Sir, – When asked for my thoughts on the agricultural subsidy reforms, my first was: It needs someone with their boots firmly grounded in the clarts of reality!

It starts well with the Agricultural Reform Route Map wanting to support a framework that delivered high quality food, climate mitigation and nature restoration – agreed. From there, it all goes to hell in a hand cart as realism gives way to idealism.

I speak from an upland livestock background, but have had enough adventures into the Black Isle to almost understand the arable farmer.

Why can’t we keep it simple? Why do we not encourage and reward the active farmer to make their business more sustainable? Why do we waste money on carbon audits for a public relations message when they really don’t improve the lot of the average farmer or the consumer.

Why is a lot of our productive land depleted and ranched? Answer, because the current system allows it to be. The active farmer should be rewarded for managing the land well, no more slippers!

Here’s my soap box plan, for what its worth:

Tier 1:

* Make your best land work as efficiently as possible be that grassland or arable. Get rewarded for having a pH over 5.8 (need to start somewhere) and phosphate and potash at moderate.

* Get a bit more reward for good levels of soil organic matter, or a clover rich sward. Bonus of such efficiency is more kg or tonnes of output per ha, improved sustainability of business, and more carbon sequestered.

* It's simple to inspect with a spot check soil sample. Good soil health is fundamental, so reward those who put this at the heart of what they do.

* Focus on a carbon sequestration measurement tool linked to efficient food production not peatland and return land value for food production.

Tier 2:

* Some land will just not be suitable for the payment above for various reasons but with the most productive land in good heart, capable of carrying more stock or yielding more crop, it could easily be utilised more extensively and receive a payment for habitat management instead, without the need for an expensive, competitive scheme application.

* Everyone could probably do a bit with what they’ve got. Encourage hedge planting for shelter of crop and stock and linkage of habitats as a matter of course.

* For arable farmers why not encourage incorporation of livestock. Some AECS applicants got so much out of green manure they would like to move back to integrating stock enterprises for various beneficial reasons, stubble management, winter crop tillering, reduced need for spraying, increasing production while fertilising and incorporating organic matter via four legs rather than spread behind a tractor.

The stock need not be their own and suddenly we are back to the old livestock stratification and the arable land is used to winter upland and hill stock. Everyone’s a winner and it would encourage capital investment in such areas.

So, keep fanciful ideas of changing livestock genetics, a few quid towards a vet check or reducing methane production for some other day, get back to basics and start with a soil sample.

Jenny McCallum, Gorthleck Mains, Inverness-shire.