This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I've often heard the phrase from farmers that they are 'the custodians of the landscape'.
My gut reaction is that that isn't true on the whole, it seems to imply that without them this country's land will fall into rack and ruin. And yet we see piles of rusting crap, hedges uprooted and upland areas barren from grazing.
I understand that our growing population needs food and it is our demands that drives much of farming so we are mostly to blame for what we buy and the impact that it has on the landscape. But that doesn't particularly marry up with the farmers "we are custodians" line.
But I imagine the true story is much more nuanced, I don't know enough about it to form a proper opinion.
What's the truth?
My gut reaction is that that isn't true on the whole, it seems to imply that without them this country's land will fall into rack and ruin. And yet we see piles of rusting crap, hedges uprooted and upland areas barren from grazing.
I understand that our growing population needs food and it is our demands that drives much of farming so we are mostly to blame for what we buy and the impact that it has on the landscape. But that doesn't particularly marry up with the farmers "we are custodians" line.
But I imagine the true story is much more nuanced, I don't know enough about it to form a proper opinion.
What's the truth?
3
In reply to Escher:
I think that their point is that otherwise the property developers would have free rein to bulldoze their way across the green-belt.
Yes it probably is.
> I've often heard the phrase from farmers that they are 'the custodians of the landscape'.
I think that their point is that otherwise the property developers would have free rein to bulldoze their way across the green-belt.
> But I imagine the true story is much more nuanced, I don't know enough about it to form a proper opinion.
Yes it probably is.
In reply to zebidee:
Working in the property industry, it seems that if planning permission can be obtained then most farmers are quite happy to sell off their fields to a property developer as long as they get a decent financial reward for it.
> I think that their point is that otherwise the property developers would have free rein to bulldoze their way across the green-belt.
Working in the property industry, it seems that if planning permission can be obtained then most farmers are quite happy to sell off their fields to a property developer as long as they get a decent financial reward for it.
6
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Which is because they're being destroyed by supermarkets and the like "negotiating" prices which make farming untenable.
> Working in the property industry, it seems that if planning permission can be obtained then most farmers are quite happy to sell off their fields to a property developer as long as they get a decent financial reward for it.
Which is because they're being destroyed by supermarkets and the like "negotiating" prices which make farming untenable.
3
1
In reply to zebidee:
Well there's plenty of other ways of making money out of the land if traditional farming is untenable (although I find it hard to believe given the subsidies involved), but to describe all farmers of custodians of the landscape is a bit Dappledown Farm in my experience.
I'm sure that like Escher says though, it's way more nuanced than that, and that there are plenty of farmers who are passionate custodians of their area, whilst there are also lots who couldn't care less about selling off their land, degrading the soil, or just raking in tonnes of subsidies.
Well there's plenty of other ways of making money out of the land if traditional farming is untenable (although I find it hard to believe given the subsidies involved), but to describe all farmers of custodians of the landscape is a bit Dappledown Farm in my experience.
I'm sure that like Escher says though, it's way more nuanced than that, and that there are plenty of farmers who are passionate custodians of their area, whilst there are also lots who couldn't care less about selling off their land, degrading the soil, or just raking in tonnes of subsidies.
7
3
In reply to Escher:
The rural landscape looks as it does because of farming (or shooting). If we want it to remain as it is then farming practices need to continue much as they are so in that respect farmers are the custodians of the landscape. They're not all very good custodians mind.
jk
The rural landscape looks as it does because of farming (or shooting). If we want it to remain as it is then farming practices need to continue much as they are so in that respect farmers are the custodians of the landscape. They're not all very good custodians mind.
jk
6
3
In reply to jkarran:
It's as much to do with government policy as anything else - be it royal hunting forests, enclosures, clearances or CAP. Farmers have pretty much followed the money (and done what they were told). and I'm using "farmer" in the broadest sense - be it landed gentry or smallholder.
I think the thing that is true is that the farming business is relatively less mobile - farmers will expand, rather than relocate their business (though there are plenty of uk farmers buying land/ businesses in europe). This tends to give then stronger links to place than say a transport company.
What is telling is how few farmers kids (if they are going into farming at all) are going to do any sort of agric. course. Once they went to agricultural college, now they are doing business management degrees. Pretty much all the old agric colleges have diversified away from agric courses - often that aspect has gone completely.
It's as much to do with government policy as anything else - be it royal hunting forests, enclosures, clearances or CAP. Farmers have pretty much followed the money (and done what they were told). and I'm using "farmer" in the broadest sense - be it landed gentry or smallholder.
I think the thing that is true is that the farming business is relatively less mobile - farmers will expand, rather than relocate their business (though there are plenty of uk farmers buying land/ businesses in europe). This tends to give then stronger links to place than say a transport company.
What is telling is how few farmers kids (if they are going into farming at all) are going to do any sort of agric. course. Once they went to agricultural college, now they are doing business management degrees. Pretty much all the old agric colleges have diversified away from agric courses - often that aspect has gone completely.
3
In reply to RyanOsborne:
How many farmers do you actually know? Apart from the east of England super farms, most are on the breadline, with farmers working massive hours into old age.
How many farmers do you actually know? Apart from the east of England super farms, most are on the breadline, with farmers working massive hours into old age.
4
2
In reply to zebidee:
Perhaps people could pay more for their food, lose the subsidies and cut out the eu middlemen.
Perhaps people could pay more for their food, lose the subsidies and cut out the eu middlemen.
1
In reply to Escher:
I'll get a lot of flax for saying this, but I'd prefer a lot more purple/blue in our fields and a lot less yellow.
I'll get a lot of flax for saying this, but I'd prefer a lot more purple/blue in our fields and a lot less yellow.
5
In reply to summo:
Yep, something more reflective of the environmental as well as economic cost of production. Preferably a price that would make people reconsider how much meat they eat.
> Perhaps people could pay more for their food, lose the subsidies and cut out the eu middlemen.
Yep, something more reflective of the environmental as well as economic cost of production. Preferably a price that would make people reconsider how much meat they eat.
2
1
In reply to Escher:
No worse than the crap that accumulates on the sides of roads as a result of mindless morons throwing litter out of vehicles, fly tippers depositing mattresses, freezers, furniture et al in both rural and urban areas.
> And yet we see piles of rusting crap, hedges uprooted and upland areas barren from grazing.
No worse than the crap that accumulates on the sides of roads as a result of mindless morons throwing litter out of vehicles, fly tippers depositing mattresses, freezers, furniture et al in both rural and urban areas.
1
4
In reply to Escher:
Good thread, and unusual, but - just personally - I wouldn't comment on farmers till I've walked a mile in their shoes.
Good thread, and unusual, but - just personally - I wouldn't comment on farmers till I've walked a mile in their shoes.
In reply to mypyrex:
Sure but no-one is holding up fly tippers as custodians of the landscape.
> No worse than the crap that accumulates on the sides of roads as a result of mindless morons throwing litter out of vehicles, fly tippers depositing mattresses, freezers, furniture et al in both rural and urban areas.
Sure but no-one is holding up fly tippers as custodians of the landscape.
5
In reply to felt:
But that would go against the grain.
> I'll get a lot of flax for saying this, but I'd prefer a lot more purple/blue in our fields and a lot less yellow.
But that would go against the grain.
3
In reply to RyanOsborne:
I am sure 99% would prefer to spend more time out on the ground than doing battle with eu paperwork and the government would save running a dysfunctional IT system.
I am sure 99% would prefer to spend more time out on the ground than doing battle with eu paperwork and the government would save running a dysfunctional IT system.
In reply to Escher:
Isn't more or less the same said of the NT - for example using sheep farming to keep the Lakes looking as it does. Yet not many people, particularly the locals, have a lot of trust in the NT (ironically enough).
Isn't more or less the same said of the NT - for example using sheep farming to keep the Lakes looking as it does. Yet not many people, particularly the locals, have a lot of trust in the NT (ironically enough).
In reply to Escher:
Farm owners (increasingly not the same as "farmers") have legal title to much of the land. They maintain it primarily to some standard to benefit their their business, with a highly variable amount of additional effort spent maintaining it for some combination of aesthetic and wildlife benefit.
If a farmer literally stopped any work on their estate tomorrow, I do know know what would happen to that land, but I suspect it would not automatically turn into some wildlife paradise. Almost all farmland has been worked in the UK for between hundreds and thousands of years and this has not so much left its mark as defined the entire ecosystem, which is maintained very far from it's equilibrium by a great and deliberate expenditure of effort. Given the problems with invasive species despite this, I could well imagine it going highly out of kilter if that expenditure stopped, especially given the island nature.
Yes, we are to blame for buying food. We should starve so that the fields can be more pleasing to the aesthetic of some. Why stop there - we've built on a sizeable chunk of that land, seeing as people are going to starve to death to return the wild aesthetic, we might as well demolish the cities as well.
Or we could all stop eating meat, and then the upland hills could be cleared, drained, ploughed and converted from grass and scrub to industrialised crop farming. Good bye to the wildflower meadows, ground nesting birds, rabbits, voles, shrews and all the other wildlife I've seen on and around the fells...
Farm owners (increasingly not the same as "farmers") have legal title to much of the land. They maintain it primarily to some standard to benefit their their business, with a highly variable amount of additional effort spent maintaining it for some combination of aesthetic and wildlife benefit.
If a farmer literally stopped any work on their estate tomorrow, I do know know what would happen to that land, but I suspect it would not automatically turn into some wildlife paradise. Almost all farmland has been worked in the UK for between hundreds and thousands of years and this has not so much left its mark as defined the entire ecosystem, which is maintained very far from it's equilibrium by a great and deliberate expenditure of effort. Given the problems with invasive species despite this, I could well imagine it going highly out of kilter if that expenditure stopped, especially given the island nature.
> I understand that our growing population needs food and it is our demands that drives much of farming so we are mostly to blame for what we buy
Yes, we are to blame for buying food. We should starve so that the fields can be more pleasing to the aesthetic of some. Why stop there - we've built on a sizeable chunk of that land, seeing as people are going to starve to death to return the wild aesthetic, we might as well demolish the cities as well.
Or we could all stop eating meat, and then the upland hills could be cleared, drained, ploughed and converted from grass and scrub to industrialised crop farming. Good bye to the wildflower meadows, ground nesting birds, rabbits, voles, shrews and all the other wildlife I've seen on and around the fells...
1
4
In reply to wintertree:
If no-one ate meat then there would be absolutely no need to do that. The inefficiency of producing meat, i.e. growing 6kg of crops to feed livestock to produce 1kg of meat means that if no-one at meat (or indeed if most people didn't eat meat with most meals), then we could vastly reduce the amount of crops grown in this country.
> Or we could all stop eating meat, and then the upland hills could be cleared, drained, ploughed and converted from grass and scrub to industrialised crop farming. Good bye to the wildflower meadows, ground nesting birds, rabbits, voles, shrews and all the other wildlife I've seen on and around the fells...
If no-one ate meat then there would be absolutely no need to do that. The inefficiency of producing meat, i.e. growing 6kg of crops to feed livestock to produce 1kg of meat means that if no-one at meat (or indeed if most people didn't eat meat with most meals), then we could vastly reduce the amount of crops grown in this country.
1
1
In reply to wintertree:
In the context of what you've said 'custodians of the land' makes sense. Thanks
In the context of what you've said 'custodians of the land' makes sense. Thanks
In reply to wintertree:
Have you seen most Snowdonia valley farms? The land management is non-existant, throw sheep on, pull them off occassionally.. sheep grazing is at such a low level that there's no shortage of grass so its not an issue for farming. Farming in such areas is barely sustainable. I think the NPAs and NT should slowly start buying up such farms and farming the land purely for land management.
This happened at Llyndy Isaf in Nantgwynant, I knew the old farmer for decades and his kids didn't want to farm it so he sold it to the NT so they could manage the land. It's still farmed but from a land management perspective.
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/article-1355816010936/
We lose so much land from weeds and rushes just taking over.
I think if we left the land it would return to a climax vegetation, you see it in the sheep exclusion zones in Idwal, small bushes and birches slowly become established, soil depth increases and we'll see succession.
The question is if we want that succession, in the peak we don't seem to and aim to preserve the moorland landscape at the sub-climax level. I wished we had more open forests.
>
> If a farmer literally stopped any work on their estate tomorrow, I do know know what would happen to that land, but I suspect it would not automatically turn into some wildlife paradise. Almost all farmland has been worked in the UK for between hundreds and thousands of years and this has not so much left its mark as defined the entire ecosystem, which is maintained very far from it's equilibrium by a great and deliberate expenditure of effort. Given the problems with invasive species despite this, I could well imagine it going highly out of kilter if that expenditure stopped, especially given the island nature.
Have you seen most Snowdonia valley farms? The land management is non-existant, throw sheep on, pull them off occassionally.. sheep grazing is at such a low level that there's no shortage of grass so its not an issue for farming. Farming in such areas is barely sustainable. I think the NPAs and NT should slowly start buying up such farms and farming the land purely for land management.
This happened at Llyndy Isaf in Nantgwynant, I knew the old farmer for decades and his kids didn't want to farm it so he sold it to the NT so they could manage the land. It's still farmed but from a land management perspective.
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/article-1355816010936/
We lose so much land from weeds and rushes just taking over.
I think if we left the land it would return to a climax vegetation, you see it in the sheep exclusion zones in Idwal, small bushes and birches slowly become established, soil depth increases and we'll see succession.
The question is if we want that succession, in the peak we don't seem to and aim to preserve the moorland landscape at the sub-climax level. I wished we had more open forests.
4
In reply to Escher:
In my old job I visited many hundreds of farms, I found farmers the same as most people trying to scratch a living for their families. Good, bad and average. Some care a lot, some are happy to live in s**t, some knowledgeable naturalists, some ignorant.
Ultimately they simply want to get on with life and earn a living on their land, but have to follow what the market and legislation demand.
In my old job I visited many hundreds of farms, I found farmers the same as most people trying to scratch a living for their families. Good, bad and average. Some care a lot, some are happy to live in s**t, some knowledgeable naturalists, some ignorant.
Ultimately they simply want to get on with life and earn a living on their land, but have to follow what the market and legislation demand.
In reply to Roadrunner5:
This is just succession too isn't it?
It's a nuisance if you are trying to keep it productive, for sure (and I'm looking at several acres of it right now!) but it's actually quite good habitat for ground-nesting birds and many insect species, for instance.
> We lose so much land from weeds and rushes just taking over.
This is just succession too isn't it?
It's a nuisance if you are trying to keep it productive, for sure (and I'm looking at several acres of it right now!) but it's actually quite good habitat for ground-nesting birds and many insect species, for instance.
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:
I've seen moorland return towards trees in parts of England, although I was more thinking of monoculture crop fields with my previous comment - they're so out of whack I don't know what'd happen, and I've never seen an example of one just being abandoned and left unmanaged for long. Probably become a haven for the out of control deer population...
Well, a return to forests would seem to be the most historically valid option? I'm a great fan of low density forests and would happily see a lot of the grouse moors around my neck of the woods return to a woodland state. Sadly, hyper-rich Arab nationals don't build their gauche and gaudy hunting lodges over here to come for their once a year forestry tour. Charities such as the Woodland Trust are chipping away planting nice forests, but it seems they're more interested in doing this near urban areas as an amenity, although it may simply be that the moorland comes on the market less often and is much more expensive to reforest.
> I think if we left the land it would return to a climax vegetation, you see it in the sheep exclusion zones in Idwal, small bushes and birches slowly become established, soil depth increases and we'll see succession.
I've seen moorland return towards trees in parts of England, although I was more thinking of monoculture crop fields with my previous comment - they're so out of whack I don't know what'd happen, and I've never seen an example of one just being abandoned and left unmanaged for long. Probably become a haven for the out of control deer population...
> The question is if we want that succession, in the peak we don't seem to and aim to preserve the moorland landscape at the sub-climax level. I wished we had more open forests.
Well, a return to forests would seem to be the most historically valid option? I'm a great fan of low density forests and would happily see a lot of the grouse moors around my neck of the woods return to a woodland state. Sadly, hyper-rich Arab nationals don't build their gauche and gaudy hunting lodges over here to come for their once a year forestry tour. Charities such as the Woodland Trust are chipping away planting nice forests, but it seems they're more interested in doing this near urban areas as an amenity, although it may simply be that the moorland comes on the market less often and is much more expensive to reforest.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Yeah true, I just think we can make more off our farming land and allow other areas to be more natural habitats, that's why I think just take it into the NT system, valleys like Nant Peris could be sustainable managed, no more broken fences, injured sheep..
At the moment the sheep farming in snowdonia is only achievable through subsidies as its at such a low level. We may as well just do what we did with Llyndy Isaf, allow more access, manage sustainably and in an environmentally friendly way.
I cant see many of the next generation of farmers in such areas wanting to carry on anyway, that was what happened with llyndy Isaf. he was the tennant farmer back in the 70's/80's, eventually bought it and then sold it when he was pushing 70 for a million and its now protected land in the heart of snowdonia.
Yeah true, I just think we can make more off our farming land and allow other areas to be more natural habitats, that's why I think just take it into the NT system, valleys like Nant Peris could be sustainable managed, no more broken fences, injured sheep..
At the moment the sheep farming in snowdonia is only achievable through subsidies as its at such a low level. We may as well just do what we did with Llyndy Isaf, allow more access, manage sustainably and in an environmentally friendly way.
I cant see many of the next generation of farmers in such areas wanting to carry on anyway, that was what happened with llyndy Isaf. he was the tennant farmer back in the 70's/80's, eventually bought it and then sold it when he was pushing 70 for a million and its now protected land in the heart of snowdonia.
In reply to wintertree:
In the peak they have started grazing the moors to prevent further expansion of trees. Toad will know more he's the moorland expert.
In the peak they have started grazing the moors to prevent further expansion of trees. Toad will know more he's the moorland expert.
In reply to Moley:
Indeed. The phrase in my OP may well just be politics. It's the implication that we owe them a living because they are looking after our land and heritage on our behalf. It reminds me of the "public servant" moniker politicians like to bandy around.
We all end up doing one thing or another out of circumstance or by exercising a choice, to attach to it the seeming implication that we must be grateful for someone doing what they do because it is on our behalf just seems a little odd. As you say the farming community is not a homogenous whole, the same as any other profession or vocation.
Indeed. The phrase in my OP may well just be politics. It's the implication that we owe them a living because they are looking after our land and heritage on our behalf. It reminds me of the "public servant" moniker politicians like to bandy around.
We all end up doing one thing or another out of circumstance or by exercising a choice, to attach to it the seeming implication that we must be grateful for someone doing what they do because it is on our behalf just seems a little odd. As you say the farming community is not a homogenous whole, the same as any other profession or vocation.
In reply to RyanOsborne:
but, would life without a bacon sandwich be worth living?
> If no-one ate meat then there would be absolutely no need to do that. The inefficiency of producing meat, i.e. growing 6kg of crops to feed livestock to produce 1kg of meat means that if no-one at meat (or indeed if most people didn't eat meat with most meals), then we could vastly reduce the amount of crops grown in this country.
but, would life without a bacon sandwich be worth living?
In reply to Escher:
I would say they are custodians, although I am a little biased.
Most farms are on very long term tenancy, some are still on 3 generation tenancies, their homes are almost always tied to the farm and most invested on farms has double figure pay back years. If you are over 45 and want to invest in diary, then you better hope you live into old age and have child willing to help or take over. People will say "oh look at the expensive tractor" "big house" etc.. but it's mostly owned by the bank for the first decade of it's working life.
Compare this level of commitment to politicians, who do the talk about farming, food security etc.. but really the longest they plan or care is 5 years between elections or less as cabinets are reshuffled. The majority of civil servants in defra etc.. never rock the boat, they take the easy zero risk line and aim for that pension. Charities, they do the talk on what landowners should do, but that land isn't paying their bills, in the same way the farmer needs the land to pay their loans, charities have no invested interest in the land, only well meant intentions, although these are often ill thought out... The general public are the opposite, they just see the countryside as something to service their food and recreational needs, as and when it suits them. Usually wanting cheap food in big chain supermarkets, then moaning about the state of the countryside, lack of access, animal cruelty even though they probably don't know the first thing about animal stewardship..
UK farmers would be far better custodians if people simply paid more for their food. If you add up a farmers hours, compared to his or her income, they won't even come close to minimum wage. All for working in a dangerous industry in any weather. For most it is a lifestyle choice and the UK would be stuffed without them, despite the lack of gratitude most folk give them. They would love to make their work place nicer in all respects, but most are also going full flog to simply pay the bills.
> Indeed. The phrase in my OP may well just be politics. It's the implication that we owe them a living because they are looking after our land and heritage on our behalf. It reminds me of the "public servant" moniker politicians like to bandy around.
I would say they are custodians, although I am a little biased.
Most farms are on very long term tenancy, some are still on 3 generation tenancies, their homes are almost always tied to the farm and most invested on farms has double figure pay back years. If you are over 45 and want to invest in diary, then you better hope you live into old age and have child willing to help or take over. People will say "oh look at the expensive tractor" "big house" etc.. but it's mostly owned by the bank for the first decade of it's working life.
Compare this level of commitment to politicians, who do the talk about farming, food security etc.. but really the longest they plan or care is 5 years between elections or less as cabinets are reshuffled. The majority of civil servants in defra etc.. never rock the boat, they take the easy zero risk line and aim for that pension. Charities, they do the talk on what landowners should do, but that land isn't paying their bills, in the same way the farmer needs the land to pay their loans, charities have no invested interest in the land, only well meant intentions, although these are often ill thought out... The general public are the opposite, they just see the countryside as something to service their food and recreational needs, as and when it suits them. Usually wanting cheap food in big chain supermarkets, then moaning about the state of the countryside, lack of access, animal cruelty even though they probably don't know the first thing about animal stewardship..
UK farmers would be far better custodians if people simply paid more for their food. If you add up a farmers hours, compared to his or her income, they won't even come close to minimum wage. All for working in a dangerous industry in any weather. For most it is a lifestyle choice and the UK would be stuffed without them, despite the lack of gratitude most folk give them. They would love to make their work place nicer in all respects, but most are also going full flog to simply pay the bills.
Post edited at 15:20
4
1
In reply to summo:
Maybe not, but a life with only the occasional bacon sandwich is perfectly survivable.
Maybe not, but a life with only the occasional bacon sandwich is perfectly survivable.
1
In reply to RyanOsborne:
That is a gross oversimplification, the majority of the ingredients in most livestock rations are by-products from other products. A few examples are rapeseed meal from the production of vegetable oil, wheatfeed meal from the production of flour and brewers grains from the brewing industry.
> If no-one ate meat then there would be absolutely no need to do that. The inefficiency of producing meat, i.e. growing 6kg of crops to feed livestock to produce 1kg of meat means that if no-one at meat (or indeed if most people didn't eat meat with most meals), then we could vastly reduce the amount of crops grown in this country.
That is a gross oversimplification, the majority of the ingredients in most livestock rations are by-products from other products. A few examples are rapeseed meal from the production of vegetable oil, wheatfeed meal from the production of flour and brewers grains from the brewing industry.
2
In reply to timjones:
Not to mention the fact an animal can graze a rock festooned slope that would be impossible to use for growing crops efficiently for direct human consumption.
Not to mention the fact an animal can graze a rock festooned slope that would be impossible to use for growing crops efficiently for direct human consumption.
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Certainly that's my experience locally. Current farmers (especially if they are in dairy) are giving up, either immediately or when they retire with no children willing to take the farm on. Not surprising, given the hours and the subsistence income. Round here may be unusual because many farmers do own their own land (small farms, inherited, usually) but certainly wouldn't make enough to be viable if they were paying out rent instead of receiving the EU subsidy.
My impression is that farmers work hard and have great pride in keeping their farms well. Unfortunately, they aren't always environmentally well-informed or motivated, which is why payments based on stewardship are such a good idea.
I'm sure they mostly think I'm daft producing small bale late-cut hay and digging ponds, but they indulge me. And, of course, they are quite right, I have a well-paid job and the land is a hobby.
> I cant see many of the next generation of farmers in such areas wanting to carry on anyway,
Certainly that's my experience locally. Current farmers (especially if they are in dairy) are giving up, either immediately or when they retire with no children willing to take the farm on. Not surprising, given the hours and the subsistence income. Round here may be unusual because many farmers do own their own land (small farms, inherited, usually) but certainly wouldn't make enough to be viable if they were paying out rent instead of receiving the EU subsidy.
My impression is that farmers work hard and have great pride in keeping their farms well. Unfortunately, they aren't always environmentally well-informed or motivated, which is why payments based on stewardship are such a good idea.
I'm sure they mostly think I'm daft producing small bale late-cut hay and digging ponds, but they indulge me. And, of course, they are quite right, I have a well-paid job and the land is a hobby.
1
In reply to Dave Garnett:
A farmer I know in North Yorkshire is slowly doing up or at least getting planning permission for his old barns and they and his land and farm will be sold off to fund his retirement and hand his kids a nest egg.. Hes hoping his kids don't decide to farm.
A farmer I know in North Yorkshire is slowly doing up or at least getting planning permission for his old barns and they and his land and farm will be sold off to fund his retirement and hand his kids a nest egg.. Hes hoping his kids don't decide to farm.
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Thanks, but not really, I just help with some research projects in the Peak and other places, and did a lot of reading when I was a post grad.
Thanks, but not really, I just help with some research projects in the Peak and other places, and did a lot of reading when I was a post grad.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...