Archive Article: 2000/01/28
28 January 2000
Why is HQ so scared of Haddock?
Why are the London NFU council delegates so afraid of Richard Haddock? Is it because when he says hell do something he does it? Admittedly, sometimes not quite the right way.
But he makes people realise the agony and despair of the farming community. Most importantly, he speaks in a way we all can understand. His charm is that he is untouched by the powers that be. Surely, the NFU spin doctors should be seen to demand that he be given the post of vice-chairman. That would show the members that NFU HQ is listening to us instead of this fighting within.
What harm can Richard Haddock do? After all, he can be voted out in 12 months if he is no good.
Fran Evens
Barn Cottage, Ash Priors, Taunton, Somerset.
Maverick wont be best leader
You have received letters in support of Richard Haddock as a future leader for the NFU. I believe it is time to hear from those who oppose such a move.
Outside my farm, I am responsible for an ESF project, which has brought £0.9m of Objective 4 money into the south-west to help support farming. This brings me into contact with many farmers; especially in Devon. I have also served, for several years with Richard on the south-west regional NFU livestock committee.
Talking to one grass roots Devon farmer recently led me to write this letter. The farmer, like many others, is an NFU member but does not attend meetings. He said: "Anyone who does not support Richard has not got a heart but anyone who does support him has not got a brain".
Farmers are looking for hope. So a messiah, who would show tireless energy on their behalf, was someone to follow. But what has Richard achieved? Demonstrations, drum-banging and electioneering for his own self-promotion. Having spent hours in meetings with him, you find that he has a limited knowledge of the industry and that his focus is based upon a small part of that industry. He also takes the credit for what others have done. He has a unique knack for not telling direct lies but embellishing the facts for his own glory.
The media and many others describe Richard as a maverick and mavericks are not team players. They tend to be stubborn and single-minded; they do their own thing.
There is a great deal of support for the officers in post at present. Farmers accept that anyone at the top acts as a whipping boy. But they also realise the tremendous amount of work that these officers are doing, and have done, to negotiate with government. They also realise that much of the opposition to these officers is as a result of Richards undermining of their ability.
I have a great deal of confidence in the NFU council because between them council members represent the whole country and the whole industry; not just a small enclave in the south-west. I am confident that they will consider the best interests of the NFU and the industry and not elect Richard as an officer.
Dr M J Amos
Lower Failand Farm, Failand, Bristol.
Getting the fat facts straight
On buying the Jan 2000 issue of the Good Food magazine, I found a special report on low fat.
I was amazed to learn that skimmed milk contained 3% fat, semi-skimmed milk contained 31% fat and full fat milk contained 53% fat. Luckily I am a dairy farmer and know the truth, but what happens when the public reads such an article?
I hope the dairy companies and milk promotions people act on such articles and get such publications to tell the truth instead of tarnishing our industry even further.
Mrs Rachel Frost
North Yeo Farm, Loxton, Axbridge, Somerset.
Leasing quota and milk yields
I write with reference to W J Perrys letter (Jan 14) regarding leasing of milk quota. He raises many issues but does not mention genetic improvement. Look at the PIN values of todays calves compared with their dams and he will know what I mean. These animals are bred to produce more milk, and will do so even if quota is leased, or not, and whether feed levels are correct or not. They are genetically programmed to perform as such.
This explains why culling rates are high. It has nothing to do with high-yielding cows but more to do with not leasing quota, and not feeding these animals correctly for the milk they produce. Leasing quota enables dairy farmers to manage their cows properly, thus expressing genetic potential. Why embark on genetic improvement, without having the necessary tools to do the job? After all, quota is a tool of the dairy farmers trade. What cost infertility?
C A Herring
Ladydowns Farm, Newmill, Penzance, Cornwall.
Milk Marque: Pray, patience
In reply to D M Beecheys letter (Dec 31), I would like to explain the circumstances leading up to my telephone conversation with Mr Beechey. I spoke to Mr Beechey prior to Milk Marques special general meeting, hence was unable to give Mr Beechey definitive information until the Milk Marque members had voted at that meeting.
Although Mr Beechey is no longer producing milk and selling it to Milk Marque, his shares are still a part of MMs capitalisation and they do have a value, as indeed do other members shareholdings; producing or ex-producing.
The board has not forgotten the loyalty of its supporters, as your correspondent seems to think. But the exceptional workload to make sure the three new regional co-ops are running before Apr 1, and with contracts secured, has been without precedent.
I would ask all Milk Marque members to bear with us while we sort out legal wrangles and other major issues while trying to maintain business as usual on a daily basis, including the work of Milk Marque Developments.
I would like Mr Beechey and others to know that I will be around for some time yet to help ensure a smooth transition to the new companies. I will also help the new southern co-op, Meadow Fresh, if and when required, and see the affairs of Milk Marque wound up in an orderly and professional way which will protect the investments of producers and other members of MM.
Believe me it is not an easy task.
Finn Christensen
Steanbow Farms, Pilton, Shepton Mallet, Somerset.
Give us more of retail pig price
Brian and Georgina Lewis wrote (Letters, Dec 24) complaining about a rasher of bacon costing them £1 at a motorway service station, inferring that this damages the pig industry.
Ive seen lots of letters in this vein recently, and they are all daft. They miss the point completely. The problem is that we dont get enough of the retail price, not that the retail price is too high. I stand more chance making something out of my pigs if rashers are £1 than if they are 10p.
Stephen Crossman
steve@crossmancourtplace. freeserve.co.uk
French filth floods here
I was concerned but not surprised to hear on the news recently of the outbreak of listeria from eating French paté.
Legislation and regulation of the food produced in this country gets tougher all the time, yet this government deliberately keeps quiet about the sewage being fed to French cattle.
I think everyone is aware of the contents of sewage but has anyone ever stopped to think about all the other products included in same?
The effect on cattle and ultimately the meat and milk doesnt bear thinking about especially as some soft cheeses and pates are not even pasteurised. These products are flooding into British supermarkets due to the strength of the £ resulting in our farmers going to the wall. But whose produce will be blamed when disease strikes?
Unfortunately due to lack of labelling regulations, the housewife is not always aware of the country of origin of her purchases.
Mrs Jean Messenger
Adamgill Farm, Moresby, Whitehaven, Cumbria.
Total tosh on French attitudes
Robert Kemp (Letters, Jan 7) is right on one count: the French are overwhelmingly pro-French. But one hardly needs to be resident in France to stumble upon this most evident of truisms.
He tells us his French friends are unable to understand why anyone would want to buy British beef when French is available.
Maybe he could help those same "friends" understand that the British dont want to buy French milk when British milk is plentifully available. Unfortunately, the French-dominated CAP forces us to import 30% of what we need. At least there is no obligation on the French to buy British beef – not even if the ban is lifted.
The comparison applies to almost every commodity. The French apple growers who recently lamented the 40% drop in their 400,000t annual sales to Britain never consider that they have that trade only because the terms of our EU entry required us to grub up our orchards, thereby creating a market vacuum.
I challenge Mr Kemp to name a sector where France has been required to destroy good productive capacity so that it can import something from Britain to compensate the resultant shortfall. When he can, I might wonder if there is a gram of substance in his otherwise laughable contention that "…the French, deep down, actually like us". Then again, I might not because, and as we now know even Winston Churchill realised, its complete tosh.
Tony Stone
Home Park, Oxted, Surrey.
Time to give CAP the elbow
I watch with cynicism and near despair how the floundering establishment (of which I have never been part) handles the plight of British agriculture (of which I have been part for many years).
The so called common agricultural policy, which is neither common to EU member states nor a coherent policy worthy of the name, is the cause of the woes now confronting our industry.
Before we joined the EU, I toured the Six on behalf of your late sister journal The Farmer & Stockbreeder.
At that time, this country functioned with an agricultural policy backed by the deficiency payment scheme, which worked well for consumers and farmers.
I had my doubts then about the wisdom of joining CAP and abandoning deficiency payments. Those doubts have been amply justified.
Our current mess of pottage works well for no one except the officials in London and Brussels. Their actions are to the detriment of all except their own self importance and the size of their filing systems.
The UK should remove itself from CAP, re-establish a farming and rural policy which suits us and which, through the ballot box (not shady horse trading in Brussels) can be made to work for the good of all British citizens. Particularly for the producers of the only basic requirement of every human – food.
Do not think we should stay in to obtain the support of other European farmers. The reverse is true – witness BSE, French lorry drivers and our sound currency.
Peter Clery
Curlew Court, Guys Head, Sutton Bridge, Spalding, Lincs. PAClery@pclery.freeserve.co.uk
Pork imports packed in UK
Is Tesco supporting British farming? The Tesco store in Cirencester shows all its pre-pack pork, except Freedom Foods, as "packed in the UK" and labelled British Pork or Meat. I was under the impression if this label was shown it was imported pig meat, packed in the UK which gives the lie to the supermarkets label that it is British pork or meat. Thats how they confuse the housewife into thinking she is buying British pork.
I contacted the fresh goods buyer at this store who assured me that Tesco head office had told him that the meat was British. When I asked him as to why the labelling did not show "Produced in the UK" no answer was given. He was not aware that this mis-use of labelling was allowed. All the pre-packed gammons at Christmas were either Dutch or Danish (I found one British one) and most of the bacon showing the British Meat logo is "packed in the UK".
No wonder the British pig industry is fighting for survival with companies like Tesco.
If they cannot buy enough British pigmeat it is their own fault. Its the supermarkets which have killed off the pig industry with their greed. If only their customers knew!
S Giles
Latton, Nr Swindon, Wilts.
Tell consumers origin of food
I read S Harrisons letter (Dec 17) about the quality checks on French milk supplied to Sainsbury. What is being done to inform Sainsburys customers? As a former smallholder and a farmers daughter I buy only British meat and produce. My milk is delivered by a local farm, but I dont think the average housewife is aware of the origin of most of the food that she buys or the conditions it is reared under.
I know of no moves locally to inform the shopper, and I do take a keen interest in producer-to-consumer issues. So come on farmers – get your loud hailers out and people will listen.
It isnt going to solve all your problems of course. But until you can persuade Nick Brown to do something, try us little old ladies!
Sally Puxted
Westbourne Cottage, Bennetts Mews, Tenterden.
Making sure its truly British
Although I applaud your leading article (Opinion, Dec 17) Dont get mad, get even, how can we be sure we are boycotting French and German foods? How can we be certain of buying British foods and supporting our farmers?
When we buy chickens that have travelled from outside the EU, have been repacked in Britain, and then sold as British, we are not supporting our farmers.
How can we be sure apples marked "Golden Delicious" are not French apples which have been re-packed in Belgium and sold as from Belgique? How do the French know that they have not been eating British beef since the Brussels ban on exports from this country was lifted? I want to trust the labels and I want factual labelling with hefty fines imposed if labels are found to be misleading.
May I suggest "Born, bred and packed in England" or Wales, "Grown and packed in Scotland" and a truthful label "Chickens from Thailand packed in England".
While we customers are doing our level best to support our farmers, I would ask farmers to remember our loyalty when deciding whether to plant fields of GM crops. My fight is for the food standards, proven safe over the many years, to be maintained. There was nothing wrong with it until scientists started to meddle with it, and yes, there may well be another BSE disaster round the corner.
Innocents are dying because scientists are tinkering about in the streamlining of bigger and more productive crops which will allow more profit. We ordinary people no longer have confidence in the seed producers and have little confidence in farmers.
I will write to those mentioned in your leader and more.
Anne Palmer
115 Cannock Road, Westcroft, Wolverhampton.
Variety is vital to herbicide use
I read with interest your article on modes of action for herbicides (Arable, Jan 7) in which my attention was drawn to the mention of sulfonylurea weed resistance.
Where resistance to sulfonylurea products has occurred is usually associated with three factors. First, a history of previous use of long residual sulfonylurea products such as chlorsulfuron. Second, the continuous use of these products in a predominantly cereal only rotation. Third, the use of sulfonylurea products alone.
Although there are cases of sulfonylurea resistance in countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Spain, these are well understood and have been successfully managed. However, it is clear that some of the factors outlined above have contributed to this and we should ensure that the lessons are learned.
Chickweed resistance was first identified in 1991 and currently affects one field in Denmark, one field in Sweden and one field in Ireland. The poppy resistance in Spain is more widespread, but confined to a specific region in the north. There are no known cases of sulfonylurea broad-leaved weed resistance in UK, France or Germany, which accounts for about 80% of the product usage of this group of chemistry in Europe.
So why have we not seen the problem develop in the countries such as the UK where usage is more extensive? One of the reasons is that we have a wider range of approved alternative product groups available to the farmer. That allows us to adopt very effective weed resistance management strategies, by use of sequences and tank-mixtures of different modes of action.
In the UK we also have a high level of understanding of this chemistry and comprehensive network of trained and qualified agronomists who along with the grower know how to use and recommend this product range.
Martyn Rogers
Product manager, DuPont, Agricultural Products Department, Wedgwood Way, Stevenage, Herts.