READERS LETTERS
READERS LETTERS
Goodwill is running outfor Labour
When foot-and-mouth was first discovered, the government was entitled to full co-operation in controlling the disease. Unfortunately MAFF, now recreated as DEFRA, has failed to control the outbreak. Since it has not relaxed emergency regulations, farmers no longer have any incentive to continue support for government.
As the government also seems to be carrying out a political agenda in reducing numbers and closing livestock markets, it can no longer expect full co-operation from farmers. Unless it resolves this problem quickly, there will come a time when livestock farmers will accept F&M as a means to try to bring something back to their lives.
The government covered up this problem during the election campaign, but it still expects full support from farmers for all ridiculous regulations.
Arnold Pennant
Arnpenn@aol.com
Respect each others methods
It is about time that the thoughts of the other organic sector bodies were heard after Oliver Walstons comments (Talking Point, June 8). The organic sector has often been accused of knocking conventional farming. While that might be the perception, it is not in the organic sectors interests to criticise others. We acknowledge there are legitimate farming systems operating in different ways for different reasons.
Surely, British farmings prosperity can be achieved only by all farmers respecting the endeavours and expectations of others. The only criteria one can reasonably expect from our farmers is that they pursue their chosen avenue in a principled and honourable way.
With that in mind Organic Farmers and Growers seeks to set realistic and attainable standards with which our members can comply. I am not sure that the setting of often-unattainable standards, for which it is necessary to derogate, is in the best interests of anyone.
We do not claim that organic food is the only option, but if offers consumers the choice of naturally grown produce without chemical or drug inputs.
While we do not accept GMs in any form in our production system, we readily accept the need for experimentation, if only to ensure that a full knowledge of the subject is gained.
Both conventional and organic producers must be aware of public opinion, and they have made their views clear on GM foods.
OF&G sees its contribution as making organic certification achievable in a practical context. Our appeal is to mainstream commercially minded farmers who have identified opportunities by taking the organic route.
Charles Peers
Chairman OF&G, Views Farm, Great Milton, Oxford.
Kenyan doctor inspirational
David Richardson (FW June 22) gave us his impressions of the Biotechnology Conference that he attended at the end of May. Like me, he was impressed by the quality, the knowledge and the enthusiasm of the speakers. Small wonder as, over two days, we listened to some of the leading people from around the world.
He mentioned Margaret Karembu from Kenya. She was nothing less than inspirational. She spoke movingly of poverty, malnutrition, and starvation; and she told of the improvements that she and others were achieving with GM varieties. Her problem lay with the influence of European hysteria on GM and the serious effect that it was having on her work.
I have spent time in northern Kenya and Ethiopia. But unlike the vast majority of package tourists, I spent my time in remote areas far from the pampered treatment that tourists get in the safari parks. I know what she was talking about. I have seen the exploding population growth; the environmental damage caused by natural, traditional, organic farming including the loss of trees and the erosion.
Listening to Dr Karembu, I felt ashamed to be British and ashamed of my fellow countrymen who blindly and selfishly would do their utmost to stop such progress.
Henry Fell
Church House, Horkstow, Barton on Humber.
Case for GM badly presented
I have read the article by Oliver Walston (Talking Point, June 8) and the letter (June 22) in reply from Ivan Holmes and have sympathy with part of both views. Surely the nub of the problem is that the whole argument for genetic modification has been badly presented.
As one who is closely involved with conservation on my land, I am not keen to have GM crops resistant to herbicide cross-pollinating with wild plants. But I am equally concerned with the amount of agrochemicals which we have to use to produce a disease-free saleable crop, especially in the case of potatoes. If only the industrial giants had pressed the case for genetic modification to counter plant disease instead of herbicide resistance, then we farmers would have reduced our spray bill. Conservation issues would have also been minimised and the consumer would have ingested food from plants treated with far less agrochemical.
But the spray manufacturers would have lost a huge market. And, as they mostly now own the plant breeders, the arguments will continue for years to come.
Richard Howard-Vyse
The Estate Office, Langton, Malton, North Yorks.
Such crops will not lift hunger
David Richardsons views (June 22) about the need for GM crops to feed starving people in the Third World are very naive. He quotes the case of Kenya where 40% of people are reportedly starving. Most of those 40% are landless people living in urban shanty towns. There is sufficient good land in Kenya to feed the population many times over but it is owned chiefly by wealthy Kenyans and international companies and used mostly for growing export crops.
Many of the poor subsistence farmers are forced beyond the margins of cultivatable land. Their attempts to grow food crops on ground which is too steep or rangeland, which is too thin, leads to soil erosion and inevitable failure.
Hunger in the Third World will not be solved by a quick fix of GM crops, it is about politics, corruption and justice. GM technology is from big business and for big business, especially American business. It, as always, is willing to gamble on possible environmental catastrophe because it is the world poor who ultimately pay.
The emotional argument that we should accept GM technology for the sake of Third World people is seriously flawed. It is successfully spread by the public relations departments of those who have most to gain.
Ivan Holmes
Tylas Farm, Old Byland, Helmsley, North Yorks.
Richardsons defence piffle
David Richardson has surpassed himself in regaling us with piffle in his defence of GM crops (June 22). He gallantly tries to don the cloak of even-handedness in addressing the subject. But such is the transparency of his desire to take the Monsanto shilling and suck the rest of agriculture into the jaws of the agrochemical business, he fails to even pretend to make any worthwhile analysis.
First, he confuses fact with opinion. There may be a dearth of facts proving that the release of GM crops into the environment is harmful. But it is the opinion of many scientists that there is considerable cause for concern, and it is foolish to do so at the pace that its backers would wish.
We could say smoking does not guarantee one will contract cancer, but it is the opinion of medical science that doing so, greatly increases the likelihood.
Second, he has spent much of the past year bewailing the future of farming, constantly telling us that the industry is doomed. Now, apparently there is not enough food and our only hope of salvation is GM crops. Perhaps he should ask why so much land is left fallow at governments expense? Also it might be worthwhile putting the money saved to good use such as subsidising Third World agriculture.
Third, he avoids any mention of who organised the conference he attended. It is just as well we are not all as brainless as he likes to think we are.
Justin Roberts
8 Nelson Avenue, Woodford Halse, Daventry. Northants.
Soil reliant on chemistry
Charlie Flindt (Letters, June 15) makes a number of assertions that an article by Graham Harvey contained misinformation and drivel. Unfortunately, he seems to misunderstand the points being made.
Confusing soil fertility and its capability to yield a crop is naive.
Over the past 40 years, the organic matter levels within our soils have declined considerably, to the point where many are now technically unstable and will support a crop only by the addition of fertilisers, not through their own inherent fertility. That we can still produce large crops off depleted soils is due to modern chemistry and mechanical power, not inherent soil fertility. In future, soil problems will increase in number and severity, in susceptible areas.
For many farms, a large proportion of income will come from sources not connected to the selling of an edible product grown or produced on the farm. The business of producing farm produce has decreased in significance as a source of farming income. With regard to feeding the world, whether by conventional, organic or some other production method, there would be no need for people to starve if it were not for the degree to which we waste the food. That happens though over consumption or discarding it at various points in the food chain. The current estimate of wastage is about 31%; the same as 60 years ago before modern preservatives were available.
To that, we should add the reckless abandon with which we simultaneously allow the global population to swell beyond our ability to feed it, without putting in order the raw materials we need to produce sufficient food. No sane farmer would keep more stock than he could feed, yet that is what we humans are attempting to do.
Oliver Dowding
oliver.dowding@sheptonfarms.com
Wool board should pay up
On June 18 I received from the Wool Marketing Board a wool price schedule for the 2001 season. That was 10 days after this seasons wool cheque had been banked. Or should I say, half of this years wool and half owing from last year.
If the Wool Board is short of money, it should stop sending these price schedules out too late. What a waste; just pay us for all this seasons wool.
D Palmer
Whitegates Farm, Rushton, Kettering, Northants.
Anti-tax move was snubbed
Mr Errington suggests simple and effective ways of achieving the environmental improvements on farms without the palaver and costs of the new stewardship package on pesticide use (Arable, June 15).
We, and the other partners who went through the protracted counter-tax negotiations, put forward the same suggestions as his to the government and were told they were not enough. You must do much more, said Mr Meacher, or else it will be £125m/year in tax.
Throughout the negotiations the government made it plain it wanted tangible evidence of commitment from all parties in the form of cash and effort. Like Mr Errington, it wanted the burden to fall just as much on the supply industry as on the farmers.
The partners, including the Crop Protection Association and NFU, worked closely together over two years to get Mr Erringtons "joined-up thinking" with each accepting its full responsibility for the aspects under its control.
The manufacturers and distributors are concentrating on ensuring the products and the advice delivered to farms are of the highest quality. They are putting cash and staff time into such things as R&D, training and education, the provision of clearer information, employment of a biodiversity officer and container management.
The farmer organisations in the partnership committed themselves to ensuring the decision processes and spraying practices on farms are sound and will deliver the water and wildlife protection the government wants. They are throwing their weight behind operator training, equipment tests, LERAP awareness and the adoption of crop management plans.
The government has stressed that improvements must be proven on farms, not just a few "show" ones. The temptation is to think we are doing all the right things now. The reality is that many people do not believe us. We have got to work together – manufacturers, advisers and farmers – and prove it over the next five years.
Anne Buckenham
Crop Protection Association, Peterborough.Michael PaskeNational Farmers Union, London.
Genus is not anti-DIY AI
Mr Willie Taits comments (Letters, June 22) require some correction on his interpretation of the Genus DIY refresher course. The results can be extrapolated from this course to provide the national picture on DIY. That is for three reasons.
First, many of the 85 people inseminating 1152 cows come back regularly to make sure they are always good.
Second, those that need urgent help are not included in the results as they are referred back to the four-day training course.
Third, NMR results from over 2000 herds showed a significant difference between the average DIY serviced herd calving interval and technician serviced herd calving internal of four days.
Having said that, Genus is not anti-DIY. Indeed the trial showed that 25% of DIY farmers are very good at it. The point of publishing this work was to help farmers having trouble with fertility. Any such farmer should ask himself a number of questions, of which the accuracy of his AI technique is just one. If it is the problem, financial losses from reduced fertility will far outweigh the cost of contracting out the job of inseminating.
Regarding the farmgate service, his comments fail to consider the research by Genus into the additional number of sperm required and the specifically developed diluent that allows cervical inseminations to provide conception rates approaching 50% when delivered correctly.
Drew Sloan
Regional business director, Genus Breeding.
On-farm videos for stock sales
There are many concerns relating to farm animals and high on any agenda is the slaughter of so many.
With our expanding technology, why not, as in western Wales, video all cattle to be sold on their farms? Those concerned with the selling, buying, auctioning and transporting could meet to auction these animals after watching the videos in a local hall or hostelry.
If the animals have been bought for slaughter, a team of slaughterers could take a mobile slaughterhouse and refrigeration unit to a local collection point. Or it could visit farms which would be even better for the welfare of the animals.
The suggestion has been brushed aside by one of our local councillors with the words: "The EU would not permit it." I see that Sweden is trying to shorten the distance animals travel. I realise some animals, when sold, would have to travel. But the problems farming is suffering are due, in no short measure, to the welfare of both animals and land.
If slaughtering could be undertaken at source, I believe that would reduce infection and contamination. The mobile equipment could be kept in an immaculately hygienic condition if the different parts of the animals were put in appropriate containers immediately for transportation. Once emptied, there could be automatic hoses inside the vehicles to eliminate infection.
I realise my proposals would need great preparation, but as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is beginning afresh, I feel this is a golden opportunity to take agriculture forward into the 21st Century.
Maureen Postins
23 Malthouse Lane, Kenilworth, Warwicks.
Sexed semen on offer in UK
In response to your recent letter (June 22), I am happy to confirm that sexed semen is available in the UK for immediate delivery. What is more, it comes from UK-proven dairy sires that now rate among the very best in the world for production and type improvement. We are so confident of its quality that we offer a risk-free guarantee of 50% conception and 90% heifer calves.
Given the length of time semen sexing has been dreamt about and debated, one could be forgiven for finding it a little hard to believe that the technique has been in commercial UK use for almost exactly a year. Thanks to our Sexed Advantage semen, we were the first country in the world to make this important breeding breakthrough.
You can already see Sexed Advantage dairy calves on numerous UK farms, with many more being born into herds across the country every week. As soon as foot-and-mouth abates we will be stepping-up our beef trials programme so we can also offer sexed beef semen with similar guarantees of bull calf results in the near future. For more information, call us on freephone 0800-783 7258.
W Bluhm
Members services director, Cogent Breeding, Aldford, Chester.