READERS LETTERS

21 September 2001




READERS LETTERS

Are markets the answer to F&M?

Am I right in thinking that there would be less risk of spreading foot-and-mouth if cattle buyers visited a livestock market instead of visiting many different farms?

Our farm entrance is half a mile away and cannot be seen from the farmhouse and buildings. We have to believe visitors take appropriate bio-security measures. At one market a hundred farmers could be checked arriving and leaving by one official.

Only cattle from F&M-free counties would be allowed and cattle pens would be "out of bounds" except to market staff. Now even the oldest cattle have full traceability.

Mervyn Caddy

Tregonning Farm, Kestle Mill, Newquay, Cornwall.

Is biosecurity a big issue?

After eight months since the foot-and-mouth outbreak farmers are still confused about this disease. None of the many MAFF/DEFRA statements seem to fit together. Now the respected Moredun Foundation comes out with more confusing information in its autumn newsletter.

The theme is biosecurity which it claims has kept the disease out of the USA since 1929. Many farmers see it as an excuse for blaming farmers for the spread. No doubt it is important but when no attempts were made to clear the hills of sheep in the spring and when many roads across commons are covered with sheep droppings disinfecting at ones gate seems to be ineffective.

An early radio broadcast assured us that the Isle of Wight outbreak came on the wind from France. Dr Hugh Reid of Moredun worked as a temporary veterinary inspector in Dumfries and Galloway. He describes a field of sheep infected with F&M that were so sick they couldnt stand. Yet we had been told to inspect daily the mouths of every sheep for lesions because F&M was so difficult to detect.

A crucial issue is whether Draconian biosecurity will be needed once ring vaccination has been carried out. Much of the massive damage to tourism could have been avoided if this approach had been adopted in March.

Ronald Watts

Maes-yr-Eglwys Farm, Pen-y-cae, Swansea.

Ministers need to prioritise

With the source of the current foot-and-mouth outbreak not in the public domain, I have an important question. Are there any similarities between the DNA of the O strain virus reported missing from a research establishment and the O strain causing the disease?

Ministers are now worried that if the outbreak continues into next year, it will ruin the tourist industry. If ministers had not interfered in the first place, the disease would have been beaten months ago. They should get their priorities right and be concerned for the farming community.

D J B Denny

205 Henwick Road, Worcester.

F&M mayhem on motorways

Its not difficult to understand how the foot-and-mouth outbreak in Northumbria and the suspected one in Hinckley, Leics could have started due to ministry mishandling.

About a month ago, a woman driving from the Somerset/Devon border on the M5 north, followed a wagon of carcasses dripping foul liquid for many miles. Any vehicle driving behind that wagon could have carried the virus.

The M5 joins the M6 above Birmingham and travels north almost to Scotland. Main roads lead off to Hexham.

Furthermore, the M42 leads on from the M5. The M6 leaves it going east. The M6 joins the M69. Both the A6 and the M69 pass near to Hinckley.

The M42 goes north to join the M1 near Nottingham. That in turn becomes the A1M, which has junctions with A68 and A69 (and several others) which go to Hexham.

Remembering the three week incubation period, the spread of F&M by the above routes is possible. Long distance lorries travel any of those routes to deliver to villages off the motorway. Also holiday-makers used the motorways for quick access to the countryside or the coast.

Miss Greaves,

17, Sandhills Road, Barnt Green, Nr Birmingham

Rats must be dealt with

Thank you for the timely warning on rats (Livestock, Sept 7). According to information published by the US Department of Agriculture, rats are classed as a high hazard of transmission of foot-and-mouth, since they can become infected by the virus. That makes delays in disinfecting premises infected by foot-and-mouth even more dangerous.

Much waste food ends up on landfill sites or goes through some sort of masticating waste-disposal gadget to arrive in the sewage system. Both waste tips and sewers are well-known habitats for rats and there is an obvious risk of onward transmissions of diseases brought into the country by ill-controlled meat imports.

I was told recently by a council pest control officer that Anglian Water, which is responsible for local sewers in my district, no longer lays bait routinely or takes other control measures. If that policy is being followed by other companies it should be no surprise that there have been many rats around.

DEFRA, and MAFF before it, has put the blame for the spread of F&M on farmers focusing on swill-feeding, poor biosecurity, illicit livestock movement and other accusations. Those arguments conveniently ignore other vectors, including the rat-related ones, which might have arisen from the carelessness and cost-cutting of large companies.

David Bell

Church Farm, Church Street, North Kelsey, Market Rasen.

On the way to no subsidies?

I refer to recent remarks from Lord Haskins about co-operation among farmers and learning lessons from French farmers (Opinion and News, Aug 17). Isnt that good advice from a successful businessman and Labour peer?

First, our government should ban beef from all countries that have BSE or foot-and-mouth as do the French. If we get too much foreign produce, we should tip it in the sea, or set fire to it (but not live lambs). We should also block the ports if we dont like the price of fuel. That is legitimate peaceful protest French style.

Direct sellers of milk, to Express and others, should consider joining a farmers co-operative. Wouldnt that, as Lord Haskins suggests, improve our collective bargaining power?

If that can be achieved, plus a big cut in bureaucracy and red tape, we may well be on the way to managing without subsidies as recommended by Lord Haskins. He may even be in a position to help to achieve some of the political requirements.

W Watts

Toad Hall Farm, Thurgoland, Sheffield.

Clarification on farm-saved seed

Following discussions with NAAC and farming unions, we wish to clarify concerns surrounding the rules on farm-saved seed of arable crops, arising from information circulated by BSPB and UKASTA.

As suppliers to arable farmers we have a duty to help farmers understand their legal responsibilities regarding farm-saved seed. Most growers already comply fully with the requirements to declare and make payments for using seed saved from eligible varieties on their own holdings. They have no cause for concern.

Part of the confusion has arisen because of the two conflicting meanings of holding. The definition of holding in both the UK Plant Varieties Act 1997 and EU legislation, which implements the IACS system, describes all land farmed as the same business and under a single IACS application as a single production unit, or holding. That means that a holding may include more than one farm, under different holding numbers. The traditional meaning of holding was a single farm, with its own holding number.

From the definition in legislation, it follows that if a farmer manages more than one farm under the same IACS application and as part of the same business, farm-saved seed could legitimately be moved between the separate production units. That could include more than one county parish holding number and be wide distances apart.

However, farms which are managed as separate businesses, and have separate IACS applications, are classified as separate holdings and farm-saved seed cannot be moved between them. It is illegal to trade farm-saved seed.

BSPB apologises for any confusion caused by the original statement, which suggested that growers IACS payments could be at risk if they failed to comply with farm-saved seed legislation. DEFRA has informed us that is not the case. However, there are differences in definitions used in the Plant Varieties Act and EC legislation implementing the IACS system. BSPB is anxious to seek clarification of these issues with DEFRA for next year, in consultation with farming unions, NAAC and other interested parties.

Union representatives and BSPB recognise that the minority who flout the farm-saved seed rules could disadvantage the majority who comply. It is imperative farmers understand the rules.

We regret that the original circular was issued before these complex legal issues were clarified.

Stephen Smith

Chairman, The British Society of Plant Breeder Ltd, Woolpack Chambers, Market Street, Ely, Cambridge.

Be constructive not defeatist

I believe that David Richardson (Sept 7) accurately but unwittingly outlined the mindset that we in British farming must do all we can to resist. This standpoint, beloved by many farmers and agricultural journalists, views the agricultural depression as a war between government and farmers. At the heart of this outdated mode of thinking is the constant portrayal of Tony Blair as a farmer-hating ogre.

Mr Blair is a politician who cares deeply about retaining power, and whose method of achieving that is through a stable and thriving economy. For this reason he opposes CAP in its current form as an expensive and unfair drain on the economy. This puts him at odds with most of the UK farming community.

To abuse Lord Whitty for warning us of hard times ahead, and to blame government spokesmen for the reduction in numbers of agricultural students, as Mr Richardson did in a recent column, is blinkered in the extreme.

As a student at the RAC, I can assure Mr Richardson that listening to spoilt and defeatist Luddites such as himself moaning is a greater disincentive to joining the industry than hearing government spokesmen mention the possibility of change.

It should be the job of the NFU, agricultural journalists and anyone who cares about the future of British farming to contribute ideas and suggestions into the forum of national debate. In that way, we the farming industry may be able to co-operate with the government in creating a sustainable and economically viable countryside for the future. We may at the same time win back some of the public support that the industry so desperately needs.

Frank Thorogood

Skeggs Farm, Writtle, Chelmsford, Essex.

Dont get in a mess with euro

It is known that the EU is out to destroy this countrys livestock industry by whatever means. We could have already seen examples of this in the shape of BSE and foot-and-mouth. We are to become one of the arable countries of the EU empire. It has all been instigated by the empires centre of government in Brussels.

We are also expected to join the euro of which Germany and France will hold the purse strings. What a terrible situation. But given half the chance, the failed Tory leadership contender Mr Clarke would have taken us into the euro.

So, it is up to us as a country not to vote ourselves into such a mess, by voting for the euro.

Graham MacDowell,

31 Preston Lane, Lyneham, Wilts.

Ear tags too expensive?

A month or so ago I took some new season lambs to a collection centre. At home they weighed 37kg plus. When the return came, the average dead weight was 15kg and, after all stoppages, I received less than £21 apiece.

On the kill sheet there was a column for ear tags but as this was blank, I have no idea if these were my sheep or not. Other farmers tell me of similar cases. Traceability is supposedly the answer to all our ills so why should it not benefit the seller equally? The spokesperson at the market told me that she did not think the buyers would undertake the expense of recording ear tags!

Government and welfare bodies tell us that the day of livestock markets has gone and the future lies in deadweight selling. If that is so there need to be safeguards built into the system for the sake of the producer. I cannot wait to see markets and competition return.

David Griffiths

Piper Farm, Smithy Lane, Long Whatton, Loughborough.

48 hours is good but 24 is better

I was interested to read the comments from Kevin Hawkins of Safeway (Letters, Sep 7) about paying farmers within 48 hours from July. Well done.

However, as a member of the Asda Producers Club, operated by ABP Shrewsbury, I have been paid within 24 hours for my livestock consignments from the day the foot-and-mouth outbreak was confirmed. That was an improvement on the prompt payment which I have always received since joining the Asda ABP Group.

It is good that other processors and retailers are beginning to recognise the plight of farmers and our need for rapid payment. But I dont think the wheel has just been invented, as Mr Hawkins implies.

Paul Hinwood,

Withypool Farm, Cleobury Mortimer, Kidderminster, Worcs.

Combines are not toys

I am an arable foreman on a 2000 acre estate in North Hants, and the farms designated HSE representative. I have for the past 10 years made it my policy that children and farm machinery do not mix, having children myself, a girl aged 14 and a boy aged 7.

My combine driver announced yesterday that he had stopped outside my home while combining the field outside the house to find my son hanging over the fence, and asked him: "Do you want a ride up and down the field?" His response was, "No thank you, my Dad said Im not allowed." The combine driver, I think, thought I was the Dad from Hell.

We now have another member of staff with a very young boy, only just walking, who is interested in farm machinery. How do you explain to a doting Dad that putting a young child on a tractor at his age, even if the machine is stationary, is a recipe for disaster?

Charlie Richards

charles25@hotmail.com

Do what your farm does best

Your article on dairy production systems (Livestock, Aug 10) is not the first to categorise two systems of intensive and extensive dairying.

Farmers looking to re-stock after foot-and-mouth or wishing to change direction are urged to look at their businesses in terms of quota, buildings and resources. But more important is physical analysis of the farm itself.

Advisers should think further than merely variable costs and consider fixed costs, particularly machinery. That can far outweigh yield advantage particularly with small herds. It can lead to chasing yield, often forcing down composition, therefore pp litre and incurring extra quota costs, problems with fertility and reduced longevity.

Extensive systems pose a challenge unless cows can be ranched over cheap acres as the grass to support extensive systems is often abundant due to higher rainfall. Problems arise with winter housing and associated costs for feeding dry or low yielding cows.

Only a lucky few are able to out-winter without concern for welfare or poaching.

The third option will be governed by what the farm does best and farmers shrewd assessment should not be marginalised. For many it will mean the traditional pattern of autumn calving relying on grazing as soon as turn-out is possible.

That provides a good summer margin with or without a boost of spring calvings depending on quota profile. Theres also complete flexibility within this system for levels of yield depending on fixed costs. It could include anything from self-feed, easy feed, extra mid-day feed to complete diet feeding. Budgeting has never been so important.

Many British Friesian herds with yields anywhere from 6000 to 8000 litres operating over various systems, with low cow depreciation, low vet and AI costs and with good fertility can make choices as to when to cull cows, and also to maximise calf income.

They have the choice as to whether to rear bull calves or pass them on to beef units. They can also choose to cross with beef or supply the superior sucker replacements.

The breed has suffered the distortion of PIN/PLI for too long. The inclusion of both Friesian and Holstein data for type-evaluation, enhances the Holstein and disadvantages the Friesian for such traits as stature, angularity and dairy character.

Ivor J Davies

Chairman, British Friesian Breeders Club, Rafael Fach, Scleddau, Fishguard, Pembs.

Steer clear of authorities

I read with interest your article Diversification Plans Blocked (Features, Aug 10). Mr C Coe should steer clear of local authorities with any business plans.

The trouble in store for farmers, developers, entrepreneurs, self-employed people, wealth creators and employers, is they will always be out voted by the masses. The local community councils, the town hall, the city councils are all controlled by the majority; the workers – who vote for their own. Even today they abhor the toffs and vote any benefits down with refusals on subjective grounds such as the old chestnut visual intrusion.

The Woodham plan for a farming and business enclave would be to form a group of like-minded people who would buy and control a region of land, houses and even villages.

This group would want to have control, freedom, development and even security of their own lives. All of that would be within current government legislation but not restricted by the petty party political manipulations by the local authority members.

There are two ways to progress. The first short-term policy would be to approach a local authority (preferably one with no overall control) to offer £1m investment in return for co-operation for business within existing legislation. The second policy is to buy the land, houses and businesses to get voted on to the council with member support.

These enclaves would become prosperous, of high value, and sought after, which would spread the idea and the area over which it could be developed.

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea should write to me. It could make a difference if enough people showed an interest.

Gareth Woodham

Estates Farm, Fairyland Road, Neath, West Glamorgan.

Rate relief is no helping hand

I understand David Richardsons indignation at the apparent unfairness of the rate relief scheme for farm diversification (Aug 24). But we should be warned too that it is a clear indication of the governments spin on rural issues.

The promise of rate relief was made originally in the Action Plan of March 2000 to encourage new equestrian enterprises. It was then extended to all on-farm non-agricultural schemes in last years White Paper which was again a very public announcement. Not only is the governments commitment limited to just 50% of the rates but also to a ceiling of a maximum rateable value of £6000. On average, that would be a building of no more than about 200sq m for which the annual rates might be about £3000. The 50% relief would amount to no more than £1500/annum and be available for just five years. Hardly the munificent helping hand suggested in the public announcements.

Edward J B Dyke

Rural Consultant, Humberts, 1 Market Place, Blandford, Dorset.

Assurance is being devalued

I read your article (News, Sep 7) about the competition between providers of farm assurance with interest.

Many farmers will be delighted to hear that market forces have reduced the cost of verification, but will the competition benefit the industry in the long term?

With providers offering their services for about the same price, selection will be based on convenience.

With any inspection scheme, some farms will fail and the failure rate recorded by individual providers could become commercially sensitive.

Agriculture is a small world where reputations count for much. Farmers have a lot of hassle and aggravation and will be tempted to select a provider that has a relaxed and flexible approach to the rules rather than one that is trying to maintain or even improve standards.

It has been suggested that over the past few years GCSE and A level examinations have suffered from grade inflation. If that is so, one potential reason has been the commercial competition between examining boards.

If the evolution of farm assurance continues such that the failure rate is minimal, we will have a truly cheap scheme. The certificate issued after a successful visit will hardly be worth the paper it is written on.

Laurence Sim,

Archway House, Fairfield Road, Goring on Reading.

Troublesome wind turbines

Matt Partridge, the development manager of National Wind Powers Windworks Initiative, makes out (News, Aug 31) that wind turbines offer only positive aspects for hard-pressed farmers. How misleading.

The almost constant noise and vibration, especially at night, has had serious ill effects on people living up to two miles away.

Although most turbines are less than 150ft high, the latest monsters planned for Cefn Croes near Aberystwyth are 327ft. Noise will carry much further than two miles. That is the trend for wind turbines; once planning permission is obtained for smaller machines, it is easy to replace them with monsters. In the case of Cefn Croes they will be seen from all high ground within 30 miles.

Even the smaller turbines on lower ground are visible from up to 10 miles away.

Although one farmer gains from the subsidised rents, all neighbouring farmers and householders within miles have to suffer the constantly flickering, flashing blades.

The scenery surrounding them is ruined and neighbours will suffer a drop in property values.

Turbines set neighbour against neighbour; they divide communities like few other issues. Some properties become unsaleable. Almost half of the UKs 800-plus turbines are in Wales, mainly in Ceredigion and Powys.

These counties have the lowest population densities in England and Wales so why should they have the turbines?

To achieve 10% of the UKs household electricity from wind turbines would require about 16,500 units and the UK only covers 94,000 square miles.

They are a ludicrous proposition in a highly populated country. They produce nothing when the wind speed is below 15mph or above 50mph when they are shut down to avoid blade shatter.

Wind turbines destroy important tourist economies, cause noise pollution and visual stress. They also destroy landscapes and divide communities for trifling amounts of electricity. Reject them.

L J Jenkins

Clyn-Yr-Ynys, Gwbert, Cardigan.

Day of small farm is over

It seems many years ago that I fed and watered livestock on my uncles smallholding. Since his death in 1980, Ive watched farming change through the pages of FARMERS WEEKLY and listened as BBC Radio 4s The Archers turned into a soap.

Small is out. Small businesses, small shops, small farms. If you wonder how successive governments and their advisers make so many mistakes, forcing up overheads, causing hardship and ruin, wonder no more. Theyre not mistakes.

If you think that presenting sound, logical arguments that would save the future of farming and benefit consumers by persuading the government to change, think again.

The land barons, the captains of industry and the retail giants want your business. It makes life much easier to control.

Bernard OConnell

5 Seymour Road, Tipton, W Mids.


See more