Archive Article: 2001/02/23
Imports of beef are risk to health
I do not understand why the Food Standards Agency is refusing to ban beef imports from France and Germany. This beef has been reared on feed containing the illegal (in Britain since 1996) meat and bonemeal until it reached maturity.
Many farmers in Britain can still remember the TV news pictures of beef carcasses being sprayed, slashed and rendered useless for human consumption and then being burnt in incinerators. That was a precautionary measure to protect consumers since these cattle could have been fed with feed containing meat and bone meal.
Now we have these beef imports, from animals fed on meat and bone meal from calves until slaughter, on the British market with complete disregard to consumers health. These carcasses carry the same potential risk to health as the ones which were being incinerated in Britain in 1996.
British beef farmers have been through hard times in the past few years and have worked long hours, lost money and completed mountains of paper work. They have adhered to all the governments tough decisions to produce the safest beef for the consumer. But once again they have been smacked in the teeth, this time by the Food Standards Agency which allows this illegally fed beef to be imported and to destroy our beef market.
How can British farmers expect to move forward when the French and German farmers disregard the safety of British consumers? They have produced beef, which consumers in their own countries wont eat, and now the British Food Standards Agency is allowing in these beef imports to undermine our safe beef.
The FSA should start supporting the British beef market and farmers by banning imported beef.
Sylvia R Manley
Knaplock Farm, Dulverton, Somerset.
Saved by mild spring of 1961
Having read of the problems so many farmers and growers have experienced through this winter of endless rain and flood, it might cheer them to hear of my experiences during the winter of 1960-61.
I had just taken over as manager of the Land Commission farm at Paglesham, Essex. We had 75 acres of potatoes to lift by spinner but the job had to be abandoned because of wet weather and 27 acres remained in the ground from November. We were unable to drill winter corn and the lifted potatoes rotted in the clamp. These, however, had been sold to the Potato Marketing Board and we were paid the market price of £12/t.
We did all the spring planting, including potatoes, in ideal conditions and then started to lift the 27 acres of spuds. Luckily these had not had any frost. The tubers that had been affected by rot had gone completely. The remainder were sound and we lost about 15-20% of the crop. The lifted remainder were sold at £9/t more than the others. Spring barley was sown albeit a bit late but still in time for the cuckoo.
Lets hope that the spring may turn up trumps again as it did for us back in 1961. Dont give up.
Robert Clark
28 Harebeating Drive, Hailsham, East Sussex.
Wake up, milk marketeers
For many years, farmers have been described as poor marketeers of their products. In many cases this is true. For example, many dairy farmers wave goodbye to their product on a daily basis in an unmarked and unbranded tanker.
The recent High Court ruling against GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Ribena Toothkind, should surely be seen as a golden opportunity to redress the balance.
Ribena Toothkind is said to contain added calcium and reduced fruit acids to reduce the impact on childrens teeth. It is also the only soft drink to be accredited by the British Dental Association.
Why arent the dairy companies using similar aggressive marketing strategies to sell our own naturally occurring Toothkind drink?
The judges ruling means that the only soft drinks, which can be legally called Toothkind, are milk and water.
The vast majority of liquid milk is sold in cartons or plastic bottles, often with milk as the main description. Semi and/or skimmed may be added to make the weight-conscious consumers feel better about themselves. A picture of a cow with a tree added for scale seems to be as much as the ad-men can come up with.
It is time for dairy farmers and processors to step into the limelight and help out all the parents, who now feel let down by the promises made by GlaxoSmithKline. They should be informed that a truly Toothkind soft drink is readily available in the form of milk.
Perhaps somebody from the National Dairy Council could look into dental association accreditation while I go and milk the cows.
Ralph Sainsbury
Dairy farmer, address supplied.
Lobby now for dairy change
Across the country direct selling milk groups are holding meetings with other direct sellers, quota-holding selling groups and even dairy processing companies. Meanwhile, Dairy Crest has announced that it is unable to increase its producer price other than by a one-off payment of 0.5ppl for February only.
In almost the same breath it has announced further rationalisation of its creameries. The potential for positive change to the benefit of all involved in the supply chain is enormous. However the opportunity will not be open forever. It is vital that everyone involved works to maintain the momentum. I appeal to all grass-roots producers to lobby their groups (direct selling and quota holding), Farmers For Action, farming unions and the processors to maintain the pressure for change.
The current fragmentation of the market cannot be allowed to continue. We must not waste the efforts of all involved by procrastinating and waiting for the milk price to realistically reflect its true value. There is little chance of that happening until our quota holding marketing organisations have the full support and commitment of most milk products.
Rob Warren
rob.warren@ukgateway.net
Why was NFU in the Hilton?
I was appalled to read about 70-year-old Ian Pettyfer who slept on the street outside the NFU AGM (News, Feb 9) while invited guests stayed overnight at the Hilton Hotel for £380 per night. He and thousands of other NFU members were contributing to this.
Ben Gill should declare how much it cost to stage the NFU Conference at the expense of Mr Pettyfer and all other members. There is no need to hold this conference at the Hilton or any similar expensive venue. It may be convenient for him and the invited guests, but he travels all over the country for other meetings.
The NFU are making people redundant and closing NFU branches. How can they justify throwing money away on this conference and inviting their friends?
Beverley Baker
Johnsons Farms, Cavick Road, Wymondham, Norfolk.
Use power the NFU provides
I have worked alongside the farming industry for most of my adult life. I respect the members of this industry but now is the time to stand up to make yourself heard.
You have an enormously powerful body representing you at all levels. The NFU has made a commitment to you. The only reason it gets it wrong sometimes is because farmers do not use it. Every area group secretary is looking for people to join the local committee.
I read recently the public believes farmers deserve no sympathy. They did not offer support to the miners or steel workers when their industries were run to the wall. That is all the more reason to stop the rot stop now.
Farming supports not only farmers. Without them who would ensure our countryside is what it is? Do not just use your vote. Afterwards, make sure politicians remember who put them in power. Lets make sure this time they keep their election promise and help the people that matter: The electorate.
Sarah J Haynes
SarahJHaynes@aol.com
GM soya ban good for UK
The recent announcement by supermarkets ASDA, Tesco and Marks and Spencer is good news for farmers producing eggs, poultry, pork, beef and lamb. After banning the inclusion of GM soya and maize in animal feeds, supermarkets will have to procure more of their requirements from British livestock farmers. Those will in turn be purchasing GM free animal feed grown by British arable farmers.
British produced eggs, poultry, pork, lamb and beef on British supermarket shelves, fed on British produced peas, beans and wheat. Isnt that just what the NFU has advocated?
The NFU is always complaining about cheap imported foods, of dubious quality and produced to lower welfare standards, and the need for a level playing field. This is an ideal opportunity for British farmers to grab a bigger share of the food sold in supermarkets and an opportunity to tilt the playing field in farmers favour.
So why is the NFU demanding urgent talks with Nick Brown in an attempt to force the supermarkets to suspend their proposals? Is it because the NFU is putting the interests of all the multinational companies and farmers in the USA above the interests of members here in Britain?
Robert Wilkinson
White House Farm, Branston Booths, Lincoln.
Unfair to deny organic grants
Mr Blair and his ministerial team at MAFF dont care about farmers or the countryside. All they are interested in is power and keeping the penny-pinching Treasury happy.
I, along with 350 other organic farmers, am being denied conversion grants that should have eased our worries during the conversion period. The two-year scheme was launched with great acclaim in April 1999 only to run out of funds by the end of July only four months later. It was reopened in November for three weeks to help clear the backlog.
Those of us in the process of registering and inspection were lead to believe that funds would be made available in the 2000 financial year – better late than never.
But when the scheme re-opened on Jan 2 2001, those farmers whose certificates were dated between Dec 1 and July 2 2000 are excluded for the next five years from any conversion money.
I hope in May we will say: Mr Blair… you are the weakest link… Goodbye.
James Moon
Bolitho Farm, Liskeard, Cornwall.
Misinformed please shut up
After reading your article "Be vigilant over feed ingredients" (Livestock, Feb 2), I assume that James Trebble comes from the I-know-nothing-about-it-but Ill- slag-it-off any way, school of nutrition.
Comparing biscuit meals with olive pulps and peanut meal highlights the fact Mr Trebble either knows nothing about animal feeding stuffs or has a biased and opinionated view of modern nutrition.
I have worked closely with ADAS in the past few years producing biscuit meals to provide a source of high quality energy for all livestock classes. They are not a cheap alternative to other materials but genuine high quality products in their own right with a strong following within the animal feed industry.
Graeme V Roberts
Tramar D&M Ltd, Biddlesden Road, Westbury, Bucks.
Massive value of arable work
Arable trials are a key part of modern management. Without them, we cannot continue the major advancements achieved over the past 20 years. Higher yields, better varieties, enhanced weed, pest and disease control have arisen through independent trials.
As a host farmer to one of the 17 Arable Research Centres trials sites, the UKs largest farmer-funded trials organisation, I have been fortunate to be part of that research.
What makes the advice even more valuable is that the work carried out is independent of any seed or chemical company. Therefore, the information I receive is impartial and not tailored to suit a product or variety from a particular company. That is what arable farmers need and the annual subscription gives tremendous value compared with the amount of chemical that passes through my sprayer. It has also enabled me to carry out my own agronomy producing further savings.
However, since becoming an ARC trial site host I have been amazed at the reduction in HGCA funded work that is now carried out by ARC. The area farmed by ARC members covers about 15% of arable land in both England and Scotland. By the law of averages, as all cereal and oilseed rape growers pay a percentage of their crops sales to the HGCA, it follows that a similar percentage of submissions for trial work by ARC should be accepted as many of the submissions are ideas initiated by farmer members.
That is not the case and causes me to wonder whether there is some hidden HGCA agenda. Is it a case of jobs for the boys when choosing where the funding goes? Are 600 seeds/sq m trials really relevant to UK farmers and worth £250,000 of funding?
Our farm alone pays £800 per year in HGCA levies. We also pay £350 per year in ARC subscriptions. I know which gives me best value for money.
Richard Beachell
Field House, Bainton, Driffield, East Yorks.
Bid to weaken our economy
According to your editorial (Opinion, Feb 9), all farmers need do to protect their livelihood is to "vote for the parliamentary candidate who you believe will do most to defend farming…" But what if the only candidates in the particular rural constituency are from the pro-EU Lib/Lab/Con alliance?
Do you vote for the most fervently Europhile in the hope that his or her party will change things from within? Or for the Euro-sceptic from the party that says there can be no question of our leaving the EU. Even though he or she accepts that it cant change one comma in the 25,000 EU regulations Westminster had to rubber-stamp. And that includes CAP.
The headline next to your editorial reads:UK shouldnt have to pay price of EU BSE. Dead right, we shouldnt. But we will, for weakening our economy is part of the EU agenda.
Thats why we were given a duff milk quota. Thats why we must adopt metrication, lest British businesses have an advantage over our metric competitor-partners when quoting for US contracts.
Thats also the reason why the French and others are dumping asylum seekers on us in flagrant breach of the EU Convention.
Well be allowed to feed, educate and train them until they need them back to help plug mainland Europes looming demographic deficit and yawning pensions black hole.
In the US, each area concentrates on what it does best by reason of geography, culture and climate – for the good of the nation. On the elusive EU level playing field, member countries compete with each other and with the rest of the world yet do their own thing in whatever way suits them best.
Tony Stone
UKIP prospective parliamentary candidate for East Surrey, 1 Home Park, Oxted, Surrey.
Cycle will turn in our favour
Tony Blair has suggested that in order for farmers to escape the severe problems which face the industry, they should diversify, get on the internet or sell some of their land for building. A debate on Radio 4 discussed the proposition that food production should no longer be the main occupation of farming. Mr Blairs countryside advocate, Ewen Cameron, supported the motion and we also heard from the RSPB, which did not want a countryside theme park, but neglected to say what it did want. We heard, too, from the Cranfield Institutes Sean Rickard, and his usual mantra of "do away with the family farm, big is best". He also said that: "The only way farmers are likely to make a living is by embracing GM crops and livestock."
It seems to me that they are all missing the point, which is that what goes around comes around.
In 1931, A G Street wrote a book entitled Farmers Glory (Faber 1932) in which, besides a lot of common sense, he noted: "…the present economic situation is beating him (the farmer), politicians neither can nor will help him and the consuming public does not care what happens to him…" Carries a familiar ring doesnt it?
He also noted that: "Probably one of the hardest things for farmers to realise today is that they are considered unimportant people by the majority of the community. When the townsman is hungry, the food producer is a very important person, but today the consuming public are being fed by foreign countries very cheaply…"
As we know, it took the Second World War to get the likes of Mr Street out of the doldrums and none of us want anything similar. But the history of farming teaches us that it is cyclical.
Eventually, admittedly with the need for a bit of lateral thinking from all concerned, the cycle will come round in farmings favour again.
G W J Norris
Pevans Cottage, Bradstone, Tavistock, Devon.