Archive Article: 2001/02/09
Marchers mustnt all be toffs…
To show the politicians and the anti-hunting fraternity that those supporting the Countryside Alliance March on Mar 18 are not all toffs, as they imply, I suggest everyone wears their normal working clothes.
Peter Clarke
The Gardens, Harrowbarrow, Callington, Cornwall.
Policing rural areas not easy
I wonder how Nicky Warden (Letters, Jan 19) imagines that the "adequate measures laid down to protect agriculture, wildlife and the environment" are to be enforced? The police cannot catch hunt saboteurs and they are easy to spot with their hammers and their black balaclavas and their sprays to upset the animals.
Even supposing there is a policeman within 20 miles, how can he possibly be expected to catch opportunist thieves, owners of sheep worrying dogs, litter droppers, etc? Were not dealing with Islington High Street.
Mrs P M Oliver
Tarkwa, Moats Tye, Stowmarket, Suffolk.
Beef labelling is subject to abuse
I would like to point out that most meat retailers who are selling beef cuts, fresh or packed are deliberately breaking the law. The labels on the meat from 1 Sept 2000 have to carry the words "Slaughtered in member state/ Third country plus licence number" and "Cutting in/cut in member state/Third country plus licence number".
I would like everybody to go to supermarkets and other retail outlets and draw the managers attention to this problem. It is unfair that farmers have to adhere to all UK laws and EU directives while the supermarkets and retailers act as though they are above the law. Because the Trading Standards people say they dont know how to enforce the law, is that a good enough reason to ignore it?
What is happening to full traceability? After the German beef scam surely we should all know the name of the country where beef offered for sale was slaughtered and processed.
If anybody is interested in fair play on beef labelling please fax your name and fax number to 0870-745 8871 or e-mail gerald.vennall@virgin.net and I will send you a factsheet. If you have a problem when talking to the managers of the offending retail outlets, ring me on 077-7937 2605 and I will try to assist you.
If we are forced into policing our own industry, so be it. I think if we all pulled together we could stamp out this abuse of the traceability chain and ensure consumer confidence in British beef.
Gerald Vennall
Fairview Cottage Farm, Quarry Road, Sandford, Winscombe, Somerset.
Crop sold with no assurance
With reference to Mr Flindts letter (Jan 26), I would like to share my crop assurance story. Being small-scale beef and
arable farmers, my brother and I take on contracting to make ends meet. We are members of FABBL/ABM for the beef operation, but are struggling to justify the cost of cereal assurance. Since we sell only 175t of corn a year, at present we are not signed up for ACCS.
Last autumns crop of Optic was bright, bold and clean. So a sample was sent to the local merchant who later offered a price, and all bar the headlands – saved for cattle feed – was sold for malting. As regards our Consort wheat for feed, we could store 50t and needed to sell another 50t to house the cattle. Our merchant told us he would struggle to move it without crop assurance because milk buyers state that wheat going into concentrates must be assured. But because the merchant had always traded fertiliser with us he would help out and it was moved albeit at a discount.
Recently during a meeting to buy fertiliser our merchant asked if we had any wheat to sell and a good price was offered and a deal was struck with no mention of crop assurance. So it seems if you have something your merchant needs crop assurance does not matter. But if you need to sell and he could do without it, you need to be assured.
Roy Stokes
Roystokes@farming.co.uk
Milk costs more than petrol
Mr Burden asks if Marks & Spencer pays a premium to its milk suppliers (Letters, Jan 5). If that is the case, perhaps we should all buy our milk from certain Esso and Granada service stations where I have seen milk at 99p/litre.
The dairy farmers supplying them must surely be getting a premium price for their milk? If they are not, then perhaps they should be asking why the service stations are selling milk at a higher price than their petrol.
Kris Spensley
The Paddocks, Aldwark, Alne, York.
FSB was right to complain
Mr Tipples of ACCS seemed indignant that the Federation of Small Businesses should challenge his position by lodging a complaint with the Office of Fair Trading (News, Jan 5). I say good for them. Furthermore, those farmers who have already signed up should take positive action and withdraw. Too many pious individuals signed up either in the hope of getting higher prices or to gain the advantage as a preferred supplier, to get ahead of their neighbours. They turned a blind eye to the downside.
First, they should increase their public liability insurance because they have signed a contract to ensure quality. Complying with every aspect of the small print in that contract is impossible. Many people have signed with the full knowledge that they will never comply. If something goes wrong, you can bet who the supermarkets will sue.
Second, it has done nothing to ensure fairness in testing and payments, in comparison to oilseeds, for example. The grain industry needs more sophisticated national quality standards to take account of a wide range of varieties and how they are used. A fair and independent means of testing and payment scales that reflect positive attributes such as low moisture should be implemented.
There also needs to be a better-defined structure to penalties; sometimes they are massive, in percentage terms, for grain that does not meet ever tighter specifications. Most of them are beyond the control of the farmer to change.
Farmers have gained nothing from the scheme. The system has been rigged against them and they have nothing to lose by fighting for a better, fairer and more honest deal from the grain trade.
Roger Lord
Pilgrims Barn, Weeley Road, Great Bentley, Colchester, Essex. Lordrog@lordessx.demon.co.uk
Any suggestions for lame lambs?
Can anybody explain what to do with lame lambs? I have two from last season that, through injury, are unfit for market. The local butcher says dont use them for our own freezer because, although he is licensed, the inspector will not pass them.
Where will they go if the hunts are gone and fallen stock is no longer collected? Is somebody going to open up a refuge for unsaleable sheep?
Steven Smith
2 The Paddocks, Brixworth, Northampton.
Grain assurance driven by price
I read that the Federation of Small Business challenge to the assurance schemes has left Jonathan Tipples, chairman of the NFU backed scheme, "perplexed" (News, Jan 5) and that it could damage such schemes.
The eight buyers who he says represent nearly 100% of all supermarkets have severely damaged UK agriculture and will continue to do so in their quest for market share.
The arguments are well documented. UK farm products fulfill all quality requirements but imported produce only has to come up to suppliers county local standards.
In fact, most would fail a Checkmate inspection.
The eight buyers prime influence is price. Allied Mills contract for wheat purchases says: "All consignments of wheat for delivery commencing Sept 2000 must be originated from ACCS/SQC approved farms only and every grain passport must display the relevant ACCS/SQC sticker. Failure to comply will result in rejection."
Since no foreign supplier to Allied Mills can be a member of all-British schemes, how can Mr Tipples call that fair trading? A set of SCATS, ACCS compliance items plus ACCS membership costs £2438 without labour; making £3000 per membership a realistic cost.
Perhaps Allied Mills can explain the disparity in its quality standards?
David Street
NH & D Steed, Spratling Court Farm, Manston, Ramsgate, Kent.
Farm assurance a block to trade
Any regulation, device or license which inhibits, slows or prevents the free movement of goods is null and void according to EU law.
The farm assured schemes prevent the movement of goods, which are not part of those schemes. That is despite the products in question complying with all legislation regarding grade and suitability within the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. The foods may be of the finest quality, but in some cases are rendered unsaleable or their movement inhibited because they are not farm assured.
The farm assured scheme serves no useful purpose and is clearly at odds with the law. Is anybody pursuing this absurd situation? Pity the poor producer in situations where it is only acceptable to be part of a scheme but no premium is payable or paid because no other source is available.
A E Searby
Mayfields, Croft, Wainfleet, Lincs.
Profit lies in printing forms
The government seems deaf to the plight of British farmers. Perhaps it has a subtle strategy to wait until farming is really on its knees.
Then, when it is politically most advantageous, it will offer farmers a marvellous one-off payment to surrender their farm to direct government control, overseen by the ministries of form-filling, woolly thinking and unnecessary complication.
They would organise a stupendous scheme, such as demanding all milk to be transported to Doncaster, so that overpaid officials could examine every tanker load to confirm that the white stuff from cows was really milk.
Then it would be evenly distributed across the country; too much to areas that didnt need it and insufficient to cheese and butter makers. Local transfer of loads would require a permit that would take three months to issue, rendering it impossible.
The Ministry of Woolly Thinking would prohibit the use of tractors in fields adjacent to the nest sites of the lesser shouting popplecork, in case the bird was deafened by the noise.
That would ensure large areas of the country were never cropped, and thereby guaranteeing appeals for grain aid from abroad.
High-ranking officials could relax on horseback, touring the countryside with groups of controlled dogs to ensure that the resident fox population was not becoming overweight and unfit, due to the ban on hunting foxes with hounds.
Hopefully, British common sense will ensure that the foregoing remains in the realm of fantasy.
Otherwise, now may be the time to invest in companies making paper and printing forms.
DJ Pittwell
Agricultural engineer and contractor, 29 Hawks Road, Kingston-Upon-Thames.
Farming & small bird decline
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has found that, along with hundreds of bird watchers, it also has a breakaway group of members based in Bristol, which calls itself the Song Bird Survival Action Group.
It has at last recognised that the song bird population is being reduced annually by 31m sparrow-sized birds/year.
The RSPB has long claimed that agriculture has been responsible, through so-called modern practices, for this decline.
Some believe the 31m loss is being caused by a population of about 35,000 pairs of sparrowhawks and an equivalent number of single unmated birds. Thats to say nothing of the number killed by cats and cars, etc.
I have been feeding small birds for many years and have watched the population being systematically cleared out by raptors.
I have written many times to the RSPB on the subject only to have the facts thrown back as not credible.
Each time agriculture has been blamed. Now this breakaway group has said that there is a belief that the raptor population is to blame, and not simply farming practices.
Although I am not a farmer, I feel the argument has become unbalanced in the favour of the RSPB.
Agriculture cannot fight back and if it tries, bodies like the RSPB are so vociferous in their replies that the public have always believed them.
I do not know what the answer is but at least perhaps now the RSPB will look at the situation truthfully.
G A Vigrass
Bussens & Vigrass, Bexwell House, Downham Market, Norfolk.
Kiwis find the going tough
I refer to your article "Kiwis profit without support" (Arable, Dec 22). Arable farmers in New Zealand are doing the poorest of all types of farming. Consequently there is a large-scale shift in land use to dairying which is performing much better. Although we do make a living from arable farming, we are definitely not making the profit without support that your headline suggested.
Our farm machinery is becoming rundown as there are insufficient profits to reinvest in new equipment. We are contract growers for Teagle Foods in NZ. Contrary to your article, Teagle Foods is collecting a levy from the growers to pay for the services of Pam Chalmers as a crop adviser.
Your article inferred that we did not pay. How I wish that was true but here in NZ, all farmers have to pay for everything. Incidentally, we do enjoy reading the magazine.
Mervyn and Janet Horrell
Ryan Road, Oreti RD3 Winton, New Zealandjanet.horrell@clear.net.nz
Vegetarians also prone to vCJD
In the run-up to the election, can anyone answer a few simple questions which might help influence my vote?
If variant CJD is caused by eating BSE infected beef, why does it seem that people who are vegetarian, or who rarely eat beef have as much susceptibility to variant CJD as the seven-times-a-week meat eater?
If variant CJD is caused by mutation of a prion already found naturally in the body, isnt that mutation far more likely to be caused by exposure to a chemical or by radiation, rather than by eating meat containing a different prion?
If the BSE prion cant be destroyed by heat, we must assume it will still be present in incinerated waste. Where is this waste? How is it being contained to prevent it entering the food chain through water, or through ingestion by other creatures, such as insects and fish?
If the waste is not so protected, is this because the government is irresponsible, or it does not believe there is a link with variant CJD?
Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, and the proposed hunting bill, it seems the owner of open country must allow access to everyone, but may be prosecuted for allowing his own friends and associates to hunt over his land? This is like ordering that our domestic gardens must be opened as free campsites, but prosecuting if friends are invited to a barbecue. The owner has lost the right to control and manage his own property.
As the evidence linking mobile phones with damaging radiation seems as clear as that linking BSE and CJD, why doesnt the government order the destruction of all mobile phones?
Judy Mills
1 Wotton Crescent, Wotton-Under-Edge, Glos.
Lets welcome her to industry
Claire Brockie should be applauded for her letter (Dec 8) and deserves to be welcomed with enthusiasm to the industry.
It certainly needs her and all the able and well-motivated students it can attract. Farming and the related areas of employment, which we now describe as covering career opportunities from plough to plate, are more dynamic than ever before. The nation needs a multi-skilled, adaptable and highly professional workforce to meet the challenges of the future and to continue to feed it.
Achieving a good degree from a university or university college, which specialises in educating men and women for the rural workplace, is an important step in that process. If you have chosen the right course you should be able to offer the right skills and knowledge to be able to compete successfully in a developing and changing, but ultimately rewarding industry.
Harper Adams offers a range of degree courses ranging from rural land management, agri-food marketing. animal science/health to rural environmental protection and agricultural engineering to name but a few. All these courses offer choice so that students can tailor their degree to suit their preference. Most of our courses offer a sandwich year working in the industry. So when people qualify they will already have that much sought after work experience, making them far more saleable in a competitive job market.
Also our employment record is far superior to many others and stands at 85% compared with a national average, for all university courses of 54%.
We wish Claire Brockie well in her endeavours.
Richard Jopling
Head of liaison and marketing, Harper Adams University College, Newport, Shropshire.
Ministry view on sugar beet
I read with interest Marie Skinners Talking Point (Jan 19). The UK government, like its predecessor, supports reform of the sugar regime but in an orderly way which does not impact unfairly upon UK interests.
Ministers also fully understand the concerns of the industry and of farmers. There are other aspects of the proposals, however, which are not properly appreciated, and which were not mentioned by Marie Skinner.
First, there is no proposal under consideration to reduce sugar beet production quotas by 40%. The European Commission has made proposals for a 0.7% cut in production quotas as part of its suggested reform of the EU sugar regime. The UK has opposed this in the current discussions in Brussels, as have most other member states. That negotiation is ongoing. In 1999 sugar production in all LDC countries reached 2.1m tonnes; LDC sugar exports totalled about 250,000t (equivalent to 1.7% of EU quotas). A quota cut of 40% as a result of the LDC proposal is unrealistic.
Second, the existing safeguard clause in the EUs generalised system of preferences would apply to LDC sugar if imports cause or threaten to cause serious difficulties to a Community producer of like or directly competing products. The commissions proposal introduces an extra trigger mechanism to alert us to the possibility of fraud if massive increase in LDC exports occur. It is difficult to believe that member states would allow imports of sugar on the scale claimed without invoking safeguard provisions.
The least developed countries need to be helped to integrate into the global market and we have a duty to promote their sustainable development which we are determined to do. But the consequences of the LDC proposal need to be thought through. It is highly unfortunate that the proposals for sugar reform make no reference to the possibility of LDC sugar coming on to the EU market and include no measures for dealing with the consequences other than the traditional ones of intervention or cuts in beet quotas and cane maximum refining needs.
UK negotiators have been pressing for the implications of the LDC proposal on the sugar regime to be properly considered in Brussels before decisions are taken.
I can assure you that the future of the UK industry is a matter of great importance for the government. Ministers are extremely mindful of the concerns expressed in the article. In the governments view the best way to safeguard the industrys position for the future is to secure arrangements which can withstand external challenges better than the present regime. It also recognises the importance of orderly transitions and changes. At a time of great difficulty in UK agriculture, it would not be sensible for abrupt changes to be made. In the discussions in Brussels the UK will do all it can to make progress on these matters.
Joyce Quin
Minister of State, MAFF, Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London.
Conventional food not inferior
It saddens me to hear the Soil Association peddling mis-information in order to further its cause. The truth is that conventional farming produce is not inferior in health terms and that conventional farmers are just as concerned as others in the environment. There is a free choice and one should be able to make it without propaganda.
What frightens me is that the price premiums necessary to maintain organic farming are not guaranteed. Indeed, supermarkets have already said there should be no need for them.
We are all modulated on our direct payments to help pay for rural development schemes and it is typical that the government is prepared to dish out the proceeds disproportionately in favour of the organic farmer. It smacks of the dairy industrys attempt to divide and rule.
By the way, full marks for those dairy farmers who think they have reinvented the wheel by suggesting that farmer co-ops are the way forward rather than cosying up to the processors.
Jonathan King
Combe Farm, Bratton, Wilts.
Sugar industrys claims disputed
We are glad that Marie Skinner (Talking Point, Jan 19) supports the principle of rich countries giving help to poor countries. But we are concerned that she exaggerates the likely impact of the European Commissions proposal to improve market access for the worlds poorest countries on EU producers.
Her concerns about the impact on UK jobs and the EU budget are based on over-stated claims by the sugar industry and a disputed report by the EC agricultural directorate.
These are contradicted by a study commissioned by Oxfam from world-renowned trade experts. It shows that the impact of the Commissions proposal on EU imports will be negligible. It will, however, bring small, but important, economic benefits to poor producers in the developing world.
Oxfam agrees that it is essential that the European Commission understands and takes account of the proposals impact on vulnerable groups in the EU and other traditional supplier countries, particularly small farmers in the Caribbean. The latter are more likely than UK farmers to lose out to any small increases in competition from the 48 poorest countries, as they are higher cost producers.
We are in favour of compensating those who lose out from much-needed shifts towards a more equitable world trade regime. However, Oxfam is appalled that the Commission has agreed to push any real benefits for poor producers under the proposal back to 2008, as a result of mis-informed special interest pleading. This has the potential to do untold harm to progress in global agricultural trade negotiations, which are crucial for EU farm interests.
Phil Bloomer
Advocacy director Oxfam, 274 Banbury Road, Oxford.
Disease cover can be arranged
I read with interest Marianne Curtis article on disease insurance (Livestock, Jan 19). Certainly, we are still able to arrange insurance against CSF at Lloyds, which offers an element of consequential loss coverage. In addition, we can arrange such cover for both TB, foot and mouth (including neighbouring premises for foot and mouth), poultry diseases and temperature fluctuation. Of course, like any insurance product, the sale will depend upon the cost, taking into account perceived risk.
The initiative of the National Pig Association is interesting because it mirrors a structure, which we have raised with MAFF. By creating a fund, levies from the many can be used to pay the claims of, hopefully, the few.
The availability of insurance in the area of livestock is limited, as there are few players. The establishment of a fund shared within the industry, probably backed by insurance and raised by a levy, is worth pursuing and no doubt MAFF will consider proposals from ourselves, and others, as to how this should be best achieved. However, there are products in existence, which we can provide, and can be bought by the farming industry.
Bill White
Livestock division, Heath Lambert Group, 133 Houndsditch, London.