doing stupid things thinking that they have no responsibility to anyone but themselves.

The days of farmers willy nilly doing what ever they please will slowly come to an end. Regulations imposed by governments or the market will eventually require many farmers to change.

On the issue of trees? I certainly understand why some farmers want to clear their sloughs for the 80 ft drill and 120ft sprayer. But the question is what value do those trees hold? 1. They add biodiversity which have benefits to crop production and society. 2. They soak up alot of water in wet cycles and slow down runoff. 3. In a dry cycle they trap snow and reduce evaporation. 4. They are a large carbon sink. 5.They reduce wind speeds and reduce soil erosion. 6. removing large amounts of trees will change the climate in small to large regions.

If farmers think they should be paid to increase or protect carbon in soils should they not be expected to have carbon credits deducted when they remove trees and wetlands?

[stonepicker]

Do you farm chuck chuck?

[sumdumguy]

Europe will set the standard and looks like individual states will follow.