Archive Article: 2000/06/16
Organics offer new diversity
I have been managing a mixed farming estate for more than 30 years and am now gradually converting a large part of it to organic production. I have undertaken considerable research into the subject. I do not profess to have all the answers, but am reasonably confident that we can make it a success.
If James Wallace (Talking Point, May 26) was involved with day-to-day farm management, rather than just seed production he, like me, would have observed the gradual decline in numbers of lapwings, skylarks, partridges, songbirds and hares. There is no doubt that has been caused by too much mono-cropping, the use of agrochemicals and fertiliser.
There is an increasing demand for organic food of all sorts inspired largely by the catalogue of worldwide environmental disasters caused by chemical accidents and misuse of manufactured substances which can have dramatic long-term effects on the food-chain.
Organic crops grown, in a balanced rotation, using modern techniques and machinery as well as a high level of expertise, can reverse the trend.
On an organic farm, the manure has to be composted to kill off harmful weed seeds and pathogens. Good compost is a friable material which acts not only as a soil conditioner, but also provides a good balance of plant nutrients which complement the fertility building crops, such as legumes, in the rotation.
The risk of diseases spreading to neighbouring farms is no greater from an organic farm than from a conventional. Organic plants have a much stronger cell structure which helps to protect them from fungal infestation. Organic crops are generally remarkably clear of disease. There will always be some weeds in an organic crop but judicious use of a mechanical weeder and tall cereal varieties should keep them at a manageable level. It is vital that weeds do not set large amounts of seed for the following crop.
Far from taking out hedges, most organic farmers add hedges and buffer strips in order to stimulate beneficial predator insects.
There is no doubt that organic farming produces a much improved species biodiversity over conventional farming. That fact alone should qualify for some form of environmental start-up grant to mitigate the financial loss during the two year conversion process and future lower yields.
I do not think that organic farming will ever constitute more than about 10% of the farmed area of the UK, but at that level it will still provide choice to the consumer and, above all, pockets of land where there will be a rich biodiversity.
I suggest that Mr Wallace should visit an established organic farm such as Rushall or Eastbrook farms, both in Wiltshire, to see for himself the points that I have made and above all to realise that a healthy and well run organic sector is beneficial to the whole of UK agriculture.
Chris Reynolds
The Pent, Postling, Hythe, Kent.
Not invention of the devil
James Wallace (Talking Point, May 26) exhibits plenty of paranoia in his tirade against organic agriculture. He uses half-truths, twisted logic and ignorance, in equal measure. All serve no purpose other than to set one farmer against another.
We are all farmers and should be working for one over-riding purpose: To provide consumers with the food they request – from whatever methods of production they stipulate. The fact that we use different routes to get there, which Mr Wallace sees as opposing and implying criticism, is undeniable.
However, we must learn to live and let live. We may well learn the occasional trick from each other. Be assured that there are few "super-profits" in any one part of the organic food chain. However, we do all aspire to fair returns on capital just as conventional farmers do. Although the latter are not currently getting that just reward. I will campaign for that to be achieved for all farmers.
I expect the majority of farmers are tired of extremism and ignorance; they want less antagonism and more cohesion. What they need above all is a fair return on their investment in capital, labour and energy.
Oliver Dowding
Chairman, Organic Working Group, National Farmers Union.
Friends of the Earth not happy
Seed trader James Wallace claims (Talking Point, May 26) that organic farming is promoted by Friends of the Earth, and that to secure public donations we adopt aggressive marketing techniques, including some of questionable legality.
He gives no examples of such techniques, nor any evidence that FOE has ever adopted them. I would bet a substantial sum that he hasnt got any.
Allegations of this kind are defamatory. Mr Wallace should not make them without evidence.
Ian Willmore, Friends of the Earth
Ianw@foe.co.uk
GM fiasco not farmers fault
"The Dig It Up" campaign (News, May 26) called upon the government to instruct, rather than advise, farmers to destroy GM-contaminated oilseed rape crops before they flower, with a clear promise of full compensation. Farmers are innocent parties in this scandal and they should not suffer as a result. Government is responsible for this crisis because it kept its knowledge of the contamination secret for four weeks, allowing the seeds to be planted.
Legal action to secure compensation from Advanta or Monsanto could take months, or even years, so it is imperative that the government assures farmers that they will be paid this summer; it can try to recoup this money from the seed companies later.
We also call upon the government to halt the current field trials of GM oilseed rape and to have the existing plantings removed and destroyed.
This crisis provides an excellent opportunity for farmers to regain public trust and support by rejecting GM technology. The public has made it clear that it does not want to eat GM food or to have rural ecosystems damaged by GM farming. If British farming were to become decisively GM-free, this would give it a great commercial advantage at home and in export markets.
Martin Haggerty
7 Palace Hill, Scarborough, N Yorks.
This debacle is beyond belief
I cannot believe the shambles the government has made of the GM crop debacle – nor the decidedly lax way the seed company has behaved.
To protect the good name of farming, the crops should be destroyed immediately and all the farmers compensated. The customer is always right.
Anthea Aldous
South Lane Farm, Moorsholm, Saltburn, Yorks.
Keep an eye on proponents
If any seed or agrochemical company uses the present accidental importation of GM seed and the potential contamination of 20,000ha of UK farmland as an excuse for short-cutting public acceptability of GM products, their possible role in the contamination will require careful scrutiny.
David Steed
N * & D Steed, Spratling Court Farm, Manston, Ramsgate, Kent.
Call to withhold potato levies
I find the decision by MAFF to over-rule the results of the recent poll on the future of the British Potato Council, which clearly showed the authorities that the wishes of potato growers were to disband the BPC, both despicable and without credibility. MAFFs action to over-rule a democratic vote is similar to that of dictator regimes, the like of which is functioning in Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe.
I would be in favour of the continuation of the BPC if all levy monies went into promotion.
I call on all growers to withhold their planting returns and levy payments. They should not be bullied by unlawful tactics.
J G S Woods
Gerard Hall, Prescot Road, Aughton, Ormskirk, Lancashire.
BPC advocates should pay up
A majority of potato growers have just voted against keeping the British Potato Council and consequently it should be finished. However, that is not going to happen because a minority of large growers will not let it.
Its time for the people who want to retain the BPC to pay for it and those that dont should not have to pay. Perhaps we should withhold our levy payments.
Richard Amies
Breck Farm, Weybourne, Holt, Norfolk.
Powerlines and cancer linked
Dr Swanson of the National Grid Company is wrong to say that powerlines are not linked to cancer (Letters, June 2). The recent UK Childhood Cancer Study was concerned with exposure to magnetic fields in the home and not the electric fields associated with powerlines. Indeed the estimated $400m spent on the health effects of electromagnetic fields has itself almost exclusively concerned magnetic fields. Even so, a link with childhood leukaemia has persisted and the 1999 US National Institute of Environmental Sciences Report classified electric and magnetic fields as a possible carcinogen. It recommended continuation of the current US practice of avoiding erecting powerlines near houses.
New research at Bristol University is looking at the effects of electric fields associated with powerlines. In particular, high voltage powerlines ionise the air resulting in the emission of so-called corona ions. These attach themselves to pollutant particles in the air (such as vehicle exhausts and crop sprays) so that when these particles are inhaled they have a greater probability of being absorbed by the body by electric (static) charge effects. Surprisingly high levels of corona ions, sufficient to be of concern to increased exposure pollutant particles in the air, have been found to be carried by the wind several hundred metres from powerlines. The potential health effects of these new observations have not been investigated in any previous studies. Therefore, the reports of adverse health effects associated with living near powerlines must be investigated so that the public and occupational health implications can be quantified.
Prof Denis L Henshaw
* * Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Tyndall Avenue, Bristol.
NFU response to beef attack
It is becoming impossible to pick up the farming press without someone having a swipe at the NFU.
It is understandable given the difficulties we are all in. And while those of us who are actively involved cant ignore it, general opinion is that we should concentrate on what we were elected to do. However, enough is enough when the National Beef Association yet again attempts to score points by criticising the NFU. I find it hard to believe Robert Robinson actually wrote such a scandalous misinterpretation of the truth (Letters, June 2). First of all, having failed to get the EU Commission to agree to a price cut for Treasury reasons, former farm minister Jack Cunningham imposed the weight limit without any consultation because he knew there would be uproar. There was, and when the NFU led a delegation to see him in Whitehall, the only option on offer was an approximate 10% price cut across the board to give more money to those producers with heavier animals.
Had we agreed, the NFU would have been held responsible not just for agreeing to the price cut, but also for putting one farmer against another while the minister washed his hands of the whole affair.
But we were not prepared to capitulate and have stuck resolutely to the principle that every producer should receive full payment on every kilo. As we approached the Downing Street summit in March this year, the livestock department at NFUHQ encouraged the president that whatever else was achieved the single most important step would be to persuade government it should remove the weigh limit, pay the balance, and put some fairness and equity back into the livestock sector. He succeeded, and while others also wanted to see the limit removed there can be no doubt that it was Ben Gills personal intervention that got the £20m returned to producers. It helped breeding cow prices immediately and we were determined to claim credit where it was due.
Finally, my family partnership is a member of several organisation including NFU, CLA, NSA and NBA. We are always looking at what we spend and I am concerned that funding an organisation which constantly spats at others may not be the best value for money. On the other hand I am sure most farmers will continue to support the NFU, which is prepared to work with anyone to bring the industry closer together.
That is why we will be supporting the beef event at Chatsworth, despite these minor problems.
Les Armstrong
Chairman of NFU HQ Livestock Committee, Blunderfield, Kirkoswald, Penrith.
FAWC stance is preposterous
Export consultant Tim Harriss comments (News, May 26) made astounding reading. This person claims to be a member of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, yet he is proposing that British farmers should be seeking to export live animals to the Middle East to undergo long, stressful journeys and horrific, inhuman deaths at the other end.
His only justification for this seems to be that there may be money to be made. If a member of the Farm Animal Welfare Council can publicly state that "it is quite immaterial what you or I think about their slaughter methods", I must ask the question as to whether this view is reflective of the principles of that council? If this is the view of the council, then its commitment to the improvement of animal welfare is seriously questionable.
To Mr Harris and those of the same view, may I point out that you have about 56m customers within a days travelling distance – put your energies into serving the British consumer, and you may find that their loyalties will return.
C A Smith
Higher Pimbo Farm, Skelmersdale, Lancs.
Milk facts of life all awry
I would like to bring to the attention of your readers the fact that the mis-education of our nations children is safe in the hands of childrens television presenters such as the Tweenies.
On Friday, May 19, one of the Tweenies visited a dairy farm. On seeing a cow being milked, the Tweenie declared that the cow must have a calf inside her. This seemed a relatively safe assumption to make with the desired calving interval being 365 days. The worrying part was her next statement – words to the effect of "I know this cow is pregnant because she is being milked".
It saddens me that from an early age children are presented with facts that are incorrect or confuse the issue. Do people really believe that milk can be produced before a cow has actually given birth to a calf?
I suppose that the more worrying issue is that as a third year undergraduate, I made a conscious decision to watch that particular episode as an aid to revision for my cattle production exam.
Judith Sykes
7 Lockington House, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough, Leics.
OTMS payments went down
The decision of the EU Beef Management Committee to remove the weight ceiling on Over-30 Month Scheme compensation payments, with effect from June 5, was said to be widely welcomed throughout the agricultural industry. The NFU described it as fantastic news for Britains livestock industry. The farm minister said it was worth £20m a year to UK farmers.
Well, let me say that, two weeks ago, invoices received from an OTM abattoir gave the payment for cows as 95.7142p/kgdw. This week, the same abattoir stated that the payment for cows has been reduced to 93p/kgdw. Nationally, that reduction must amount to a huge sum.
Methinks that the lifting of the weight ceiling is a cost-neutral con job. No doubt, the officials concerned will correct me if I am wrong.
Norman Harrison
Brooklyn, Burneside, Kendal.
YFs must back Brit foodstuffs
Thirty years ago my life revolved around the Young Farmers Club and I am pleased that my daughter now enjoys the same benefits. However I am appalled that she went to our county spring rally taking entries that include a Battenburg cake and a salami and mozzarella pizza, the recipes for which include several expensive imported products. If the YFC cannot support home-grown produce and use British recipes what hope is there for our farming?
Kate Wilson
Redhill House, Holcot Road, Walgrave, Northants.