READERS LETTERS
READERS LETTERS
Wrong to cosy up to multiples
I thoroughly agree with Robert Fosters Talking Point (Apr 23) which points out that livestock farmers were among the first to highlight the unacceptable activities of some of the major multiple retailers.
As long ago as September 1994, the British Independent Fruit Growers Association gave written evidence to the House of Commons Agriculture Committees Inquiry into Horticulture pointing out that regulations were necessary to encourage supermarkets to source more British produce. We reinforced our call for action in January 1995, when we gave oral evidence to the same committee, and asked that a regulator should be appointed. A regulator (perhaps to be called OFMULTI) could help to ensure a fair deal for suppliers and consumers alike.
I also agree with Robert Forster that those farmers leaders who were busy cosying up to the supermarkets have been shown to be utterly wrong. But dont be surprised if the same leaders try to take credit from the referral to the Competition Commission.
How sad that the unchecked growth of major supermarkets has caused the forced closure, of tens of thousands of greengrocers, butchers, bakers and fishmongers in villages, towns, and cities across the land.
J R Breach
Chairman, British Independent Fruit Growers Association, Chittenden Orchards, Staplehurst, Tonbridge.
Clarifying the NFUs stance
Your article on the Midland Farmers Action Group and farm assurance (News, Apr 23) may have given a rather misleading impression of the NFUs position. I should like to clarify the situation.
As I understand it, MFAG opposes CCS, but supports the principle of farm assurance. It was on this latter point that we have met them. Farm assurance is new on the UK agricultural scene and nobody has a monopoly of wisdom on it. We all need to share information; we needed to understand the groups views and to explain to them the NFUs own position on farm assurance.
We are partners in ACCS and other farm assurance schemes and as such are obviously committed to them. But we are determined as a matter of urgency that the existing schemes come together in complementary modules with whole farm verification. There should then be competition between recognised inspection bodies, so that farmers can get the best possible deal for their verification requirements. We also understand that some farmers do have views about the specifications of ACCS. The ACC board, on which the NFU is represented, is anxious to address these concerns positively as a matter of urgency. I welcome that.
We made it clear to MFAG that the NFU is totally committed to working with existing scheme bodies, including ACCS, to delivery this agenda. Our representatives have given unstintingly of their time and effort to get the schemes this far. None of the schemes is perfect – it would be a miracle if they were – but they have the right aims and objectives. Thousands of farmers have already committed themselves to them.
The NFU is of course willing to talk to any group of members and to offer them technical assistance – it is essential that all assurance schemes are based on adequate, verifiable, standards. I also hope that the Midland Farmers Action Group will soon meet the farmers involved in running other schemes. As farmers we must work together – we have too much to lose by doing otherwise.
Ben Gill
NFU President, Agriculture House, 164 Shaftesbury Avenue, London.
Crisping men poorly treated
I refer to Robert Forsters Talking Point (Apr 23). The strength of UK supermarkets has been a problem for the agricultural and horticultural supply sector for many years.
However, the supermarkets do not only directly influence farmers and growers, they also affect food processors. That is particularly the case with growers of potatoes for crisping. Additionally, there are also major multinational companies which have the same attitude towards their supplier base as the major multiples. For many years, growers of crisping potatoes have shouldered increasing responsibility for problems outside their control and decreasing margins.
The investigation into the supermarkets must be welcomed and it is vital that it will not be a whitewash. Hopefully, the government will recognise that there are others with poor records in handling their suppliers and that they also need to be studied.
J A Clark
Chairman, Processed Potato Growers Group, 133 Eastgate, Louth, Lincs.
France supports its farmers
In his reply to my letter (Mar 26) Mr Stone (Letters, Apr 16) accuses me of a "lack of understanding about the EU and how it works". He has failed to grasp that I was advocating that UK farmers apply pressure on the UK government for a better deal, not necessarily from the EU. Like many since 1945, it continues to fail its farmers.
Perhaps Mr Stone can explain why French farmers who have suffered a BSE outbreak among their stock have been compensated over 10,000 Fr francs (the average is between 12,000 and 13,000 Fr) for every cow slaughtered. In Britain, the compensation is about £600, according to FW.
Perhaps Mr Stone can explain how France, without EU funding, will continue to pay the Herode premium (calf processing scheme) whereas the UK government will not.
Turning to the area aid compensation scheme, the largest reference within the UK is that for farms in England (5.89t/ha). How can that fairly represent every farm with qualifying land throughout England? In France every departement has its own reference (between 3.63t/ha and 7.61t/ha), which is far more representative of true yields.
To help young farmers (under 40) establish, the French government, with EU funding, provides over 700,000 Fr francs of subsidised loans of 2% to cover capital purchases (land, machinery and livestock), as well as a grant of 100,000 francs to kick start cash flow. The UK government could do the same but it prefers to demand its infamous rebate to subsidise foreign-owned car manufacturers in lieu of British farmers.
Should Mr Stone, or any UK farmer, wish to discuss how British farmers are being short-changed and how French farmers continue to benefit from a policy written into the constitution, I can be contacted at the address below.
David Wilson
17 rue du General Sorbier, 58000 Nevers, France.
Generic milk and promotion
Your article Milk ad campaign hopes evaporate (Features, Apr 23) creates an incorrect impression of the latest developments on the issue of generic milk advertising.
Farm minister Nick Browns letter to the NFU on the issue was not a refusal to a statutory levy as a source of producer funding. Instead, it drew our attention to a number of complexities which must be addressed before further progress can be made. The NFU is resolved to pursue the statutory collection of a producer levy as this represents the only feasible means of achieving a sustained significant and successful campaign.
Our concern at this difficult time for the industry is to respond to producers calls for a generic promotion campaign.
We welcome the enthusiasm among dairy farmers to press forward; this only serves to emphasise the level of producer support in favour of milk advertising. But the industry needs a concerted approach in conjunction with processors, if we are able to market our product effectively.
The NFU is working hard on all these issues with the aim of a speedy resolution to this crucial issue.
Terrig Morgan
Vice-chairman, NFU Milk and Dairy Produce Committee, Caarreg-Y-Liech, Treuddyn, Mold, Flintshire.
Price challenge to milk buyers
I was interested by Stephen Batess analysis (Business, Apr 30) of last years milk price and who paid what. It was particularly interesting to compare his table with MAFFs monthly farm gate price, which it says is a weighted sample of the money actually paid to farmers.
MAFFs table appears to show that the average price paid to farmers is little more than Milk Marques price. That begs the question, how much is really being paid to farmers? Wouldnt it be interesting to challenge all milk buyers to state, how many litres they bought and the amount of money, net, they paid to their farmers?
M T Seals
Springfields Farm, Woodyard Lane, Foston, Derbyshire.
Come and visit Seale-Hayne
In response to the letter (Apr 30) regarding pride in Seale-Hayne, there is a need for accurate information.
The Seale-Hayne name is as important now as it has always been but we are also an integral and much respected faculty of the University of Plymouth. Over a third of our students are on agricultural courses and our commitment to the industry is as strong as it has always been.
Today, 100% of our provision is in higher education, with HND, BSc and MSc courses in agriculture and related areas – countryside management, the environment, estate management, animal and crop sciences. A diverse programme of research and consultancy provides support and advice to those in the industry.
As agriculture itself has diversified, Seale-Hayne has taken a wider role within this sector developing programmes in rural tourism, food production and the hospitality and leisure industries. Over the past 10 years students, commercial organisations and staff have undoubtedly benefited from the wider range of resources we have gained from being part of the University of Plymouth.
I would like to invite anyone interested in Seale-Hayne, its past, present and future, to visit us to see how we continue to serve the agricultural industry.
Clare Broom
Dean of faculty, Seale-Hayne, University of Plymouth, Newton Abbot, Devon.
Do hawks feed at McDonalds?
With reference to recent letters on losses of small birds.
I am amazed to read that we are supposed to believe the findings of the British Trust for Ornithology.
Some time ago I watched a programme on BBC 2 showing a ranger proudly showing off peregrine falcons and their chicks on Snowdonia. A few months later he was lamenting the decline of the black grouse over the past eight years. This period has shown a significant increase in the number of peregrines. Again the blame was laid against farmers who had ploughed up fields during the last war to produce food.
Last week I watched a programme showing peregrines nesting in a box on a block of flats in Brighton. The commentator said there was a plentiful supply of food in the form of pigeons and starlings.
I have watched from my office window as the birds in the garden that my wife feeds every day have been decimated by magpies and sparrowhawks, many of which are bred and released. I do not know how many small birds the sparrowhawk eats a day but I believe it is two or three. unfortunately these song birds will not be breeding this year.
It appears the Hawk and Owl Trust and the British Ornithology Trust would like us to believe that these predators pop down to McDonalds or Harry Ramsdens for lunch.
I have decided not to make any contributions to the Royal Society for the Persecution of Birds and I suggest everyone else does the same.
It is so easy to make farmers the villains, who have to stay competitive in a world market. But it is not always the truth.
N Bishop
Sunnymount, 143 Ringwood Road, St Leonards, Ringwood, Hampshire.
Ragwort is notifiable weed
I keep reading letters about ragwort in FARMERS WEEKLY but how many know that ragwort is a notifiable weed? About 140 years ago a law was passed ruling that people could be summoned for allowing poisonous ragwort to grow on their land.
This rapidly spreading, autumn flowering weed has a bright yellow flower and often grows over two feet tall. It has a small shallow root and is easily pulled up by hand. When I had a dairy herd, 40 years ago, I told my herdsman that for every ragwort he pulled up I would give him 6p. In total, I paid him about 30 shillings but now we have no ragwort on this farm.
Being a retired farmer, I walk our dog along the old railway, now a bridle path, which runs through our farm. It had several ragwort growing on the banks but I personally have pulled them all up.
Dont forget if dried in hay, ragwort is still poisonous if eaten by horse or cow.
L A Charman
Great House Farm, Worthing Road, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex.
Afair Press for organic, please
Im sorry David Richardson (Apr 30) had such a bad experience with an organic box scheme but I wonder why he felt the need to write a negative column about it in FARMERS WEEKLY. He could have phoned the company concerned and sorted it out with them.
My household has been on such a box scheme for a number of years, and yes, occasionally something in it is rotten or wilted. When this happens, we ring the company and they reimburse us for that item. There is never a problem.
Concerning his criticisms about his vegetables. What is wrong with twisted carrots? The shape of one or two of the carrots weve received have caused such hilarity that theyve been displayed on the window-sill until theyve been eaten. Also, potatoes that come from the ground rather than the supermarket should be expected to have dirt on them. As a farmer, I would have thought Mr Richardson would have known this.
Finally, I admit to being pro-organic in the same way that I expect Mr Richardson is pro-integrated crop management. This letter is biased towards what I believe.
Janey Antoniou
36 Mean Road, Edgware, Middlesex.
Susceptible, but not infected
I write with regard to the article "National effort required to rid sheep of scrapie" (Livestock, Apr 23) in which a caption quotes me as saying "We havent found a farm yet that is free from scrapie". That is neither true nor what I said.
In our study at IAH, we are looking at the level of resistance to scrapie in UK sheep flocks, and we are doing this for farms that do, and do not, currently have a scrapie problem. The level of resistance is determined genetically. My comment was that every farm we have looked at so far has at least some susceptible (non-resistant) animals.
In other words, even farms that are free from scrapie now have, in their flocks, animals that could get scrapie in the future should they come into contact with the scrapie agent. That is different from saying that these farms actually have scrapie already.
All the evidence suggests that only a small minority of UK farms have scrapie in their sheep flocks. Given the negative implications that scrapie can have for UK sheep farmers, and the fragile state of the industry, it is important that there is no misunderstanding.
In our opinion, the best way for sheep farmers to rid themselves of scrapie or to insure for the future is to start breeding a scrapie-resistant flock from genotyped animals. Farmers wishing to do this through participation in our project should telephone me on 01635-577282.
Dr Matthew Baylis
Institute for Animal Health, Compton, Newbury, Berks.
Yes we do want young farmers
In his Talking Point (Mar 26) Jim Powell, chairman NFYFC, asked whether the government and the agricultural industry want young farmers. I reply a resounding Yes.
The FUW has long campaigned in the interests of young farmers, calling for an early retirement scheme to re-structure the age profile of the industry but not requiring farm amalgamation.
We have also recommended the adoption of installation aids and investment measures to enable our young people to compete on the same terms as their European counterparts.
Jim Powell indicates that support was sadly lacking for the original proposal in Agenda 2000 to provide a 1% increase in milk quota specifically for young farmers. I should point out that the FUW stood alone in Great Britain in pressing this case with government, with neither support from the NFU of England and Wales nor the CLA.
The FUWs assembly manifesto, reported in News, April 23, is testimony to the FUWs continuing commitment to young farmers.
Mrs R Mary James
Director of agricultural policy, Farmers Union of Wales, Llys Amaeth, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion.