Archive Article: 2002/07/05
Warning falls on deaf ears
Congratulations on an excellent editorial (Leader, June 14). You are absolutely correct when you refer to "the catastrophe which is unfolding in our countryside". You are equally correct when you observe had this happened to any other industry the politicians would now be taking drastic action. And finally you are correct again when you observe that: "Dire warnings from NFU presidents are routinely received with cynicism by government and national media".
But you fail to ask why this is the case. The reason is, I fear, because for the past generation the NFU has, like the little boy who cried "wolf" once too often, repeated its message of doom and gloom even while British agriculture was doing very nicely thank you. The 1970s and 1980s were undoubtedly the most prosperous period British farmers (or their ancestors) have ever known.
During that time it would have been prudent, not to say honest, if the NFU had at least kept quiet. But of course it did not. On the contrary, it persisted in telling everyone how impoverished the industry was.
Today, when farming really is in crisis – and maybe even in meltdown – who can honestly blame the British public – or the politicians – for not believing Agriculture House? The moral is clear: if you want people to believe you when times are bad, then the least you should do is to admit your good fortune when times are good.
But, finally, you are yet again correct when you say that sacking Ben Gill would do no good at all. He is a brave man who has inherited an impossible situation. He needs all the help he can get.
Oliver Walston
owalston@thriplow-farms.co.uk
F&M horrors resurfaced
I was caught in last weeks foot-and-mouth scare because three of my sows were in the same abattoir alongside the unmarked pigs DEFRA could not trace to their home farm. All the horrors of F&M resurfaced and still import controls are pathetic. I never want to go through another 24 hours like that again – so perhaps the only thing to do is stop farming animals.
Has nothing been learned from the last outbreak? Surely, it is essential that all animals going for slaughter are marked so as to be easily traced? Although my sows went through a market, as soon as I identified them by tags and tattoo my farm was declared F&M free. So marking pigs was beneficial to me and could have saved the worry and expense of an official vet visit.
Fred Henley
Green Farm, Seaton Ross, York. hrf1@farmersweekly.net
Challenge to DEFRA types
Is any member of DEFRA or any member of a rural affairs committee in England able to demonstrate how to: Plough, milk a cow, farrow a sow, mow, shear a sheep, build a drystone wall or complete an IACS form? Could they list farming for food production in their CV? I have studied the members list of interests to no avail.
Giles Wynne
12 Dean Street, Stewarton, Ayrshire.
Tell them whats what
Now that the season of rural shows is here may I hope that farmers and all who rely on the countryside for their living, visit DEFRA and politely but firmly put their views to the DEFRA staff.
At Cereals 2002 their stand was well adorned with what they think should be done, if visitors agree they should ask how they intend to do it. Modulation is to be matched £ for £, please ask how they really intend to give it back. Complain about the red tape, the F&M arrangements, the general financial state in the countryside and anything else that rankles. Be cynical, but constructive.
These people do listen, but are not practical people. In the main they are theorists – those who are realists must bully them into situations that are realistic and self-sustaining otherwise all will be lost.
The French know how to!
W Banks
WarwickBanks@aol.com
F&M scare was no surprise
How strange is it that there was a possible case of foot-and-mouth reported recently? Not very. I visited the DEFRA stand at the South of England Agricultural Show to enquire what biosecurity was in place at ports and airports for the returning football fans because there had been a major F&M outbreak in Korea.
I was informed that DEFRA were not responsible, it was Customs and Excises responsibility and the departments budget would not cover it. Farmers in this country are being forced out of business by regulations which ensure that they cannot compete fairly with the rest of the world. This government has no intention of protecting our livestock and the people who nurture them from the horror which we all remember vividly from a few months ago.
Other countries insist on disinfection or destruction of items considered at risk to protect their farm industries. That lack of foresight proves that Mr Blair and his party do not want farming to continue in Britain. They would prefer livestock free football pitches to cover our green and pleasant land.
G Sillars
Hill House, Swanton Street, Bredgar, Kent.
Subsidies must go and soon
I have been watching the farming scene over the past year and thinking carefully both as a small-scale shepherd, and as a consumer. The problem is that western governments and food industries have been exploiting third-world countries to import cheap food. It hasnt mattered whether that food was safe or desirable. Profit has been the watchword.
I was born in April 1939, the year in which the World War II started. We had friends nearby who were the children of farmers. Their dad was around because his was an essential occupation. They didnt have a lot but everyone mucked in.
But at the end of the war it became different. Their mum suddenly didnt get her hands dirty and even employed a cleaning lady. We kids werent welcome in her kitchen.
Why? Farm subsidies – they came rolling in and farmers changed from scraping a living like everyone else into what seemed like wealthy squires. It was the culture created by subsidies after the war that left farmers dependant on them. Subsidies became no longer a windfall, but a necessity, and so it has remained.
There has been talk of doing away with subsidies and clearly it would be painful for those who have been receiving them. But we should do away with them as soon as possible and replace them with import controls.
Farmers, like any other producers, cannot work for a price less than cost. It is unfair to expect taxpayers to continue to fund benefits to a few selected people, purely because they own larger acreages, while denying that same support to the small-scale farmers and smallholders.
Tess Nash
Venton Vean, Mawgan, Helston, Cornwall.
Conservation not destructive
Despite all the hard work that farmers are undertaking to improve the biodiversity of their land, David Richardson notes that "we continue to be criticised for our destructive habits" (May 24).
As an industry we face a significant logistical problem in overcoming that. Our conservation work is widely dispersed, hidden from view and far too often, simply misunderstood such as coppicing.
For two years, and on limited resources, we have been collecting data that demonstrates some of the conservation work that farmers are undertaking. This is displayed on our website (www.ukagriculture.com) in an anonymous but detailed way. Each example of conservation work (however small and seemingly unimportant) is illustrated with a photograph and an explanation of what was done, and why.
The data, which is drawn mainly from our local area, illustrates a massive effort by farmers. If the same level of data could be collected across the country we would have tens of thousands of examples to prove that the destructive habits of farmers had long since been replaced by a much wider care for the environment. How much that would be worth to our industry is beyond calculation.
But it cannot happen unless farmers are motivated to take a couple of photographs of their work and to write a few brief words of explanation. Each example on the site helps build a new image for our industry and challenges the misconceptions that are held about the role of agriculture in the countryside. The onus is on us all to prove the point.
David Uren
Living Countryside, Antrobus House, College Street, Petersfield, Hants.
Maris Otter is not for all
The results achieved by farms manager John Lambkin (On Our Farms, June 21) seem to endorse my comments (Letters, May 24) that Easton Lodge is not an ideal candidate for growing Maris Otter. Far from criticising his agronomy, I merely added a few pointers, gained from growing malting barley on our own farms.
Easton Lodge achieved the full premium once in three years, hardly a profitable achievement, which endorses my opinion that only the right growers on the right ground should take on the variety.
The reason the Maris Otter premium was reduced was because Maris Otter malt has to remain competitive with other options available to the brewer. As the price of malt reduced worldwide, malting barley premiums followed. Although it is suggested that demand for Maris Otter is falling, it is rising as micro brewers and regional brewers worldwide continue to lift their consumption based on high quality malt produced consistently well by UK malting barley growers. To compare one years Pearl results with three indifferent Maris Otter results is hardly a fair comparison. I stick to my point that Maris Otter will out-perform other winter malting barley, when grown correctly. Our results over the past few years prove beyond doubt that growers enjoy great success in producing the crop, and enjoy matching their production with demand to known end users who stand behind every tonne produced at the right specification. Our marketing initiatives are designed to draw growers nearer to their markets and we continue to gain support from all sides by increasing transparency and by growing the right varieties to the right specifications with the right growers. That is based on giving everybody involved the facts.
Jonathan Arnold
Robin Appel, Church Court, Clewers Hill, Waltham Chase, Hants.
Battle of the malting barleys
Farmers in East Anglia and parts of the east Midlands have been traditional malting barley growers for years. But as the demand for Maris Otter has declined and fewer people have been able to meet the specification, the move has been towards high yielding varieties such as Pearl and Regina. According to the Maltsters Association of Great Britain, the volume of Maris Otter purchased has declined by nearly 30% since 1998, a fact which speaks for itself.
As for my comparison of gross margin results between Pearl and Maris Otter I have been more than fair. The figures used (On Our Farms, June 21) compare the average yield of Maris Otter over three years at the full contract premium over feed barley – 6.13t/ha (2.48t/acre) at £102/t. With one years Pearl results – 8.67t/ha (3.5t/acre) at £73/t. I rest my case.
John Lambkin
Farms manager, Easton Lodge.
Husbandry is not to blame
I would like to respond to CC Meatyards letter (June 21). The good old days are no longer viable. Just because a farm is dirty doesnt mean that its animals arent looked after. People cannot afford to pay labourers to clean up anymore. The decline of farming has seen to that and farmers have to concentrate on the things that matter – their livelihood and their animals.
Mr Waugh was well and truly set up. Not one of his pigs at Cheale Meats in Essex was confirmed with foot-and-mouth and inspections 10 days before the nationwide confirmation, a state vet saw no sign of F&M.
Mr Waugh might have been a little in the good old days with his husbandry techniques but he certainly didnt start F&M. That has been proven mathematically by his defence in the show trial which Mr Waugh endured.
Doesnt anyone find it odd that DEFRA hasnt and wont comment at any of the enquiries?
The fact is something of a cover up is going on. The reduction of stock numbers in the UK has been on the cards for so long. And to get the EU to pay for it must have been a godsend for the government.
However, if they said it was a mistake (such as a vaccination programme test gone wrong) or a deliberate intention, and F&M had got on to the continent, the government would have been liable for the whole cost including the EU.
How much more of this will we take? We are renowned for not sticking together, as long as we do better than the man next door. And DEFRA knows it will get away with it because of the coyness of rural people.
Pride is exactly what we need, with a whole load of tractors and a big blockade. Weve tried everything else – they wont listen any other way.
Northumbria reader
Name and address supplied.
Bureaucracy spoils show
Bishops Castle Agricultural Show committee has reluctantly decided not to have livestock at this years show. Since February we have asked DEFRA by telephone and email for guidelines specifying requirements for holding our show. Eventually we received in late May no less than 80 pages of rules and regulations contained in forms and directives.
Evidently to comply we would have needed up to 30 extra stewards at the show in addition to many volunteer stewards who already give their services.
Although we had expected extra measures, we found unexpected and onerous surprises. We would have needed to appoint a biosecurity officer, and provide clothes changing and hand washing facilities within the designated animal area. Judges handling more than one breed are required to change their clothes, wash their hands and scrub their footwear when moving from one breed to another. Judging would have been made cumbersome and taken far longer.
Like all living and working in the agricultural community, the committee appreciates the need for high standards to ensure that infectious diseases and in particular foot-and-mouth disease are not spread. But the biosecurity procedures in place are so onerous as to be unworkable for an agricultural show of our size.
After the doom and gloom of 2001, we intended having a special show in this Jubilee year, but sadly thats is not to be.
We regret this further erosion of our rural traditions and way of life – an agricultural show without livestock is hardly an agricultural show. Nevertheless, we shall have our event on Sat, July 27, 2002, and will try to make it as special as possible in difficult circumstances.
Jo Bryant-Ralph and David Marpole
c/o Norman Lloyd & Co, 31 High Street, Bishops Castle, Shropshire.
Farm licence the last straw?
All farmers, particularly those of insufficient size to be able to cope with the paperwork demands of the modern business environment, must have groaned when they heard of DEFRAs proposal to create a licence to be a producer.
For many, it must seem like the supreme insult after BSE and foot-and-mouth. This could, however, be construed differently. Food production is too important to be left in a regulatory void. The kinds appropriate to the ranch-type of farm, that will produce the globalised supermarket products that will dominate in the future are not appropriate to many small suppliers. While Northern Foods or Tesco will have capacity within their businesses to accommodate change, small-scale farmers need more space to plan business strategies, which will allow some freedom from very detailed bureaucratic supervision.
If it were decided that personal licences, issued to responsible farmers, would replace most farm-specific regulatory activity, business practice might be freed from some of the mind-boggling details of the kind of control that is arriving after the BSE and foot-and-mouth scares. The provisional stage of such licences might need some evidence of appropriate training, and perhaps also, membership of some quality assurance body like the Soil Association. But for established farmers, much business practice could be freed up. Without this happening, our industry is going to disappear into the control of ignorant politicians.
Jonathan Parsons
27 Ropers Gate, Tunbridge Wells, Kent.