READERS LETTERS
READERS LETTERS
Send your apology to the RABI
Regarding your anonymous correspondents the Suffolk farming family (Letters, Nov 27), I would like to point out an important fact. Many who represent and campaign for farmers, at significant personal cost of time and money, do so not from narrow self-interest but out of concern for their fellow farmers as friends and neighbours.
Not all farmers are well established on 500 acres of good arable land. Some are new entrants, tenants, have dependants or are victims of adverse circumstances. Our lot will never improve if we persist with selfishness, divisiveness and apathy.
Will our fortunate friends from Suffolk give 1% of their IACS cheque to Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution as an apology?
Nick Adams
Crystal Springs Farm, Brailsford, Derbyshire.
Pull together or no hope for us
I refer to your correspondents unsigned letter "Farmers plight is not that bad" (Nov 27). In berating stock farmers campaign for a fairer deal, do they not realise that, apart from pigs and poultry, all production is controlled by quotas?
Do they not recognise that demand is being stifled by the prices charged by supermarkets? Do they not realise that the industry is being shackled with the extra costs of meat hygiene inspections, offal removal and not being allowed to feed meat and bonemeal, welfare restrictions, MLC levies and farm assurance scheme costs? Our foreign competitors do not have to bear similar costs. The predicament of many stock farmers is not merely difficult, it is desperate.
Would it not be more constructive for your correspondents to look at their own books and think of rental equivalents, return on capital and depreciation? Where would their business be without an oilseed or a protein regime that supports both oilseed rape and pulses? Surely they would be better supporting the consumers of their products. British agriculture has always been blighted with the attitudes of: "Im all right Jack" and "Dont rock my boat". Until British farmers pull together there will be no hope for this industry.
Ian Critchley
Lower Reule Farm, Gnosall, Staffs.
Subsidies are our only lifeline
In these sad days when thousands of farmers are suicidally depressed, I could not believe the letter headed "Farmers plight is not that bad" (Nov 27), from the smug, self-satisfied farmer. We should all be fighting for an even playing field within Europe and the rest of the world to ensure we have competitive and sustainable businesses. We should not be publicly decrying the help some of us need so desperately.
In the North of England and Scotland farmers have faced the prospect of a third disastrous harvest. Thousands of acres are still unsown and much that is sown is not coming through because of wet weather. It is impossible to get on to the land to apply fertilisers or sprays.
The struggle is soul destroying. Without subsidies there would barely be a farmer left in business in the north by next harvest. Three tonnes of wheat at this seasons prices is only the break-even point and not many have reached that.
One can only assume this farmer has neither rent nor mortgage to pay. I can only suggest that if his subsidies are surplus to requirements he forwards them to the NFU regional office in the North of England for distribution to more worthy recipients.
Lynn Clemitson
Heugh Farm, Stamfordham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Support your fellow farmers
I write on behalf of all the small family livestock producers throughout Cornwall and Devon. I do not consider the Suffolk farming family (Letters, Nov 27) to be my fellow farmers.
People with so little insight into the wider picture of UK farming do not deserve such a credit. In response to their claim that livestock prices are depressed due to excessive overproduction, may I remind them that in the UK we are well below self sufficiency in milk, beef and pig meat.
I am glad that the Suffolk farming family has no grounds for complaint – good luck to them in their own enterprise – they certainly stand alone. But most of us in the west country do not take such an isolated view of our own enterprises or the industry and, thankfully, we have supported each other through various rallies and events.
I sincerely hope that most UK farmers, even if they do not wish to join the current campaign of complaint might at least show some sympathy for those that do.
Mrs Beverley Cottle
Upcott Farm, Welcombe, Bideford, Devon.
Ashamed of their views?
The letter (Nov 27) from the unknown Suffolk farming family warrants a reply. My reply is, ignorance is bliss. Their letter really does take some believing.
Are they ashamed of their views? They obviously do not want their neighbours to know who they are. No doubt the many livestock producers who have suffered in the recent meat crisis will feel the same.
Dilwyn Hughes
October Cottage, Broad Street, Lifton, Devon.
Consider living in real world
As a mixed livestock farmer with poultry and pigs, we are not doing as well as the Suffolk farming family (Letters, Nov 27).
Our industry merely uses a lot of the wheat and barley they profitably produce.
Perhaps they would like to contemplate a world without subsidy; a world in which all pig and poultry producers survived until the collapse of our markets in Asia and Russia. If we are finding life difficult now, where will markets be in a years time? Will their market not be over-produced if more pig and poultry farmers cease production?
Never mind, they have area payments, price support via intervention and even incentives to grow crops that might never be harvested. They should be grateful to the taxpayer for their continued support.
As a free marketeer, I am forced to survive or die in the real world. I suggest that all those agricultural sectors that are heavily subsidised should look over the fence and ask: "How well would I survive without government support?" Changes are in the wind.
D Mitchem
Broad Oak, Clyst Hydon, Cullompton, Devon.
Grazing focuses cost reductions
I can understand Mr Roworths frustration (Letters, Nov 27) at a time when the agricultural sector is under immense financial pressure. But many of his comments are inaccurate and unfair and I am also offended by his insinuation that I am taking advantage of UK hospitality.
First, they are not my grazing theories. French and UK farmers and scientists have historically led the way in grazing practice/research focusing on the philosophy of low-cost efficient milk production. Much of this technology was transferred to New Zealand in the 30s, 40s and 50s and has been refined and improved in New Zealand over the years. Grazing has remained important to New Zealand farmers due to consistently low milk prices.
The UK dairy industry has been led in a direction that will not be sustainable over the next 10 to 15 years. High levels of capital and labour will be required to maintain many existing farm businesses and this expenditure will not be possible at milk prices of 18p/litre. Grazing based milk production is an option on many UK dairy farms as a means of cost reduction. Grazing principles dont belong to any body or any particular country.
Mr Roworth remarks that we must learn from previous generations. I believe it was only one or two generations ago that grazing-based milk production was common in the UK. Many farmers have realised that and have gone back to grazing, applying some of the old principles and also applying some new techniques such as those used to reduce poaching.
Those UK farmers who have done this are now utilising grazed grass as efficiently as anywhere in the world. Mr Roworth would be welcome to attend discussion groups to discuss issues of grazing and farm business efficiency with farmers who are looking positively into the future.
Some of the farmers in discussion groups are making changes to their farm management and business philosophy and will be producing milk for 12 to 14p/litre before rent finance and quota costs.
I will be working with farmers in this country for another couple of years so I am sorry if I am beginning to irritate Mr Roworth. Can I suggest that if this irritation increases he should consider a holiday in the southern hemisphere to celebrate the coming of the millennium. Im sure the hospitality he would receive from the Australians and the New Zealanders would be first rate, as is the hospitality I have received here.
Paul Bird
New Zealand farm consultant, Somerset.
Listen to Birds wake up call
In response to Donald Roworths letter (Nov 27), I would like to say that I am grateful to Paul Bird and the Grass 99 project for improving the profitability of my business. How to extend your grazing season is only a small part of Paul Birds message, a message that is firmly based on fact. Farmers from Southland at the southern end of the South Island of New Zealand have successfully implemented similar "theories" for years through economic necessity, despite a climate little better than our own.
Ironically, I believe Mr Bird has given us a wake up call to return to the sound principles passed down from one generation to the next. My father and grandfather certainly tried to make the maximum use of grazing for as long as possible in the year.
It is only in more recent years UK farmers have gone off the rails using expensive storage feeding and buffer feeding. Where UK farmers fell down was in our failure to cope with grazing the larger herds of our generation in difficult conditions. This is the area in which New Zealanders have had to succeed in order to survive. I would suggest that if Mr Roworth took the time to listen to Paul Bird and act on his advice, he may then be able to do something about the reducing margins he is so tired of.
George Holmes,
Withypitts Farm, Turners Hill, Crawley, West Sussex.
Welsh welcome for Kiwi advice
I would like to respond to the letter from Donald Roworth (Nov 27) criticising the New Zealand consultant Paul Bird.
Mr Roworth states he is "tired of Paul Bird and his theories". As far as I am aware reading articles on extended grazing is not compulsory. farmers weekly publishes articles on a wide range of dairy systems. Some farmers find Paul Birds advice extremely helpful. Just because it does not appeal to all farmers is hardly a valid reason for discontinuing them.
The "lush pasture in April" referred to was seen on our farm last February due to Paul Birds advice on autumn management. We were also flexible enough to graze these pastures because we took advantage of favourable weather and did not rely on the traditional calendar turnout date.
The claim that extended grazing works only once in four years has been disproved by farmers throughout Ireland, some of whom have been on this system for seven years. Those farmers retain 50% of their output as profit. If, as was claimed, 1998 was the year this system did not work, I have to confess we feel pleased with ourselves because, despite falling income and the fact that we are in the transitional period of converting to this system, we have managed to increase our profit substantially.
That is a fact not theory. And, no, we do not have a dry farm.
On the point of pasture damage, if Paul Birds advice on tracks and back fencing is followed such damage does not occur. Expensive buildings and machinery, TMR, winter housing for six months, etc, are hardly "principles passed down from one generation to the next". It is an insular and ignorant farmer who thinks he or she knows it all and cant learn from the experience and expertise of others.
I can assure readers that a warm welcome awaits any New Zealand consultant who wishes to visit West Wales. But one Kiwi, in particular, will always be welcome – Paul Bird.
Sian Bushell
North East Farm, Walton East, Clarbeston Road, Pembrokeshire.
Dont shoot the messenger
At a time when farmers wishing to have a future in farming should be forward looking, I find Donald Roworths head in the sand attitude to extended grazing (Letters, Nov 27) rather sad.
Far be it for me to defend Paul Bird, because he is perfectly capable of putting his own defence forward.
But he has opened peoples eyes to what the future may hold for all of us involved in farming. The taxpayer, through the government, may not be willing to continue to fund farming in the future. That means profitability may depend on how much you do not spend, rather than how much money you make, especially with a quota limited commodity such as milk.
Mr Roworths insistence that nothing should disrupt next years silaging programme shows that no argument will deter him from next years silage binge and its attendant costs.
The days of producing milk at whatever cost you chose to incur, then expecting consumers to buy at the price you set are gone. The problems of grazing a crop of grass which you have grown, during inclement weather are difficult but not insurmountable. A change of attitude is needed and that takes time. It also takes inclination. Mr Roworths asserts that "successful farming is based on sound principles passed down from one generation to the next." I therefore presume at the start of next first cut silage season he will organise his campaign around the acknowledged original fact that you start filling the pit on a Friday, leave it open all weekend, to heat up, then start again properly on Monday, as the pioneers did.
He would agree that sound principles of silage making emerged only after some time spent in developing the theory into the slick operation it is today. Please do not shoot the messenger because you do not like the message particularly if your view is obscured because your head is buried in sand.
John Hewlett
11 New Row, Summercourt, Newquay, Cornwall.
HGCA database is a disgrace
I was interested to read the letters (Nov 27) that discussed the way the HGCA disseminates agronomy information to levy payers. In his letter chairman of the HGCA technology transfer group Greg Wrapson states: "We do not blanket mail because we will not waste money sending out unwanted information."
I would suggest this is somewhat dishonest. The truth of the matter is that the HGCA does not mail all levy payers because it does not know who they are. There are more than 100,000 levy payers funding the HGCA and yet the HGCAs mailing list comprises only 8,000 of them. This situation is nothing short of a disgrace.
It must be the function of the HGCA to disseminate the research findings it undertakes to those who pay for the research. For an organisation such as the HGCA, which is funded by a compulsory levy, it is essential that it is in regular contact with, and is accountable to, those who are obliged to pay for its services.
If it only knows the names and addresses of 8% of those who pay for it then it is fundamentally failing to do its job. It is quite ridiculous to suggest, as Mr Wrapson does, that most levy payers would not be interested in receiving HGCA information. First, how does he know they would not be interested when he has never asked them?
Second, is it not odd to suggest that the HGCA takes money from levy payers to undertake research that 90% dont want to know about?
Thirdly, because most levy payers are not even in touch with the HGCA how are they expected to have an opinion on the work being undertaken on their behalf?
The HGCA is failing in its duties. It must enlarge its mailing list to include most levy payers. There is no excuse for not doing so. Judging by the amount of junk mail farmers receive on a daily basis, it must be a simple task for the HGCA to purchase a mailing list that includes most cereal growers.
As one of the chosen few, I was invited to an HGCA roadshow the other day. The speakers were informative, I met some old friends I had not seen for ages and, to cap it all, there was an excellent finger buffet to enjoy. All at no immediate cost to those in attendance. As I scoffed down yet another chicken leg a thought made it momentarily stick in my craw; 90% of the people who paid for this little party were not even sent an invite to it. Now there is a sobering thought as we approach the festive season.
Guy Smith
The Pump House, Wigboro Wick, St Osyth, Essex.
Did pellet smell prove deadly?
In reference to the letter "Slug pellets big danger to dogs" (Nov 13), the warning came too late for our labrador bitch, which ate pellets from an unopened bag and died in the night without anyone realising what she had done.
Although admittedly a typically greedy labrador, it was unlikely that she would take food from an unopened bag. The smell released from the pellets must be very attractive to our canine friends.
To prevent similar tragic accidents, I can only repeat the advice given by the Oxford farmer. Slug pellets must be stored away from animals.
Welsh Farmer
Name and address supplied.