FW still true to its remit
FW still true to its remit
FOR almost 34 years farmers weekly has been farming at Easton Lodge near Stamford in Lincolnshire.
In April 1966, then Editor, Travers Legge, signed a lease with the 6th Marquess of Exeter on the Burghley estate. An article in the farmers weekly of June 17, 1966 read: "We have been looking for some time for a farm on which we could study at first hand the arable problems of today and tomorrow – not only in terms of techniques, but with all the financial and social implications of the pressures on modern farming."
Land then cost between £200 and £300/acre to buy or £5-£15/acre to rent. Labour costs were about £1200-£1500 a man to hire and house a year and wheat was making £26/t.
It no doubt came as little surprise to the locals when the first years trading results produced a loss. April had been a bad time to take over, with only 40% of the farm sown and 33% still into grass. But, not to be daunted, and with 23 years of practical farming experience under their belt, the Editor and his team went from strength to strength.
Sugar beet and peas were added to the all-cereal rotation of wheat and barley, and, by 1968, a 300-sow pig unit had been built on a greenfield site with tenants capital. Two years of good profits followed until the first drought year of 1970. Our farming fortunes on the arable business have been closely linked with rainfall ever since, but perhaps more significant have been the effect of the CAP and Agenda 2000.
During the 1980s and early 1990s prices of cereals rocketed and yields rose steadily. By 1997 the price bubble had burst, albeit that yields continue to rise!
Before 1966, Easton Lodge had a strong livestock influence with a lot of the farm down to grass and roots for cattle and sheep.
Golden hoof
During farmers weeklys stewardship the golden hoof has been principally in the form of an intensive pig unit. This has expanded over the years to 360 breeding sows selling more than 8100 bacon pigs on contract annually.
In common with most intensive pig units we have climbed the peaks and fallen in the troughs over the years and as recently as 1997 we produced a healthy profit. The years 1998 and 1999 were devastating and when even the MLC have given up forecasting it is hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
It is good to know that farmers weekly is still holding good to its remit of 34 years ago – namely: To study "the problems of today and tomorrow at first hand".
By next week we shall have a clearer picture of last years trading results. Our financial year-end is Nov 30.
Life is tough for most sectors of the agricultural business at the moment. I would not like to predict too accurately the final figure, but suffice to say that no matter how good our harvest has been this year the increased output will be wiped away by our losses on the pig unit.
It is quite ironic that when prices are falling we have had one of the most productive years ever. Yields have exceeded budget and as in previous years most of our arable enterprises and variable costs have been tightly controlled.
All sectors of the pig unit are performing well too; numbers reared, mortality, feed conversion and general appearance is good and has been confirmed by the physical results – too bad about the price. The base price at the end of November was 74.38p/kg dead weight. This represents a loss of about £13 a pig or more than £2000 a week. I have, therefore, no hesitation in supporting the British Pig Industry Support Groups initiative to take legal action against the government in an attempt to redress the iniquitous position pig farmers find themselves in over the "BSE tax".
The proposal is that processors deduct 2p a pig slaughtered from the producer for 20 weeks, which in our case amounts to about £60. This will be matched by the processor and will go towards an estimated £100,000 for the initial costs of the action.
If nothing else, the publicity of this action can do nothing but good and bring to the public attention the absurdity and the callousness of this governments policies towards agriculture. *