READERS LETTERS
READERS LETTERS
Movement restrictions damaging
Why is the department responsible for the well being of agriculture so blind it cant see the damage that is being wrought on the livestock sector by the continued imposition of the 21-day movement restrictions?
I understand the necessity of such controls in time of national emergency such as the foot-and-mouth epidemic. But I am concerned that this restriction will be continued as a way of control, imposed on the industry by the central bureaucracy in London. A bureaucracy that does not understand the practical necessities of stock management.
This restriction should be lifted to help boost the trade and replenishment of our depleted national stock. The trade and market in livestock is an essential tool for the distribution and management of UK livestock. The restrictions are now impeding the recovery of agriculture with damaging long-term effects.
Raymond J Godwin
R&M Godwin Farms, Foxley Farm, Mamble, Kidderminster, Worcestershire.
All clear for a full inquiry
The sounding of the all clear on foot-and-mouth is most welcome. It is ironic that the outbreak should have started and ended in Northumberland. Mr Blair chose to ignore last February the findings of Lord Northumberlands inquiry into the 1967/1968 outbreak and its recommendations.
F&M will strike again. The £2.7bn cost must be met wholly by the taxpayer unless DEFRA can satisfy the European Commission on a number of irregularities which occurred. The Prime Minister selected contiguous culling in preference to vaccination when he took charge of the plague. He owes the country a full public inquiry to show that his decision was more effective than vaccination and that the policy adopted cost less in terms of compensation and loss of exports than vaccination.
Since New Labour ignored the recommendations of a public inquiry held under Old Labour in 1968, is it asking too much for a public inquiry now to identify why the recent outbreak cost taxpayers so much?
Donough McGillycuddy
Farmers for Action, Haselbech, Northamptonshire.
Set it aside for an easier life
If Margaret Beckett does not want farmers to produce food perhaps we should comply. Set-aside and stewardships must be the way forward. Go for an easier life!
Fred Henley
Green Farm, Southfield Lane, Seaton Ross, York. hrf1@farmers weekly.net
Mad scientists become reality?
The mad scientist of fiction is now becoming fact. BBC Radio 4 often broadcasts news of scientists being given grants to work on research on a theoretical disease, namely BSE in sheep. But not a single case has occurred on a farm and that illustrates the lack of ethical and accurate assessment of scientific programmes being given tax payers money.
Worse, ministry collusion seems to be involved. All the scientists seem to belong to a clique tied to Imperial College. This college has been convicted on three occasions for failing to protect the public from organisms that college staff were working on.
The foot-and-mouth epidemic was put in the hands of three, more or less self-appointed scientists from this college. Then followed the killing of hundreds of thousands of healthy animals based on work with computers.
Now we hear that Prof Krebs of the Food Standards Agency has given public money to them to work on BSE in sheep. With a desperately needed vaccine for F&M and TB in cattle, why are we giving money to this scientific clique?
The BBC and particularly the Farming Today programme needs to concentrate more on creditable scientists. Both should stop promoting fear in consumers who want to eat our lamb.
Jose MacDonald
Farming and Livestock Concern UK, Penlan Fach, Llangain, Carmarthen.
We know sheep have memories
We read in the national Press that Keith Kendrick of the Babraham Institute in Cambridge has spent 10 years, and presumably our money, discovering that sheep can remember things for up to two years. Any shepherd could have told him that in 10 minutes. No doubt anyone keeping sheep could quote 100 examples.
I hope he does not intend devoting the next decade to similar research without first checking with those who keep livestock. For example, we had a Light Sussex cockerel which remembered me as a child two years after we sent him 30 miles away to an uncles farm. So no research on poultry please, Mr Kenrick.
Perhaps he should try DEFRA civil servants who seem to have incredibly short memories. That is judging by their foot-and-mouth performance.
David Hanley
Cold Norton Farm, Ockham Lane, Hatchford, Cobham.
Nothing to fear from the k
In response to Dick Lindleys letter (Jan 11), k entry does not mean the end of democracy. The Scots have participated in the £ for centuries, but is has not stopped us having a democratic parliament in Edinburgh.
In Europe commissioners are appointed by democratically elected governments. They are answerable not only to their own countries, but also to the European Parliament. Who elected the Queen or Eddie George?
The sacrifices made by British, French, Irish, Dutch and all other allied soldiers were for freedom and democracy. Not in support of europhobia and not against the EU. It is our best hope for peace, freedom and prosperity in the 21st century.
The cost of changing to the k is not £30, 000m. It is about 0.5% of GDP and that is offset by a gain of 0.4% a year. The cost will be repaid in six months after our first year of entry.
There is no need to worry that our money will keep the Italian pensioners in luxury. Article 103 of the Amsterdam treaty states that each country retains its own responsibility for pension provision. This marriage has no joint bank account. The sooner we join the better.
Michael Johnston
Balnamoon Crossroads, Keith, Moray.
Milk Link is undemocratic
Although I am not involved with the group of small producers who are protesting about the conduct of Milk Link, there is a serious issue involved concerning the principles of democracy. People who are genuinely concerned about democracy should not be treated with contempt. History tells us that ignoring or devaluing democracy can have unpleasant consequences.
One area of concern is the new voting system. Some producers have many more votes and therefore much more influence on decisions made. The Milk Marketing Board operated this grossly unfair voting system for many years, until it was finally recognised as being unfair. It was changed to one member one vote and that change had no harmful effect on the working of the MMB.
I am a member of four other farmer-controlled co-operatives and all of them operate perfectly satisfactorily on the basis of one vote per member.
In the General Election last summer, every man and woman had just one vote, regardless of their wealth and status in society. That is genuine democracy and should be the basis on which Milk Link operates.
With the voting system as it stands, it will be almost impossible for a small producer to gain election to the Milk Link Council. Where is the democracy in that?
Ivor Dennis
Venncott, Newton-St-Patrock, Holsworthy, Devon.
Fishmeal OK is another error
Gillian Rookes letter (Jan 4) is most welcome. This Society has always questioned the wisdom of feeding animal protein (including fishmeal) to ruminants for precisely the reasons she sets out.
Their digestive systems are not designed for such food. Ruminants do very well on grass, with wholesome winter supplements. The lifting of the ban on fishmeal when producers are satisfactorily adjusting to alternatives seems another instance of governmental imprudence.
J Bower
Honorary secretary, The Farm and Food Society, 4 Willfield Way, London.
Get tough on spinal cord
After learning from the media about the theoretical possibility of BSE in lamb and the risk to up to 150,000 people if we had an outbreak, I suggest we put the same restrictions on sheep as we do on beef entering the food chain.
This constant scare mongering is killing agriculture and the UK livestock market. Some effort should be made to gain the confidence of customers, not drive them away. There is no evidence to show that BSE can be found in sheep. But, as some perceive that this is a possibility, we should adopt the same regime as we do with beef and remove the spinal cord thus rendering the meat safe for human consumption.
We should also ban any country from exporting to the UK meat that contains spinal cord. At present they are just warned but persistently offend. If the British farmer has to pay the price to produce safe meat for our tables the rest of Europe should comply with the same stringent regulations and be punished if they dont.
Mrs Pat Walker
Littleacres, Pickhill, Thirsk, North Yorks.
Bleak outlook for future milk
With milk having traded at 6p/litre over Christmas and the spot price as low as 10-12p/litre over the past month, the prospects for the next milk selling round look bleak.
UK dairy farmers should debate the future of our industry. Farmer-owned groups are undercutting each other to sell milk forcing the price in the wrong direction. Co-ops blame one another but we are all responsible.
If the lowest price in the world becomes the world price regardless of welfare, environment, wages and drug use, it will break us. The 50% of our milk that is processed into cheese, butter and SMP is at the mercy of world prices. But the other half, which is used for the liquid market, should be sold at a premium.
The dishonesty of the supermarkets, which insist that milk is a loss leader is beyond belief. The truth is that it is the highest volume, quickest turnover and produces the highest profit of any product in the supermarkets. They speak with one voice to protect their position.
Liquid milk from the farm costs a maximum 5p/litre to process, pasteurise, package and deliver to supermarket sites. Add that to our price at the farmgate and subtract it from the average 43p/litre that supermarkets charge to reveal their profit. Milk is on the shelves for fewer than six hours yet the supermarkets do not pay suppliers for a month.
We can watch the price of milk drop below the cost of production, or we can unite and demand fair prices from the liquid market. Supermarkets massive profits have largely been built on our backs. Their biggest nightmare would be to have no milk to sell.
Ben Pullen
Home Farm, Brookfield Lane, Churchdown, Gloucester.
Sandy beds for healthier cows
We were interested to read the articles on bedding cows on sand (Livestock, Jan 4).
Here at the Tudor Griffiths Quarry in Ellesmere, Shropshire, we have been advocating the replacement of straw for many years. The reduction in cost is one of many advantages of introducing sand for bedding. We supply sand to farms throughout North Shropshire, West Cheshire and Mid Wales.
We hear from our farmer customers that the cubicles can be kept dry and cleaner than before. Cleaner cubicles mean cleaner, healthier and happier cows, leading to higher and more profitable production. As more farmers join the rush for sand, thought must be given to the type of sand used. Cheap "as dug" material is not suitable, it can do more harm than good.
The product should be selected carefully at source to ensure that no coarse, potentially harmful, particles are present. Some should be thoroughly washed before delivery.
Some unscrupulous operators are jumping on the bandwagon to supply bedding sand that would be better left in the ground. If any reader is nervous of a type of sand being offered, at an unbelievable price, we are prepared to offer free technical advice with no commercial strings attached.
Philip R Jones
General manager, Tudor Griffiths Group, Wood Lane, Ellesmere. Shropshire. Philip.jones@tggroup.co.uk
Part two and three of trilogy
I have noticed the growing postbag of unfavourable comments that farmers weekly has received aimed towards DEFRA. Apart from the idiot questions and instructions which are starting to flow from this new government body, may I say that it also excels at multiple mailings.
I have received three separate invitations to complete an Nitrate Sensitive Area questionnaire and two identical glossy brochures on how to spray without damaging watercourses. How clearly this demonstrates that governmental unaccountability even extends to waste products.
All this has prompted me to ponder the possibility that the government has created two further ministries, part of a DEFRA trilogy, without having had the courage to announce them to the public. These ministries which will be known as BLINDRA and DUMBRA will like DEFRA and for reasons of symmetry, practicality and efficiency, also have chimpanzees occupying all the most senior administrative positions.
Do I say this tongue in cheek? May I remind readers of the Winston Churchills famous reply to that comment from Adolf Hitler, "Some tongue, some cheek".
A J T Carter
Kings Farm, Foxes Lane, West Wellow Romsey, Hampshire.
Guidance for peas and beans
It was good to see the enthusiasm for peas and beans reported in your feature on spring break crops (Arable, Dec 28). Could I remind your readers that we provide husbandry guides for both peas and beans and that they are available without specific charge, as these and other services are provided through our pulse levy.
The NIAB Pulses Handbook also provides a comprehensive account of both crops and a detailed review of current varieties. This publication also carries the BEPA marketing guide which shows the potential for increased output of peas and beans to replace imported soya and other sources of vegetable protein.
Peas and beans are developed crops. Through the correct choice of crop and then variety, with appropriate use of inputs, they should contribute to the profitability of arable farming and provide an essential high protein ingredient for livestock nations.
G P Gent
Director and secretary, Processors & Growers Research Organisation, The Research Station, Great North Road, Thornhaugh, Peterborough.
Energy crops for farm use
Peter Clery and BABFOs arguments (Letters, Jan 4) on energy crops are correct. Farm-grown energy crops should be used on or be converted into usable fuel on the farm or as close as possible.
The production and transport fuel consumed and the transmission losses in converting farm-grown low energy density crops into grid electricity make thermodynamic nonsense. Those proponents, including hoodwinked farmers, who seek to defy the second law of thermodynamics, can expect to get their fingers burnt as well as their energy crops.
Whether any farming system is efficient that runs on fuel that has taken tens of thousand of years to make for the production of annual crops, which will grow well on sunlight and rainwater, is an important question for energy policy-makers and farmers too.
Stuart Pattison
Church Lane, Calstock, Cornwall.