READERS LETTERS
READERS LETTERS
Ferry idea an absolute brainwave
Farmers Ferry represents a golden chance for farmers to support their industry and secure their long-term future.
Investing relatively little in the operation of a live ferry service will bring about immeasurable improvements in farmers trade.
We have just witnessed the closure of one of our largest livestock auction markets due, mainly, to political interference. Farmers cannot take any more knocks like that. Surely, the time has come to say enough is enough? We must help ourselves, no one else will.
Our main market was all but destroyed with the refusal of the big ferry companies such as P&O, Sealink and Brittany Ferries to take livestock on cross-Channel routes.
That was mainly due to threats they received from animal rights activists. Now farmers have the chance to win back that market by helping to fund a service which will carry livestock across to the Continent.
It is time to face reality. With the beef industry in chaos and the export trade for lambs all but gone, farmers prospects are bleak unless we pull together and work towards re-opening the doors for ourselves.
When the government removes calves from the current cull programme, farmers could suddenly see their returns plummet to £10 a calf.
The first to benefit from the lifting of the ban on beef exports will be dairy farmers and their support of this ferry service now will ensure there is a route available for exporters to take immediate advantage of any lifting of the ban.
All farmers are concerned about stock welfare, so it is reassuring to know that the Farmers Ferry operators are insisting on the highest welfare standards.
No longer can we afford to sit back and hope things will get better. We must give our wholehearted support to this venture.
A Lloyd
(Address supplied.)
Independence is slipping away
This could be the last generation of dairy farmers that has the freedom to farm independently.
The commercial dictatorship around us is flexing its muscles to reduces us to employee status where we would work hard to earn below the minimum national wage.
You might think that view is cynical or misplaced. It is not and I will highlight why. First, the latest MAFF figures show a 26% decrease in UK farmgate milk price.
French prices have dropped by only 0.2%. The processors blame it on the strength of the sterling, which has dropped by only 19%!
The 7% difference is accounted for by increasing influence by our milk processors over us and the government.
It is a government institution (OFT), persuaded by the Dairy Industry Federation, that brought about the 90% rule for Milk Marque selling its milk, not Milk Marque producers.
Dairy companies know that for an extra penny they can buy your freedom.
If this carries on we will all have dairy companies telling us what we can get for our milk, without us taking control of the decision-making in these companies.
Look around you, see the strong players: Avonmore Waterford, Golden Vale, MD Foods, Friesland Dairyfoods, Campina Melkunie, all farmer-owned and controlled in their country, expanding to take on the supermarkets and maintaining prices to their producer shareholders.
What do we do? Split up in little groups to negotiate if the cow requires 2ft 2in or 2ft 4in at the water trough, or if we should use rubberised paint or plastic sheeting in our dairy with our appropriate milk buyer.
Luppo Diepenbroek
South Langabeare, Hatherleigh, Devon.
Dairy co-ops are way to win
Reading the article, "Lower prices mean profits up for the big dairy companies" (Business, June 12), it is plain for all to see that falling farm gate prices have been converted into higher processing company profits, higher supermarket margins and little by way of price cuts for the consumer.
What can we as farmers do to turn this round? There are only two choices: Let the present situation continue, which means the processors will invest nothing and use clapped out, inefficient, uncompetitive processing plants and pay farmers less for milk. Or producers can co-operate, back Milk Marque and other co-ops to build new world competitive processing plants in the UK.
When you look at our main EU competitors you see a different picture to the UK. They have new or refurbished plants which are efficient and mostly owned and run by farmers, to the benefit of farmers.
Those same co-ops – MD Foods, Avonmore/Waterford – are, here, taking advantage of our weakness to benefit their farmer shareholders.
If we want to survive as a high value industry, dairy farmers must have the means to turn a bulk, low value product into a processed high value product.
At the same time we must learn from the Malton story, the impending pig disaster and we must control as much of the food chain as possible, only in that way can farmers ever hope to talk in any meaningful sense to supermarket retailers.
For good or ill, they are our main customers, we must build relationships, ensure the highest standards and consistent quality.
Only through strength and co-operation and investment in processing will we be in a position to deal on equal terms with the biggest retailers at home and abroad.
Michael T Seals
Springfields Farm, Woodyard Lane, Foston, Derbyshire.
Time to cry foul over dog danger
I read the article "Fears of more dogs" (News, May 29) with at least as much concern as any large landowner.
Our 165 acre farm (mostly beef) is just outside the town of Reigate which is now, effectively, a London suburb. For such a small unit we are cursed with a staggering 2km of public rights of way through the farm, not including the B-road frontage or adjacent paths.
On sunny evenings and weekends we are just about over-run with walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and picnickers with the occasional trials motorbiker thrown in to ensure we have to endure the full benefit of the publics already extensive rights to enjoy the open countryside.
People on the whole, I think, accept that council by-laws against dogs fouling public parks are reasonable. Such a by-law is in place in our neighbouring Priory Park, but it never ceases to amaze me that these same people then think it is right and proper to bring their dogs onto our farm and let them defecate all over footpaths and fields.
We even have a couple of professional dog-walkers who bring perhaps ten or a dozen dogs onto the farm at a time and let them run all over the place. Trying to point out that dog faeces wrapped up in a bale of silage might not be very palatable in six months time is met with the usual "Oh, Im sorry, I thought this was a public footpath".
I have concluded that 90% of walkers are genuinely unaware that a footpath is not an entire field, that dogs must be kept under close control and that farmland is not a canine toilet provided, at someone elses expense, for their benefit. And, of course, how they love to watch their prized pet herding the livestock.
Every time I hear or read about the governments intentions to increase the publics rights of access to the countryside I cringe with fear.
More damage, more litter, more dogs. When will the politicians wake up to two inescapable and absolute truths – you cannot legislate rights with responsibility and the more rights people have, the less they respect them.
If you think Im scaremongering, mistaken or cynical, just take a look at the welfare state system.
Ray Pothecary
Littleton Manor Farm, Littleton Lane, Reigate, Surrey.
Taking interest in green taxes
Your correspondent Roger Oates worries that nobody is acting on green taxes (Letters, Jun 19). He neednt. The Federation of Small Business is taking an interest in them. Any proposals coming through are likely to trigger a complaint from us to Brussels on grounds of intra-EU trade distortion.
The consultant trying to draw up proposals for the government is Hugh Williams of ECOTEC, Research & Consulting, Priestley House, 28-34 Albert Street, Birmingham B4 7UD. The person instructing him is Dr John Garrod of DETR, Floor 3/E5, Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6DE.
I recommend that everyone write to them to express their views.
Bob Robertson
Chairman, Agriculture & Agro-Foods Committee, Federation of Small Business, Down Barton Farm, St Nicholas-at-Wade, Birchington, Kent.
Swedish access not like here
It seems the Country Landowners Association is again trying to scare farmers about the governments proposals for access to the open countryside.
CLA president Ian MacNicol said a recent trip to Sweden reinforced his view that increased public access to the countryside in the UK must be on a properly managed, voluntary basis (News, June 19). That is because landowners in Sweden, where there is a right to roam, are reporting increasing problems of litter, fly-tipping, inconsiderate car parking and dogs worrying stock.
What Mr MacNicol overlooks, in his determination to drum up opposition to a statutory right to roam, is the fact that the Swedish problem is confined mainly to farmland on the urban fringe. But the governments proposition is that people have access to uncultivated countryside. He also says that in Sweden there is a problem with horses and riders chasing across open countryside. But here the proposals relate to people having access on foot.
If the CLA does have any evidence of problems in Sweden which genuinely relate to Britain, it should put this into the public arena now.
David Beskine
Assistant director (Access), The Ramblers Association, 1-5 Wandsworth Road, London.
One standard: Dream on…
Although lower cereal prices are not welcomed by everyone, they should represent opportunities to livestock farmers. Low cost – high quality rations containing no dubious by-products, what could be more traceable than home-produced cereals? The answer to the livestock industrys needs – or is it?
Home-mixers and most livestock farmers, are about to get hit, right where it hurts, twice!
The first blow comes from the Pharmaceutical Society (RPSGB) via the Trading Standards Department who will be responsible for inspections under the new Feedingstuffs Regulations 1998.
Under these new regulations, all users of minerals, vitamins, enzymes and biological additives must have their name recorded by August. Failure to do so will make it illegal to have any of the above products on farm.
So its another couple of forms to fill in and the £70 fee could be worse, I hear you say. But theres a follow-up blow. This time its the Farm Assured Livestock Scheme, sorry schemes. Weve got FABL, Tesco, Waitrose, Unigate. Can they agree a set of common standards? – of course not!
Take one example. We have customers who are being told that under one of the above schemes all cereals must be kept in sealed bulk bins prior to milling and mixing. Once milled, the resulting feed must also be kept in sealed bulk bins.
Meanwhile, on a neighbouring farm, under a different scheme, plywood partitions to separate ground stored commodities and feed is sufficient. The latter seems to incorporate a degree of common sense while the former is, surely, complete overkill.
How do those who write such a scheme reconcile the fact that, once out of the sealed bin and into the trough/feed passage, all feeds are exposed to bird and vermin attack. Where will it end?
Farm assurance is not a bad thing but lets keep it in perspective. We need one set of practical standards, mutually agreed by all involved in the livestock and milk food chain, that apply equally to all producers – UK or otherwise. Dream on!
Ken Jordan
Mill Feed Anglia, Dairy Farm, Ingham, Bury St Edmunds.
UK millers fully back assurance
The UK flour milling industry, along with the rest of the cereals chain, is fully supportive of the Assured Combinable Crops Scheme. We have, therefore, read your more critical correspondence with concern. But in the end farmers actions speak louder than words and the National Association of British and Irish Millers has been extremely impressed that as many as 5000 growers have applied to join the scheme in its first year.
We are in no doubt that for those who are accepted it will be a tangible demonstration of good practice that will be a help to growers in marketing their grain in difficult circumstances. For example, most growing contracts now accord preference to assured suppliers.
For the record, UK millers prefer to use home-grown grain. Overall usage of home-grown wheat has risen by 50% since the mid-1980s to 4.5m tonnes. Even in years like this, when there has been a shortage of suitable bread wheat, UK wheat accounts for more than 80% of total used by millers. When imported wheat is used, checks and audits are carried out at the point of origin and each ship load is also checked for quality and hygiene before milling. Furthermore, through its sister organisations in other countries, Nabim has been promoting the development of similar assurance schemes elsewhere in the EU. Fearing they are losing a competitive edge, French suppliers seem particularly enthusiastic.
Like others in the food industry, millers are subject to regular inspection by customers and third parties, several times a year. ACCS should help growers avoid a similar proliferation of auditing requirements and ensure they are well prepared to cope with the new Food Standards Agency. To its credit, the NFU has recognised this in helping to lead the development of a protocol which establishes a sensible baseline for the arable sector.
John Tudor
President, Nabim, 21 Arlington Street, London SW1A 1RN.
ACCS members endanger rest
In the light of recent anti-ACCS feeling perhaps some of the prominent members who have joined will now contemplate their naivety and withdraw their membership.
These farmers who "need to be where it is at" must appreciate that their activities are endangering the majority, who do not wish to be manipulated and cajoled by agricultural parasites, who are intent on implementing a protection racket.
Edward Smith
Northend Farm, Northend, Leamington Spa, Warks.
Motor repairers in contract trap
I have read a number of letters from farmers over recent months about the attitude of supermarkets and other large buyers. I can remember the introduction of contracts for peas and potatoes. Everybody thought they were the answer to their prayers but now most growers regret they were introduced.
A similar thing happened in my industry – motor body repairs. A few years ago the insurance companies started an Approved Repairer Scheme which directed repair work to approved repair companies in exchange for discounts and free courtesy cars.
Everybody in the repair business jumped on the bandwagon. But having pushed the repair shops into a position where their only source of work was from insurance companies, those same companies proceeded to tighten the screws. Repair rates are now the same as they were four years ago, despite the increase in insurance premiums.
I am sure that farmers do not need warning about putting all their eggs in one basket. But it is worth thinking about.
V B Fantozzi
Tinkerbrook House, Brightholmlee, Sheffield.
Unused quota rule welcome
The recent report that the European Court has ruled that milk quotas of a producers who spontaneously discontinue production must be returned to the national reserve, will be welcome news to active producers, particularly producers who had to top up their own quotas by leasing high cost non-producer quotas on an annual basis for the past 14 years.
It has always been absurd that dairy farmers who were allocated free of charge a production quota in 1984, based on previous production levels, have subsequently been able to either lease or sell the quota, after selling their herds.
Given the daft measures introduced by the EC as part of the CAP, of which milk quotas are just one example, the only amazing aspect of this court decision, is the length of time it has taken to establish one simple fact. That is that once a milk producer ceases production, he is no longer a milk producer. It is incredible that a court decision is necessary to determine such an obvious fact.
The trading in unused quota by non-producers has feathered the nests of numerous agents and farmers with no cows, while hard working active dairy farmers and newcomers have struggled to pay the bill.
Unused quota should have been surrendered to the national reserve for redistribution to young people wanting to start in dairying and to existing producers who have inadequate quotas. It should never have been allowed to be traded as it has, causing such a burden on genuine dairy farmers.
J L Wright
Riverview, Toad Row, Henstead, Beccles.
Super hygiene the only option
They are at it again. Seemingly unrepentant after its beef on the bone mishap, the government, with its obsessive consumer protection policy, has slapped an emergency control order on a Somerset cheese maker temporarily banning the sale of its products because a youngster became ill after eating one particular product.
If this policy is not modified, ultimately it has the potential to wipe out the UK food production industry.
Is Britain the only country where food poisoning occurs? I think those who holiday abroad will testify otherwise.
The "a speck of dirt never did anyone any harm" approach has been tried (people who live and work in muck all their lives rarely fall ill).
But now it would appear the only option left is to create a super hygienic image down on the farm, then shout "British is best, dont buy foreign food because you dont know whats in it". Unfortunately, beef farmers have already tried this and it has yet to bring much reward.
We have a government which is trying to eliminate every possible risk from food and we criticise them.
Farmers and farmers leaders need to get a fix on this particular dilemma urgently if E coli 0157 is not to become the next salmonella or even BSE scare.
R * Collins
Downhayes, Lewdown, Devon.
Clear signs of BSE in the 60s
At a recent session of the BSE enquiry it was stated that there is no scientific evidence to show that this disease can be transmitted from one species to another by mouth.
If that proves to be the case, it must follow that the disease has been in cattle all along. But it has been at such a low level that it was not detected until the alterations took place in the production of meat and bone meal allowing it to multiply.
I had an animal showing symptoms similar to BSE way back in the 60s. According to my vet it was just one of those unexplainable things that happen from time to time and he suggested we sent it to the knackers.
He also suggested we checked to see there was no lead that the animal could have got to because it might be lead poisoning. I didnt find any lead, and I now believe the cow had BSE. I know some senior vets who share this opinion.
I would be pleased to hear from any other farmer who thinks that they may have had a similar experience. It will be almost impossible to prove my theory but, if enough replies are forthcoming, I will inform the enquiry.
J R Plummer
Long Cross House, Black Torrington, Beaworthy, Devon.
Farm workers unappreciated
May I congratulate Jim Watson for his combined attack on New Labour and Tesco (Talking Point, June 12 ). I speak as a worker in the vegetable packing industry of Norfolk and, like the small farmer, I am the least appreciated and recognised. I suggest that I have the least to gain and that the gang masters (masquerading as employment agencies), the vegetable packing companies, the big supermarkets and the Labour Party have most to gain.
The supposed employment agency pays me £3.50/hr and in addition to national insurance and tax, deducts transport costs and a percentage of the gross amount (after having been paid by the packing company at about twice my hourly rate). I am left with £110 take-home pay after a 40hr week.
The veg packing company employs the majority of people through an agency because it works out cheaper. There is no employment legislation and it has the flexibility to lay off staff on a day-to-day basis.
Tesco and Sainsbury are the major buyers and are obviously aware of how staff are hired and paid. They gain from the knock-on effect of lower labour costs.
And finally, everyone is aware of New Labours inflation policy, where wage restraint is regarded as commendable especially to those who can least afford it.
However, I have not heard them criticise food price inflation, especially in relation to farm gate prices. That is set to continue as Labour is planning a tough stance over EU plans to force through laws on workers rights as part of the Social Chapter (Sunday Telegraph, 14 June).
For myself, all is not lost. Hopefully, I will return to a local farm for the harvest where I am offered free accommodation, no bills and a generous pay packet after plenty of overtime.
Farm Worker
(Name and address supplied.)
GM expertise was welcome
May I congratulate and thank FW for printing Michael Antonious excellent Talking Point (Jun 26). At least now your readers have had a taste of unbiased, scientific information on genetic engineering.
With so many farmers openly admitting their lack of understanding of this new technology it would seem both necessary and timely for FW to devote more space to allowing impartial experts like Dr Antoniou to explain exactly what is technically involved in genetic modification and what are the potential risks and hazards.
Only then can farmers face the crucial decision to grow, or not to grow GM crops with confidence. That confidence can come only from understanding the subject well enough to know that no scientist or otherwise, can yet claim justifiably that GM crops are safe.
Of course, it could well be that consumers distaste for the whole process of genetic engineering, let alone the resulting food products, decides the issue first. But because farmers are also consumers there is a double interest here that deserves to be fully and seriously addressed.
Bonny Horvath
Ivy House, Worlingworth, Woodbridge, Suffolk.
EC poultry rules apply now
We were most interested in the articles on free-range turkey and broiler production (Livestock, June 5).
Your readers should be aware that the EC marketing standards for poultry have been directly applicable throughout the EC since 1992. The draft UK regulations, which we hope to have in place in November, will formally designate the relevant enforcement authorities with the necessary powers to enforce the standards. But certain aspects – such as the use of special marketing terms (eg, free-range, traditional free-range and total freedom) on labelling – are already enforceable in the UK under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
Producers that are labelling poultry with SMTs are, therefore, already expected to be meeting the minimum criteria for stocking density, age at slaughter, feed formulations, access to open-air runs and pop-holes requirements laid down for each SMT.
There was one error in your comments about "read the regulations".
Extensive indoor (barn-reared) chickens can be slaughtered at 56 days or later, not 70 days as stated.
David S Jones
Eggs & Poultry branch, MAFF, 10 Whitehall Place, London.