Foxhunters are normal, decent folk

I read the reports on your foxhunting survey (Opinion and Farmlife, May 19) with interest. I note in particular the quote from the Dorset couple who wrote: "Foxhunters are a group of social elitists who like to feel they can roam at will across the countryside."

My own, first-hand experience of our own hunt, the Surrey Union, is the opposite. They are always grateful for permission to use the farm and have always been respectful of instructions as to where they should and shouldnt go.

I am not sure whether elitism is a good or bad thing. But maligning it has much to do with socialist dogma and little to do with hunting. The followers of hunting come across to me as being decent, law-abiding, reasonable, everyday people – somewhat in contrast to many of their detractors.

Your respondents may find that they have more to complain about when this governments right to roam Bill grants all and sundry an absolute right to the countryside. A few hunt riders will seem like nothing then.

R M Pothecary

Littleton Manor Farm, Littleton Lane, Reigate, Surrey.

Unite to defend our rural life

Great news that your survey came out so strongly in favour of hunting (Opinion and Farmlife, May 19). How sad to read recently that our own YFC club at its Blackpool agm refused the chance to form a closer relationship with the countryside alliance. That was based on fears that some parents would associate the alliance with the hunting issue and not let their children join. The alliance covers all aspects of country sports and rural activities.

At a time when farming needs all the help it can get, surely strength in numbers in defending our rural way of life is the only way forward.

J Brooks

North Devon.

Inefficient way to catch foxes

Surely, if you want to catch a fox with a dog you would use a lurcher which will catch it within a 100 yards rather than a pack of hounds that take miles running across farmland? Personally, like most farmers I know, I prefer the lamp and rifle.

Andy Bean

andybean@warwickshire.gov.uk

Hunters insured on public road?

Your survey of readers on foxhunting (Opinion and Farmlife May 19), was like asking turkeys if they were looking forward to Christmas. A more interesting survey would be to ask hunters on horseback if they are insured while on public roads. I understand it is not compulsory.

John Benstead

5 Scotts Yard, Haslingfield, Cambridgeshire.

Townies taking over the YFs

I was concerned to read that the Young Farmers had rejected plans to forge closer links with the Countryside Alliance, fearing that it could jeopardise membership.

Unfortunately, the Young Farmers Club is suffering from decreased membership due to a variety of reasons. A number of members, both past and present, have come from non-farming backgrounds.

However, one only has to recall the supporters of rallies and marches organised by the Countryside Alliance to realise that those with a genuine interest in protecting the countryside came together to protect their freedom of choice. That was the freedom both of individuals and groups to protect those choices for their children.

Individual members of the Young Farmers Clubs can, and hopefully will, choose to be members of the Countryside Alliance.

The organisation is concentrating on country sports as these are under threat, some of which bring much-needed income to farms. But there are many other interests they support, such as local amenities, food labelling and countryside industries.

With the decrease in the number of farmers and those whose work is connected with farming, there is certain to be a shift in the balance of non-farming members.

It is a pity that, due to the current imbalance, we appear to have a hitherto august body of representatives of the future of farming allowing itself to be influenced by an apparent urban majority who fear a fall in membership. They should stand up and be counted and continue the tradition of educating their members about countryside matters. Support for any organisation which aims to protect the countryside is of paramount importance.

The Young Farmers Clubs, as a minority group, need the support of the rest of those who support the Countryside Alliance.

B Dobson-Spink

Address supplied.

Gun law is in a total mess

Another matter arising from the Tony Martin case is the ridiculous position we farmers find ourselves in regarding the gun licensing laws. Due to hasty, ignorant government reaction to the Hungerford and Dunblane tragedies, we are left with totally illogical, complicated and now expensive gun licence renewals.

It was reasonable that Mr Martin had an unlicensed pump action 12-bore shotgun. I have two such guns and use them regularly to control troublesome vermin at work.

On the past two occasions Ive applied for the re-licence, Ive had a load of nonsense from the police. They choose to hide and operate behind nonsensical laws. As with many aspects of our work, the public and their officials are deeply ignorant as to how we have to operate.

That breeds the dangerous situations we so often find ourselves in. Britain carries too many parasites. As the years go by their number increases and we are fast approaching the stage where we are being bled to death by them all.

Sam Millward

Lincoln Hill, Hom Green, Ross-on-Wye.

Meeting barley contract needs

In reply to your article on malting barley contracts (Arable, May 12) I hope the trade has already gone a long way to address some of the needs Marie Skinner refers to. We, as part of the Bairds Malt Group, have always offered the facility to fix the base price at any time sellers call.

As the requirement for higher nitrogen in malting barley has become more necessary, we have designed one malting barley contract to give a fixed price for any nitrogen within the band 1.50-1.80. That has enabled producers to be more confident of their ability to meet the specifications. This is just one of a range of contracts we offer, any of which we would be happy to discuss with growers.

Guy Lawrence

Mark Lawrence (Grain) Ltd. Mill House, Station Road, Ardleigh, Colchester, Essex.

We already knew how bad it was

On Wed May 10, I went to an NFU meeting in Kenilworth where Terrig Morgan, chairman of the NFU milk and dairy produce committee, gave the meeting a talk, The Dairy Crisis, What is the NFU doing?

As I listened to Mr Morgan, it became apparent from his demeanour and his words that milk producers have no hope. He said the NFU could not negotiate prices, neither could it be a marketing organisation. It could be a "facilitator and helper along the route". He then went to say that he "could not give us anything completely new".

Tired and despondent leaders have no business calling a meeting of people who are in dire financial straits so they can be told how bad things are; we already know.

The NFU seems to be suffering from a severe negative attitude problem. We farmers are paying the NFU a considerable amount of money and are entitled to high-quality leadership.

I hate people who stand in my yard telling me what they cant do. My reply is: "Tell me what you can do so that we can move on." To our leaders I would like to say: If you want to act on behalf of farmers talk straight and be positive, or get out.

Gerald Vennall

Gerald.vennal@virgin.net

NFU approvedunfair cuts

I note that the NFU has described the lifting of the weight limit on compensation for OTMS cattle as the removal of a glaring injustice that ends arbitrary discrimination against farmers with heavier cattle.

Perhaps it has forgotten that in the summer of 1997 when the farm minister decided to curb OTMS expenditure he offered farmers organisations the choice of meeting cost reduction cuts either through weight based restrictions on the payment or by an across the board cut in price.

The NFU made it clear that it preferred weight-based restrictions rather than the much fairer across the board cut – presumably because it would offend fewer of its cattle-owning members.

It is difficult to see how it can square its liking in 1997 for a weight-based cut, which has cost owners of heavier OTMS cattle about £20m a year for three years, with its current claim that its imposition was unjust and discriminatory.

The owners of heavier cows, most of which are pedigree and commercial beef cattle breeders, would have faced no discrimination and no injustice if the NFU had advised MAFF in 1997 wisely. It should have said that it would have been fair if the pain of meeting the OTMS cut had been shared equally between owners of cattle over and under 560kg.

Robert Robinson

Chairman, National Beef Association, The Firs, Blackmore Park Road, Malvern, Worcs.

Power lines not linked to cancer

Your article "High-voltage health risk?" (Features, May 12) highlights some cases of cancer occurring near a high-voltage power line. Of course, all cancer is a cause of great concern and it is natural to look for an explanation.

However, the clear weight of evidence is against power lines causing cancer or any other disease. Most recently, the UK Childhood Cancer Study, the worlds largest ever study of its type into this issue, reported its first results. It was conducted by some of the countrys top scientists and it was led by the eminent Prof Sir Richard Doll who first established an international reputation by identifying the link between smoking and lung cancer.

It found no evidence that childhood cancer is associated with the magnetic fields produced by electricity systems.

To provide meaningful answers to the issue of potential health risks, systematic large-scale studies need to be carried out. That has been achieved for power lines; about $500m has been spent on research into this issue worldwide and the evidence is against there being a risk.

Dr John Swanson

Scientific adviser, the National Grid Company, Kelvin Avenue, Leatherhead, Surrey.

Balance in GM crop debate

You published a letter (May 12) from Mark Griffiths of the Natural Law Party in which he misled readers by quoting selectively and out of context from a recent research paper. He suggested that GM sugar beet gives poor weed control. In contrast, the current series of government/SCIMAC farm-scale trials were set up precisely because some, including English Nature, were concerned that the same crops might eliminate all weeds from these crops.

The truth is that in crops like Roundup-tolerant sugar beet, we have a flexible tool, which could be used for either such aims. Moreover they offer the potential to save both chemical use and cost, and can be tailored to the environmental and farming needs.

Surely it is time we had accuracy and balance in this debate, instead of such uninformed speculation.

Colin Merritt

Monsanto, Maris Lane, Trumpington, Cambridge.

Not nearly so complicated

Your article (Features, May 12) presented a good summary of the new extensification payments scheme. Unfortunately, you made it even more complicated than it really is.

Unlike the previous scheme, the new extensification scheme does not take into account the milk quota held by a producer. That is because all the cattle on the holding, including dairy cows, are taken into account in determining the stocking density.

However, under the BSPS and SCPS, the milk quota continues to be used to determine whether the 2 LU/ha stocking density payment limit is met, with the change from April 1 to March 31 as described in your article.

Also, producers who have chosen to comply with the requirements of the simplified scheme can withdraw from the scheme without penalty, provided that they have not been advised of a forthcoming on-farm inspection.

Joyce Quin,

Minister of State, MAFF, Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London.

CPAs pesticide package lacking

What a shame that FW has chosen to join the NFU in welcoming the CPAs pesticide package (Leader, May 19). If the agrochemical sector wishes to remove the threat of a pesticide tax, it will have to do better than that.

The CPAs package does not even acknowledge the environmental damage caused by the routine use of pesticides. Pesticides disrupt wildlife food chains and cost the consumer millions of £s each year to remove from water supplies. Despite that, the CPA proposals lack targets for reducing pesticide use, for reducing environmental impacts or even for phasing out the most damaging pesticides.

Most farmers want to farm profitably and protect their wildlife. If CPA cant design a package that will help them do that, someone else will. And if it isnt good enough, the pesticide tax will be back in the picture again.

Mark Avery

RSPB director of conservation, The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Sandy, Beds.

BSE caused by many factors

I am concerned about the letter (May 19) from Joanna Wheatley which referred to BSE as a blunder of science. Although it is known that much of the CJD seen today came from injectables derived from human pituitary extracted hormones, the position regarding the occurrence of BSE appears more complex.

Are modern management practices at the heart of the BSE problem? As Ms Wheatley points out, there is an increased risk of transfer if substances are injected rather than taken orally. I have always believed that BSE has been caused by a variety of factors such as stress and BST, and perhaps even organophosphate warble dressings.

The largest number of cases occurred when experimentation was taking place into boosting milk yields by using the hormone bovine somatotrophin, which was administered as an injectable.

However, I am concerned that the EU wishes to introduce a policy of whole herd slaughter for cases of BSE. We do not have scientific evidence that BSE is transferable within the herd.

This regulation would be particularly detrimental to British farmers where the herds are larger and more efficiently managed than in some other European countries.

Arnold Pennant

Nant Gwilym, Tremeirchion, St Asaph.

Minimum grant area in fact 3ha

I am heartened to see that you are able to give further coverage to energy crops and your reports make interesting reading.

But your report, "Annual payments till first harvest in" (Arable, May 19) may have unintentionally given the impression, particularly in the last paragraph, that a minimum area of 25ha will be needed from next year to attract government support.

For England, at any rate, that is not the case. The MAFF consultative document for the England rural development plan, energy crops scheme proposes support for plantation sizes down to 3ha provided they are linked to dedicated schemes and possibly subjected to environmental impact assessments. A further proposal suggests that support for short rotation coppice establishment on non-arable land should be at the rate of £1600 per ha.

This company has developed a versatile range of planting machines for SRC which have fully demonstrated their technical and economic suitability, not only for the larger plantations but also for smaller sites.

We await the final form of the MAFF Scheme with great interest.

John Turton

J Turton Engineering, Woodpeckers, Coldharbour Road, Upper Dicker, Hailsham, East Sussex.