READERS LETTERS
READERS LETTERS
One-way ticket to Siberia?
Yet again I despair. How is it that Oliver Walston is given air time on the BBC?
There are so many genuine farmers who could give an honest, intelligent and true picture of farming in the UK.
As I have said before, Mr Walston is one of a minority of farmers who receive out-of-proportion IACS cheques. These should be paid on a sliding scale with emphasis on good husbandry and local employment. They would contribute to the local economy, and foster sensible public access and consideration for the local environment.
I doubt anyone would want to walk on Mr Walstons desert-like land.
If only the BBC would send Mr Walston to Siberia again. But this time without a return ticket.
Mrs Carola Godman Law
Great Ote Hall, Nr Burgess Hill, Sussex.
Olivers answers could surprise
Please ask Oliver Walston how much he is being paid to appear on the BBC programme. I bet it is twice the profit of the average farm. Ask him what his real motive is.
Ask him who his real backers are. If he is prepared to answer these questions, I think we may get a big surprise.
A R C Bull
Bayardo Farm, Clench Common, Marlborough, Wilts.
Its all right for him to talk…
I wish Oliver Walston would tell BBC2 viewers that he was lucky enough to be born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
I certainly dont want government handouts. But I do want a level playing field with the rest of the world to trade the best of British products.
What does Mr Walston propose I do, as an 18-year-old farmers son who was not been lucky enough to inherit a 2000-acre farm?
Should I stay in agriculture which I enjoy? Or should I pursue a commentators job with the BBC; probably one of the most heavily subsidised organisations in the country?
P Arscott
Sweetlands Farm, Upottery, Honiton, Devon.
Think of poor old Hugh…
Amid all the debate caused by Oliver Walstons BBC2 programme Against the Grain, our thoughts must be with poor Hugh Oliver-Bellasis. Without his £260,000 annual support payments, he would not be able to afford to maintain his hedgerows, despite the recent sale of 100 acres at Basingstoke for development for about £50m, which may well be eligible for 100% roll-over tax relief if invested in more land.
The Walston programme must be a good case for modulation on farms of more than 1000 acres of arable land.
Gordon Day
The Pheasantry, Panton, Market Rasen, Lincs.
Competing in unfair market
I must reply to the letter "Dont complain about our lot" (Jan 15). The anonymous, no-acreage writer is, like Oliver Walston, missing the point.
Both are getting money per acre on farmed and set-aside land. As an independent top fruit grower, I, and other horticultural growers, have to compete with world imports flown in on untaxed fuel at 5-8p a litre without area payments.
With regard to pig producers, over supply is caused by cheap imports from our EU partners with lower welfare standards, packed over here for supermarkets on label EEC UKP.
Milk quotas are not for the benefit of this countrys producers.
The disastrous terms on which Edward Heath took us in to the Common Market gave this country enough quota for only 40% of our dairy consumption, the reason for losing hoof and horn to corn.
Potatoes were often sold at production cost or less; this season the wet autumn made harvest difficult and cut yields. But dont worry if the price is too high potatoes will pour in from European friends.
As for Mr Walston; if I had been picking up nearly £200,000 I would have put a roof on my old buildings and not bought a destructive toy.
How many bird nests does the tractor or a tank destroy and what type of fuel is needed to run it?
You can print my name and address unlike our shy Norfolk family.
Victor Breach
Chittenden Farm, Lovehurst Lane, Staplehurst, Tonbridge, Kent.
Let the world market dictate
As an agriculturalist turned businessman working in the City, I cannot help feeling that the British public would be horrified at the level of farm subsidy paid out of EU taxes, if only they knew the truth. The UK has far larger farms than our European cousins where small units need the subsidy.
I completely agree with Mr Walstons honest open and frank views. Let the world market dictate prices and stop this crazy system of encouraging intensive farming which is destroying the environment.
Alex.Turnbull@btinternet.com
Oliver speaks the whole truth
The knives are out for Oliver Walston; messenger for the truth that dare not speak its name. He has been accused of running down the industry, the country and selling us down the river. Theres none so deaf as those who dont want to hear.
What are the main messages of his programme Against the Grain?
That giving grants of £180,000 a year to the largest players in an industry, while the small men struggle to avoid bankruptcy, is stupid. That subsidies linked to production are environmentally unsound and lead to oversupply and grain/beef mountains.
That two years ago, most of us were doing very nicely thank you, and this year we are doing very badly.
That some of us look after the countryside and some commit environmental rape? Wheres the big problem?
His objective analysis of our industrys problems is spot on, and his articulacy a breath of fresh air compared with the whingeing NFU.
The rich are getting richer.
We are forced into over-supplying the market in order to keep going. 80% of farmers produce 20% of the food; implying that those of us in the 20% have declining relevance to the economic well-being of the country. But we have enormous importance to the environmental well-being.
So long as subsidies are linked to production we shall be stuck on this treadmill.
The only way I can increase income from my 250 acres of Sussex mud is to increase the numbers of tonnes of corn or head of cattle that I produce, maximising their value while cutting costs. It is as unsustainable for me as for any other small farmer.
Yet if the money that the taxpayer gives to us was linked to benefiting the
countryside and environment it would allow me to maintain my standard of living by producing fewer tonnes of corn and cattle with less nitrogen, sprays and medicines. Then the public may not resent our subsidies so much. They may even have some confidence in what we produce again.
One day, there may not be money to pay subsidies. We would have a better case to argue if they were directly linked to the environment, rather than fat-cats pockets.
Mr Walston is our industrys most articulate advocate since the late John Cherrington. We need him fighting for the future of our industry.
It may be fashionable at a time of crisis to attack him. But it is his critics who are taking the short-term view.
David Logan
Little Broadhurst Farm, Broad Oak, Heathfield, East Sussex.
Manufacturers not producers
There have been many comments in the farming Press concerning production control. We must realise that we have no right to continue producing food that is not required. Over-production is mainly why our product prices are so low.
We have to stop regarding ourselves as producers and start to think of ourselves as food manufacturers. No manufacturer would turn out a product that he cannot sell. If he turns out too many, he will have to discount them to clear them and this is just what is happening with food at present. I am a pig producer but the same principle applies to all farm produce.
Some pig producers regard production control, commonly looked on as quotas, as death. Do they think that they will be able to expand their units out of current profits or, more correctly, losses? Do they think they will be able to take over the gap left by producers leaving the industry?
We are about 72% self-sufficient in pigmeat and during the pig crisis we have lost market share down to about 60% because of foreign competition. We need to persuade the EU to agree a formula based on the consumption needed to fulfil market needs. Each member state should supply a historic percentage of the EU market demands. Quotas would be based on a previous year. The result would be that we would claw back the lost 12% of our market. The British pig industry should press the commission to introduce this policy.
We could get a larger share of our market by adopting a more astute approach to our problems. The alternative is for skilled staff to leave the industry as units close, suppliers to go bust and heartbreak for farmers who will lose their living, their farms plus any savings they have managed to accumulate between the vicious cycles.
There is no sensible alternative to production control in some form for all produce.
David Proudfoot
Briar House Farm, Dewlands Hill, Rotherfield, East Sussex.
MLC money is badly spent
Full marks to Nick Adams (Letters, Jan 8) for his condemnation of the Meat and Livestock Commission. For years it has collected many millions of pounds in levies at no expense to itself and used the money mainly to the benefit of the meat trades.
Its contribution to the beef, sheep and pig farmer is to advise them how to manage their stock in these difficult times. Most of our money, that we seem to have no choice about paying, would be better spent on a professional advertising campaign involving the likes of Delia Smith and the Two Fat Ladies.
R G Bartle
Lodge Hill Farm, Park Lane, Shifnal, Salop.
US milk stats are misleading
I would like to draw your attention to the misleading figures produced in your report "Holsteins concern" (Livestock, Jan 15).
Readers are led to believe that the average US cow lives just two years and nine months. That is obviously not the case.
US Holsteins have a longevity of 3.3 lactations (source United States Department of Agriculture). Perhaps the author had calculated that 3.3 lactations approximated to a total of about 1006 days in milk (3.3 x 305d=1006) which adds up to a total of two years and nine months (1006/365=2.75 years).
Official data from each country shows the USA, Canada, the UK and most developed countries have an average longevity of between 3.1 and 3.5 lactations. The longest was Ireland at 3.5. Thats not surprising because it had the lowest average yield in the study and therefore animals were under the least stress.
The USA has the highest lifetime production a cow of any dairy nation. That was calculated by multiplying the average number of lactations by the average 305-day milk yield.
Bob Hardy
Sales manager, World Wide Sires UK and Ireland, Ty Garreg, Smelthouse Lane, Pant, Oswestry, Salop.
Richardson sees beyond hype
David Richardson is to be congratulated on having the courage to change his convictions. Having regularly espoused the merits of genetic engineering, his look behind the hype has revealed what independent researchers have known for some time; namely that genetic modification is unlikely to result in significantly higher yields. Studies have shown that genetically modified crops regularly have lower yields than their conventional counterparts.
Further exploration will lead him to review his continued assertion that genetic developments are likely to provide environmental and industrial benefits.
David Staccy
The Lady House Farm, Drury Lane, Minsterley, Shrops.
Fighting like tigers…what?
I am amused at David Richardsons suggestion (Jan 15) that we should fight like tigers and refuse to accept that it is fair for imported produce to invade our markets. Will someone tell him that we have now joined the Common Market? For more than 20 years, import controls have been illegal under the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome.
So what does he think would be achieved by an average farmer "fighting like a tiger"?
Robert Robertson
Chairman, FSB agriculture committee, Down Barton Farm, St Nicholas-at-Wade, Birchington, Kent.
Conservation on Salop land
I write with regard to the letter entitled "Misplaced zeal of conservation" (News, Jan 8). We at Shropshire Wildlife Trust would be the first to admit that we do not always get it right. But your correspondent applies the term to the management of a national nature reserve covered in heather and associated plant communities which is being invaded by non-native conifer seedlings. To remove the latter hardly seems over-zealous. Neither is liaising with local graziers concerning mutually agreed stocking levels.
We have here an example of conservation organisations trying to work practically with local agricultural interests to manage and reclaim a habitat which, in other parts of the country, is fast disappearing.
Colin Preston
Shropshire Wildlife Conservation Centre, 167 Frankwell, Shrewsbury.
Asda sets a good example
It was vastly reassuring to read (News, Jan 15) that Asda has shaped the agenda for other multiple retailers by publicly conceding that complaints about farmer/supermarket profit imbalance have been justified.
Equally pleasing is its determination to rectify this by extending its most welcome British-only buying policies to include frozen meats. And its decision to open the door to more home-grown produce by conceding that many of its previous buying specifications had been unnecessarily restrictive.
But that does not mean that farmers or for that matter Asda can escape overnight from the pressures forced on them by other profit hungry retailers.
All supermarkets compete desperately for market share. And that is itself determined by the relative position of their prices.
If they are equal too, or lower, than their rivals they do not lose ground. But if they are even slightly higher their customers begin to wander off to other stores and their business begins to shrink.
Not surprisingly the main concern of Asda, and its rivals, is to maintain and expand their structures. So in real terms, prices increasingly tend to be adjusted downwards.
This practice is known in the supermarket trade as tracking. As long as it continues, and retailers progress is dictated by never having a higher price than a competitor, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for farmers selling to any of the multiples (including Asda) to ever earn more money.
Despite Asdas most welcome gesture, British farmers are still caught in a trap from which most will escape only if they expand their range of customers and increase the competition for their products.
Robert Forster
Chief executive, National Beef Association, Malvern, Worcs.
Bring country to the school
I wish to reply to P Fletchers letter (Jan 1) about how best to promote British farming.
Farming and education are essential ingredients to promote partnerships between the public and farmers. P Fletcher recognises the problem of the lack of public knowledge and sympathy concerning British food production. Farmers opening farms and explaining procedures to school children have made progress. This sort of initiative has been running for years and has quietly forged links in local communities.
As fewer people have links with the land, we need more evangelical ways of promoting the country way of life and living.
The speakers panel set up by the Womens Food and Farming Union and MLC has been running for two years. Trained members are speaking to youngsters and teachers in schools free of charge. Here in Norfolk we use a colourful booklet compiled with the help of schoolchildren, called Food and Farming in the United Kingdom.
It covers the usual farming topics plus a farm word glossary. Childrens interest in our way of life is overwhelming. Several teachers days were organised to make teachers more aware of farming and farming needs which was a joint initiative by the WFU and LEAF.
If any of your readers would like to be involved in such work, or wish to speak to the public through the media, local shows and conferences or participate in talks, training days, local promotions, and lobbying become a WFU member.
The address to contact is Helen Borril, co-ordinator, Slate House, Hibaldstow, Brigg, North Lincolnshire DN20 9NN. Tel: 01652 648257.
Claire Jewson
Beech House, Runhall, Norfolk.
Drive according to conditions
I am a layman and have no knowledge of the location, circumstances or individuals involved in the accident which gave rise to the legal action in which Guy Opperman successfully represented a litigant (Features, Jan 15). But I would like to put forward the following points.
The obligation placed by the Highway Code on people herding animals on the road to warn other road users of their presence is no greater than that placed on motorists to "drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear".
The estimated speed of Mr Oppermans client is only relevant in the context of the distance he could see.
The fact that he was presumably within the speed limit for that road is irrelevant because, as the code says: "A speed limit does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed. Drive according to the conditions". Bear in mind also that pedestrians, cyclists, farm animals, and horses, either being ridden or drawing vehicles, use public roads by right and motor vehicles, including agricultural ones, do so only by license. One is left to wonder if the verdict reached in this case was the correct one.
John Tuck
Highgate Farm, Wootton Bassett, Swindon, Wilts.
Fight to keep market open
I was saddened to learn of the decision by Abbotts, the auctioneers, not to allow their site at Campsea Ashe to be used as a temporary livestock market following the closure of Bury St Edmunds market. The reason was their fears of animal rights attacks.
While Mr Fletcher, the senior partner of Abbotts, is right to be concerned for the welfare of his staff, a decision not to reopen the market merely gives more succour to the extremists.
Because of our involvement in shooting, we have suffered threats and attacks in the past.
But I am certain that the only way to defeat the extremists and to protect livestock markets and the future of the livestock industry, which is far more important than just one isolated example, is for us all to support Mr Fletcher and his colleagues in the hope that we can persuade him to change his mind and re-open this vital livestock market.
If every owner of a livestock market followed suit, one questions where British farming would be – let alone the rights of individuals to pursue perfectly legitimate activities.
Might I suggest that all farming clients of Abbotts lend their support to Mr Fletcher in the hope that he will reconsider.
J M Osborne
Spirit House, 14-16 Southam Road, Banbury, Oxon.
Opportunities to be grasped
James Laings Talking Point (Dec 25) provides much food for thought for those who are concerned about the future of rural communities.
Many of the points he makes highlight the opportunities now available that were not present 10 years ago.
The move from heavy industry to service industry means that it is just as easy to run many businesses from the Outer Hebrides as from the inner cities.
The phenomenal explosion of information technology means that anyone with the necessary skills can operate quite sophisticated businesses for a capital outlay of less than £10,000.
The computer on which I am typing this letter is more powerful than anything available 25 years ago.
And at the push of a button I can communicate with someone on the other side of the world for the cost of a local phone call. With a video camera and the necessary software, I can even speak to them face to face and conduct a conference with several people in different continents simultaneously.
Concern about the reduction in the rural workforce in Somerset led to the establishment of a working party from organisations including the Country Landowners Association, the County Council and the Young Farmers Clubs. Their aim was to put forward a bid to the governments single regeneration budget for funds to retain and increase jobs in five rural areas which were shown to have above average long-term unemployment. The bid for £1.7m was scaled back by government office South West to £833,000 over five years and, under the name of Communities First in Rural Somerset, is now in its third year of operation.
We have already spent more than four times this amount with matched funding from both the private and public sectors. Much of the money has been spent on training people to use information technology.
At the half-way point we have directly created 115 jobs, safeguarding a further 47, and the training given should translate into further jobs in due course.
Our countryside is shaped by those who live and work there. Farming is at a nadir but there are now many opportunities for farmers to enhance their income by other means.
We complain about the power of the supermarkets but do little to compete with them by co-operation.
We grumble about level playing fields but do not make effective use of our resources. The future of the common agricultural policy is in the balance but it looks increasingly likely that production subsidies will be removed and replaced with socio-economic and environmental payments.
Take full advantage of what is available but do not stop there. There are lots of opportunities, grasp them before somebody else does.
Chris Bailward
Chair of Communities First in Rural Somerset.
Residual effect of glyphosate?
I am puzzled by your report (Arable, Jan 8) featuring Jan Wevers of the Dutch Sugar Beet Research Centre.
He stated that in genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant crops there is no residual effect, presumably meaning on the weeds.
But glyphosate sprays, which he used, do have a residual effect. I have known them used to kill grass fields and leave the field bare for five months before ploughing and still affect the following crop.
US research has shown that they do not break down quickly in soil. Crops sown one year after spraying have been found to contain the residues in every part of the plant.
Soil effects include: Depleted earthworm populations, severe effects on micorrhiza fungi which help roots to take up nutrients and limited ability of legumes to carry out the nitrification process.
Has Jan Wevers looked at these effects and for how long?
Also, how wide a field has his research investigation covered before he came to his conclusions?
Jose MacDonald
Penlan Fach, Llangain, Carmarthen.