gdh

I agree with most of that. The only thing I would add is that unlike your RHI example if you stop receiving subsidies you still have to stick to all the rules so the complaints are genuine in that it's not a straight choice as compared to other countries. I'm not clear on that, appreciate if you could expand? I'm just shooting off the top of my head here, I'm thinking there will be aspects of HSE, Environmental, Protected species legislation for example that we are all bound by. There are additional, comprehensive and complex cross compliance regulations, requirements and reports attached to BPS eligibility. Are farmers obliged to satisfy the eligibility demands of BPS if they are NOT drawing down BPS funds? Not in terms of the mapping exercises no but general regulations yes. I should just point out I don't have an issue with most of it, it's just a comparison to other countries that have very few rules I'm making but examples include restrictions on cutting hedges, hedges can't be removed, movement licences/passports and a record of all animals on holding and all movements, animal movement licences/tests for hauliers, medicine records, tagging with 27 days of birth, spraying licences, buffer zones, having to pick up and pay for the disposal of any dead animals (then registering the death online). Obviously there's a lot more and the general environmental /HSE regs you mentioned. Edit: sorry that's hard to read. For some reason quotes aren't working for me.

I take your point, it's a fair one. What I would add to the mix though is: planting grants don't provide any specific advantage to myself but RHI for biomass does. Subsidies are a carrot rather than stick approach. I installed a Biomass boiler for a number of reasons - personal desire to reduce CO2 footprint through lower dependence of fossil fuels and the volatility of fluctuations in the world market. There was a small cash incentive for installation and, at the time, the domestic tariff was some years off with many people believing it would never materialise. I went ahead anyway at reasonable personal expense. The "cash" to fund RHI payments was that which would have been paid by UKPLC to EU in fines for failing to reduce CO2. Hence, carrot rather than fine. I'd agree there are a broad range of "subsidies" flying around, it's only my opinion, but it seems to me, through those I speak to daily and that which I monitor on NFU websites and the media, that the biggest moaners are those that have the greatest degree of benefit from a broad range of financial and regulatory support. What really grates, and resulted in a recent, fairly energetic argument with a good friend was when farmers say they depend upon subsidies but then whine like billy-o about the regulations that are attached to receiving them. If I stop burning biomass, my RHI stops, simple really. You can't have it both ways - the subsidies are tied to actions which are intended to mitigate the environmental impact of agriculture as an industrial activity. No one, so far as I am aware, is compelled to draw down the subsidy - it's a choice. The consequence of that choice is compliance. I also struggle to reconcile how literally 10's, sometimes 100's of £1000's can be paid to farms which could be (many are) successful in their own right, but DLA/JSA/ESA, libraries, school crossing patrols, social care, NHS etc, etc, etc are all in decline. There is no threshold test to pay sub's to ag areas that would go-under without it as distinct from those that are doing very well and just getting more cash. Perhaps means testing would be a fairer way? I agree with most of that. The only thing I would add is that unlike your RHI example if you stop receiving subsidies you still have to stick to all the rules so the complaints are genuine in that it's not a straight choice as compared to other countries.

Not sure what it's like in your area but that's more like saw log price here. We pay £32-36 for 4-12inch diameter for chipping with delivery.

The problem is the only farmers who can are large, usually more intensive, farms. From an economic point of view you're right but I would rather see more small businesses be sustainable. The biggest reason I think we need subsidies (although I think they need a massive overhaul) is because UK farms can't compete with the rest of the world because of all the restrictions here. I like the fact our country has high welfare standards and we look after the environment but it's an inefficient way of farming and financially makes no sense so subsidies or higher prices are needed.

There's certainly things to be learned from new Zealand and things they can learn from us (and a lot of students do go between our countries) but ultimately we can't compete with year round grass growth and vast open spaces with no hedges or fences where the average flock is 20x the size of a UK one. It's like saying we should easily be able to manufacture cheaper goods than China but in the end no matter what we try the costs don't add up so instead we either have to subsidise like farming, energy, steel etc or compete on something like quality instead.

I don't think new Zealand is the best example when it's bigger than the UK with less than 10% of the population.

Basically because most farms (not larger more intensive ones) make a loss or very small profit the government pays money to them based on land area they farm. It's dropping every year but around here it averages just under £50 per acre. I think the UK total is 3-4 billion a year. There's a lot of conditions involving accurate records, inspections and mapping exercises but most are a requirement regardless which is why farms in the UK can't make a profit as easily as other countries with less restrictions on things like animal welfare. There's also other short term environment schemes which cover the cost of things like planting hedges or fencing out areas for wildlife.

It sounds like a lot but that's only £1750 of vat on sales so £550 after your diesel figures. 550 isn't much to find, it's less than the vat on 50 tons of wood (you would need a lot more than that for those sales) and there's plenty of other costs in firewood production.

We tend to sell more than we buy in during the winter but we're only selling at twice what we pay for timber so we get a refund every quarter. I doubt many people doing firewood will pay vat in a quarter because you would normally buy in during good sales periods anyway.

I've had it with what I thought was a straight ash but had all the branches on one side, split about 12ft up and stayed there. Only got it down safely with a winch. If in doubt do a dog tooth.

You have got it right. You can claim back the 20% and only pay them the 5 so if you were only selling firewood you would get money coming back to you each quarter. Only exception is if you're selling to someone to sell on again then you need to charge 20% vat.

Deck chair/barber chair - when a tree has too much weight on one side so splits vertically and kicks back towards you as you fell.

I thought that but it was already selected. It looks like there should be other options. I tried again with 100 blades to check it wasn't a cost thing but it didn't work. I'll contact them later.

Am I missing something here? I want chipper blades delivered and it says I qualify for free delivery but there's only 1 option...

If you ground the bar depth wouldn't the chain be too tight on the sprocket?

510kg

What was the moisture out of interest?

We've been using kramers for 20+ years. We're lucky because we share machines with our farm so we've got 2 kramers - a small 280 and a telescopic 750t, both brilliant machines. Not the best pictures but here they are.

556kg on my workings. Probably wrong though

We do the first except deliberately leaving a few big bits per load because most customers want them to keep fires going over night. The 12 way splitter isn't very effective unless you sort logs first because any small stuff that goes through just gets made into kindling by the ring then you get too much rubbish.

I doubt we're one of your suppliers and like to think we offer good value and high quality logs (nearly all of our customers are regulars) but I'll try and explain to you the production side of things. These are more random thoughts than in any order. First thing is that tote bags (not all suppliers of course) are a poor unit of measurement because they stretch over time so a 90x90x90 bag when new will hold 0.7cube but after a few uses will hold 1cube. Very few British companies offer stacked wood because it's a lot of effort for no gain so you're better off buying 6 cube and with decent suppliers that should be consistent regardless of how it's delivered although it sounds like you've had some bad experience regardless. Unfortunately UK suppliers will never be able to compete on price and quality with imported logs because the wood is so much cheaper in Europe and they can justify cutting it by hand to get more consistent logs because wages are so low. Not much can be done here of course as it's the same with any industry although I would say £110 a cube is very expensive. It's virtual impossible to get a consistent size with firewood because the diameter of timber is never the same, nor is the length but I agree it shouldn't be more than about 10% longer than listed although, while it shouldn't be massive, most of our customers ask for a range from kindling to big chunks in their loads to manage the fire. The rest I think you're right ; there should never be more than the odd bit of softwood in a hardwood load and there's currently too many units of measurement but thankfully more people are using cubic metres all the time although according to trading standards that's not allowed and we can technically only sell loads by names like small, medium and large. Best of luck finding a decent supplier anyway.

We work off 1.8cube per ton for hardwood.

Not log cutting I know but here's a few pictures of us fencing with the oak stakes I showed earlier.

I would have to double check but I remember reading somewhere that best practice is to put the netting on the public side and the barb on the other. I can't remember where it was now but that would make sense to me if you had children leaning on the fence or any issue like that.

Thanks, thought it was slightly high for loose.