Farmers Question the Cost of the Knepp Model
Written by Chris Fellows from Agri Web Media Limited
The debate over land use, food security, and environmental policy has been reignited following a recent podcast appearance by financier and environmentalist Ben Goldsmith . Discussing his vision for nature recovery and praising the Knepp Estate’s extensive rewilding model, Goldsmith’s comments have triggered a robust and highly critical conversation among the UK farming community.
The conversation, which has garnered over 4,000 reads and 73 contributions, highlights a growing frustration with a subsidy system that many farmers feel disproportionately rewards wealthy landowners for taking productive land out of the food chain.
The Economics of Extensive Grazing
The catalyst for the discussion was Goldsmith’s appearance on the “We Can Do Both” podcast, where he advocated for a model of one cow per ten acres, citing the Knepp Estate in West Sussex as a prime example. Goldsmith noted with pride that Knepp produces 100 tonnes of meat from its 3,500 acres.
However, the farming community was quick to scrutinise the numbers. Contributors highlighted that Knepp received over £646,000 in total public money in a single year, including a Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) payment of £225,501. As one contributor calculated, this equates to a public subsidy of £6.46 per kilogram of beef produced.
“Son does 80+ hours/week. Even I do 50 odd if it’s my weekend on,”
noted contributor Rick, whose contribution received the highest engagement in the discussion.
“£600k+ for doing bugger all. Who’s mad? Not Knepp.”
This sentiment captures the core of the frustration: the perception that working farmers are struggling to maintain profitable businesses while large estates receive substantial taxpayer funds for minimal agricultural output.
Food Security vs. Nature Recovery
A dominant theme throughout the conversation is the tension between rewilding initiatives and national food security. Goldsmith argues that 85% of England’s food comes from 20% of the land, suggesting that less productive areas can be rewilded without impacting food supply. He advocates for viewing nature as “infrastructure” that provides economic value through flood mitigation and carbon sequestration.
Farmers, however, remain unconvinced by this metropolitan perspective. Contributors expressed deep concern that taking large swathes of land out of production is short-sighted, particularly when the government continues to emphasise the importance of self-sufficiency.
“When that land produces a couple of fat bullocks every couple of years and the same government is peeing on about food self-sufficiency, then something is amiss,” stated one contributor. Another added, “The government only care about food security insofar as they can’t be publicly seen saying they don’t care about it. Judge by actions, not words.”
The Privilege of Rewilding
The conversation also touched upon the socio-economic dynamics of land ownership. Several contributors pointed out that rewilding on the scale of Knepp or Goldsmith’s Cannwood Farm is a luxury afforded only to the very wealthy.
“Rewilding is an expensive hobby unless you’re getting government grants, selling carbon credits, making money from tourists,” noted contributor Grass And Grain.
There is a strong feeling that the current subsidy system, including the Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS), acts as a form of reverse taxation. As Humble Village Farmer pointed out, “The whole subsidy system rewards rich people for owning land.”
Furthermore, the discussion highlighted the impact on the next generation of farmers. With large estates opting for rewilding, opportunities for young farmers to secure tenancies are diminishing. “There are keen youngsters who really genuinely want their own go at livestock farming… they would relish a chance at an area sensibly rented to them,” argued Bury the Trash.
A Call for a Level Playing Field
While a small minority of contributors acknowledged that projects like Knepp have opened eyes to alternative methods, the overwhelming consensus is that the playing field is uneven. Farmers feel that rewilding projects benefit from slick public relations campaigns and disproportionate financial support, masking the reality of their low food output.
“That effort goes to hide the fact that the likes of [working farmers] are probably doing as much for the environment/net zero while producing more food/acre with a tiny fraction of support from the public purse,” stated Jackov Altraids. “If only the average farmer got the same PR support.”
As the government continues to shape its agricultural and environmental policies, this conversation serves as a stark reminder of the disconnect between policy makers and those working the land. For the farming community, the true cost of the Knepp model is not just measured in pounds per kilo, but in the long-term implications for food security and the viability of traditional farming livelihoods.
Read the conversation on The Farming Forum here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/ben-goldsmith-rates-knepp-and-wants-to-“farm”-with-one-native-bred-cow-per-10-acres.416120/
This conversation had been viewed 5,130 times on The Farming Forum when counted on 3 September 2026. Want your brand in the room when farmers are talking? Book advertising with Agri Web Media.