Hubbry Logo
Hill farmingHill farmingMain
Open search
Hill farming
Community hub
Hill farming
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Hill farming
Hill farming
Hill farming
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
An example of hill farming countryside in the UK

Hill farming or terrace farming is an extensive farming in upland areas, primarily rearing sheep, although historically cattle were often reared extensively in upland areas. Fell farming is the farming of fells, a fell being an area of uncultivated high ground used as common grazing. It is a term commonly used in Northern England, especially in the Lake District and the Pennine Dales. Elsewhere, the terms hill farming or pastoral farming are more commonly used.

Cattle farming in the hills is usually restricted by a scarcity of winter fodder, and hill sheep, grazing at about two hectares per head, are often taken to lowland areas for fattening.

Modern hill farming is often heavily dependent on state subsidy, for example in the United Kingdom it received support from the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy. Improved, sown pasture and drained moorland can be stocked more heavily, at approximately one sheep per 0.26 hectares.

Location and organization

[edit]
Relief map of the United Kingdom

Hill farming is a type of agricultural practice in the UK in upland regions. In England, hill farms are located mainly in the North and South-Western regions, as well as a few areas bordering Wales.[1] The Scottish highlands are another home for many hill farms. Sheep farms and mixed sheep and cattle farms constitute approximately 55% of the agricultural land in Scotland. These areas have a harsh climate, short growing seasons, relatively poor quality of soil and long winters. Therefore, these areas are considered to be disadvantaged and the animals raised there are generally less productive and farmers will often send them down to the lowlands to be fattened up.[2]

Upland areas are not traditionally favourable for agricultural practices. The majority of Hill farming land in England is classified as Less Favoured Area (LFA), and the LFA constitutes 17% of land farmed in England.[3] The LFA is further divided into Severely Disadvantaged Areas (SDAs) and Disadvantaged Areas (DAs), which make up 67% and 33% of the LFA respectively.[3] These areas are classified as such on account of poor climate, soils, and terrain which cause higher costs in production and transportation as well as lower yields and less productivity.[3] The LFA is significant in England's farming on a whole despite these disadvantages: 30% of beef cows and 44% of breeding sheep come from LFAs.[3] Farming distinctively shapes the ecosystems of these zones,[3] and the agriculture practices in the uplands define and shape the environment and landscape.[1]

Upland areas are usually covered with both dry and wet dwarf shrub heath and, rough and either managed or unmanaged improved grasslands.[1] The typical hill farm is made up of three distinct zones: the High fell, the Alotment, and the Inbye.[4] The High fell includes peat moors and rocky areas which provide poor grazing at the top.[4] The Alotment follows below, an enclosed area with rough grazing.[4] The Inbye is the lowest area at the bottom, which is used as the regular grazing area as well as for growing hay.[4]

History

[edit]

Dartmoor National Park has over 10,000ha of prehistoric field systems, dating back to 1500BC.[5] Archaeological evidence shows that these moors have been grazed for 3500 years.[5] Because of the extent of historical farming in the UK uplands, hill farming has shaped the English uplands both environmentally and culturally.[1]

The UK government has designated different areas in the upland as specifically valuable by certain terms of the environment, biodiversity, archaeology, cultural heritage and landscape, and seeks to protect these regions for such reasons.[1] According to the UK government, these designated areas and their qualifications as such are:

  • National parks
    • "These protect and conserve the character of landscapes, facilities for access, wildlife habitats and historic features"
  • Areas of outstanding natural beauty
    • "These conserve and enhance naturally beautiful landscapes"
  • Countryside character areas
    • "Areas of cultural heritage which should be preserved"
  • Natural England natural areas
    • "Each area has a unique identity created by its mix of natural features and human activities and provides a broad context for local nature conservation work"
  • Common land
    • "Areas where people who do not own the land have rights to use it for farming or other purposes"
  • National nature reserves
    • "These protect and provide public access to important wildlife and geological sites"
  • Special areas of conservation
    • "These protect various wild animals, plants and habitats under the European Union’s Habitats Directive"
  • Special protection areas
    • "These protect rare and vulnerable birds and migratory species as well as geological and physiographical heritage"
  • Upland experiment areas
    • "Two upland areas where Natural England/Defra predecessor bodies piloted an integrated approach to rural development and nature conservation between 1999 and 2001"
  • Ancient woodland
    • "Land that has had continuous tree cover since at least 1600"[1]

Over the past century, Hill farming and the upland environment have undergone a number of changes. Since 1900 there has been:

  • An approximately 500% increase in the number of sheep livestock.[6]
  • A decrease in medium-sized farms, due to increase in large farms businesses and the emergence of small-scale hobby farmers.[6]
  • Increased specialization in livestock and a movement away from tradition mixed farming methods.[6]
  • Fairly consistent labour employment on account of constant agricultural intensification offsetting reductions in labour output made possible by technological advancements.[6]
  • A high turnover rates in upland ecosystem habitat types. For example, although the percentage of land classified as dwarf shrub moor remained relatively stable between 1913 and 2000, only 55% of the dwarf moor shrub land in 1913 occupied the same area as it does in 2000.[6]

Uplands ecosystems

[edit]
The Dartmoor sheep is a type of livestock found on hill farms.

A large number of upland ecosystems have been shaped by humans for centuries, particularly by farming and agriculture.[6] Because of this, many upland ecosystems have become dependent on hill farm land management.[6] Hill farming practices play a significant role in supporting surrounding flora and fauna in the uplands. Through grazing, sheep and cattle maintain a variety of tall grasses and short vegetation.[2] This in turn supports local wildlife, as the short vegetation provides breeding and nesting grounds for many species of waders, including the lapwing, redshank, and golden plover.[2] The taller grasses are an important part of the Curlew habitat, which is another species of wader.[2] Cattle dung provides nutrition for many species of insects and carrion provides food for various species of scavenging birds.[2]

During winter farmers will usually keep the animals indoors, supplementing the livestock's diet with hay or silage.[2] The land used to grow winter feed that are not mowed are able to provide protection for a variety of birds including skylarks, partridge, and corncrakes who build on their nests on the ground.[2] Agricultural use, burning, and grazing by both livestock and wild life such as deer, helps to sustain the upland grasslands, moorland and bogs.[2] If these ecosystems were not maintained they would be colonized by trees and scrub.[2]

Sustainable careful maintenance is highly important in hill farming in order to protect the delicate relationship that farm manage has on the biodiversity of native plant and animal species.[1]

A Grey Faced Dartmoor sheep

Upland ecosystems have seen a shift in the last century, associated with widespread habitat deterioration caused by human actions and exploitation.[6] The decline in grazing animals accompanied with the milder winters experienced in recent years has caused an overgrowth in vegetation, putting the ecosystem, as well as various archaeological sites at risk. The Dartmoor Vision initiative is trying to return Dartmoor to its former predominantly cattle, sheep, and pony grazed landscape.[5]

Government support and subsidies

[edit]

Hill farm incomes in the UK have recently seen great decrease following drops in lamb and beef prices.[6] Therefore, subsidy support has become vital for Hill farm survival, and the policies have been changing in response to continuous uncertainty in the sector.[6]

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

[edit]

Hill farming has been supported by both the British government and EU policies, one of the most influential EU scheme being The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).[7] The CAP provided production-based direct (headage) which gave incentive to stock beef cattle and sheep at high densities.[7] This led to, in some circumstances, overgrazing which damages natural and semi-natural vegetation.[7] Because of overgrazing and issues with the accumulation of surpluses, the CAP was reformed.[7] The two most recent reforms to the CAP were Agenda 2000 in 1999 and the Mid Term Review of June 2003 and April 2004.[7] These changes are phasing out support and protections linked to production, and are providing more support on environmental and rural developments.[7]

Single Farm Payment

[edit]

The Single Farm Payment replaced the older headage payments (CAP) in 2005.[6] Analyses of the effects of economic incentives provided to hill farmers by decoupling and the introduction of the Single Farm Payment show that although these policies cause little change in average farm incomes they do encourage change in the way hill farms run.[6] Specifically the policies promote the reduction of stocking densities, reduction of employment of additional farm labour, movement away from reliance on beef cattle, increased specialization, and to keep farming land in “good agricultural condition” rather than farm abandonment.[6] The EU plans to phase out and progressively reduce the SFP, and the SFP is guaranteed until 2013.[7]

Other policies

[edit]

Other subsidy schemes from the British government are available to hill farmers, particularly the Uplands Entry Level Stewardship (Uplands ELS)[1] and agri-environment schemes.[6] The Uplands ELS replaced the prior Hill Farm Allowance in 2010.[3] Before the HFA, hill farms we subsidized by the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances which were active as headage support to eligible beef cows and ewes.[3] Because the DAs are more profitable than the SDAs, active since 2008 DAs became ineligible for funding from the Hill Farming Allowance (HFA).[3]

In addition to the Upland ELS, hill farmers in England's SDAs are supported by the Single Payment Scheme (SPS), which is the primary agricultural subsidy scheme under the EU.[1] Subsidies from the SPS are not dependent on production, granting greater freedom to farmers to meet market demands.[1] The SPS also claims to specifically support hill farmers who follow environmentally friendly farming practices.[1]

In order to receive these subsidies, hill farmers must meet cross compliance rules and regulations, which mainly involves avoidance of overgrazing and unsuitable supplementary feeding on natural and semi-natural vegetation under GAEC (standard of good agricultural and environmental condition).[1] These standards were implemented to protect significant habitats and to limit soil erosion and other negative effects of soil structure in the uplands.[1]

Certain upland farmers and communities also have access to funding from the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) team at Defra.[1] The reduction of farming subsidies that have taken place over the past few decades has created an uncertain future for farming in many parts of Europe.[7]

Recent strain on hill farming

[edit]
Hill farming countryside by the Arkland Burn

Without government subsidies, many hill farms would have a negative income.[8] The high cost of land and machinery keeps many hill farmers from expanding.[8] Hill farmers in some parts of England have reported a 75% decrease in income over the past decade.[8]

Hill farmer income is subject to large fluctuation above the influence of the farmers.[9] The harsh terrain and climate of hill farms are hard on the animals, causing them to be relatively very unproductive.[4] Because of this, hill farming can have economic strains on the farmers who generally have low income.[4] Wet weather, as often experienced in the uplands, create additional animal feed costs for farmers.[9]

Many hill farmers earn around £12,600, with some earning as little as £8,000. This is much below the annual £19,820 a single working adult requires to live in a village in England.[9] In 2008, a farmer would receive a profit of £1 for a single moorland lamb.[5] The average LFA farm in England only earns about 66% of their total revenue from farming.[3] 22% of this revenue comes from the Single Farm Payment, and 10% from specific agri-environment payments.[3] The 2% balance originated from non-farm activities, which are usually associated with contracting or tourism and recreation.[3]

Hill farmers in Peak District National Park (PDNP) constitute one of UK's most deprived farming communities, with farms in the LFA making an average loss of £16,000 per farm, generating an average headline Farm Business Income of £10,800 (supplemented by various government subsidies), creating a net income average per farm of about £6000.[7]

The hill farming sector in southwest England, like farming in the rest of the country, has experienced a decade of much change associated with economic pressures and uncertainties.[10] On average, the financial position of hill farms in South West England, like the rest of the country, is precarious. The average southwest English hill farm system in unable to match labour and capital invest in the business.[10]

Many farmers rely on a Single Farm Payment as a source of income.[9] These payments are expected to arrive in November or December, but sometimes farmers do not receive the money until June.[9] Due to this farmers are often unable to pay their bills or fix their machinery.[9] Some farmers have to cut back on the feed given to their animals, leading to a decrease in meat production and therefore lower profit.[9] By 2012 the Single Payment Scheme (or SPS), will only take into consideration the area of the farm.[5] This will decrease the income in moorland farmers to only 70% of what it was 20 years ago.[5]

The income from calves and lambs has remained constant, while the costs of farm upkeep have risen sharply (including items such as feed, straw, fuel, or fertilizer).[5] Because hill farming is becoming increasingly less profitable an increasing number of farmers have switched from the traditional hearty but less profitable animals which graze the moors to mainstream more profitable animals.[5]

Opportunities for farmers to supplement their farm income by working in industries such as quarrying or mining are largely no longer available.[5] The financial burden has taken a toll on many hill farmers, causing them to exhibit signs of mental health issues.[9] Many hill farmers are forced to generate supplemental income outside their farms or to take out loans.[9] Because of these economic factors, there is little incentive for younger generations to continue on with the hill farming.[5]

Problems

[edit]

As discussed in an article on the Carnegie UK Trust Rural Community Development Programme site:[11]

The Foot and Mouth outbreak in Cumbria in 2001 led to the culling of over a million sheep. It also showed that the hill (fell) farming communities were as vulnerable as the pastoral system they have created over many generations.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Hill farming

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Hill farming denotes the extensive production system conducted on upland and hilly terrains, primarily involving sheep and on rough pastures where steep gradients, thin soils, and render cultivation uneconomical. This form of prevails in designated Less Favoured Areas (LFAs), such as the uplands of , , and , encompassing regions like the and , where natural vegetation supports low-density stocking of hardy breeds. Characterized by minimal external inputs and reliance on grassland-based systems, hill farming yields modest outputs per , with operations often supplemented by lowland finishing of to bolster viability. Economically marginal due to inherent constraints and exposure to volatile lamb and beef prices, it has historically depended on compensatory allowances under and policies to offset disadvantages, though post-Brexit reforms have heightened uncertainties around subsidy transitions and profitability. While sustaining cultural landscapes and rural communities, hill farming faces scrutiny over environmental effects, including potential from grazing pressure, yet empirical assessments reveal that managed systems can preserve vegetation cover and soil attributes when aligned with terrain capacities. Decades of data underscore its role in upland , with ongoing challenges from land abandonment risks amid declining active management, prompting adaptations like technology integration and diversification to ensure persistence.

Definition and Characteristics

Core Features and Distinctions from Lowland Farming

Hill farming entails extensive pastoral agriculture on marginal lands characterized by steep slopes, high altitudes typically exceeding 300 meters, thin and acidic soils, and severe climatic conditions including prolonged winters and high precipitation. In the , such farming is predominantly conducted in Less Favoured Areas (LFAs), designated under Directive 75/268/EEC for their inherent natural disadvantages that handicap . These areas encompass about 17% of England's utilized , totaling 1.8 million hectares, where cultivation of arable crops is largely infeasible due to terrain and soil limitations. Core operational features include low-input systems reliant on hardy breeds, such as Scottish Blackface sheep or hill cattle, adapted to subsist on rough and vegetation without supplemental feeding or heavy mechanization. Stocking densities remain low, often below 0.5 livestock units per , to prevent and maintain vegetation cover, with management practices emphasizing seasonal and hefting—where flocks instinctively adhere to traditional grazing territories. This approach prioritizes resilience to nutritional deficits and weather extremes over high yields, producing primarily store livestock rather than finished products. Distinctions from lowland farming are pronounced in productivity, enterprise diversity, and input intensity. Lowland leverages fertile, well-drained soils and milder climates to support mechanized arable cropping, intensive , and operations, achieving higher outputs such as lambing percentages often surpassing 150% compared to approximately 100% in hill systems. Hill farming, conversely, yields lower financial returns— with average farm incomes in English LFAs at £14,000 in 2020/21 versus £40,000 for lowland grazing s—necessitating subsidies like the Hill Farming initiatives to offset viability challenges. While lowlands enable diversified, high-density production, hill operations integrate into a national stratified chain, supplying breeding or stores to finishers, thereby sustaining broader supply but with inherent economic fragility.

Economic and Productivity Constraints

Hill farming is characterized by low productivity due to topographic, edaphic, and climatic limitations that restrict operations to extensive , primarily sheep and hardy breeds, with minimal scope for cultivation or intensive management. Steep slopes inhibit mechanized use, while thin, acidic soils and short growing seasons yield poor-quality , necessitating low stocking densities of approximately 0.52 units per in . These factors result in outputs per unit area far below those of lowland farming, where higher and enable greater intensification and diversified enterprises. Economically, these constraints translate to persistently marginal returns, with average farm business income for English hill farms at £23,505 in 2023/24, reflecting a 12% year-on-year decline amid volatile input costs and market prices for lamb and . Core agricultural activities frequently incur losses, averaging -£13,961 per , rendering viability dependent on public support mechanisms such as £19,172 from the Basic Payment Scheme and £17,642 from agri-environment payments. in upland systems has fallen 9% from 1990/91 to 2017/18, exacerbated by reduced investment and output. High unpaid family labor inputs, averaging £35,599 annually, often exceed net incomes for smaller operations, highlighting the labor-intensive nature and thin margins. Resource barriers further impede productivity enhancements, with 85% of surveyed upland farmers in England reporting at least one major constraint, predominantly land and tenure issues (42%) and poor cash flow tied to low profitability (16%). Such limitations manifest in lower stocking rates for 17% of cases, deferred capital expenditures for 12%, and overall profitability erosion for 30%, with nearly half of farmers deeming external assistance essential for mitigation. Policy shifts, including Brexit-related uncertainties cited by 15%, compound these challenges by disrupting subsidy frameworks historically vital to sustaining upland enterprises against inherently unfavorable production economics.

Geographical and Organizational Context

Primary Locations and Regional Variations

Hill farming is primarily concentrated in the upland regions of the , where steep terrain, high rainfall, and cooler temperatures restrict cultivation and necessitate extensive production, mainly sheep and hardy cattle breeds. Key areas encompass the and Islands, the uplands of including and the , northern England's , , , and southwestern moorlands such as and . These regions account for the majority of the UK's hill and upland land, classified under Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) that cover approximately 17 million hectares, or 70% of the country's . Regional variations arise from differences in elevation, soil quality, and climate, influencing farm structures, livestock breeds, and management practices. In , hill farming frequently aligns with systems—small-scale, tenanted holdings on —prevalent in the and islands like Skye and Lewis, where communal sheep grazing on extensive hill pastures supports hardy breeds such as the Scottish Blackface, adapted to severe winters and short growing seasons. English hill farms, often in Severely Disadvantaged Areas (SDAs) above 300 meters like the Cheviot Hills and , feature stratified systems with native breeds including and sheep for rough grazing, transitioning to improved pastures at lower elevations; Disadvantaged Areas (DAs), with better accessibility and soil, allow for mixed sheep and cattle enterprises yielding higher outputs per hectare. In , hill farming predominates in central and northern uplands, emphasizing self-flocking breeds like the Welsh Mountain sheep, which thrive on steep slopes with minimal supplementary feeding; cattle rearing, particularly breeds, is more integrated here than in due to relatively milder coastal influences in areas like mid-Wales. These variations reflect adaptations to local conditions: Scottish systems prioritize extensive, low-input across vast , while English and Welsh farms often incorporate more enclosed "in-bye" land for wintering , affecting stocking densities—typically 0.1 to 0.3 livestock units per in SDAs versus higher in DAs. Beyond the , analogous hill and mountain farming occurs globally in regions like the European , New Zealand's , and the , but these differ in scale and intensification; for instance, Alpine systems integrate dairy production with summer , contrasting the UK's predominant meat-focused sheep operations.

Farm Structures and Community Organization

Hill farms typically consist of compact, family-operated holdings with limited , emphasizing extensive on steep, unimproved uplands. Core structures include stone-built farmsteads housing shelters, hay barns, and basic machinery storage, designed for durability against harsh weather; in-bye fields near the homestead provide fenced for winter production and calving/lambing, while unenclosed hill ground extends access, often exceeding the farmed area by factors of 5:1 or more. These layouts prioritize low-input systems, with minimal infrastructure investment due to economic constraints, as evidenced by the Hill Farming Act 1946, which subsidized rehabilitation of such marginal lands but preserved traditional extensive models. In , the system structures hill farming around small-scale tenancies averaging 5-50 hectares per croft, secured under the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, with communal grazing shares managed by township grazings committees that allocate stints (grazing rights) and enforce stock control. communities, numbering around 20,000 holdings as of 2021, integrate subsistence production with shared resources, fostering resilience through collective decision-making on moor burning and predator control, though challenges like succession persist in remote areas. England and Wales hill farms rely on regimes, where over 500,000 hectares support grazing rights for sheep and cattle under the Commons Act 2006; commoners—often 50-100 per fell or moor—exercise rights via registered entitlements, with sheep "hefted" to hereditary territories through generational shepherding rather than fencing. occurs through commoners' associations or committees, which regulate stocking densities, collect fees for maintenance, and mediate disputes, as seen in Cumbria's 150+ commons where hefted flocks maintain via . Farmer-led networks, such as the Hill Farm Project established in 2002, exemplify modern community support by delivering training in business planning and environmental compliance to over 200 members, enhancing viability amid subsidy shifts post-2013 reforms. Similarly, the Hill Farming Network coordinates peer-to-peer advice on breed selection and , reflecting a shift from isolated operations to collaborative models for sustaining upland demographics. These organizations prioritize empirical over policy-driven narratives, drawing on local knowledge to counter depopulation trends documented in upland reports.

Historical Development

Origins and Traditional Practices

Hill farming in the British uplands originated from prehistoric pastoral activities, with archaeological evidence of field systems and grazing on sites like Dartmoor dating back to around 1500 BC, though systematic year-round occupation intensified during the early medieval period from the 6th to 10th centuries. During this time, settlements were established at altitudes of 250–400 meters above sea level, such as in Ribblehead (265–340 m) and Pitcarmick (355 m), enabling mixed farming that included oats, barley, and livestock rearing despite challenging acidic and peaty soils. Transhumance practices, involving seasonal movement of herds to higher pastures, predated and facilitated this colonization, creating anthropogenic niches that improved soil fertility for sustained upland agriculture. Traditional hill farming emphasized extensive rearing of hardy , primarily sheep breeds like , , and Welsh Mountain, which are adapted to harsh weather and rough terrain in regions such as the , , , and . Cattle were also reared extensively in earlier periods, but sheep dominated due to the unsuitability of steep hillsides for arable crops or heavy machinery. Practices relied on communal common lands, where open fell grazing constituted a significant portion of upland areas, shaping landscapes through features like walls and stone barns over centuries. A key element of traditional management was the "hefting" of sheep flocks, where ewes learn and transmit territorial boundaries to their , allowing shepherds to oversee thousands of acres without fencing or constant supervision. This system supported low-input operations, with minimal interventions focused on for resilience and natural to maintain and . were often sold to lowland farms for finishing, reflecting a stratified production model that integrated hill breeds with more productive lowland systems for and output.

20th Century Evolution and Policy Influences

In the early decades of the , hill farming in Britain persisted with extensive sheep and on marginal uplands, characterized by low-input systems ill-suited to due to steep and poor . Following , economic pressures intensified as global commodity prices fell, exacerbated by resumed imports of frozen meat and wool from dominion countries like and , leading to stagnant or declining incomes for upland producers. Sheep numbers in upland areas such as the remained relatively stable between 1900 and 1939, but profitability eroded, prompting some farmers to reduce flock sizes or supplement with off-farm labor to avoid abandonment. The (1919–1939) amplified these challenges, with agriculture entering a prolonged depression marked by and deflationary policies that prioritized urban recovery over rural support. Upland farms, already operating at subsistence margins, faced acute shortages; farmers minimized expenditures on feed and labor while accepting soil degradation and reduced stock quality to preserve operations, as evidenced in Welsh uplands where values halved between 1920 and 1931. Government interventions remained general and inadequate for hills: the Agriculture Act 1920 aimed at wage boards and smallholdings but offered little for extensive grazing, while 1930s measures like the Wheat Act 1932 and preferential provided tariff protections mainly benefiting arable and sectors, leaving hill sheep and exposed to . World War II catalyzed policy shifts toward food self-sufficiency, indirectly bolstering hill farming through wartime controls. Although plough-up campaigns targeted lowland margins for arable expansion—increasing acreage on southern downs by 38% in 1940–1941—upland areas saw limited conversion due to impracticality. Critically, in 1941, emergency subsidies for hill sheep were introduced under Defence Regulations to maintain breeding ewe flocks as a national reservoir, paying rates scaled to flock size (e.g., up to 5 shillings per ewe on approved hills) and preventing collapse amid labor shortages and feed . These measures, administered via committees, stabilized upland output by compensating for depressed market prices, with total payments reaching £1.2 million by 1945, foreshadowing peacetime reforms.

Post-War Intensification and Modern Shifts

Following the Second World War, the government enacted the Hill Farming Act 1946 to rehabilitate upland land through subsidies for hill sheep and , alongside grants for improvements such as , water supplies, and building renovations. These measures targeted increased stock-carrying capacity by restoring via liming, drainage, and reseeding, enabling modest intensification of pastoral output despite topographic limitations that precluded widespread or arable expansion. By the and , such interventions contributed to higher densities in designated hill areas, with sheep numbers rising from approximately 20 million in to over 30 million by 1970, though productivity gains remained lower than in lowland systems due to harsh climates and poor soils. Upon joining the European Economic Community in 1973, hill farming benefited from the Common Agricultural Policy's (CAP) Less Favoured Areas (LFA) scheme, which provided compensatory payments from 1975 onward to offset natural handicaps like steep slopes and short growing seasons, sustaining extensive grazing systems. These direct aids, decoupled from production volumes after 2005 reforms, formed a growing share of farm income—reaching 80% in Welsh uplands by the 2010s—allowing maintenance of traditional practices amid volatile wool and lamb markets, but also discouraging innovation in low-margin operations. LFA funding supported over 40% of UK upland holdings, preserving cultural landscapes while critiqued for entrenching inefficiency, as evidenced by static productivity metrics compared to subsidized lowland intensification. Brexit in 2020 terminated CAP participation, phasing out LFA-style payments by 2027 in favor of the Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS), which rewards public goods like and enhancement over food production. For hill farms, where subsidies historically accounted for up to 95% of income, this pivot has induced severe financial strain, with government analyses projecting 20-30% income reductions and potential land abandonment on marginal holdings without transitional support. By 2024, uptake of ELMS pilots remains low among upland graziers due to administrative complexities and mismatched payments for extensive systems, prompting diversification into agro-tourism or , though scalability is hindered by remoteness and aging farmer demographics. These shifts underscore a broader transition from production subsidies to incentives, risking depopulation in hill communities if viability thresholds are not met.

Farming Practices and Techniques

Livestock Management and Breeding

In hill farming, sheep constitute the primary , with typical flocks comprising hardy breeds suited to extensive on marginal uplands. Breeding ewes number around 422 on average Less Favoured Area (LFA) farms, reflecting low stocking densities necessitated by poor forage quality and harsh terrain. play a secondary role, with approximately 23 cows per such , often used to complement sheep by utilizing rougher pastures. Sheep breeding emphasizes resilience to , nutritional scarcity, and terrain challenges, with purebred hill ewes like , Scottish Blackface, or North Country Cheviot selected for maternal hardiness and territorial "hefting" instincts that maintain flock distribution without fencing. Crossbreeding hill ewes with sires from longwool breeds such as produces Mule lambs for lowland finishing, enhancing overall system productivity while preserving upland maternal lines. Lambing occurs seasonally, often in late winter or spring, with rates influenced by supplemental feeding during prolonged winters, though natural selection favors ewes capable of unassisted birthing in remote areas. Hill cattle breeds, including and , are bred for foraging efficiency on sparse vegetation and cold tolerance, with selection prioritizing calving ease and low maintenance to minimize labor in inaccessible uplands. Stabiliser crosses with bulls have been adopted on some farms to improve reproductive performance, achieving higher weaning weights despite environmental constraints. Management practices involve across heather, moor, and in-bye land, with shepherding to prevent and mitigate risks like from uneven terrain. protocols address prevalent issues such as parasitic burdens, exacerbated by wet conditions, and nutritional deficits, often through targeted drenching and supplementation rather than intensive veterinary intervention. Winter housing is minimal, relying on hardy to endure exposure, though declining sheep numbers pose challenges to balanced habitat management.

Land Use and Grazing Systems

Hill farms primarily utilize rough grazing lands, including , heath, upland grassland, and rock outcrops, which constitute over 40% of land in Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) and are enclosed within the Moorland Line. These areas feature nutrient-poor soils, steep slopes, and harsh climatic conditions, comprising nearly half of the United Kingdom's agricultural land and rendering them unsuitable for arable cropping. Adjacent semi-improved and improved grasslands serve as supplementary areas for winter feeding and lambing, integrated with the extensive upland terrain to support production. Grazing systems in hill farming are predominantly extensive, relying on low stocking densities of hardy sheep and breeds to utilize poor-quality while minimizing inputs. Mixed of sheep and enhances efficiency, as consume taller, coarser vegetation, leaving more palatable grasses and for sheep, thereby improving lamb growth rates and overall land productivity. Moderate levels are essential to prevent , which can lead to and loss of plant diversity, or undergrazing, which allows dominance by competitive species; in , such practices maintain 55% of agricultural land for upland sheep and mixed sheep-beef systems, preserving habitats like , , and bogs. A significant portion of hill grazing occurs on , where private ownership coexists with rights of common, primarily for , enabling multiple farmers to graze without physical fencing through traditional hefting—where flocks learn and adhere to territorial boundaries via inherited knowledge. Covering 3% of , much of it in protected landscapes like National Parks, common land integrates with individual farm holdings to extend grazing capacity, supporting heritage breeds and seasonal movements while adhering to regulations such as Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) standards to limit stock numbers and mitigate environmental damage. are often wintered outdoors with supplementary hay or , or away-wintered on lowland farms, to reduce pressure on upland pastures during harsh conditions.

Integration of Supplementary Activities

Hill farmers frequently integrate supplementary activities to offset the economic limitations of livestock-centric operations on marginal upland , where primary revenues from sheep and grazing often fail to cover full costs without external support. In , diversification activities accounted for approximately 5% of total revenues in hill farming businesses during the 2020/2021 period, helping to bridge gaps left by variable livestock outputs influenced by and market fluctuations. These integrations leverage the unique scenic and cultural assets of hilly landscapes, such as expansive views and traditional practices, while minimizing disruption to core grazing systems. Agri-tourism represents a primary supplementary avenue, involving hosted accommodations, guided walks, or experiential events like sheepdog trials that draw visitors to remote hill areas. Case studies from European mountainous regions, including uplands, demonstrate that such activities enhance rural viability by generating off-season income without requiring arable expansion, as seen in operations combining farm stays with livestock demonstrations. In Italian and French hill contexts, agri-tourism has sustained family farms by integrating revenues averaging 20-30% of total income, though success depends on proximity to transport links and of authentic rural heritage over commodified experiences. upland policy frameworks encourage this through grants for farm infrastructure adaptations, provided activities align with less-favored area designations that prioritize alongside economic diversification. Other integrations include woodland management and renewable energy installations, which utilize under-grazed hill slopes for timber production or small-scale wind turbines. Upland farmers in Wales and Scotland have diversified into agroforestry, planting native species on margins to yield supplementary timber sales and carbon credits, with empirical assessments showing 10-15% income uplift in participating hill holdings without compromising pasture integrity. Renewable projects, such as hilltop turbines, provide lease revenues exceeding £5,000 annually per unit in viable sites, though regulatory hurdles like visual impact assessments limit widespread adoption. These activities demand careful spatial planning to avoid over-intensification, as over-reliance on non-agricultural income can erode traditional hill farming knowledge transmission across generations. Challenges in integration stem from infrastructural barriers in remote areas, including limited for online bookings and stringent planning permissions that favor conservation over commercial expansion. Parliamentary analyses of hill farms highlight that while diversification mitigates dependency—upland businesses often derive over 50% of income from public schemes—systemic underinvestment in rural skills training hampers scalability. Empirical data from diversified hill operations indicate net profitability gains of 15-25% where activities complement rather than compete with cycles, underscoring the causal link between adaptive and long-term farm resilience.

Economic Realities

Revenue Sources and Cost Structures

In hill farming, primarily practiced in upland areas of the United Kingdom such as Less Favoured Areas (LFAs), revenue is dominated by livestock enterprises focused on sheep and cattle production, with sales of lambs, breeding stock, and finished animals forming the core of agricultural output. For English hill farms in 2023/24, this agricultural output averaged £98,136 per farm, accounting for 68% of total output, up from 62% in 2020/21 amid fluctuating market prices for sheep (up 3% year-on-year) and stable cattle values. Wool sales contribute marginally, often less than 5% of livestock revenue due to depressed global prices. Government subsidies remain essential, comprising 25% of total output in 2023/24, with Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) payments at £19,172 per farm (13%, down 18% from 2022/23 as post-Brexit transitions reduce area-based support) and agri-environment schemes at £17,642 (12%, up 5%). Without these, agricultural activities alone generated net losses for LFA grazing livestock farms in 2022/23, highlighting systemic reliance on public funds to offset low-margin upland production. Diversification into non-agricultural income, such as , accommodation, or contract services, added £9,723 per farm (7% of output), a rise from 5% in 2020/21, though scale remains limited by remoteness and small farm sizes averaging under 200 hectares. Cost structures reflect the challenges of extensive on , with total inputs averaging £121,167 per farm in 2023/24, split between variable costs (£54,105, or 45%) dominated by supplementary feed concentrates (£18,846) and other expenses (£10,862 including ), and fixed costs (£67,350, or 55%) led by general overheads (£14,589), machinery (£10,578), and paid labor (£7,734). These are elevated by terrain-induced needs for rugged equipment, higher fuel use, and veterinary costs (£5,510) for management in remote flocks, contributing to fixed costs rising 9% year-on-year.
CategoryAverage per Farm (2023/24, £)% of Total Output/Costs
Revenue: Agricultural Output98,13668% of total output
Revenue: BPS Subsidies19,17213% of total output
Revenue: Agri-Environment17,64212% of total output
Revenue: Diversification9,7237% of total output
Costs: Variable (e.g., Feed, Vet)54,10545% of total costs
Costs: Fixed (e.g., Labor, Machinery)67,35055% of total costs
This structure yields average farm business income of £23,505, down 12% from 2022/23, underscoring vulnerability to input inflation and subsidy phase-outs.

Profitability Metrics and Market Dependencies

Average farm business income for Less Favoured Area (LFA) grazing livestock farms, typical of hill farming in , stood at £23,500 in 2023/24, reflecting a 12% decline from the previous year due to rising fixed costs and subdued output growth. This metric includes and diversification income, as standalone agricultural accounts often yield losses, with average net farm corporate income at -£12,095 per farm in the same period. Per hectare figures highlight variability: low-performing hill farms averaged -£136/ha, medium £101/ha, and high £264/ha, influenced by stocking density (0.52 grazing livestock units/ha) and enterprise efficiency. Sheep enterprises, central to hill farming, generate gross margins of £44 per ewe in hill systems and £65 in upland variants, with costs per lamb head averaging £69 ( only) amid variable feed and veterinary expenses. Revenue per farm from sheep reached £48,557 in 2023/24, supplemented minimally by at £2-3 per head, but overall output faces erosion from input , including 9% higher fixed costs and 67% increased net . Market dependencies amplify vulnerability, as lamb prices—key to sheep revenue—exhibit volatility, rising to an average 693 p/kg in 2024 from 578 p/kg in 2023 due to tighter supplies and pressures, yet prone to sharp drops from oversupply or shifts. Approximately one-third of sheep production relies on EU , exposing hill farms to trade disruptions and currency fluctuations. Subsidies mitigate these risks, accounting for 50-90% of income on many hill operations (e.g., Basic Payment Scheme at £17,100-£19,172 per farm), rendering profitability contingent on policy support amid inherently marginal land productivity.

Role of Diversification and Innovation

Hill farmers have turned to diversification and to counteract the inherent economic vulnerabilities of upland production, where marginal soils, harsh , and extensive systems limit yields and expose revenues to market volatility. With average farm business incomes in upland areas reaching only £25,400 in 2022/23—below the median salary of £35,000—and subsidies historically accounting for up to 90% of , these strategies provide critical buffers against post-Brexit policy shifts and rising input costs. Diversification often involves layering non-core activities onto traditional sheep and cattle operations, such as marketing native breeds like for specialized wool products or pursuing through management and . , for instance, integrates silvopastoral systems on hilly terrain, yielding income from timber, woodfuel, and while reducing risks; case studies show net returns up to £85,100 over 50 years from combined enterprises on northern English farms. In 2020/21, 66% of English farms incorporated diversification, with average supplementary earnings from at £5,400 and business lettings at £20,200 per farm. Such efforts boosted overall farm incomes by 24% in 2022/23 for diversified operations, surpassing the 22% growth in non-diversified ones by 2 percentage points and adding an average £38,300 in extra revenue. Technological innovations address efficiency gaps in remote hill environments, including precision livestock farming tools like automated weighing crates that use ear-tag readers to monitor individual sheep weights and enable selective feeding for improved health and growth rates. Trials at on upland research farms have validated these systems for optimizing productivity without intensive labor. Broader adoptions, such as GPS-guided grazing management and digital rangeland monitoring via EU-backed projects, further minimize waste and support data-informed decisions on forage allocation. The National Farmers' Union advocates for such innovations to foster resilient upland businesses capable of balancing food output with . Collectively, these measures enhance profitability by diversifying risk and unlocking value from underutilized assets, with 49% of upland farms already engaging agri-environmental schemes that align with payment incentives. Yet, barriers including upfront investments and skill gaps limit widespread uptake, necessitating targeted to sustain long-term viability.

Environmental Interactions

Impacts on Soil, Water, and Biodiversity

Hill farming, involving extensive on steep, often peaty uplands, influences stability through mechanisms like and vegetation removal, with outcomes varying by stocking density and terrain. Moderate grazing can limit woody encroachment that might otherwise compact soils via proliferation, but —common in subsidy-driven systems—accelerates rates on slopes exceeding 15 degrees, where sheep hooves dislodge exposed and mineral soils during wet periods. Studies in uplands report annual soil loss rates up to 1-2 tonnes per under heavy sheep densities (>10 ewes/ha), primarily via sheet and , compounded by reduced vegetative cover that fails to buffer rainfall impacts. , measured by increased bulk density (up to 1.4 g/cm³ in grazed vs. 1.2 g/cm³ in exclosures), further impairs infiltration, exacerbating runoff on compacted layers formed by repeated hoof pressure in wet conditions. Hydrological effects manifest in heightened and sediment delivery to streams, as diminishes and , elevating peak flows by 20-50% in overstocked catchments. In Scottish and English uplands, sheep-derived contributes and loads via erosion-attached particulates, with concentrations in runoff reaching 0.5-1 mg/L total P during storms, fostering downstream despite low inputs typical of hill systems. fluctuations intensify under combined and historic burning, deepening drainage and promoting carbon release, though direct impacts on chemistry remain modest absent overstocking. Biodiversity responses hinge on grazing intensity: low levels (4-6 ewes/ha) foster heterogeneous swards supporting specialist and ground-nesting birds like , by curbing rank growth that shades out . High intensities (>8 ewes/ha), however, homogenize vegetation, reducing and dwarf cover by 30-50% and suppressing natural colonization of and rowan, limiting overall species to below 20 taxa per . Peer-reviewed assessments in uplands link sustained heavy to cascading declines, including 15-25% drops in abundance due to floral resource scarcity, though mixed sheep-cattle regimes can enhance diversity via complementary foraging. Restoration via reduced stocking has reversed these trends, boosting diversity by 20% within 5-10 years in experimental plots.

Contributions to Landscape Maintenance

Hill farming contributes to primarily through extensive practices that prevent the encroachment of scrub and , thereby preserving open upland vistas characteristic of regions like the British moors and fells. Livestock such as sheep and browse and graze rough pastures, inhibiting the dominance of woody species like and heather succession into forest, a process that has shaped these landscapes for centuries. Without such management, reduced levels could lead to or dense scrub cover, altering visual and ecological features valued for and heritage. Grazing regimes foster mosaics, including short turf, heath, and , which support diverse and adapted to these conditions. Studies indicate that controlled sheep enhances plant richness by reducing competitive grasses and promoting flowering plants essential for pollinators and ground-nesting birds. In the English uplands, hill farming sustains approximately 12,323 holdings that underpin the ecological integrity of less favoured areas, where intensive is infeasible. Mixed systems, combining sheep with or other , further optimize vegetation structure, mitigating over-dominance of any single plant type and bolstering overall . These practices also deliver cultural ecosystem services, maintaining landscapes recognized for their aesthetic and historical value, as evidenced by public willingness-to-pay surveys valuing grazing-induced openness over alternative unmanaged states. Traditional hill farming thus acts as a form of , countering natural succession toward closure while avoiding the biodiversity losses associated with under-grazing or abandonment. Empirical data from upland monitoring underscore that sustained, moderate stocking densities—typically low in hill systems—are key to long-term landscape stability, distinguishing them from intensive grazing's degradative effects.

Debates on Overgrazing and Sustainability

Critics of hill farming argue that excessive sheep stocking densities have contributed to widespread in uplands, including , reduced vegetation cover, and diminished . Studies indicate that high pressures, historically incentivized by subsidies, have led to bare ground exposure and accelerated on slopes, with evidence from the showing correlations between and formation. For instance, has been linked to the loss of diverse flora, favoring resilient grasses like Nardus stricta while suppressing herbs, mosses, and shrubs, as observed in long-term exclosure experiments where ungrazed plots exhibited increases in these groups after sheep removal. This perspective, often amplified in environmental advocacy, posits that current practices perpetuate a "tree-less, ecologically impoverished" , exacerbating risks through compacted soils and altered . Proponents of sustained hill grazing counter that moderate livestock densities are essential for maintaining open habitats and preventing ecological imbalances, such as unchecked woody encroachment that could displace specialized upland . Research demonstrates that sheep grazing at appropriate levels supports by inhibiting dominant vegetation and fostering heterogeneous swards, which benefit ground-nesting birds and communities reliant on short turf. Mixed grazing systems, incorporating or deer alongside sheep, have shown "win-win" outcomes, enhancing plant diversity and richness while improving performance, as evidenced in Welsh upland trials. Moreover, longitudinal data from sites like Moor House reveal recovering under continued post-2000, attributed partly to reduced atmospheric rather than grazing cessation, suggesting that claims may overlook confounding factors like historical burning or acidification. Sustainability debates hinge on optimal stocking rates, with evidence indicating that densities exceeding 0.2 livestock units per hectare often tip toward degradation, while lower adaptive management—such as rotational or holistic grazing—can mitigate erosion and restore soils. Post-2001 foot-and-mouth reductions in sheep numbers led to partial vegetation recovery but also scrub invasion, limiting natural tree colonization and underscoring grazing's role in landscape stability. Policymakers and researchers emphasize evidence-based thresholds over blanket reductions, noting that abrupt de-stocking risks biodiversity loss from succession to coniferous dominance, whereas targeted interventions like breed selection for hardiness promote resilient systems amid climate variability. These tensions reflect broader causal realities: grazing's impacts are density-dependent and site-specific, not inherently destructive, challenging narratives that prioritize rewilding without empirical validation of alternative outcomes.

Government Interventions and Policies

Historical Subsidy Frameworks

The Hill Farming Act 1946 established the foundational national subsidy framework for hill farming, enacted in response to wartime degradation of upland lands and the need to restore in marginal areas characterized by harsh and climate. The Act authorized grants covering up to 50% of costs for land improvements, including fencing, drainage, reseeding, and liming, alongside direct subsidies for qualifying hill sheep and to incentivize of breeding herds and flocks essential for sustaining rural economies. These headage payments—calculated per eligible ewe (typically £1-2 annually in early years, adjusted for and region) or suckler cow—aimed to offset lower output potential compared to lowland farming, with eligibility tied to designated hill areas and adherence to improvement plans enforced by agricultural executive committees. Subsequent refinements under the 1946 framework included the Hill Sheep Subsidy, formalized in 1952, which provided payments of approximately £2.25-£3 per ewe in qualified flocks of native breeds like or , designed to preserve a of breeding stock amid post-war recovery and import competition. Hill cattle subsidies, similarly headage-based, supported suckler herds in uplands, with rates varying by region (e.g., higher in Scotland's harsher zones) to address fodder shortages and low carrying capacities, often averaging 1-2 units per . These measures, administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, emphasized self-sufficiency and prevented farm abandonment, though critics noted they sometimes perpetuated low-intensity practices without mandating environmental safeguards. By the late 1960s, schemes like the Hill Land Improvement Scheme extended grants for infrastructure such as buildings and water supplies, with 50% funding rates to modernize fragmented upland holdings, reflecting ongoing recognition of structural disadvantages like steep slopes limiting . Total annual expenditures on these subsidies reached millions of pounds by the early , supporting around 20,000 hill farms primarily in , , and , but faced scrutiny for inefficiency as payments decoupled from output gains. This national system persisted until the UK's 1973 entry into the , after which it transitioned toward compensatory allowances aligned with emerging directives.

European Union Era: CAP and LFASS

The Less Favoured Areas (LFA) measures under the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) provided targeted compensatory payments to hill farmers operating in regions with inherent natural disadvantages, such as steep slopes, high altitudes, and harsh climates that limit productivity and increase costs. Established by Council Directive 75/268/EEC in 1975, these provisions aimed to sustain agricultural activity in marginal uplands to avert land abandonment, preserve rural populations, and maintain viable farming structures amid otherwise unprofitable conditions. By compensating for lower yields—often 20-50% below lowland averages—and higher input expenses like feed and labor, LFA supports enabled continued livestock grazing, primarily sheep and cattle, which dominates hill systems. Initial headage-based payments, tied to livestock numbers, evolved through CAP reforms into area-based schemes decoupled from production following the 2003 "mid-term review," shifting emphasis toward environmental stewardship and landscape preservation. In the United Kingdom, the LFA framework was implemented via national schemes like the Less Favoured Areas Support Scheme (LFASS), particularly critical in Scotland's uplands where over 80% of hill farmland qualifies as disadvantaged or severely disadvantaged. LFASS delivered annual payments calculated per hectare of eligible grazing land, with rates varying by category—for instance, up to £45 per hectare in severely disadvantaged zones—to offset economic handicaps and support active farming requirements under EU direct payment rules. By the mid-2010s, the scheme channeled around £65 million yearly into Scottish hill and crofting economies, underpinning roughly 10,000 farm businesses and preventing widespread depopulation in remote areas. These funds, drawn from CAP's second pillar for rural development, required compliance with cross-compliance standards, including basic environmental measures to curb overgrazing and soil erosion. CAP's 2014-2020 reform integrated LFA payments into broader programs, allocating about 5-10% of envelopes to such supports, with evaluations confirming their role in stabilizing incomes where market returns from , lamb, and fell short of costs—often by 30-40% without . However, independent assessments highlighted inefficiencies, such as payments occasionally benefiting less active holdings or failing to incentivize diversification, prompting recommendations for recalibration toward high-nature-value farming in uplands. In practice, LFASS and analogous schemes across sustained hill farming's contributions to through managed , though critics argued that production-linked legacies distorted toward suboptimal stocking densities. Overall, these mechanisms represented a causal acknowledgment of topography-driven unviability, channeling over €2 billion EU-wide annually by the late to avert ecological shifts from unchecked scrub encroachment.

Post-Brexit Reforms and Alternatives

The UK's departure from the on 31 January prompted a fundamental overhaul of agricultural support under the Agriculture Act , which empowered the phase-out of area-based direct payments akin to the EU's Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) in favor of rewarding environmental and public goods outcomes, such as , , and habitat restoration. This reform, devolved across nations, sought to address hill farming's challenges—characterized by steep terrain, harsh climates, and low productivity—by shifting from compensatory payments for natural handicaps to incentives for sustainable land management, though critics argue it risks undercompensating upland producers reliant on prior subsidies. In , the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) introduced the Environmental Land Management schemes (ELMS) as the core post-Brexit framework, with the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) launching in 2022 to pay farmers for actions like extensive on moorlands, restoration, and reduced use, tailored to upland conditions. The previous Hill Farm Allowance and Uplands Entry Level Stewardship elements were not directly replicated; instead, BPS payments, delinked from production since 2023, are set to end fully by , with £2.4 billion annually redirected to ELMS and related grants for productivity improvements, such as or machinery via the Farming and Fund. However, internal DEFRA projections from 2021, revealed through a 2024 request, forecasted average hill farm income drops of up to 50% under ELMS without additional upland targeting, potentially driving land sales or abandonment, a risk officials reportedly withheld from public consultation. Scotland retained the Less Favoured Areas Support Scheme (LFASS) post-Brexit, continuing payments to eligible hill farmers at 80% of pre-2020 rates during a transitional period ending in 2024, with £33.6 million allocated for 2023 to mitigate handicaps in remote uplands covering 74% of . Future integration into a national test program for agri-environment outcomes is under review, emphasizing carbon storage and over pure compensation. In and , similar transitions incorporate upland premiums within Glastir and Farm Support schemes, respectively, but with ongoing pilots for outcome-based payments amid concerns over administrative burdens. Alternatives to traditional subsidies include diversification into non-farming revenue, such as , installations (e.g., wind turbines on hillsides), and markets like carbon credits, supported by grants up to £25,000 per farm under the Farming Innovation Programme. These options aim to bolster resilience, with upland-specific pilots testing bundled payments for landscape-scale management, though adoption lags due to high upfront costs and uncertain markets. Implementation hurdles persist, as evidenced by the March 2025 pause on new SFI applications in amid £5 billion funding commitments strained by rising demands, underscoring tensions between environmental goals and economic stability for hill farmers.

Challenges and Controversies

Economic Viability and Subsidy Dependence

Hill farming in upland regions, characterized by marginal soils, steep , and adverse , inherently constrains , resulting in lower yields and higher per-unit costs compared to lowland systems. Sheep and enterprises dominate, yet extended winters and poor quality limit stocking densities and growth rates, with average lamb weights often 10-20% below lowland benchmarks. Market volatility exacerbates this, as hill-produced commands limited premiums despite higher production expenses for feed supplementation and labor-intensive . Data from the Farm Business Survey reveal acute vulnerability: in , average Farm Business Income (FBI) for Less Favoured Area (LFA) grazing farms stood at £25,400 for the 2022/23 financial year, falling short of the median full-time wage by nearly £10,000 and reflecting a broader trend of stagnant or declining outputs amid rising input costs. Without subsidies, over 90% of such farms incur losses, as core revenues from sales cover only 10-30% of fixed costs like machinery maintenance and in remote areas. In Scotland's LFA systems, fewer than 10% of farms achieved profitability absent support payments as of 2021 assessments. Subsidy dependence traces to historical EU frameworks like the Common Agricultural Policy's LFASS, which provided compensatory payments for natural handicaps, often comprising 70-100% of gross margins on hill holdings. The UK's post-Brexit Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) sustained this, delivering £1.4 billion annually to English farms by 2020, with upland operations receiving over 90% of income from such direct aids in many cases. Transition to the Environmental Land Management scheme risks a threefold shortfall in replacement payments, per modeling of net income gaps, prompting internal Defra projections—suppressed per disclosures—of widespread farm exits and sheep flock reductions by 20-30% without intervention. This reliance distorts incentives, elevating land prices beyond productive value—often twofold due to subsidy capitalization—and hindering new entrants, as young farmers face without inherited holdings. While diversification into or payments for ecosystem services shows promise, empirical reviews indicate these yield insufficient scale to offset subsidy phase-outs fully, underscoring hill farming's structural unviability under pure market conditions.

Policy Critiques: Market Distortions vs. Rural Preservation

Critics of hill farming subsidies contend that they introduce significant market distortions by propping up enterprises that would otherwise be unviable under free-market conditions. In the UK, direct payments under the (CAP) and schemes like the Less Favoured Areas Support Scheme (LFASS) have historically accounted for a substantial portion of upland farm incomes—often exceeding 50% in severely disadvantaged areas—artificially inflating land values and rents while discouraging diversification or exit from low-productivity activities. This support has perpetuated over-reliance on , particularly , which empirical studies link to and in uplands, as subsidies incentivize stocking levels beyond natural carrying capacities rather than optimal such as or extensification. Post-Brexit reforms, including the phase-out of Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) direct payments by 2027, aim to mitigate these distortions by redirecting funds toward environmental outcomes via the Environmental Land Management scheme (ELMS), yet early analyses suggest persistent inefficiencies if payments fail to fully replace lost income, potentially delaying structural adjustments. Economists and policy analysts from market-oriented perspectives argue that such interventions violate principles of , channeling taxpayer funds—totaling £3.5 billion annually in the UK pre-Brexit—into sectors with high opportunity costs, including forgone through or natural regeneration on marginal lands. For example, without subsidies, much hill would cease, as production costs in upland areas exceed market returns by margins of 20-40% for sheep enterprises, allowing resources to shift toward higher-value uses that better align with consumer demands and environmental realities. These distortions extend to labor markets, retaining underemployed rural workers in low-output roles and suppressing incentives for innovation, such as precision livestock management or integration, which could enhance long-term viability without fiscal props. Advocates for continued or reformed subsidies counter that abrupt withdrawal would undermine rural preservation by accelerating depopulation in upland communities, where farming sustains 10-15% of employment in remote areas like Scotland's Highlands and England's . They assert that targeted support, as envisioned in post-Brexit public goods payments, compensates for the non-market benefits of hill farming, including the maintenance of open landscapes that support —generating £4.5 billion annually in the —and cultural traditions integral to . Empirical evidence from LFASS evaluations indicates that subsidies have prevented widespread land abandonment, which could otherwise lead to unchecked scrub encroachment, increased risks, and loss of traditional shepherding knowledge, arguing for a balanced approach where payments are conditioned on sustainable practices to preserve socio-economic fabric without excessive distortion. However, this view faces scrutiny for potentially conflating social welfare objectives with , as alternative mechanisms like direct grants could achieve preservation goals more efficiently than production-linked aid.

Environmental and Social Debates

Hill farming practices, particularly extensive sheep on steep uplands, have sparked debates over their role in and degradation. Critics contend that compacts soil, creates erosion-prone tracks, and hinders vegetation recovery, with studies in the documenting disproportionate disturbance by sheep during growing seasons that exacerbates bare ground exposure. Such practices contribute to broader upland environmental pressures, including degraded affecting 30% of England's water bodies due to agricultural runoff and nutrient inputs. However, empirical assessments highlight that hill farming's value often surpasses that of intensive lowland arable systems, as mosaic maintains open s like heather moorland supporting specialist , while excessive stock reduction risks under-management and succession to scrub that diminishes overall . Debates also center on peatland management, where may accelerate degradation and carbon emissions, yet research suggests upland emissions estimates could be overstated, with controlled farming potentially aligning with restoration by preventing invasive overgrowth. Lower stocking densities, as in organic or sustainable systems, reduce and enhance floral and faunal diversity—such as higher densities and populations—compared to conventional intensification, though optimal intensity remains contested to balance productivity and function. Socially, hill farming underpins remote through cultural continuity and local employment, yet persistent unprofitability—46% of English Less Favoured Area farms operating at a loss without —fuels arguments over its long-term viability amid aging demographics and depopulation. Proponents emphasize its role in sustaining and preventing rural abandonment, which could lead to unmanaged landscapes vulnerable to or from neglect, while detractors question whether subsidy dependence distorts , prioritizing social preservation over evidence-based environmental outcomes. These tensions underscore causal links between economic pressures, reduced stocking, and unintended ecological shifts, with Maximum Sustainable Output models showing potential for aligned profitability and gains through stock optimization.

Future Outlook

Adaptation Strategies and Technological Advances

Hill farmers in the UK have increasingly adopted integrated approaches that combine production with to enhance resilience against variability, such as intensified rainfall and fluctuations. These strategies emphasize data-driven decisions for optimizing stocking densities and forage utilization, reducing risks while maintaining and on marginal uplands. For instance, research at (SRUC) demonstrates how precision farming integrates automatic monitoring to adjust sheep diets based on real-time , thereby mitigating nutritional deficits exacerbated by erratic weather patterns. Technological advances, particularly in tailored to rugged terrains, include GPS-enabled tracking systems for sheep, which map patterns and enable targeted herd management to prevent and improve recovery. A study in upland West utilized GPS collars on hill sheep to delineate core areas, revealing that animals concentrate activity within 20-30% of available land, allowing farmers to rotate flocks more efficiently and adapt to seasonal forage shortages. Complementary innovations like automated in-field weighing systems, such as the Lamb Monitor project, use RFID ear tags to continuously assess lamb growth without manual handling, reducing stress and labor while providing data for early intervention against climate-induced health declines; trials since 2023 have shown potential time savings of up to 50% in monitoring tasks. These technologies also facilitate through enhanced metrics, such as bio-economic modeling at SRUC's Kirkton and Auchtertyre hill farms, where weighing crates and since the Department of Integrated Land Management's establishment in 2019 have improved lamb by identifying underperformers for supplemental feeding amid harsher winters. Challenges persist, including high initial costs and limitations for deployment, yet is accelerating as subsidies shift toward tech-enabled environmental outcomes post-Brexit. Overall, such advances underscore a causal link between precise and long-term viability, with empirical gains in and land health outweighing traditional extensive grazing's vulnerabilities.

Potential Scenarios: Subsidy Reform and Land Use Changes

In the United Kingdom, post-Brexit agricultural policy reforms aim to phase out the EU-derived Basic Payment Scheme (BPS), which provided direct payments based on land area, by 2027, replacing it with Environmental Land Management schemes (ELMS) such as the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI). These schemes prioritize payments for environmental outcomes like soil health, biodiversity enhancement, and carbon sequestration over production support, potentially altering hill farming practices in upland areas where marginal land limits profitability. Upland farms, often reliant on subsidies for 80-90% of income, face risks of economic contraction if new payments fail to bridge the gap, with studies indicating that environmental options may need to triple net income to sustain current operations. One scenario involves a smooth transition to outcome-based ELMS, incentivizing hill farmers to reduce livestock densities, restore peatlands, and plant for carbon credits, leading to diversified land uses that enhance services but diminish food production. For instance, under expanded SFI tiers, farmers could receive payments for actions like creating habitats for ground-nesting birds or managing moorlands for prevention, potentially converting 10-20% of grazed uplands to semi-natural vegetation by 2030 if uptake mirrors pilot data. This shift aligns with government targets for 30% land under nature recovery by 2030, though critics argue it overlooks the cultural role of in maintaining open landscapes, as over-reduction in stocking could favor scrub encroachment over . A contrasting scenario emerges from subsidy shortfalls or policy pauses, as seen in the March 2025 suspension of new SFI applications, prompting farm exits and land abandonment in vulnerable uplands. Research models suggest that without adequate replacements, up to 44% of Welsh —predominantly hill farms—could face conversion to non-agricultural uses like or reversion to scrub, exacerbating rural depopulation and increasing flood risks from unmanaged moors. In , recent budget constraints have delayed higher-tier payments, potentially forcing consolidation where viable farms absorb neighbors' holdings, while uneconomic ones idle, with social surveys indicating heightened farmer stress and community decline in areas like . Hybrid outcomes could arise from blended reforms combining productivity grants with environmental incentives, enabling technological adaptations like precision grazing to maintain viability on steeper slopes. However, trade disruptions from deals, such as increased EU tariffs, compound subsidy volatility, with projections estimating a 5-15% drop in upland sheep output under liberalized scenarios, redirecting land toward or renewables. Empirical analyses emphasize that causal links between removal and shifts hinge on design: flat-rate environmental rewards risk favoring lowland enterprises, leaving hill areas underserved unless regionally targeted. Policymakers must weigh these dynamics against evidence of distortions, where historical supports propped up low-output systems at taxpayer cost exceeding £3 billion annually pre-, potentially unlocking efficiencies through market signals if reforms prioritize verifiable public goods.

References

  1. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/hill-farming
  2. https://futurumcareers.com/the-only-way-is-up-why-hill-farming-is-embracing-technology
  3. https://www.ncl.ac.uk/mediav8/natural-and-environmental-sciences/files/Hill%2520farming%2520in%2520England%25202020_2021.pdf
  4. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2134/age2018.07.0017
  5. https://business.leeds.ac.uk/download/downloads/id/522/challenges-and-entrepreneurial-opportunities-for-hill-and-upland-farmers-post-brexit.pdf
  6. https://researchrepository.ul.ie/bitstreams/aaa2c5d2-1401-4fe0-b032-d08af27d0279/download
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837709000829
  8. https://ruralexchange.scot/uploads/documents/1731065688_retreatfromhillsfullreport.pdf
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10971779/
  10. https://www.nfus.org.uk/userfiles/images/Policy/ELU/Less%2520Favoured%2520Areas%2520%2520Delivering%2520For%2520Scotland%2520v4%2520%28002%29.pdf
  11. https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-sea-management/managing-land/farming-and-crofting/types-farming
  12. https://nationalsheep.org.uk/for-the-public/culture/uk-sheep-farming/
  13. https://www.farmbusinesssurvey.co.uk/regional/reports/FBS-HillFarminginEngland2022-23.pdf
  14. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/329831/files/doi_10.5836_ijam_2020-08-125.pdf
  15. https://www.ncl.ac.uk/mediav8/centre-for-rural-economy/files/CRE%20Research%20Report%2063.pdf
  16. https://www.rgs.org/media/u1dnyy55/theunitedkingdomlesson3farmingtypesintheukfactsheet.pdf
  17. https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-sea-management/managing-land/farming-and-crofting/types-farming/hill-farming
  18. https://www.gov.scot/publications/resas-climate-change-evidence-huc-farmer-led-group/pages/3/
  19. https://meattheukexporters.com/uk-sheep-farming-breeds-environment-and-the-stratified-system/
  20. https://www.alanboswell.com/resources/types-of-farms-in-the-uk/
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666683920300079
  22. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/9-10/73/body
  23. https://www.crofting.org/about-scf/about-crofting/
  24. https://www.gov.scot/publications/blueprint-sustainable-integrated-farming-crofting-activity-hills-uplands-scotland/pages/8/
  25. https://foundationforcommonland.org.uk/a-guide-to-common-land-and-commoning
  26. https://cumbriacommoners.org.uk/commons-in-cumbria/
  27. https://www.dartmoorhillfarmproject.co.uk/
  28. https://www.ehfn.org.uk/
  29. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00766097.2020.1826123
  30. https://hollowsfarm.co.uk/farm-diaries/the-history-of-hill-farming/
  31. https://www.grit.com/animals/livestock/sheep/raising-sheep-zm0z15maztri/
  32. https://agricology.co.uk/blog/why-traditional-sheep-farming-most-sustainable-hills-and-uplands/
  33. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01619.x
  34. https://histagra.usc.gal/storage/documents/5069cc3728d3d-texto_paul_brassley.pdf
  35. https://bahs.org.uk/AGHR/ARTICLES/46n2a4.pdf
  36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26932085
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0743016713000326
  38. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1956-07-20/debates/822e7da9-fcee-441d-9d4f-6ed4aa903c2a/HillFarmingBill
  39. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/9-10/73/contents
  40. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1946-06-03/debates/5ba77e11-be71-4c60-93a4-c35c7a096c2e/HillFarmingBill
  41. https://bahs.org.uk/AGHR/ARTICLES/33n1a7.pdf
  42. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-06-26/debates/E1501036-E17F-469E-A609-E3ED2E93FDC5/LeavingTheEUUplandFarming
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919210000370
  44. https://www.arc2020.eu/upland-farmers-face-harsh-realities-in-post-brexit-england-part-1/
  45. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/future-of-farming-in-england
  46. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/20/defra-officials-buried-analysis-dire-financial-prospects-hill-farmers-brexit-faming-payments-scheme
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837718316211
  48. http://uppernidderdale.org.uk/wildlife-farming/upland-farming/
  49. https://nationalsheep.org.uk/assets/documents/nsa-report-on-the-complementary-role-of-sheep-in-upland-and-hill-areas.pdf
  50. https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/best-hill-cows.312412/
  51. https://ruminantrevival.co.uk/changing-the-thinking-reproductive-improvement-on-a-hill-farm/
  52. https://www.hustlerequipment.com/2024/05/30/the-challenge-of-hill-country-livestock-farming/
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871141306001387
  54. https://www.aber.ac.uk/en/ibers/about-ibers/impactcasestories/upland-grazing-systems/
  55. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/13/3715
  56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343569529_Agritourism_as_a_Local_Economic_Development_Tool_for_Rural_Hill_Regions
  57. https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2018-10/farm-diversification-and-the-planning-system.pdf
  58. https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2018/01/farm-diversification/
  59. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00894/SN00894.pdf
  60. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/farm-business-income/farm-business-income-by-type-of-farm-in-england-202324
  61. https://ahdb.org.uk/lamb-cost-of-production-benchmarks
  62. https://ahdb.org.uk/trade-and-policy/mixed-picture-for-farm-profitability-in-2024
  63. https://chrissmaje.com/2020/12/the-sheep-sacrifice/
  64. https://sustainablefoodtrust.org/news-views/out-of-money-and-out-of-options-upland-farmers-in-england-part-1/
  65. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/grow-your-farm-business-how-trees-can-benefit-your-land-crops-and-livestock/grow-your-farm-business-how-trees-can-benefit-your-land-crops-and-livestock
  66. https://www.sruc.ac.uk/all-unearthed-posts/diversification-adding-value-to-personal-and-physical-assets/
  67. https://www.nfuonline.com/updates-and-information/nfu-declares-bold-new-vision-for-the-uplands/
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143622897000027
  69. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021WR030716
  70. https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/bitstreams/7ad7d959-66dc-4d6b-a6e5-98019cf14e97/download
  71. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fiona-Robertson-7/publication/284045171_Environmental_effects_of_sheep_farming/links/5ee805f792851ce9e7e7c31b/Environmental-effects-of-sheep-farming.pdf
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169406006615
  73. https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/647
  74. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2688-8319.12338
  75. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/ES14-00316.1
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9763128/
  77. https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/704
  78. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09640569712119
  79. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46430477_Preservation_and_Change_in_the_Upland_Landscape_The_Public_Benefits_of_Grazing_Management
  80. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02032.x
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3923862/
  82. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01426397.2020.1798367
  83. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230187213_Overgrazing_and_soil_erosion_on_hill_pastures_with_particular_reference_to_the_Peak_District
  84. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0143622897000027
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X15006044
  86. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33218809/
  87. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/27/turning-farming-upside-down-mob-grazing-on-a-cumbrian-hill-farm
  88. https://nationalsheep.org.uk/assets/documents/sheep-in-upland-and-hill-areas.pdf
  89. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X22003491
  90. https://ecn.ac.uk/news/grazing-air-pollution-moorland-vegetation
  91. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167880910003282
  92. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/10/8/1077
  93. https://sustainablefoodtrust.org/news-views/sheep-wars-why-its-time-to-reset-the-uplands-grazing-debate/
  94. https://www.gwct.org.uk/policy/briefings/alternative-uses-for-upland-moors/
  95. https://www.bahs.org.uk/AGHR/ARTICLES/46n1a6.pdf
  96. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1967/jul/27/hill-land-improvement-scheme
  97. https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/346e97ca-6480-4566-bdf5-3104fe1969c3_en?filename=ext-eval-rural-dev2-sum_2006_en.pdf
  98. https://www.bmluk.gv.at/en/topics/agriculture/common-agricultural-policy-and-subsidies/cap-to-2022/less-favoured-agricultural-areas.html
  99. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldeucom/98/9805.htm
  100. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-rural-development-programme-2014-2020-ex-post-evaluation-annex-scheme-summary-report/pages/11/
  101. https://www.ruralpayments.org/topics/all-schemes/lfass/less-favoured-area-support-scheme-full-guidance/
  102. https://ieep.eu/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/LFA_evaluation_report_full_text_en-2.pdf
  103. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldeucom/98/98we08.htm
  104. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837719308154
  105. https://capreform.eu/rethinking-less-favoured-areas/
  106. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8702/
  107. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837722003660
  108. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/sustainable-farming-incentive-guidance
  109. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/funding-for-farmers
  110. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0743016723002073
  111. https://www.gov.scot/news/lfass-update-1/
  112. https://www.fas.scot/downloads/fmh-june-2024-rural-aid/
  113. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/98670/html/
  114. https://capreform.eu/agricultural-policy-reform-in-england-and-the-2024-uk-budget/
  115. https://greenallianceblog.org.uk/2024/02/22/this-is-how-upland-farms-could-have-a-bright-future/
  116. https://defrafarming.blog.gov.uk/2025/03/11/an-update-on-the-sustainable-farming-incentive/
  117. https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/news/frustration-government-pauses-sustainable-farming-incentive-scheme
  118. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenvfru/556/55607.htm
  119. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921448809001795
  120. https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/Hill%20farm%20profitability%20report%20-%20FINAL%20agreed%2015%20Nov%2019.pdf
  121. https://www.enlighten.scot/it-is-possible-to-farm-without-subsidies-duncan-pickard/
  122. https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/progress-report/2016/07/evaluation-less-favoured-area-support-scheme-lfass-development-areas-natural/documents/00502550-pdf/00502550-pdf/govscot%253Adocument/00502550.pdf
  123. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a952ad9e5274a5b849d3ad1/future-farming-environment-consult-document.pdf
  124. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/may/22/britain-uplands-farming-subsidies
  125. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/agriculture-after-brexit.pdf
  126. https://academic.oup.com/oxrep/article/33/suppl_1/S124/3066077
  127. https://www.monbiot.com/2017/01/04/the-hills-are-dead/
  128. https://www.nuffieldscholar.org/sites/default/files/reports/2008_UK_Chloe-Palmer_A-Future-For-Hill-Farming.pdf
  129. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0060/
  130. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S026483770900060X
  131. https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/Hill%2520farm%2520profitability%2520report%2520-%2520FINAL%2520agreed%252015%2520Nov%252019.pdf
  132. https://ahdb.org.uk/roadmap-2-impacts-on-landscape-and-biodiversity
  133. https://www.farmersjournal.ie/more/northern-ireland/hill-farm-emissions-could-be-overstated-883863
  134. https://orgprints.org/10828/1/envimpactsuplands.pdf
  135. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312474569_Social_Capital_in_Hill_Farming
  136. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168169996013038
  137. https://ukagritechcentre.com/news/automating-lamb-weighing-smarter-welfare-friendly-sheep-farming/
  138. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/agricultural-transition-plan-2021-to-2024/agricultural-transition-plan-update-january-2024
  139. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44264-025-00051-7
  140. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/26/details-long-awaited-farming-subsidies-overhaul-england-revealed
  141. https://eciu.net/analysis/reports/2024/distribution-of-funding-across-different-land-management-schemes-in-england
  142. https://www.worldanimalprotection.org.uk/latest/blogs/future-of-upland-farming-uk/
  143. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2gp9lyx5xo
  144. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rgk0wgqq5o
  145. https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/105872/EIB-250.pdf
  146. https://research.bangor.ac.uk/files/24837471/160819_Pillar_1_Final.pdf
  147. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/agriculture-subsidies-after-brexit
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.