Funnily enough, the policy paper attached to last Autumn’s agriculture bill singles out ‘traditional farming practice’ as a public good in its own right, alongside clean air, clean water, etc. In spite of its slight oddness in the list, the question arises as to how ‘tradition’ is to be defined because as you say, massive changes are taking place that make hill farming today a very different occupation to that of yesteryear.

One might say, as in the arts, that one is working within a tradition. This tradition is not about working in aspic but is a platform from which to innovate and adapt according to the age. So I wonder at what point does adaptation cease to qualify as ‘traditional’ from a policy point of view.

From the point of view of my farming correspondents, it’s clear that the trend towards ranching, as smaller farms get amalgamated, is in danger of breaching ‘tradition’ because less care is lavished on the particulars. This prompts an anxiety about the ruination of landscapes whose productivity and attendant biodiversity are the fruit of generations-worth of hard graft and landscape nous.

If the use of public money to support ‘traditional farming practice’ means the smaller operators get to stay viable, then its dividends begin to become apparent.