"BAC" wrote in message
t...



Obviously, the land would tend to be exploited by whoever is willing to
pay
most for it, for a legal use, be that amenity or agricultural or
whatever -
although it equally obviously wouldn't be livestock in the 'vegan'
dictatorship scenario. What I was saying was I didn't think it likely it
would all go to commercial softwood plantations, either :-)


well if you assume take over by a bunch of sad loosers then anything can
happen,

:-)))


but I would point out that if the capital value of the land drops, the %
return from softwood actually increases.
Indeed if the land is worth virtually nothing then investing in timber
production becomes worth considering.

I too don't think that softwood will be a universal end, but remember that
if you have a contractor coming into an area to do 100 acres for me, then
his price per acre will fall if he is also doing 100 acres for you and
another 100 acres for someone else. Similarly if I open a quadbike track or
similar, it might be even more profitable if we run it across your 100 acres
as well as it gives a better track we can charge even more money for.

What SFP and the latest round of CAP reform has done is it has taken the
money away from food production and put it onto environmental work. As there
is damn all profit in food production, then there is no money from that
enterprise to cross subsidise the environmental work (which is what has been
happening in many if not most cases) so the environmental work has to stand
on its own feet economically. We looked at Entry Level Stewardship and
decided that it didn't cover the cost of the hassle of the paperwork
applying so we aren't taking part

Jim Webster