Archive Article: 2000/03/17
Leaving EUcould raise subsidies
Why is it always assumed – usually by those in favour of continued EU membership – that withdrawal would mean the end of subsidies?
Bearing in mind what an enormous net contributor we are to the EU, withdrawal would result in huge funds becoming available.
These funds could then be used by the British government to continue to subsidise British farmers. Without the phenomenal levels of corruption endemic on the Continent – virtual tobacco plantations and dairy herds apparently grazing happily in tower blocks in central Rome – and the wages of thousands of Eurocrats paid to push paper, it would probably be possible to increase subsidy levels. There might be cash left over. And just think of it; politicians might have to start earning their wages by becoming accountable to the electorate, instead of endlessly passing the buck to Brussels.
And could those clamouring for immediate membership of the Euro (such as the NFU) just confirm that they were making as much noise after Black Wednesday, when being out of the Euro suited our pockets very nicely, thank you. I cant remember many calls to ditch the £ back then.
Charlie Flindt,
Manor Farm, Hinton Ampner, Alresford, Hants.
Lost views with organics
Your recent article (Arable, Feb 11) about Gerry Minister, the Soil Associations arable grower of the year, proves that organic production is not only wholly unsustainable, but also one of the most irresponsible movements ever conceived. If we are celebrating the top organic farmer in Britain for managing to produce a wheat yield of 4.9t/ha, when the average conventional farmer can produce twice as much or more, then our society has lost its perspective.
The organic movement consistently fails to answer the principle question; if we are to produce only half as much per hectare as normal, where will the extra millions of hectares of land be found that can be put into production to overcome this deficit? They wont be found unless we elect to convert all the remaining forests and green spaces to farmland. Failing such wholesale conversion, who among the planets poor will the organic people decide not to feed?
Rob Neill
Head of marketing, Novartis Crop Protection UK Ltd, Whittlesford, Cambs.
British farmers lose on organics
The UK organic sector is under-supplied and farmers who wish to convert are unable to make the switch because the Organic Farming Scheme money for this year has been allocated already.
That means we will still import 70% of the organic food sold in the UK this year and British farmers will be the ones who lose out. We are nowhere near the over-supply problems some fear. The British government could be thanked for avoiding that situation at least.
As supply slowly catches up with demand, we will see prices coming down and premiums to farmers, no doubt falling. How can this be averted? MAFF should formulate a strategy for the sector and establish targets. The strategy should address transport, technical research needs, infrastructure and training for farmers. Extra research would reduce the cost of production to farmers, and economies of scale would result. That would mean farmers could cope with reduced premiums.
It would also mean farmers, consumers, retailers and investors knew where they were, and could enter the sector with confidence. Farmers dont know whether to convert since the government will not get away from its stop-start funding.
I do not believe that conventional production will be proved more sustainable. How can polluting rivers with pesticides be sustainable? Some water companies are paying farmers to go organic to reduce the cost of clean-up.
I also believe that GM crops are a complete waste of time. The government and biotech companies are barking up the wrong tree. Why not invest in sustainable farming methods such as organic? At least, you will find yourself investing in a production method which has a market. GM has been rejected by consumers and I advise farmers to do the same.
I am the campaign co-ordinator for the Organic Targets Bill campaign. It aims to persuade the government to adopt a bill or policies that will lead to a big increase in the amount of land farmed organically.
Catherine Fookes
Sunnysteps Cottage, Llanishen, Chepstow, Monmouthshire.
Blairs way is a disgrace
The way Tony Blair treats British farmers and his handling of rural matters is a total disgrace.
Outside Great Britain, his political career is about to be overshadowed by the scandalous way he is destroying the life, labour and culture of the British countryside. Some reputation to be remembered by.
Mr Ola-Jorn Tilrem
8900 Bronnoysund, Norway.
Rickards sums dont add up
I write concerning the article (News, Feb 11) containing quotes from Sean Rickard. He says that family farms are doomed and only large agri-businesses will survive. I am not sure which method of mathematics he uses, as my answer is different to his.
The investment required to milk 500 cows is £2.5m on land, buildings, cows and machinery, but not quota. On a low-input system this size of herd would yield about 5000 litres. To cover the investment at 10%, requires 11p/litre alone. If you then add labour at a minimum of three men, thats another 2p/litre. He suggests a milk price of 14p/litre is about right for the UK, leaving 0.6 p/litre to cover feed, fertiliser, vet fees and the rest. Anybody interested in losing a few £m sign here.
Steven Hold
Lower Whittle Farm, Doctor Fold Lane, Heywood, Lancs.
50,000 farmers written-off
I was given a firm tip-off a few years ago that our 600 acre, mainly arable, husband-and-wife business had no future. It came from a NFU and ACCS committee member.
Also, I understand that the claimed membership of the NFU is some 70,000 farmers. According to census figures, there are about 10,500 holdings of over 500 acres throughout England and Wales. The number of farmers or farming companies involved on these holdings would be less than the number of holdings due to management agreements and share farming arrangements.
There seems to be, making generous allowances, some 50,000 farmers or 70% of the total who have been written-off in the NFUs grand scheme for the future of agriculture.
R G Iliffe
Poole Farming, Old Park Stables, Park Farm, Ogbourne St George, Wilts.
Chickens are not kangeroos
Nuffield scholar Pamela Gladwin of Deloitte and Touche (Arable, Feb 25) made the mistake with her wheat cost comparisons that I made in 1963 when comparing potato growing costs. The difference is I decided it was like trying to compare chickens with kangaroos so I gave up.
For both crops, North American farmers have the enormous advantage of 1m depth of frost, which sterilises the soil and saves them massive chemical bills. An even bigger money saver is that both crops can be grown on the same land year after year at no extra cost. That alone would save UK potato growers £700/ha which many pay to rent adjoining land for a year.
Poland is also irrelevant, because wages are only a fraction of EU wages. So what about France with a price per tonne difference of £14.60?
Pamela, like many others, ignores the cost of own labour. That would be OK if the farm sizes were the same. But the UK farm is nearly 600% bigger than the French example. According to J. Nix, there is £115/ha difference for own labour between units under 100ha and over 200 ha. Thats £10.80/t for a start. Add to that the fact that big business have a price difference of up to 40% between our two countries, because the average UK farm size is 56% bigger than the average in France. When Dicurane, used to control blackgrass and wild oats cost £61 per 5 litres, in France it was only £43 per 5 litres.
In New Zealand, identical tractors are nearly 50% cheaper. It is therefore difficult to compare like with like – particularly as a chicken is not a bit like a kangaroo.
George Scales
Cobblers Pieces, Abbess Roding, Ongar.
Must include family labour
I found the results of Ms Gladwins research (Arable, Feb 25) both interesting and worrying. In the form they are presented, they contain a dangerous fallacy.
As I understand the article, only the cost of paid labour is included – what the Americans call hired help. Family labour has to live, however, and so the cost of a living wage for the farmer and his family must be included in the cost of production.
If £20,000 a year is added to the UK, USA and Canadian farm costs, on the assumption that these farmers are working full-time on their holdings, and £10,000 a year to the costs of French farms, on the assumption that the French spend only half their time on their 200 acres, we get a different picture.
We still come out badly but the situation does not look as hopeless as when using Ms Gladwins results.
I believe £20,000 a year is a realistic sum to allow for the value of a self-employed, developed-world farmer who needs to make provision for his own pension.
The point she makes about the high cost of moving some of the American and Canadian wheat to a deep-water port is a valid one. But remember that the wheat grown in Kansas and Saskatchewan is of a quality, which makes it more valuable than average European wheat.
Interestingly, a Saskatchewan wheat grower told me last year that he needs a wheat price of C$5 a bushel to keep out of trouble. That is equal to £78.35/t and would give Ms Gladwins Canadian farmer about £18,000 to meet his and his familys living expenses. That is not far from my £20,000.
Nick Collingridge
Zapp Support, Nick@zapp.dircon.co.uk
US has doubts about GM
Guy Smith makes several untrue statements and assumptions in his letter (Feb 18). When Greenpeace and The National Family Farm Coalition asked me and two other farmers to relate our experiences with GM crops in the US, they did not get virulent anti-GM farmers, they got farmers who would truthfully relate their experiences.
There are big doubts about GM in the US. While about 55% of North American soya was GM last year, GM plantings will be down significantly this year. Some US farmers trusted the technology last year, but, after seeing no cost savings or yield increases and poor marketing options due to consumer rejection of GM crops, farmers are buying non-GM seed for this planting season. US farming publications are full of articles showing this fact.
While Corky Jones may have cut his pesticide use, he also indicated that he was lucky and that many of his neighbours used more. Corky also told of his reluctance to plant GM again this year in light of lower crop prices, consumer rejection, safety and liability concerns.
As to the charge that we are a fringe group, the NFFC represents over 36 farm organisations and is affiliated with most of the major consumer and church groups in the US, as well as the international farm group Via Campesina. Based on the reception we received, both from UK farmers and consumers, if anyone is representing the views of a fringe group it is Guy Smith.
Jim Goodman
E 103 Cty. Hwy. Q, Wonewoc WI 53968, USA.
So little from British Sugar
How can the NFU and the government let British Sugar pay us so little for C beet? No wonder we have no money. Were told to be more efficient, then when we have a good crop we have to give it away. Where is the C sugar in the shops? Where is the C beet pulp?
I think its all going to the fat cats at British Sugar. They must be laughing at us all. Im sure there must be a case for an enquiry by the Monopoly Commission here. We have no choice as to where we can sell our beet or even buy our own seed.
Yorks farmer
Name and address supplied.
Please, do not overdo turkeys
I read with dismay your article Farm-fresh turkeys still popular choice (Business, Dec 10) stating that UK turkey production is down about 9%. If there were a 9% increase on last Christmas production, it would ruin the job.
Over the past three years, the production of fresh turkeys for Christmas has been about right. With the continuing disappearance of butchers shops, which are our only outlet, where are we to sell the extra 9%? After all, some buyers are quoting French and other Continental turkeys at different cold stores at a very reduced price.
Companies such as Sun Valley completely over-supply the market. In the past, organisations such as BOCM Pauls encouraged people to go into pig production and look what problems that caused. I am well acquainted with the problems of this industry after 40 years experience of producing Christmas turkeys. Let these commodities find their own level without such interference.
IR Gleed
Pen-Y-Garn Farm, Penallt, Monmouth, Gwent.
Link IT kiosks to the POs
Just a thought, prompted by your article Wire up countryside, says CPRE (News, Feb 18). I wonder whether there could be a link between the proposed IT kiosks and the village post offices that may remain in the 16,000 villages which might benefit both as well as their users.
Felicity Kiefer
Broadland, 43 Highwood Road, Uttoxeter, Staffs.
Reasons why no trial results
There are four reasons why no trials have been published for homeopathic products (Opinion and Livestock, Jan 21). First, trials have been carried out and the products did not work.
Second, the lack of availability of research funding.
The drive to use environmentally safe and ecologically sustainable resources in the design and manufacture of insecticidal, acaricidal, anti-microbial or pesticidal products stems from need.
The high input costs of current animal health products, their health and safety implications, the increasing incidence of failure all mean that farmers and their vets are looking for something else. These solutions inevitably originate with innovators. Typically these are small innovative companies deriving their specialist knowledge from individuals who are committed to providing a better way forward.
Third, lack of motivation. The large animal healthcare companies have focused their huge research funding into new substances or genetic solutions. Those areas are more easily patentable enabling them to secure their research spending on likely future income streams.
The fourth barrier is the time and costs of licensing.
Licensing implies efficacy-tested products with full HSE evaluation. Some of the products currently available do not require to be licensed because no medicinal claims are being made for the products. In my experience Veterinary Medicines Directorate is vigilant to ensure that such products do not require to be licensed.
Nigel Q Back
Managing director, Barrier Animal Healthcare, 36 Haverscroft Industrial Estate, New Road, Attleborough, Norfolk.
Hard for birds and farmers
Many of your readers will be aware of the new IACS ruling whereby farmers who maintain field boundaries wider than 2m will be financially penalised.
Those farmers who have, at their own expense, retained and encouraged hedgerows and field margins which benefit declining farmland birds, will in future face a reduction in arable area payments. At a time when a government indicator of farmland bird populations is at its lowest for 23 years, and many farmers are facing financial hardship, it seems perverse to make things harder for both wildlife and farmers.
The RSPB has been contacted by many farmers asking for help and we have taken this matter up with the farm minister. This is an issue where conservationists and farmers are on the same side. We must work together to ensure that MAFF takes positive action to prevent farmers who have acted in good faith, and with the environment in mind, from being penalised.
Dr Mark Avery
Director, Conservation Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
First class by ADAS?
My husband and I found it most extraordinary to receive recently an envelope from ADAS posted, quite unnecessarily by first class mail. Inside was a leaflet advising us of ways of saving money by reducing waste. Need we say more?
Mrs E Morris
The Hem Farm, Westley Minsterley, Shrewsbury.
Humans are the hazard
According to The Times, the RSPBs new farm in Cambridgeshire will set an example over wildlife. But its exact location will remain a secret because there would be many dangers since its a working farm.
It crosses my mind that the main hazard to wildlife is human activity. So-called dangerous farms and military firing ranges may be the only places where wildlife can find some peace.
Mrs A Gillett
Middle Tarr Farm, Lydeard St Lawrence, Taunton, Somerset.
Perverse reverse of policy looms
Notwithstanding government statements encouraging farmers to adopt agri-environment schemes, apparently it is now intended to reduce the annual payments for field margins within the countryside stewardship scheme.
It has recently been announced that a proportion of arable area aid payments are to be withdrawn.
That will be redirected into agri-environmental schemes. The decision to cut payments for what is proving to be a successful scheme benefiting wildlife and the countryside seems to be perverse and a reversal of policy.
This is in addition to the latest IACS regulations on measurement of field margins, which have already reduced the financial benefits of stewardship margins.
I should like to urge those who have planted stewardship margins or intend to do so to write to their MPs and conservation bodies to try to get the government to think again.
A J Coleman
Lower Norton Farms, Norton, Sutton Scotney, Winchester, Hants.
E coli advice is cautious
Protecting children is rightly the highest parental priority, but Prof Penningtons advice to keep children away from farmyards because they risk infection from E coli seems unusually cautious. I think the BBC over emphasised the risk. It is another attack on our farmers at a time when things are bad enough.
The increase in the TV licence could not have come at a worse time for rural people. Most people would rather know if their food is British, rather than pay to watch more scare stories.
Bill Wiggin
Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate for Leominster, 8 Corn Square, Leominster, Herefordshire.
Getting rid of starlings
Farmers with a resident flock of starlings around dairy buildings have a real problem on their hands, as E Bromwell points out (Letters, Feb 18). The only real solution is to trap and destroy them in the same way we would any other species with a population which has grown to pest proportions. The fact they have feathers rather than the fur of a rat or mouse is beside the point.
The legality of doing this in the UK is unclear and so there is a natural reluctance for advice to be published. Since starlings are a local problem, I have collected details of successful methods used overseas which I can make available to those who see the need to take action.
Mike Donovan
Practical Farm Ideas, PO Box 1, Whitland, Dyfed.
Quota leasing facts untrue
I refer to Stephen Daviess letter (Feb 25) and his quote that "quota leasing costs 2.5p for every litre of milk produced or 12% of total milk income."
Mr Davies has clearly mis-read the figures in the report. In the milk year 1997/98, the year used in the Manchester University report, the cost of leasing spread across the national quota was 0.86ppl not 2.5ppl. That cost represented 4% of total milk receipts based on the MAFF ex farmgate milk price of 21.14ppl.
It would be helpful if contributors such as Mr Davies researched their facts before putting pen to paper and I trust his veterinary figures were accurately stated.
Ian Potter
Ian Potter Associates, Sallyfield Lane, Stanton, Ashbourne, Derbyshire.
Radio can save your bacon
I am an infrequent reader of farmers weekly who was given a copy of your Mar 3 issue by my farming husband. He pointed out the article concerning how radio advertising had saved the bacon of a Lancs pig farmer.
Of particular interest was your Marketing Special. I noted the article on Welsh Lamb which is looking for an affordable and easy way to market its product.
Having established a website, it needs to tell people how to visit it and how the organisation can supply delicious lamb from the green hills of Wales direct to their door.
By contacting Clear Channel Radio Sales on 0171-478 2339, they could broadcast to millions of shoppers, consumers and housewives on the commercial airwaves at a fraction of the cost of television. After the single production cost of making the commercial it could be transmitted by ISDN across the whole of the South Coast and I promise that I would definitely respond.
Jacqui Renwick
Sales and marketing manager at Spirit FM. jacqui.renwick@spiritfm.net
Change affects vets & farmers
Our vet informed us of a change to local veterinary inspector services in the north-west which we feel will have a long-term detrimental effect on the professional relationships between farmers and their vets.
A pilot scheme for the provision of LVI services, especially routine TB and brucella work, is to be the subject of competitive tendering from July 1. That flies in the face of increased TB outbreaks in the North-west, where a closely co-ordinated approach must be the way forward.
MAFF must appreciate the local knowledge our own vets use when carrying out investigations. Thats not only geographical but also holistic knowledge due to their specific experience of our area. Competitive tendering may bring any vet on farm, as has been seen in the supervision of calf culling and meat inspections. That will obviously take more farmer time co-ordinating stock movements and paperwork with a stranger who will not know the farm or its system of management.
MAFF would surely acknowledge that the current arrangement has worked well for many years, but competitive tendering can only lower the standard of service.
I am writing to my MP to express my concerns. If others feel as I do, perhaps they will follow suit.
Teresa Taylor
Seed House, Farm Potter Lane, Samlesbury, Preston, Lancs.